Not allowed to work because of my avatar?

Sorry, coming back to this a bit late . . .

I am sure there are cases where male circumcision have "gone wrong" and created disfunctionality later. But in way, that's the point. When it causes sexual problems for males, it is by accident, whereas the whole INTENTION of FGM is to make the woman sexually disfunctional. The resemblance between the two procedures is really pretty incidental. While male circumcision is at least technically about "cleanliness" and is mostly ritualistic, female circumcision is intended to remove or at least blunt the female's sexual urges, and to keep her "safely" virginal for her future husband (which is also why the mouth of the vagina is sometimes narrowed or sewn up). In other words, FGM is all about controlling the woman; the same, reversed, cannot be said about male circumcision.

Ironically, male circumcision IS beneficial for women: there is pretty good evidence to suggest that the incidence of cervical cancer goes down when the primary male sexual partner is circumcised.

Well, not just misled, I think, but I take your point. The kind of social pressure that can be exerted upon women to have "perfect" bodies can be pretty intense. It varies, of course, according to the social context, and its effects are more likely to be keenly felt where there are additional factors, but . . .

In a really important sense, the issues of low self-esteem that can make a woman fee it necessary to undertake "voluntary" plastic surgery are actually caused by the way in which female body image is marketed, distorted, and accepted in Western society.


Which segues nicely into Clarissa's very good point. The female body, both in an idealized sense, but also in terms of women's very real bodies, has been made a kind of public commodity. It is used for advertising, it is judged and critiqued (trying walking by a pool hall one day), it is employed as a kind of stand-in for "desire" of almost any sort. Why do so many advertisements use "picture-perfect" women to sell everything from beer to cars? The same is true of male bodies in only a very superficial way.

While not wanting to discuss any of the above in detail I would point out that it seemed to be agreed pretty early on in this thread (or was it the Guys In Drag one?) that women want nice avatars in sl *for themselves* and NOT to impress other men, or even women. So why shouldn't that be the same in real life?

Pep (Or would you claim they are weak - unlike men - and are being manipulated and hypnotised by those horrible advertising people so their thoughts are not their own any more? )

Because it is men who buy these things, and because men like beautiful women per se, those ads work. Some things are just so trivial aren't they.



Because most women are not attracted to a male just because of his body. There are fundamental differences in how sexual attraction works for males and females. Some of them are biological, but most of them are based on culture.

For the same reasons there are so many males who use a female avatar in SL and so few women who use a male one - most female users rather tend to create an idealized version of themselves.

In our culture, dating back thousands of years, the female body is the property of males, and any woman who doesn't want to be a "slut" would agree that her body belongs to only her one and only beloved man and no one else, even if that perfect love doesn't exist yet. No sane male would say something like that - unless he wants to impress a girl.

Well, you are rather simplifying things by turning this into a this OR that choice. First of all, the degree to which anyone, man or woman, is affected by culture, the media, peer pressure, etc., is going to vary a lot on context and the individual. But secondly, it is sadly very often true that what a woman wants *for herself* has actually been determined in the first place, to some degree at least, by popular or media-driven notions of what she SHOULD want for herself. And to great or lesser extents, that goes for all of us: I am certainly not going to pretend that I am unaffected by these things myself.


Some are, some aren't. And as for the suggestion that men aren't "being manipulated and hypnotised" . . . well, I'm struggling to find a strong enough epithet to tell you what I think of THAT notion, that won't get this post deleted by the moderator.

I think I agree with pretty much everything you say here. In fact, I'd want to amplify two points you make, even if you are only implying the first of these.

Despite some pretty dramatic advances in gender equality, we are STILL in a situation where most of the financial ooomph, and hence consumer power, lies in the hands of men. That's a simplification of course: women are still largely in charge of what brand of household cleanser, etc., needs to be bought . But I think it applies, certainly, to most leisure or "big ticket" items. So images that are geared particularly for men still dominate the media. I also think an argument could be made that women are buying into the way in which the woman's body is equated with desire: if a man wants to buy such-and-such a girl because of the half-naked bimbo draped on the hood, there is at least some tendency for women to want that car too because they want to be desirable, and equate the female figure -- and the car -- with that end.

All of this IS changing, I think. In North America anyway (or in Canada) there has been a spate of "dumb guy" advertisements recently, that generally feature a rather cliched idiot boy being bested by his much smarter and sharper wife/gf. It's an interesting sign, I think, of the way in which economic demographics are shifting.

