Jack - Why allow child avatars on Zindra?

Over two years ago, involving completely different people. There has not been even a hint of poor behavior from the people you're attacking, not then, not since. Those you're attacking are completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

The "Zindra Incident" was not caused by child avatars, it was caused by your boyfriend.

Who are these supporters? How do you know how they are involved in things I do?How do you know what involvement they have if they do?

the majority of my friends list are NOT child avatars. The majority of the people I spend my time with are NOT child avatars.

Argent, I am not going looking for any particular child avatar people.

I just see you as a Child avatar apologist when you cannot share the blame of the incident equally.

Your actions say otherwise. You have attacked people who are completely innocent, and ONLY people who are completely innocent. Every single one of them.

Yes, your completely right Argent. No child avatar has done anything wrong.

Immy, you bought up all of these Immy supporters

"Immy Supporters" and "Friends" are a different story. And, again, you are tossing completely baseless accusations at people. You assume too much.

Yes, I carry the characterization of a barely legal fetish with one of my avatars. But, what makes you think I actually explore that role with any activity?

Again, you don't know who's on my friends list. Consider who is being targeted by your completely baseless accusations.

Consider what harm may come from your own words while you accuse people who typically are some of the most creative or burgeoning minds on the grid of following along with my kink.

Because of this, I am tolerated as a deviant by those same people and many more.

Uh huh.

Because you said that in a forum thread Immy. Why do you make statements and then back off of them or deny them? You should write more with your head and less with your heart so you can support what you say.

Only you and your 'friends' know that Immy.

No one sees anyone's friend list Immy. I only know anything about you because you insist upon revealing information and posting pictures. You chose, as I did, to post here. If you feel you are endangering some people by posting here then stop posting.

Everyone tolerates everyone else. But when your kinks jeopardize the platform we have invested in - you should have the common decency to meter your behavior or be sanctioned.

Immy, your NOT obligated to post in this forum. Our contact ends when you stop responding to my posts. Then perhaps we can get back to the conversation about child avatars and what Adult Content parcels can expect when these people enter their parcel.

Immy, your NOT obligated to post in this forum. Our contact ends when you stop responding to my posts. Then perhaps we can get back to the conversation about child avatars and what Adult Content parcels can expect when these people enter their parcel.

There are no "Adult Content Parcels".

Right, only in her mind do they exist. Parcels can have adult content. Parcels can be on an adult sim. But they think there is some way you can magically say what the rating of a parcel is so someone walking by knows what it is in that building over there. Maybe they are changing the color you see when you turn on 'view parcel boundaries'

Immy, your NOT obligated to post in this forum. Our contact ends when you stop responding to my posts. Then perhaps we can get back to the conversation about child avatars and what Adult Content parcels can expect when these people enter their parcel.

Are child avatars allowed on Adult land? Child avatars are allowed on adult land as long as they are account verified like any other Resident. Those choosing to represent themselves with a child avatar do not represent a minor as the account holder. Not all adult land is going to be hosting adult content either. There is plenty of protected land on Zindra that will technically be adult but safe in terms of content. This however does not change any prior policies regarding child avatars. Sexual ageplay is not allowed anywhere on the grid, regardless of rating.

I used ABOUT LAND and was able to list a parcel as ADULT. That means it would be filtered out of search for anyone that does not check Adult when they do a parcel search. So why would a person purposely put on a child avatar and check ADULT SEARCH and go to adult parcels that may or may not have sexual content in view of them? Seems to be a deliberate attempt to interact with adult content while role playing as a child.

I used ABOUT LAND and was able to list a parcel as ADULT.

So why would a person purposely put on a child avatar and check ADULT SEARCH and go to adult parcels that may or may not have sexual content in view of them?

Argent if there is no Adult content parcels in Zindra - how does one distinguish (as Linden Lab put it) a parcel that is PG safe from a brothel?

"We still can’t do the same things we could not do for the last two years, on Zindra or anywhere. We *can* do the same basic things we’ve done elsewhere on the grid."

Interesting way of phrasing all this, eh? No reference to RL law or RL morals. Just references to *policies*. These *policies* are fungible. They could change if one can write that they have not changed, you see. See the subtleties? And is there more than a bit of wistfulness in this "We still can't do the same things we could not do for the last two years". And more than a bit of creepyness in phrasing it this way. Rather than saying unequivocally, as a matter of principle, "Depicting children in sexualized situations is wrong, and we endorse that," instead, it is phrases as merely an external policy forced on this group that feels itself terribly injured and innocent, which is exasperatingly waiting until people are "enlightened again" and return them to the status quo ante -- the time BEFORE the last two years, which is when you COULD freely depict pornography in pixel form on avatars.

Another highly telling phrasing. As I keep pointing out, one of the things the "ageplay" lobby always does is push and push and push, subtly, cunningly, or agressively, fiercely as the time demands it. Their job isn't necessarily to win each battle, but in fighting them, to keep pushing the over all line incrementally further, and to keep eroding distinctions and to cloud moral clarity, and to edge-case, edge-case, edge-case to death. Creepy stuff.

"I can be in public areas. I can go into privately-owned parcels and islands (within the rules of that particular landowner, of course). I can own land in any place and with any maturity level. What I *can’t* do is be involved in sexual ageplay. I cannot make a place that is designed for sexual ageplay (for example, making a ’sex playground’ or something like that). I cannot solicit for sexual ageplay. I cannot walk into someone’s private parcel or sim - or SL public space, for that matter - and perform or solicit (or in some cases, appear to solicit) sexual ageplay."

See these strange locutions for explaining this issue again? A policy -- totally external, to which one is resigned but not completely happy -- is put on one -- sigh. Again, note that it isn't about *principle* or *concept*. She doesn't say, "Quite properly sexual "ageplay" is not allowed -- it isn't appropriate for our child avatars and we condemn it." Rather, it is merely conceded as an external policy. It is recited in a long list and made to sound like something terribly onerous and boring. My, my, for a child avatar bent on merely recreating childhood, She has truly thought a lot about the nuances and lines and rules, even to the point of writing, like a lawyer "or in some cases, appear to solicit" as if she is long practiced in trying to defend someone charged with this offense -- like a lawyer. Creepy. Not saying "It's right that children cannot do this" but couching it in terms like this: "Here's what they aren't letting me do". Creepy.

>Further, I cannot say that I am underage in my first Life (never minding that I am not underage in my first life). I *can* claim a RP age in Second Life, but that can end up causing some troubles with people who do not understand the difference between role play and first life actuality.

See how they do it? Suddenly, there isn't morality or a principle against these immoral acts. There is merely an exasperation, a sighing with world-weary knowing superiority, that "some people" just don't get the difference between role play and first life. Silly creatures! And -- stupid people! -- they don't "get" that she isn't REALLY a child in RL.

Don't you find all this odd? It's the kind of paragraph that the "ageplay" apologists make over and over again. It's only pixels, so it shouldn't matter. It's really adults, so it shouldnt' matter. Sounds to me like she is a full-fledged believer in the "right of adults to ageplay" but is merely conceding that it is now banned merely to be able to go on indulging in some at least partial form of it. The effect of her apologia here is clear: she is laying down markers everywhere that establish that these are policies, not laws or moral injuctions; that there are silly unenlightened people who "just don't get it" that RL and SL are separate and that people playing children "are really adults, so it shouldn't matter".