Are you for or against AV child porn in SL?

The difference is in the images projecting from the computer screen. If it is about adult humiliation than it should be very hot for that couple to have one of the adult shaped avatars dressed in diapers saying googoogaaga... to extend the visual imagry into a child avatar means you want to suspend disbelief because you want the fantasy to seem more like child sexual activity rather than adult humiliation.

If you've followed these threads, you'll find I told the original person that if they were seriously offended they should contact the local authorities and the MSM. So your question is unnecessary as I pointed this out very early on.

Yes, several people have said that. I'm sure several people will be contacting their local authorities because it is offensive to them and obviously with some of the extreme emotional reactions, I would say there is what can only be described as a panic brewing.

In my opinion, the authorities won't do anything about it because there are no laws technically being broken. But some cop somewhere will wish she or he could do something so they will call the media in to take a look to draw attention to it.

I just thought I'd drop in here and discuss it with others in the community.

As offended as I might personally be by such activity, I refuse to endorse taking away the freedoms and liberties of adults who are doing nothing more than pretending. I'm not going to support pre-emptive action based on conjecture; the "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality. If I supported locking up people who had what I consider to be weird sexual fantasies, I'd also lock up anyone who plays first person shooter games. Last I checked, killing people was as bad as sexual abuse.

Will ask my husband in a few hours for a recipe.

I suppose that Americans are prudes at heart and can't control themselves. I have been around naked people my whole life and it does nothing for me one way or another. I am in control of myself and not my hormones or emotions.

Would you believe, I was able to get yummy rice at the Walmart? It is a tasty kind from Japanese Stock grown in Calfornia.

And that is why we discuss the issue. You see it as innocent pretending and others see it as dangerous behavior that is likely putting a child in the next room in danger. Who knows who is right at this point in the game, I'm sure the government will be funding studies to figure out whether this is something they need to create laws to deal with.

You may or may not support that but just like everything else in the world, your support isn't necessary for the government to act.

BTW... I fully support pre-emptive action based on conjecture... If I wake up and there is a man with a mask standing over my bed, I'll shoot first and ask questions later.

Ok, so you better stop objectifying women through erotic photography because it might lead to rape.

That is an old argument and has been disproven by government sanctioned studies. If you want to discuss it, open a different thread and tie it to the SL community and I'll be happy to post.

And if what you think is a man struggles with you, you'd be right. If it was your child on stilts wearing a mask playing pretend to scare you, you'd be wrong.

All things in their proper context.

An adult pretending to be a child in a virtual simulation conveyed via dots of light on a flat screen with NO real person physically involved is the context for this discussion.

Links please?

It only stands to reason, that if you're going to claim objectification of children leads to pedophilia (rape of children), that that objectification of women leads to rape (of women).

You're dodging by asking me to start another thread. It is pertinent here, in THIS thread.

Your line of reasoning assumes too much.

It assumes that if people want furry sex in SL, they also practice bestiality in RL.

We can extend that to any number of fetishes.

Sadly, we've found that government studies can be criminally flawed. Perhaps we should let the government continue radiation tests like those conducted on unknowing U.S. citizens back in the 1970's. More recently, what the government has claimed to be "fact" has turned out, in fact, to have been poor conjecture. Their track record has not improved with the passage of the Freedom of Information Act.

Perhaps that particular study needs to be revisited.

If my child got on stilts, put a mask on and stood over my bed at night I'd want to start over with a new kid anyway.

But this is a good example of how people can argue any point and dig to find a reason to NOT act on something no matter what your common sense says to you.

Yes, and the man in the mask may have been a retarded neighbor playing burgler but with no intention on hurting me. In that case, my retarded neighbor will be dead on my floor and I'll probably cry about it. But I won't make excuses.

What's that say about looking like a duck, sounding like a duck, walking like a duck?

Sure, maybe it is a pixilated duck... but in the context of the whole world, SL & RL together, it's probably a duck.

It's called assumption, which has led to persecution and genocide.

Oh, she floated, too bad she's already dead!

But you're asking us to wake up on a bus and shoot the guy.

Look, want to know why people are having such a hard time with this? I'll tell you.

One: The person who first started this, and you as well albeit to a lesser extent, have behaved abominably in your efforts to draw peoples attention to what is a truly significant matter. The messenger, in this case, killed the message. If someone is screaming at the top of their lungs 'Your children are in danger, AND NONE OF YOU CARE AND YOU'RE ALL PEDOPHILES AND YOU'RE ALL AGAINST ME', nobody is going to take them seriously. Do you need me to provide links to the conduct I'm talking about?

Two: We don't see it. Most of those posting here play SL, have done so for some time, and we really, honestly have not seen pedophilic behavior taking place. It's hard to get worked up about something that you aren't sure is there, when nobody has given you any actual proof of its existence. Particularly when the person trying to get you worked up about it is following the pattern in point One, above.

