a Newbie with a Kid avvie

Wow this really ironic comingh from someone who defends the sexualization of children. And as for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you're talking about.

My point was, acting out child rape situations is not better and even worse that watching kiddie porn.

Yeah, bring the ad hominem...



Watching kiddie porn imply getting it to begin with. Obtaining kiddy porn encourages (I suppose money is involved) the producers of such to continue to exploit and hurt RL children to create such material.

Two adults roleplaying a sexual fantasy in which one plays a kid involves no real kid.


So you are saying it's better to do an activity whose existence imply having RL children get abused and hurt , than having two adults roleplaying a fantasy privately with no harm done to anyone.
Are you really sure this is what you mean?

If so you are terminally fucked in the head.

Yeah, bring the ad hominem...


I'm saying they are both related and both are wrong. And it's obviously a waste of time trying to point out the obvious to someone like yourself. I guess you're not living in the same society or planet as I am.

This is complete armchair wisdom and absolutely false. Statistical correlations are more than "possible to infers" and "may influences." In fact, those kinds of things are not at all credible in empirical science, and shouldn't be credible otherwise; in fact, if that's the best you can do is say "if x, I think probably that means y (in some cases)" it's not clear that you're making a verifiable claim at all. Now, if you could show that, say, countries with more lax child pornography laws had more child rape cases, or that the rapid increase in information flow due to the internet (and therefore the increase in CP trafficking) has led to higher rates of child molestation, then maybe you'd have a case. Right now you're running on a sentiment, backed up with weak claims.


"Mr. Suspected criminal, we have no reason to believe you've murdered this man, but we don't have any reason to believe you didn't, either. Prove to us you didn't murder him, or else that's proof that you did."


Your standards of "revolting" are pretty revolting. By what criterion do you decide that this behavior is unacceptible? It doesn't hurt anybody, and you've struggled to show that it could lead to hurting somebody in some indirect way, and even that is not very well supported. These people are just doing what they want to, and they've come under attack... and defending them is objectionable?

I'll never understand this gut-reaction sentimentalism with regards to this issue.

Thank goddess !

More like, "I don't have any reason to believe what I've just said, it just seems right for no reason identifiable to me at all, and you don't have that same experience. QED, you're wrong."

Read my posts, read the links. I have reason.

I'm tired of arguing with pedophiles... go have fun. Enjoy whacking off to pictures of kiddies. It's all good.

heh - to confuse folks like you.

Kid avies are sweet.

I know a couple of them...
Whitnie Bard and Magic Firefly (i call him my lost son cause he sort of resembles to me)
I forgot the other small one his name...but he was damn funny.

Very cute, but not really attractive if you give girl kid avies large breast tho....then it's becomming like a chubby ugly teen.

I have a baby kid cat avie , it's sooooooo sweet.

Based on the reactions here I think child-AV-sex could also be considered too offensive to be tolerated in SL (in this case something you cannot go around with Mature and PG areas). Like wearing a Nazi-uniform or expressing anti-gay sentiments.
By basing it on this you could get around both the “consenting adults against potential harm” strife and the censorship-issue. Its just offensive so its forbidden. Then it would be forced back into the realm of private homes and modesty.
Beside being offensive, i also think tolerating this must be a serious issue because its potential to be very damaging to SL.

Okay, its come to a stand still. This is the message the thread is sending out:

Dont say your avvie is a human child. Say its an adult of some fantasy race that LOOKS like a human child. Then anything you do with it, including dressing it in leather bondage and using sex anims, is okay because you are SAYING its not a human child so nobody who's into screwing human children will be influenced to do it in real life.

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

I can SAY i'm an elf or a cherub or a lycanthrope or a fox-demon all I want. I LOOK like a human child in most attributes so anyone who want to have sim-sex with my "fox-demon" av is not going "Oh yeah, a fox-demon!" That is an out and out self-denial. No, the avvie is child-like and so you are fantasizing and acting out, with fake characters, having sex with a child. By the definitions of the opposing factor, this is wrong and depraved. "All short non-elaborate furries and half-demons leave SL now!" *stampede*

LIPSERVICE. No matter what you say your avvie is, if its child-looking then anyone interested in screwing a child avvie will take that oppertunity.

I did say, in the same breath that; I have a child avvie that trys out sex anims; I have not and MOST LIKELY will not use sex anims with other avvies (child like or adult like); I definately would not use these anims in public places; I have seen and enjoyed shota manga in real life not on Second Life.

So far all I do is change my species from human to cherub or elf or whatever and all is fixed? The only complaint you have against me now is my personal real life and private enjoyment of reading material that are drawn still pictures not animations or photographs. I made the mistake of saying on this forum that I enjoy shota, but I will not go back on it now and it is truly not your business if I continue to read the manga or not.

You know what is sick? The double-speak going on. "You can have a physically underdeveloped and physically immature looking avvie, but as long as you dont SAY its a human child, its okay to have sim-sex with it." That is the message. And if you say now that the summary is wrong and you shouldn't have a child looking avvie AT ALL, then you are asking that all the customizable features in SL to be removed. One standard adult male, one standard adult female is all we are allowed to create. Lets see that one fly.

Y'know I gotta comment on this, I just gotta...

This game is available world wide and different cultures and different laws play into that. Did you know that the age of consent in some cultures is the start of menstration and that can be as young as 9 or 10? Did you know the age of concent in Sweden is 15? The quandry is this, a 23 year Swedish truck driver named Sven decides to play a 15 year old girl in game. What happens then? It's legal, its even socially acceptable in his country and remember, we are talking about freaking pixels on a screen.

