Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women

In what way does saying/typing "can we allow this type of behavior"* provide proof of feeling anointed?

You haven't made that connection.

*Assuming the OP DID type something like that. Can you cite an instance?






In which post did I ask you to post links?

(You don't need to post a link to it...just give us the post number so we can check it for ourselves. ^_^)





In other words: you 'got nothing'. I appreciate your finally conceding that.




This one's been puzzling me for a while. I noted it in post 230, meaning to reply, and have seen it once or twice since.

"Planned attack"....strong words.

Both words deserve to be understood clearly.

"Attack": The implication is that no one has a right to post criticism of ANYTHING that presently exists in SL. Because criticism, apparently, equals 'attack'.

If not: what distinguises criticism that's 'attack' from criticism that's not 'attack'?

Who decides which criticisms are 'attack' and which are, presumably, okay?

Isn't labeling some criticisms 'attack' and others 'not attack' a way of suppressing free speech? If not, in what way is such differential labeling not suppression of free speech? What distinguishes such differential labeling from suppression of free speech?

"Planned": I've read the rules of this forum. I'm not seeing any prohibition on posting a question that a person has given some previous thought to. I'm also not seeing any prohibition on posting a question that a person has discussed with another person, prior to posting.

So...what are you claiming, here? No post may be 'planned'....no post may have been thought about or discussed before it's made?

How would you determine which questions have never been thought about before they were posted?

???

Protecting them from real violence and censoring speech and fantasy are two entirely different things. If the girl is being beaten, put the bastard in jail for battery, not because he watches dirty movies.


The girls should be protected by anti slavery laws. Are you going to blame slavery on watching dirty movies?

Yes I understood that about her post. I just didn't agree with it, saw no foundation for her assertions at ALL, and didn't feel it was worth exploring in depth. Scylla and Ledoof came here, made a series of inflammatory statements, then played innocent/unknowing about the very tactics they used. So I didn't jump on every brush fire they tried to set. Especially since their goal is to burn out a whole portion of Second Life which has already just lost a lot of freedoms and is sure to lose more in the coming year (I predict kids on the grid a year from now or so).

Neither of them even came close to showing a single way, a single instance (to borrow Posonby's heavy insistence upon 'proof' and turn it around where it counts: back at the OPs who stirred the pot to begin with) how women were "Silenced" because of the existence of roleplay in Second Life. Frankly it makes no sense to me.

Are they saying something like, any time a woman is harassed in Second Life, it's because of the forceplay sims?? Because that is basically unprovable. I'm going now by your own analogy of sexual harassment in the workplace.

But it's a flawed analogy, because the workplace is necessary to survival; this is a computer game. A workplace has physical parameters that the person must stay within (unless working from home, I guess, but even then people must run into co-workers/boss even if by phone). Second Life has that handy teleport or even QUIT button.

There is a lot of emotional language flying around but precious little is really being said beyond "I don't like this and so it ought to stop."

I just read that article and it had nothing to do with pornography or even with drugs. These girls were being coerced into prostitution to protect thier families from voodoo. What are you trying to say by quoting that article?

There will be another Channel 4 Documentary coming up?

Look on the first page of the thread, I responded to her "allow" comment then.

Talon gave pretty good documentation about the planning behind this. If you didn't read those posts, maybe you should.

No, there is plenty there, but I am not going to play your games. Everything is contained in this thread.

If you want to be part of the debate, fine, but quit playing your word games. I think you are an adult, you know should know what words mean and how to read.

Both drugs and poverty do cause women to become vulnerable. Would you hazard a guess at the proportion of girls and women who take up prostitution do so because of either drug abuse or poverty?

The newspapers are full of stories of women from poor countries (and often with little or no education) being tricked into going to another country with the promise of a well-paid respectable job, then once there, alone and often unable to speak the language, they are forced (beaten) into prostitution to pay off their 'debts'. Of course, they need no protection, because Jezebella is educated, has a gun, and is OK, thank you very much.

Rock

It was in response to someone who challenged the notion of vulnerable women. Read past posts.

Rock

clutch at straws is my take...

There is no logic...

rock quotes bad laws that basically make normal citizens lawbreakers.

the image from the Australian court case is one that is often times spammed around the net (I know I've seen several of them in joke emails and such)

The truth hurts, people are responsible for their actions... but he keeps trying to avoid admitting it.

So he drags up things that are even worse than the last... hoping to draw something other than disgust at his grandstanding..

What does any of that have to do with the consentual fantasy/roleply in SL?

I do think that's possible. We're beyond 500 posts, now.

