Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women

she made statements and then denies that her agenda is the same still.

"Do we have special places in RL where it is "ok" to be a racist?"

Yes, the privacy of your home and land.

Ashamed to admit that I missed your post. You're a braver ferret than I.

How easily you dismiss the value of using logic to facilitate clear communication!

Those are analogies, though, Argent. (And works of art, especially "Maus."

Also I believe to be 'racist' one must believe one's own race is superior,

She has had the proof found that she had the agenda, she claims it's not relevant... So show us where her stated aim on the blog and such is the false reason, because she is asking for something to be banned from SL while posting from the get go she has no agenda...

A word about the burqa though, mentioned above.

Sure, there are intense cultural overtones, but before anyone carries it too far, consider: it's insanely nasty in that part of the world.

A brutal desert with intense heat, skin~wasting sandstorms, and flies that lay eggs in your skin. Burrowing tracks as larvae before they burst out to lay eggs in someone else. Who *wouldn't* want to wear a burqa most of the time outside in such an environment?

The men, apparently.

....you know you're doing it, and so does everyone else reading this.

"I recently sent in Abuse Reports concerning two sex animations for sale at a stall in a BDSM sim, the one called “Forced Missionary,” and the other “Forced Doggie Style.” Images associated with each showed a “couple” engaged in copulation employing the specified positions, the chief thing distinguishing these from other similar animations apparently being the fact that the male was, in each case, pinning the female down, or holding her in place, by her hair. . . .

Now, hair-pulling has never been my thing. To begin with, it hurts. And I think I may also have been traumatized by an incident in the second grade involving a particularly promising aspirant to juvenile delinquency by the name of Charlie McKendrick. However, such is my strength of will and mind that I can rise above this, and frankly declare that I really have no moral or ideological objections to coiffure-tugging during the act of sex. What I do, strenuously, object to is the deliberate association of this with rape, which is clearly what is intended by the names given to these two animations. It is an association which trivializes a very real and enormously destructive act all too common in our culture. Even a simulated rape – or, more accurately, a simulation that has been identified as such – has the potential to cause real pain to those who have been the victims real life sexual assault. Most importantly, perhaps, the dwindling of real life trauma into a “game” reinforces the notion that rape is acceptable, and even “fun.” Had these animations been differently named, my view of them might have prompted an involuntary shudder (shades of the execrable C. McKendrick), but I would not have sent in an abuse report. In essence, I was reporting the names of these animations, rather than the animations themselves, but that is a subtle distinction that would likely have escaped Linden Lab's enforcers."

Sorry, just passing by, and thought I'd ask, with regard to my "hidden agenda" . . . where precisely in my pieces in the SLLU Fem Net blog do I call for the banning of anything? ...

You wouldn't mind throwing a few quotes my way to show that I am wrong about this, would you?

Got bored of waiting . . . my bodice ripper awaits, you know . . . so I thought I'd just quote from the blog myself to make my point:



What I say here about the animations in question applies to my view of RP. I am not objecting to it per se; I am object to the way in which it can communicate, essentially, a "hate" message.

So, again. Where is the evidence that I have called for bans on RP?

"I recently sent in Abuse Reports concerning two sex animations for sale at a stall in a BDSM sim, the one called “Forced Missionary,” and the other “Forced Doggie Style.” Images associated with each showed a “couple” engaged in copulation employing the specified positions, the chief thing distinguishing these from other similar animations apparently being the fact that the male was, in each case, pinning the female down, or holding her in place, by her hair. . . .

Interesting reasoning.


Assistant D.A.: This new puppy mill is the fifth we've found this week. It was really horrendous. The dogs were being bred for fighting and treated with extreme sadism to make them aggressive, and those that didn't perform well were shot. Dogs considered no longer useful were being starved and...it was unbelievable. The disease, the sadism.

D.A.: Yes, but if we mention these dogs in our campaign to get a law against such puppy mills, we'll be using them as nothing but mascots.

Assistant D.A.: Obviously we can't mention them, then.

D.A.: I'm afraid not. The puppy mills must be allowed to operate unimpeaded, because it would be just plain WRONG to use the dead, starving and diseased dogs as mascots for our campaign.

Assistant D.A.: Yes, it would certainly be a failure of compassion if we mentioned them.

All the above are sick, practiced by sick people, and when their activities are curbed in RL they bring their sick 'games' into SL.

First post when the op AR's a set of poseballs that offended her sensibility.

In effect trying to get them banned.

What I say here about the animations in question applies to my view of RP. I am not objecting to it per se; I am object to the way in which it can communicate, essentially, a "hate" message.

So, again. Where is the evidence that I have called for bans on RP?

You went to a sim that caters to things you already know you find objectionable to AR objects because you don't like the word "forced" and you have no agenda. Why did you even go to that sim?

I personally find dulcett to be extremely objectionable, so guess what, I don't go to those places and I have never accidently run across one.

Demanding censorship of poseball labels is no less odious than calling for censorship of roleplay. More petty, to be sure--effete, even, in its sterile abstraction--but every bit as repugnant.

The men, apparently.