Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women

Wow.

You're upset because many of us chose to inform ourselves and look behind the words stated so soon after another thread was posted that was an outright agenda on the same topic.

It's like saying you shouldn't call fox news out when they shuffle video clips and words around and offer it as truth.

Mutual admiration society could more accurately apply to one who blindly leaps into the fire without doing their homework because someone is in the same group as them.

I would imagine an educator would be smart enough to know not to take things at face value and dig deeper...

<double post cause of forum hicup>

Lol, I think her stated agenda being opposite to her blog and her groups mission statement did that for her, Ephraim.

It's offensive to slander bdsm, by assuming and claiming it is the root of abuse of women and then wanting to ban it.

What if we wanted you banned?

Oh and by the way, you're confusing me with some others, I think, "Ephraim." I did not speak much if at all about free speech.

I also did not 'attack her character'. (Neither did anyone, that I saw.) And as far as that one statement, if I recall, it was, "she sounds like an appointed official." then I quoted something of hers - or did I at that point - I can't recall now - and I J O K E D, "forget about appointed. How about anointed official."

Posonby replied/retaliated by dogging me and also another poster for PAGES, demanding I pore over the entire thread, quoting every instance that I felt 'proved' my "claim" and write underneath each 'quote' of 'proof' explaining why. I said no to that ridiculous request - as someone else said, posts like that are of little interest to others and are a form of bickering/grandstanding. Besides I already HAD said in the ORIGINAL POST or perhaps one just before it, why I felt that way. I just stated it again a couple posts ago or so. Just in case you two are fuming about that one statement, still.

I did not attack her as a person, though. I did not attack her 'character'. I disagree with her tactics, her agenda, her presumptions and her opinions. All perfectly reasonable, in my opinion, in a discussion.

I also, fwiw, dislike how you and Posonby - and even the two OPs - made this about THEM when people were replying to and discussing their tactics, agenda and presumptions/judgement of others' lifestyles. Instead of the issue you all ended up talking about the OPs. Says a lot.

I don't see how normalising habitual abuse of and lack of respect for women could in any way have any negative effect on people.

So, like the OP said, we should be allowed to be as racist as we want in SL, no?

A. You do not understand the nature of an actual D/s relationship if you compare it to racism or abuse.

B. What does racism have to do with BDSM!?

C. Are any of those allied with the OPs (of both threads - oh no there is no agenda THERE) capable of discussion/debate, without trying to sandbag their argument with overtly emotional examples? Examples which have no clear connection to the actual topic at hand?

It's like...

I hate apples. My granny choked on a sandwich. Food is bad!! BAN FOOD!

The logic structure in some of these contentinos is just about that bad.

Oh?

So you are going to burn every romance novel that portrays women as frail things begging for ravaging...

You might find out just how frail they are.

But why do you focus on women as being abused, what about guys?

Are you that much of a sexist that you don't use the word human... oh wait that could be speceist since it wouldn't include furrys or aliens role-play... so perhaps people would be good.

Perhaps you should read the threads and learn to open your mind past what propaganda you've been fed.

A person makes a choice.

Sorry, I pulled an all-nighter Thursday night so I was asleep for what looks like for about half this thread.

This is a new one, it gets madder all the time.

I believe you when you say you don't see...

Misspelled 'contentions' above.

Anyway - Chav, what link do you find between *consensual roleplay* and racism (I know it's an example but you chose it)? More to the point, to any of those things, and a computer game called Second Life?

The whole thing behind all of the OPs' agenda, as I understand it, is their contention that somehow, consensual roleplay in a computer game "silences women" and is indicative of "hatred toward women" which will somehow cause harm to unnamed real life women/groups of women/women as a whole.

It's a really far reach, with absolutely no support given it at all. I do not count real life studies about prostitution, as if no one's heard of prostitution or that they are sometimes 'forced into' it, as having a thing to do with a computer game or the OPs' contentions about same.

That's the point, people *don't* put up with even pretended racism. Whereas Gorean sims we're meant to accept as a lovely healthy thing for people do get involved with. Those sims work on apartheid and slavery, which let's remember is against the TOS for any other ism. How long would a sim last if it spammed you with notecards saying black people are naturally slaves who want to submit unless wrongly brainwashed by liberals into wanting freedom? Oh, and freedom is slavery, apparently. (Though the Gorean "Freewoman" situation is indeed slavery, I'll give them that technicality.)

I'd venture most people don't understand D/S, including either of us. Which is the problem, since that leaves most people seeing women being abused and having it normalised by repeated depiction. Plenty of studies have shown negative effects from violent pornography, after all.

If you want to beat your lover half to death and s/he consents then fine, but it's a bit much to pretend that widespread depictions of such would almost certainly have a negative effect on people.

Actually you are wrong.

I accept that my freedom of speech comes with the price of someone preaching that X is better than Y skin color.

I also accept that it's my choice to walk away, listen, or just mute them.

So how does such a minuscule fraction of a percent of the world population amount to being widespread?

I certainly ain't buying them for my kids.




When you rule the world it doesn't really cause major problems to be put in the submissive role for a while.




Yes, reading books = being fed propaganda.




How is that not a personal attack?




My point is that one ism is fine and one isn't. You *can't* play out some weird consensual racism in SL, because everyone can see how messed up that would be. Or maybe you want to, I don't know.




I find it perfectly reasonable to believe that media depictions of an act of violence can desensitise the viewer. And from that it's not that odd to argue that systematic "fake" (if it really is) oppression of women might indeed have a negative effect on people's views of women.