The other point you make that I think is really worthwhile is the connection between sexual "virtue," the female body, and monogamy. In the "good old days" (i.e., before the pill) virginity was prized in a potential bride because it was seen as an indication that a) the woman would come with no potentially nasty strings attached, and b) she would be more likely to remain faithful. The last was important because of laws of primogeniture: the male heir would inherit, and it was vital (to the husband) that that male be "legitimate." Nothing pisses off a man more than the thought that his castle might be inherited by someone else's son.

Why should anything here be the same as in real life?

In this virtual construct women do not depend upon men, ever, for financial security. They do not have to ask for a man's help in having children. There is nothing to stop anyone from having just the type of virtual life they wish. Real life is infinitely more complex.

One could also say this is a much newer culture, and free from some of the errors of the past milennia or few.

Women have to deal with certain physical realities in 'real life' that simply do not exist in virtual life. Also, there is a difference in clothing chosen for that day vs. altering one's body. You haven't understood, at all, I think. One can *control* how one dresses the outside, plastic surgery is for those things one feels much deeper about.

I was specifically referring to genital plastic surgery in my example juxtaposing it with FGM. But, it's a somewhat extreme example of the pressure women feel to be attractive 'enough' in order to find a partner in time to have children with, or attractive 'enough' to be treated well in society.

These issues are not going to be tangible to anyone who hasn't lived them, I fear. It has nothing to do with AGREEING with Madison Ave., though. Rather, having no choice but to live in the society it mirrors.

Bingo. Spot on.

We are all, men and women alike, products of our culture. Not just advertising, but the whole gestalt of beliefs and norms that make up our everyday lives. At every turn we are bombarded by these expectations, and it is virtually impossible to avoid being influenced by them to some degree.

You may be a part of a subculture, or several subcultures, too...and their beliefs and norms will also shape your thoughts and actions. Liberal? Feminist? Catholic? White supremacist? You are, to some extent, a reflection of those around you.

SL is people. People who bring with them all their baggage. And so our avatars are a reflection of ourselves. Not literally, of course. But the woman who spends hours at the beauty parlor, and at the gym, and shopping for stylish clothes, will likely choose to appear as a young, beautiful, fit, and smartly dressed girl in SL. So will the woman who doesn't, but wishes she had the time, the money, and/or the willpower to do so. Part of that is wish fulfillment. Part is a response to a society which prizes beautiful women. Part is for herself, because looking good makes her feel good about herself.

And SL offers choice. Choice of gender, and even of species. Those with a sense of whimsy, or adventure, may choose to adopt a different set of norms and go Neko, or Furry. It's fun, and it's a way to express a part of yourself that perhaps has to be hidden in your everyday life.

There's nothing wrong with any of it. It's just people, being themselves in a world that offers some new and different ways to do that.

At some point it is obvious that most people just simply belong in First Life.

That the concept of a virtual world is not really for them.

How many we talking about...2-4% maybe?

BW..

Oh wait.

Actually, you raise an interesting question. To what extent does the culture of SL -- which IS different from RL in a number of ways -- affect us when we are here? And, even more interestingly, how much of our exposure to that do we carry back with us into RL when we log off.

There is a series of clothing ads here appearing on billboards that I could SWEAR are pics of SL avatars, wearing absolutely TYPICAL SL fashions. I think I could probably even name the pose balls the models are sitting on! It's an interesting if trivial example of how we carry our perceptions of SL with us.

Sounds like a good thesis for graduate study, Scylla.

So far I think RL impacts SL much more than the other way around. But, in more imperceptible ways, SL impacts RL too, I think. I'm basing it on anecdotal 'evidence' such as the many people who say SL gives them more confidence or allows them to build skills and self esteem. I don't know how easy those things are to measure, though. Especially without the dreaded survey.

Aside from superficial things, like the additions to our language...rez, poseball, cyber, relog, and so on...the most significant thing I've carried out to RL with me is an increased sense of the diversity of people, and a more tolerant outlook.

Now THAT's something LL should be hyping, don't you think?

LOL. Sadly, I am committed to something else. But I would be deeply unsurprised to find that someone IS (or has) studied something like it.


I like the idea that it helps with self-esteem and confidence a lot, but I wonder how well that "translates" into RL? The conditions that make it easier to be self-confident and articulate here (the use of text and the anonymity, I suppose) still are not going to be present in RL. But maybe it DOES help in subtle ways?


YES! Absolutely. Not only should they be hyping it, they should be working harder to facilitate it, by helping to produce translation apps and sponsoring events that are particularly geared towards this sort of thing.

I also think that generally LL should be doing more to build community here, including provision for some greater measure of (for want of a better word) self-governance, which would also, I think, work to this end.

