Suicide Girls Redux

You forgot me, Moopf. I believe you labled me an "interfering busybody" and some other stuff. Which made me kind of regret buying cute stuff from your store and sending other people there.

coco

You don't seem concerned whatsoever with the effect the porn industry has on the men in it though. Women (and other men) do as much to objectify men as they do women.

I don't overlook your posts, Yuriko, and I'm sure virtually everyone on the thread doesn't either. They are very good posts.

coco

Hey I can't be fighting everyone's battles. It's hard enough being a quasi feminist. But you know what, you are absolutely right. How do you feel about that? As a man.

I'm sorry for your regret at buying from me and sending people to me - I'm sure you won't be making that mistake in future

You come across as everything I labelled you as in my other post and I have no regrets about saying them. It's just that I've bitten my tongue before now. But there, it's all out in the open now.

I agree with Jillian and Ingrid.

coco

Well, I'm glad it's out in the open now, so I can stop supporting and promoting your store like a fool. I regret that you feel this way about me, not to mention so strongly this way, as I have never had anything that I can recall but positive impressions of you.

coco

Same here! Moopf is a great guy. I respect his many opinions as well as his fantastic ability to convey them to others.

You know I always find it amusing when people resort to "well, I'm not buying from your store anymore *raspberry*". I bet you're hoping that I'm bothered, aren't you?

Fortunately I'm not. I'm not going to curtail my views simply for more sales in SL. I have much more about me than that.

It's ok - I respect that you feel strongly about how women are treated, I just didn't want you to lose sight of that. I just think it is too easy to say the entire industry is bad bad bad and that everyone in it is being forced against their will. There are many people who go into it because they do actually enjoy it, and it fulfills something in them.

Are there people who get into the porn/sex worker industry because they are damaged in some way? Certainly. Does the industry further harm them? Yes, it can. This applies to both men and women. I do imagine the stress and stigma of the sex industry is probably harder on women than it is on men from an emotional standpoint.

The concept of objectification is an interesting one - because as human beings we have natural sexual attractions to each other. Is finding the naked body of someone appealing objectifying them, or appreciating their physical beauty? Is enjoying having others find you attractive simply letting yourself being objectified?

Some people do have an exhibitionistic streak and no problem with showing off their bodies, or using that as a viable way to make an income for themselves (often times while going to school). Does that mean they are simply objectifying themselves, or are they empowered because they are making the choice to do what they want with their own bodies? It's a complicated question.


PS - online worlds and games also attract a lot of damaged people. Their use can also further damage and isolate people. It doesn't mean that everyone using online games is screwed up in some way or being harmed.

Key words: "to me".

And I'll be the first to admit I enjoy it too. (I might have several naked pictures of myself on my pc as we speak <.< ) But who doesn't.

But if I chose to take these pictures and send these pictures, it's on my own terms, and not some porn flick producer's.

I don't recall attacking on you. I have, however - along with others - pointed to how your comments are effectively an attack on anyone who doesn't agree with your feelings on this matter. By putting yourself in the position of morality dictator, you essentially called everyone else immoral. I take offense and would challenge you to find anyone who knows me who also considers me to be anything other than a person of the highest moral character.



You did more imo than just share your opinion, Lewis.

Another thing you said here made me think of something. Awhile back, as part of the Chinatown project, Bedazzle had a series of artistic nude images featuring some well known women in SL. They were sexy, stylized photos that celebrated the female body. They were not explicit, they weren't hardcore porn. They were done in the tradition of fine art nude photography from Chinatown. These were the photographer's artwork - the photos were beautifully stylized in Photoshop.

Yet some people still tried to reduce it to merely being porn, and called the women whores for daring to show themselves that way. These were are all strong, successful women who did this because they wanted to, not because they were some objects. If the SG feel that being photographed naked is part of their sense of personal expression,you can reduce it to porn if you want and dismiss it but it doesn't mean it isn't valid or their choice to do so.

Um, were these women force photographed?

Oh, yes, I remember that. So glad that person has been permabanned.

Well, sort of. Right?