I know that when I've originated a thread, I do feel some obligation to try to read and reply to all who post; despite one's best intentions, in a thread of this size it's inevitable that some questions inside some posts might not stand out. And I'd guess this experience is common to many who originate threads.








Forgive my making a suggestion, but: again, in a thread of this size, a person might not have the leisure to go back and re-read all posts.

Don't you think it would be a fairer test (of the OP's good will and general character) if you re-posted the questions you feel were overlooked?

Rock, forgive me but what does that have to do with Second Life? Or even the OP's assertions?

People here are basically saying (as I understand it), roleplay in Second Life is not preying upon vulnerable women.

If the OP is also or mostly saying that somehow by extension some mythical woman 'out there in the world' (i.e. your examples of teen prostitutes), is harmed by roleplay in a video game, the OP(s) haven't come anywhere near putting a foundation under that assertion.

Unless they are going to claim it in a "drinking a bowl of green tea I stop the war" mystical way, in which case...I'm gonna go see what's on Tivo....

Ample laws already exist on the books of every Western nation to deal with the situation in your link. Frankly, I don't see that you've made any connection between pornography and the criminals in the story. Did the pimps hatch this plot after reading an article in Hustler? Will such things magically cease to happen if only certain sexual fantasies became thought crimes? And why focus so narrowly on women being the only "vulnerable" group? There are plenty of men that fall prey human trafficking. The stories of men being made to work in sweatshops just don't catch the headlines as well as the ones of women used as prostitutes.

You can show me a dozen more links showing examples of humans exploiting other humans, though I'm pretty sure I can find just as many myself in about ten minutes of surfing CNN.com. It doesn't change my belief that protecting fellow human beings from criminals and predators by prosecuting their ACTIONS does not have to exist separately from respecting the rights of others to think and express themselves freely.

Yes.

In one of the previous posts it was shown what a high proportion of 'actresses' in 'dirty movies' are prostitutes. If you really believe that girls are not sold into slavery for the purposes of prostitution/pornography, I strongly suggest a Google on those terms.

Rock

They chose to use drugs. Bad choice made there.

They know the risks of taking those offers, and chose to risk it.

Do I think it's a bad thing, yes I do. Do I recognize they made risky or outright bad choices, yes I do.

Rock I didn't notice anyone saying real life prostitution, drug addiction and slavery do not exist. They have since the dawn of time so far as we know and unfortunately they likely always will.

Video game connection in there somewhere?

And they were being sold into slavery long before what we know as pornography today was invented. It's an ancient crime, I doubt if pornography were eradicated today it would stop, or even lessen noticeably. Evil has always existed and always will.

You misread my comments entirely, and I'm still waiting to see what the connection is between drugs, poverty, and porn. You were arguing that pornography begets criminal behavior. So far you've shown an example where poverty and drugs begets criminal behavior.

Not to mention some of those poor girls in the films, photo shoots, or the various webcam stuff are there of their own will. Because they enjoy the work, and the pay.

Same with prostitution, there are many out there that choose that line of work because they enjoy it...

i think he is saying that she used to play SL and saw some images in SL about violence to women and now look how she turned out..thats all i can figure..

The pimps hatched this plot because they knew what money could be made by tapping into the market for women from men who know what fantasies they want to act out, and don't give a f**k about whether the women are fully consentual or not.



So you would allow the plotters to think and express themselves freely, and only arrest them after the bomb has gone off? No such thing as conspiracy in your book?

"prosecuting their ACTIONS" Your emphasis, not mine.

Rock

True, and should these women who made bad choices, or who were beaten into those choices, be protected from the guys who would then try to profit from their vulnerability?

Rock

Can you prove the thought crime of a person before they act?

Can you understand the men in question choose to violate all the laws out there to fulfill urges that most choose not to pursue?


It seems you want the world to be a nice rubber padded room of happy joy where nobody has to make a choice.

Yikes. You can't prosecute someone based upon their thoughts or beliefs, Rock. At least supposedly not, and supposedly not in America (Patriot Act notwithstanding). Although things are rapidly changing.

That some people would have it even more so, scares me.

PS Brenda we seem to be of one brain the last few posts. LOL.

Last time I checked, there are laws that do that already.

Assault and battery

Rape

and quite a few others too.

Laws don't make people behave Rock. People chose what they will do, in many cases against the laws.

I'm sure it would surprise you to know that the man at the mall in sl standing next to a child av... could very well be breaking the rules of LL about sexual age play in ims! Because both of the participants choose to do so.


I guess that is what the op and you don't understand...

You can not take away the rp, people will choose to do it anyway. they just find ways and places to do it.