Are you for or against AV child porn in SL?

Correction: There is no research of adults using child avatars for sex.

Now, if I'm right and that government research you're using to defend your porn habit are wrong, you're harming people. Meanwhile, you're defending your habit while attacking a very similar activity. To me, they seem very much alike.

Maybe we should outlaw it all... just to be sure. There are helpless victims involved, so I'm quite sure you'll agree.

No. We must extend your logic.

Your logic says, that if someone engages in role play with child avies, they must be wrong, and should be banned, because they "obviously" have tendencies toward RL paedophilia.

So, extending that logic, the objectification of women could lead to rape, and that would make you complicit, even in the most insignificant way, and that should also be banned.

By your logic, the baby must be thrown out with the bathwater, because of the "what ifs" involved.

No sex in SL.

Be careful what you wish for, it might bite your own ass.

Uh-Oh.

I guess the thought of giving up the pron stash was too much to bear.

Yes, if the research is wrong and porn results in rape, then it should be illegal. I guess you'll have to start a new stude.

Porn has been around a LONG time and it is a multi-billion dollar industry and a massive percentage of adults use it as part of their sex lives. So we'd probably know at this point just out of common sense that there was a problem.

Child avatar sex is very new and only a very small number of people are partaking in the activity.

Honestly though, porn can be fun and it is more often funny... but I'd have no problem never seeing any every again if I thought it posed a real threat to kids.

First off I didn't say any person should be banned, I simply said that LL should adopt a written policy saying child avatars are not to be used for sexual purposes in SL.

What that has to do with the objectification of women is beyond me. I showed you a portion of a review of literature that stated the objectfication of women in pornography does not lead to any violence toward women. I can only go so far. If you have proof that all the studies that review included are wrong, then present it.

Yeah, and research once showed that gays were mentally disturbed.

Research is research. Research does not make right. Research is not the end all be all. It is done by fallible humans who many times have an agenda, Gov't or not. Nixon era values have obvious flaws, and to be honest, I can but marvel at your being an erotic photographer while citing Nixon era thought processes. I value common sense above any examples of research, especially when it is obvious said research embraces an agenda.

It's a parallel example.

I am sorry that your stubborness (or loyalty to bella) doesn't allow you to see the greater implications of your selective methodology.

I don't understand. Are you now arguing with me that all pornography is harmful and should be banned? Now you are really off topic.

If you want to argue that all pornography is harmful toward women and should be banned then you really need to start a new thread. I'll be happy to join you over there but I don't want to turn this thread into something other than what the OP had in mind.

No. I am extending your reasoning into related areas to try to illustrate to you why such thinking is dangerous.

You of all people should understand.

A new ... what?



Failed marriages.
Continued objectification of women.
Unequal pay for women.
Ongoing comments by authority figures that women are "weak" and unsuited to positions of authority (quite recent, too).
The appalling and continuing traffic in women slaves.

I'd say there IS a problem. Only some people prefer that it not be pointed out.



Correction: Adults pretending to be children having sex. If there's going to be a study done, it needs to be clearly and properly defined. And given that's the second time I've corrected you on this, it's apparent to me that this distinction continues to escape you. Or perhaps you'd rather it not be pointed out.



That would be kids ... OR women, or any other human beings.

Your argument doesn't hold water. I tried using legitimate outside sources to help but you shoot down "research because research is not the end all be all..."

I don't know where to go with that sort of reasoning, I'm sure it makes sense in your head but I'll have to stop responding to your posts because that sort of run around tends to get tiring.

If anyone else would like to discuss the topic of child avatar sex policies rationally than I'm up for it. If you just want to argue for the fun of it, let's not waste time.

Stude = Study. Am I the first you've ever seen make a typo?


So you are also arguing that all pornography should be banned? And to clarify, that means you think regular pornography including adults should be banned but not child avatar pornography?


I apologize but I'm talking about the broader 'child avatar sex' issue, not adults pretending to be children having sex. I'm concerned about the person watching the computer screen that is displaying a child avatar engaged in sex. Maybe the distinction I am referring to escapes you.

Maybe you could cite something more modern? 1968 is a long time ago.

Many ideas have changed since then, and thank goodness.

The Dangers of Pornography? A Review of the Effects Literature

Copyright © - All Rights Reserved
March 2000

by Christopher D. Hunter
Ph.D. Candidate
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Pennsylvania

Sir, "A Review of the Effects Literature" means that it is an all-encompassing review of studies... in this case over the last 30 years.