No, but do they call the shots at SG?

You would have to ask them - I don't know what level of input they have on the subject matter of the photoshoots. However, they are willing participants in them and are being paid for them. Their choice is not being taken away - they have every choice not to do it in the first place if they don't want to.

I don't recall anyone curtailing you rights. Please point to an example of how the introduction of a group of avatars impacts your rights.

As for being "blasted", I believe you've filled this thread will plenty of hypocritical comments to supply the gunpowder. Perhaps you'd be wise to more carefully choose your words and what information you share (the "Revenge of the Nerds" explanation is a real blast).

And btw, I notice you never addressed the issue of SUGGESTING that you were in Second Life to SPREAD THE MESSAGE OF JESUS. I must confess that if that is - as you strongly suggested - your real reason for being in Second Life, then your role as a Greeter should be re-evaluated. People with an agenda - whether to steer new users toward Christianity or to the SG website - should not, imo, be greeting new members.

LOL - I could say you made a sexist statement in your lengthy post above, Cristiano! But I won't because I agree with it and it is a statement of likely fact.

coco

Yes, and if you recall, I was totally for it. I knew the women behind the avatars involved, I knew enough about the members of Bedazzle to feel comfortable enough to assume that there wasn't any exploitation or abuse taking place in order for them to get those pictures.

And I just don't with SG. Not after what I've read.

Having read all the posts in this thread and its locked progenitor and looked at the SG website (which appears to be more erotic art/photography in nature than pornography) it seems blatantly obvious that what has occured is a mutually beneficial business deal between two profit oriented organisations responsible for maintaining online communities, both of which are based firmly in what can be considered the 'entertainment industry'.

The choice of online community may be questionable to some but given the nature of a lot of the content available in SL and the activities favored by its residents you can hardly say its misrepresentative. The exclusive last name and 'free land' that has been included in this deal is not that unusual (as has been pointed out in numerous previous posts) and while the choice of name is unfortunate it's hardly what you'd consider broadly offensive. After all there are several avatars listed in Find with the first name of Suicide, if it was so broadly offensive they would have been reported several times already and if it was in violation of the TOS or CS then I'm sure LL would have stepped in and changed the name to something more acceptable as they have done in the past.

I can only assume that they log in (or not) of their own free will so I don't really see how the issue of exploitation is relevant, and as for the idea that it will in some way encourage the objectification of women within SL the sad truth is those who are small minded enough not to be able to see these new residents as individuals rather than objects will do so regardless of any pictures or information they may post (on websites or in their profiles).

Personally I have no issues whatsoever with the latest arrivals to our little online community.

I do however have an issue with the idea that any resident who persistently flaunts their intolerance, hypocrisy and closed mindedness to the thoughts, feelings and opinions of those that do not share their own personal views whilst considering themselves qualified to sit in moral judgement of others for the good of the community would be allowed to represent themselves to new residents as they enter SL as an official Linden approved representative of a community that I belong to.

IF LL are indeed actively searching for ways to increase the population of SL by reaching out to other online communities then perhaps instead of having residents who obviously see themselves as the self appointed moral compass of the community standing at the front door to greet them they should consider some of our newest residents for the position of greeter, from what I hear some of them are very welcoming and open minded

If first impressions really do count then more care should be taken over who is chosen to make them on our behalf!

As I said I've read every post in these threads and some of them have been delivered with the same aggression and moral indignation which I imagine launched many of the rocks once used to stone christians and other 'blasphemers' to death for the sins of preaching tolerance and understanding. Perhaps it's time some of the regular posters to this thread took a long introspective look at their actions and attitudes before attempting to administer moral guidance to the masses.

Nobodies moral compass is so accurate that it gives them the right to enforce their ideals on other people, especially not that of someone who believes they have the right to do so!

What statement? I am curious.

You seem to be implying that LL didn't attempt to interact with these other communities; that they focused only on the SG community. I don't know. You, however, appear to have additional information and insight. Could you share how you know LL didn't express an interest in those other communities?

Thank you

Dammit, Coco --calling Cris a sexist is MY job