Three: It's been said over and over, Linden Labs has a policy in place that handles this. Child porn is sure as hell 'broadly offensive'. Getting Linden Labs to specifically state that child porn is something they really don't want to have around is self-defeatist... it will actually limit LL's ability to censure offensive behavior, by setting a precedent that said behavior must be specifically mentioned in the TOS before they can/will take action against it.

Four: Calling for people to not engage in legal activity in private. An adult, and another adult, either of them dressed up in a kid avvie, are not children. Sexual conduct between them is broadly offensive, yes, but not illegal. You are asking LL to take a firm stand in an area that confuses the US government. Jesus, man, do you ask the local cops to take care of Al-Qaeda? And, related tangent, yes, there are laws against sexual acts that most of us would find acceptable, that occur in private homes all over the country... and look how extremely well-inforced they are.

Five: You are asking LL to make a policy that will be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. Sure, you can tell people not to dress like kid avvies and have sex. Now you have to catch them. Going to send out sweeps to spy on all the skybuilds, now? Hell, if that comes about, I'm leaving SL on general god-damned principle.

To sum up: Calm the hell down, think about your position, respond to debate with debate (which you seem to be doing now, and I thank you), and bear in mind that not everyone is in agreement that our rights should be abrogated in order to protect us from the thoughts and fantasies of others.

Interest in pornography effects began during the 1960's as the U.S. and a number of other industrialized nations began to see a sharp rise in the quantity and availability of pornography and other forms of sexually explicit entertainment. This rise occurred concurrently with what is often referred to as the "sexual revolution (Goldstein and Kant, 1973; McNair, 1996)." The rise in pornography led to a number of studies investigating pornography's role in sexual arousal, and sexually deviant behavior. In particular, early research asked if exposure to pornography was related to sex crimes, and oddly enough, the truancy of minors. Early concerns over pornography's effects culminated in the 1968 appointment of the United States President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. The Commission was charged with understanding "the effect of obscenity and pornography upon the public and particularly minors, and its relationship to crime and other antisocial behaviors (U.S. Commission, 1970: 1)." After two years of study and testimony, the Commission concluded that pornography had no discernibly harmful effects on society:

In sum, empirical research designed to clarify the question has found no evidence to date that exposure to explicit sexual materials plays a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behavior among youths or adults. The Commission cannot conclude that exposure to erotic materials is a factor in the causation of sex crime or sex delinquency.

In fact, the Commission made the argument that pornography likely had a cathartic effect for citizens, pointing out that the majority of sex offenders surveyed had come from sexually repressive homes where pornography was not available. Similar conclusions were reached nine years later by the Williams Committee in England (Home Office, 1979). Due to these "no effect" results, the Johnson and Williams Commissions are largely analogous to the Columbia school of limited effects. And just like the Columbia school, the "limited porn effects" findings came under enormous criticism.

Yes, and the man in the mask might be my kid on stilts... yes, pull anything out of your arse and call it an argument.

I guess you'd better put away your camera, contributor!

*Looks behind to see if he's talking to someone else...*

Um, I'm not the one who just popped up in the middle of a very nice little discussion with a screaming rant.

If you don't agree or don't want to discuss this, there are a bunch of other threads to read and take part in.

No one made you click on this one.

I'm sorry, maybe you skipped over this part:

In sum, empirical research designed to clarify the question has found no evidence to date that exposure to explicit sexual materials plays a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behavior among youths or adults.

Sounds to me like the case against adults using child avatars just got weaker.

You don't get it (my statement was not to be taken at face value, especially in the context of Nixon era politics, which we still feel the after effects to this day!) What you posted ruins your own argument.

I'd say people claiming that pretend among adults necessarily leads to RL action are similarly pulling anything out of their arse.

Now let's return to how you defend your pron habit...

There is no research on child avatars being used for sex. Once there is, perhaps it will prove just that. Since there is none yet, each of us have to use our best judgement and hope we are right.

If you are right then no harm, no foul... If I'm right, there are helpless victims involved.

I'll apologize for the 'calm the hell down' part. I've gotten accustomed to some people behaving hysterically, but you aren't.

Nothing in the remainder of my post is a screaming rant; you can dispute the validity of what I posted, but I wasn't ranting, launching accusations, or in general acting like the people who started this whole thing off on entirely the wrong foot to begin with.

Edited to add a further apology: I was conflating you with aEoLuS. Mea culpa, you have in fact comported yourself quite reasonably. My reference to you having damaged the credibility of anyone speaking out against child avvie sex was inappropriate, and I am sorry.

Those studies are about violence and adult pornography sir. That is what you asked me about... and it is why I suggested another thread because it can't be combined with child pornography and its affects. Adults watching adult pornography tend to be normal adults with normal sexual urges. Adult pornography does lead to masturbation and normal sex between adults.

Child pornography, virtual or not, may not lead to violent child rape, but it could easily lead to attempts to engage a child in sex, that is simple logic.