This review was published in March of 2000.

Oops, didn't mean to respond to you but in case anyone else needed clarification.

I wasn't sure it was a typo. It looked like an incomplete sentence to me. Hence my question.

However, to answer your question: No, you are not the first person I've ever seen make a typographic mistake on a forum on the internet.



What I believe is irrelevant - which has been my point from the beginning. Subjective opinion is irrelevant.

The real question is: Do you feel justified and comfortable taking the position that pornography is harmless to women when it's arguable (in the pre-emptive sense you earlier endorsed) that women may be and are likely harmed by this means of sexual gratification, only to turn around and use your defensive argument supportting your personal interest in pornography against other adults playing pretend using avatars with the partial appearance of what might pass for children?




Perhaps you're fooled, but I tend to believe that most people in SL are very well aware that the other person is also an adult. Maybe you're unaware Second Life is an 18 and over virtual simulation and the obviousness of this has escaped you?

Right, so you'll be stopping your hobby/profession then?

Let me quote from that which you pasted, since you're trying to use it as a point of argumentation:

"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."

So you want to ignore your own linkage, when it comes to child like avies?

All that really says is they don't know and can't prove. Which is why we should be PRE-EMPTIVE! Right, Levi?

Again, I'm referring to the effects of the graphics on a sick mind. If regular images of adults having sex makes regular people want to have sex with other regular people for real, it stands to logically reason that images of children ingaged with adults sexually just might make a person who seeks out such things want to have sex with a child for real.

If it isn't sexually exciting to for someone to watch a child character engage in sex with an adult or other child character, why would they be sitting at a computer alone doing this? If it is about the other adult, why not simply have that other adult look like an adult... maybe even wearing diapers? Why is the image of the child engaged in sex so important to defend to this extent and yet so inconsequencial that it is not something anyone needs to be concerned about?

The effects of graphics on a sick mind? Sounds like projection to these ears.

It isn't so important in and of itself. What IS important is that if you have your way, it opens the door for other control freaks, who can't stand RPing that adults may do behind closed doors that they themselves don't approve of. There are NO children involved. Just cartoons, as YOU label our avies in your own profile.

I am still incredulous that an erotic photographer is unable to discern the difference.

I am also a photographer, although I don't do nudes (maybe I am not as smooth as you, in getting women to exploit themselves for money?).
Wanna see my work? IM me.

There are a couple of problems with this ... logic.

The first is that you're assuming the people start off with "a sick mind". How do you know? Is this more subjective pre-emption???

Second, you cite the effects on a "normal" mind and then extrapolate those to a "sick" mind. If they're different by definition, how can you unquestioningly extrapolate in this manner?

You can't. Because you can't read minds.



Correction (yet again): an ADULT using a vaguely childlike representation to engage in SIMULATED sexual activity.

Please be accurate.

Now, to answer a question using my correction, I don't know why someone would be excited to see another ADULT using a vaguely childlike representation to engage in SIMULATED sexual activity on a two-dimensional screen. I also don't know why you find your pron stash worth defending. But I at least know what I don't know; and don't presume to tell people how to think when I don't even know how they're already thinking.



You mean: the image of an ADULT pretending to be a child. There's a difference. An important difference imo.

BTW, have you actually read that report you're citing??? The parts I've read so far certainly don't make you're pron habit look so innocent.

Oh yes, I also have a sick mind! But it is sick in ways that harm no one...

It is because it is my line of work that I have a clear idea where the line must be drawn. I'm also for 2nd Amendment rights but I don't think people should be able to own machine guns. It is all simple common sense.

Oh, and I've never paid a model in my life, they either pay me or if it is a mutual project they pose for free.

It's tough work, but someone has to do it.
Yes, I'm very smooth

So you're saying that ADULTS who use a vaguely childlike representations in a virtual space and engage in SIMULATED sexual activity are HARMING someone???

If both ADULTS are there by their own free will and engage in a virtual activity, how is this harming anyone???

Cool, so you manipulate women (smooth), and in the case of bella, damaged ones, and you don't give them a cent. Tell me, do you target damaged girls like bella to provide you with photos?

Do you earn any money off your photos, or is it for personal gratification?

I have to admit, the people giving me the most creeps are the ones ready to burn someone at a stake for playing pretend with another adult in private.

[edit: btw, the part he's quoting from that report isn't it's summary; that's mostly the summary from the '68-70 commission. You can find the whole thing cached on the net.]

This post is offensive personally to me and to another member and as such has been abuse reported.