The US is soooo hung up on protecting kids from even the slightest hint of sex, we as a nation, collectively act insane. When 9 year old Special Education children are dragged out of school in handcuffs and arrested for drawing stick figures, we as a nation, are bonkers...

The sad truth is there are people out there who take advantage of children. It is wrong and should be against the law. What people fail to realize though is the trauma to the child after arrests are made, court battles and in many cases the publicity is far more damaging than the sex itself ever thought about being.

My view of the matter is this, what concenting adults do in privacy is not anyone's business. period. The key word here is privacy and that is important. You wanna boink as a kiddie av fine but in no way should this activity be seen or heard of in any form in a public area or venue. Than means no kiddie slave auctions, no kiddie prostituton in an open or obvious manor and no open chat. I don't even wanna read about it in the forums.

In other words, live and let live... in private, in secret and where I don't have to be exposed to it, thank you very much.

Talen... Bill Marshall, who Bubbles quotes extensively, is a world class expert in the study and treatment of sex offenders. That is about as credible as it gets.

If this is true -- I don't think it is, but okay -- then I will settle for it if it is what I asked for: adults acting out fantasies with other consenting adults, not child pornography. If you are going to try to dance around that and say that doing it in Second Life renders pixels on your screen and is the same thing as looking at child pornography, then I'm going to dance around that and say your information isn't conclusive.

Use of Pornography in the Criminal and Developmental Histories of Sexual Offenders by D.L. Carter, R.A. Prentky, R.A. Knight, P.L. Vanderveer and R.J. Boucher of the Massachusetts Treatment Centre, page 207 says:


I have every intention of paying for what I asked for. I think that it is harmless and everything I have read on the subject supports that conclusion. If there is real information to the contrary, then I want to see it. I haven't been able to find it myself.

Masakazu,

Displaying images of child pornography or simulated child pornography is against the law. Period.

Oh, of course, "the" law, the monolithic agent of arbitration which makes all our decisions for us.
Even if you mean the American federal government, you're not right: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16075

Because that law was written poorly and vaguely, but there are still other laws out there.

Where is the line drawn? Should it be okay to show high resolution computer generated videos of little babies being raped? By what a few people in this thread are saying, it should.

I'm probably in the minority here when I say "yeah, that's okay." I mean, I think said videos would be pretty disgusting and I wouldn't want anything to do with them, but I fail to see why it's mine or your business if somebody makes them.

The same reason why people who have stacks of bombmaking books in their basement and a big swastika flag on the wall are our business.

Let's use some common sense here. Pedophilia is something a person has for life. It is a disease. Acting on it, of course, a crime. If the only reason for allowing such images is, "It prevents pedophiles from acting" then my response is: Second Life is not meant to be a certified place for psychiatric disorders to be treated. (Well, maybe if you had some sims highly regulated by professionals.) There is no reason for this to be in Second Life or on the Net in general.

What about people who make weapons and sell them? Isn't that your hobbie?
I bet you have a few RL books about katana and their construction.

Katana can kill, so you are our business? Will you be happy when they come into your house and take all the book away because you may use them for bad purpose?



Secondlife is a place were 2 adults can meet and do stuff in private. Be it speaking about penetration of the katana blade into humans or simply having cybersex.
Outlaw cybersex involving child av and only outlaws will have cybersex with child av. It will not stop it, only make it more attractive I guess even ; because forbidden is attractive.

Better step on people's freedom and add monitoring mecanism everywhere than to let the 2 or 3 person on SL interested in child av sex do their stuff in private heh ?

It's not that simple. Katanas are valued by art collectors, and so are guns, for that matter.
Samurai Swords are so treasured as art that the Japanese Government has declared all antique swords are national treasures.

Bombs, to my knowledge, have no real collector value - even inert explosive ordinance is regulated by the US Division of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

And neither does child porn, even simulated.


Sure, but only outlaws murder, steal, etc. Legalizing those aren't a good idea, either.


Oh come now. We're not talking about prying into peoples' private lives. We're talking about when someone goes out in public and flaunts it. You still have to do enforcement of rules in proper fashion.

Ah, but then I misunderstood you. The public boasting of having virtual child sex would fall in the "very offensive" rule and be punished. I'm ok with that.

Yeah, there's a lot of strong opinions in this thread so I can understand how different peoples' views blend together. I never support unenforceable laws, and ... I'm also a proponent for avatar privacy rights.

But let's say two people do *that*, take a snapshot, and leave it around their house as a picture on the wall. That should be (and I believe is) a reportable abuse offense if anyone found the picture, regardless of how they found it. Or these people are doing *that* on land that does not have access restrictions in place - a person is still free to wander onto their land.

I think it really doesn’t matter much if its an act committed by two consenting adults, that doesn’t justify the offensive nature of child-AV-sex. Wether its because it shocks and disgusts people, or because they think it will also have an impact on someone IRL, the fact is, it affects people in ways they don’t want to be affected.

I think the representation of an act that is illegal AND the serious offensiveness of that representated illegal act both should be considered when trying to decide wether to tolerate or ban such behaviour. In that way you can let the people alone who love to kill prim-rats, or hunt down and kill eachother, or, for example, the people who love to smoke virtual pot, but you could ban child-AV-sex from SL.