About to say something that will rain rocks down on my pixels, but oh well. I am reading 'The Making of Second Life', by Wagner James Au (Hamlet Au - SL). As I didn't come to SL til 2007, all that went on before is very interesting to me, how it all came to be, the things that used to be there that are no more, the different 'temperatures' of the residents, and one resident, 'Aimee Weber' who now has a rl non profit in her avatar's name. One thing that struck me, towards the end of the book, made me feel quite bad, actually, is how the Lindens can really no longer 'come out to play'. In the beginning, they did, they'd come out, play and create and socialize with the residents and enjoy their world. The way that the author put it, they can no longer be the gods of SL, now they are the plumbers. That's a shame. I know many will say, too bad, be careful what you wish for, and all that, or get an alt, but I am thinking, would sure be nice to just see Lindens out playing, and enjoying SL like the rest of us. Now they just get jumped and attacked by avatars with agendas whenever they stick their pixels outside. Shame, really. In some very busy moments, I have thought, wait a minute, this isn't fun anymore, this is looking like work, here. If I couldn't get the fun back, I see no reason to stay in SL. So far, I've been able to back up, breathe deep and relax and have fun again. Guess the Lindens don't have that luxury. Some Lindens never come inworld at all according to Wagner Au.

I think I agree with you, mostly, Treasure, although there is certainly the potential for abuse when the "Linden Gods" descend from above and play with us mere mortals. In some ways, though, I think this is the SCARIEST comment:


I feel about that a bit the way I feel about many of the educators who use SL, but have absolutely NO idea what it's like beyond the narrow confines of their virtual campus. How can you POSSIBLY direct others here without having a clear idea of what SL is really like?

Of course, many Lindens DO have alts. I know one personally (albeit slightly). So they do get SOME play time.

Treasure, no rocks thrown here. I agree that's a phenomenon and it's true in RL as well. People who are promoted into a role of boss, might suddenly feel a difference if they try to stay in the old social circle, of their former peers. It just happens. Or try being a member of a board community, then becoming a mod, for instance. People are afraid they will be 'told on' or 'get in trouble' suddenly, and can't relax as much. Or will filter everything that way no matter how it was intended. Inevitable one might say.

I have read that most Lindens do have alts. Was it Courtney Linden who talked in an interview linked to in a past forum thread, who said she has alts for roleplay and so forth? I think they pretty much have to, in order to move about without being slammed with IMs, with as many world residents as there now are.

Scylla - Yes, I think the ways are mostly imperceptible, except to that person. But I think confidence building does help, even if to be replicated in literal ways one must find a way to translate the same actions into RL ventures or socialising. But in and of itself I think it also helps. Back to the discussion about whether or not doing things virtually has an actual emotional or psychological impact - I think it does, and I think in future it's a very worthy field of study. For instance, it's on a par with guided imagery, or guided memory retrieval, for focusing on GOOD things rather than for instance again, one's immediate circumstance which may not be a positive one. For whatever reason.

In short, virtual worlds are beneficial even as an escape, however brief. Even if it does sort of make me think of the film "Brazil."

Yep! Nice point!


Oh, I LOVE that movie. Someone needs to build a sim . . .

Ooh! yes

And the avatars.

It's SL ... geeez... clubs are a dime a dozen and it is up to the club owner as to what types of avies they want to hire. If they want human, then human it is. If they want a club full of forest creatures, then hire a frigging monkey. If the person that started this thread REALLLLLY wanted that "job" then change your skin for work ... hello? OR... do like 99.9% of most avies do.... open your own club! Here's a concept.... Strippers & Escorts (wow there's a first... a stripper/escort club on sl!) .... stripping right down to the hair on their chinnie chin chin and wearing little furry pasties!! LMAO

Just gotta say consider it like a dress code. I figure most clubs have a genre they cater to. I also heard of someone who had asked the same type of question but it was about pregnancy once. She was a pregnant avatar who wasn't able to work in a club because she was pregnant.

I think it may be a double sided thing.

1. The employer could have always asked if you could be in human form.

2. You could have easily changed to fit the club owners wishes.

I suppose it depends on how much you really want a job.

BTW why not choose a club that fit a furry genre?

***agrees*** Also about the "pregnant" issue... Not ALL like to see talking prim baby bellies that spam chat. The only ones that usually think it's "cute" are the parents. Most find it annoying. With the wide variety of fetishes out there, I'm SURE someone would find a pregnant dancer and or a exotic furry attractive. LOL

My human friend married a furry, and had two Neko cubs by him.

Oh, the horrors! The grid is coming to an end!