I don't know, I'm just the person who got told in a Gorean sim that if a man hits a woman she must have done something to deserve it. Gosh, I can't imagine what might have led them to that conclusion.

Fair enough, but some people believe that we're also allowed to talk back and question what in society is breeding such assumptions. Urgh, I just hate this faux-liberalism that demands accepting everything and never answering back unless it's to tell people to accept everything.




It's pretty widespread in SL, where have you been hiding?

Chav:

Oh, so you don't buy them... but you're not going to ban them for doing more harm than a little bit of rp by a minuscule portion of the population?

Priorities... go after something that makes a difference

As for ruling the world, sorry. You really need to read different books other than those written by folks with agendas.

I actually do believe it, you'll cope I'm sure.

Your prejudice against one sexuality you say you know nothing about is just sad. You need to go learn about it more before you judge.

As I mentioned earlier, it was only two decades ago a friend of mine was fired from his job in childcare for being gay.

To disregard men who suffer rape because you think they rule the world is one of the most ridiculous reasons come up with yet.

And I hate people that want to stifle freedoms because someone said or did something they don't like. Especially when it's paraded around like some moral issue when it's their sexist or racist agenda that is being promoted.




The user numbers of SL is less than 1 percent of the US population... and even less when compared to the world population.

If people can't read them how do they know what's wrong with them?





...sexism doesn't matter? WTF?





Who doesn't have an agenda when they write a book?

You think men *don't* own 99% of the world's land and 95% of the money? Damn, I want to live in your world.

Okay so the answer to D. might be "no."

You've gone from racism, and it being rightly against TOS, to apartheid and slavery and then suddenly jump into Gor (much like the OP, apparently).

I'm a bit familiar with Gor - it's a series of badly written sci-fi books some have utilised for roleplay/fantasy and some have treated almost like a religion. But I do not see how 'apartheid' plays into it. Apartheid was a horrific situation in which real life people were tortured, killed and kept from choice. *SECOND LIFE IS A COMPUTER GAME*

So would you ban films about apartheid? It is the same thing. Someone wrote the part of the torturers as well as those being tortured. Actors felt the need to 'roleplay' all of those roles to tell the story. That is the same thing as roleplay in a computer game...

But honestly I see no 'apartheid' in Gor roleplay - way too strong a word. There are 'slaves' in Gor much like in ancient Rome. Do you want to ban the Roman sims and roleplay areas, too?

Also you are still missing that this is all what people have on their own, of their own free will, chosen to do. Yes i have heard some stories about abusive personality types getting into Gor and trying to strong-arm someone emotionally, mainly by withholding society/'affection' until they did what they wanted, such as give up RL info. *But that is not what Gor is supposed to be from what I understand it. And it certainly is not D/s.*

A D/s relationship has MORE rules in it and more checks and balances - including or ESPECIALLY for the Dominant - as Lord Sullivan pointed out, the SUB actually holds the key! If you don't know that you have understood nothing about D/s. YES, abusers sometimes sneak in but 'the community' will be on the lookout for such and try to reform or oust them. In RL and in SL both...

Do you think abusers do not exist in 'vanilla' relationships? Or even in any relationship - boss/employee, friend/friend, relative to relative, etc.?

I know this was basically a typo of sorts (a word-o?) but I couldn't resist:



Yes, it is a bit much to pretend that roleplay somehow does harm to humanity so stop pretending.

Protip: BDSM is a kink, not a sexuality. I don't like people shagging animals either, what an awful person I must be.




To pretend it doesn't happen far, far more to women is just blind.





We don't actually live in a free world. There are plenty of freedoms you might want to look into defending instead of complaining that some people think fantasy has a role in shaping reality.

I just think it's funny that you questioned Ian's similar statement as a "personal attack" yet got in that little dig at me. LOL

For the record: No, I would not wish to portray a virtual Scarlett O'Hara. I always thought she was a vain twit. Hope that helps ya.



You do realise that not everyone hunts for, watches, participates in, or even really knows about any of this. Right?

PS I can't help noticing the attempt to send 'male avs' in here 'maybe they will get more respect.' 'It must be because we were women!' I think one of the earlier 'defenders' claimed that, or something close to it. BTW that was more being facetious - to those lacking an ability to detect sarcasm. But I'm sorry the new guard sounds exactly like the old guard, alt or not.

You don't see how sexual segregation/oppression is a pixellated apartheid? You don't see how Gorean facism has IRL reflections? Really?




This is more like people (not professional actors) playing a game where apartheid is right and proper and only bad people would disagree. I don't think that would go over too well.





I find it distasteful but at least has the argument of historical accuracy and not being gender-based. No one in a Roman sim is trying to sell me the idea that this stuff is good for the modern world.




Everyone knows that. Personally it's the dominants that I find a bit skeevy but each to their consensual own, I suppose someone has to be in charge for the subs to get their rocks off.





Let's have racial slavery in Caledon!

Like homosexuality, bdsm has been taken off the disorder list.


To claim male victims don't matter because they rule the world tops that one, love.


Who cares what people think, just leave people you don't understand, by your own admittance, alone.

Urgh, I just hate this faux liberalism that demands everything, including how others should live or even, ridiculously, play a computer game. And when others answer back, cries victim.

I just hate this faux discussion tactic that insists upon sandbagging a flimsy argument with overtly emotional stories wrought from real life tragedies in a transparent attempt to stop people from disagreeing.

Not really. I just think it's silly...