a Newbie with a Kid avvie

Crom is talking about "Children represented in a sexual manner." <-- those are your words. therefore he is not off point. next.

The book doesn't doesn't have any sex scenes with kids. I don't know why he brought it up.

If i sat here and thought up everything that could possibly happen because of some simulated animations i click on in SL, then I would never had paid to play SL in the first place.

Because Cromulence is refering to a book where there is no explicit scenes involving minors having sex with adults. At least to my knowledge.

She was musical and apple-sweet ... Lola the bobby-soxer, devouring her immemorial fruit, singing through its juice ... and every movement she made, every shuffle and ripple, helped me to conceal and to improve the secret system of tactile correspondence between beast and beauty--between my gagged, bursting beast and the beauty of her dimpled body in its innocent cotton frock.

Never, ever, ever!

Good! I don't want to see this type of stuff in SL personally. You can take your views of children AV as sexual objects , regardless of which of the two consenting adults involved started the sick fantasy session in SL and go someplace else.

If the attraction of having sex with childen is not there why on Earth would people have sex with a child looking AV or defend others who do?!? Regardless of being two adults doing it or not. You are still looking at the image of a child and imaging sexual acts on it!! How does this not make you a sick bastard? A joke is a joke , but most of the people defending this are talking about a true sexual experience. WTF

I can NOT believe there are people in this thread defending these actions. It just blows my mind.

The book and movie were both widely controversial. I wouldn't use it as an argument for your point. It's definetely not the poster child for a depiction of acceptable adult behaviour.

If someone was molesting/abusing a child, or planning to do so, I'd be right there with you, rake in hand.

However, would you beat people to death for the thoughts that cross thier mind, even though they have committed no wrong act or in anyway prepared to commit a wrong act? Hmmm....best hope no one ever peeks into your head, because you might get beat with a steel rake, for whatever thoughts considered indecent or disgusting by the general populace. The human mind is full of many thoughts and we often shock or disgust ourselves or repress thoughts that we feel shame about or are disturbed by, but we have them just the same.

I would venture to guess that there would be a large majority of men, if hooked to a mind reading machine or lie detector and had a naked, attractive, 13-14 year old girl led into the room, that would be guiltyof having fleeting, or not-so-fleeting sexual thoughts or feelings. Many would immediately repress them, but they would happen. We are influenced by instincts left over from our evolution. Again, we are sexual animals.

The same would certainly be true of women, with a 13-14 year old boy. Have you been reading the news lately? We are sexual, and attracted to the opposite sex, usually when they develop features that clearly highlight thier gender, such as breast growth, curves, musculature, etc. Very young brides/grooms have been prized in many cultures since the dawn of recorded history.

Would that mean that all those people guilty of having such fleeting thoughts would be likely to go out and have sex with 13-14 year olds? That they would be a danger to young teens? I think not. It would prove them human, and nothing more.

Now someone that becomes obsessed with such things, and can't control thier urges or attractions, might indeed be a danger. But consenting adults acting out roleplaying scenerios or even folks creating drawings of such, isn't proof of intent to commit illicit acts upon children. It may be disgusting to you or me and offend you, but it is not, in itself, any kind of indication of intent to actually abuse children.

As for playing the part of a child prostitute in public areas of SL, I would think that in very poor taste, and offensive to me, but I'm not sure, since no child is involved, that it would be illegal. However, LL might bring down a penalty for "offensive" behavior in a public area, which they could probably do if a adult AV were offering thier services in a public area and someone was offended.

So only art that depicts acceptable adult behavior should be permitted?

no one has any idea, it pointless to me to try and think up all the myriad results of my actions on SL. i could say a swear in WA and a monitor can get peeved and a co-worker can get frustrated by the moderator's attitude and drive home angry which will make another person miss their exit which makes them mad by the time they get home and they give their wife the cold shoulder which makes the woman ignore her teenage daughter who goes upstairs and realizes she will never be Jessica Simpson and so slits her wrists. If i sat here and thought up everything that could possibly happen because of some simulated animations i click on in SL, then I would never had paid to play SL in the first place.

edit: by the way it says in my profile that i am 19 years old.

So only art that depicts acceptable adult behavior should be permitted?

So only art that depicts acceptable adult behavior should be permitted?

alright to sate the angry lions in the cauloseum, i will now say my avvie is an adult. albeit a short, underdeveloped, physically immature, and teddy bear carrying adult. i just "look" childish. sooooo much better now. whew! wow. took no effort at all, didn't even have to edit my appearence. all i have to do is lie! tell the truth? why would i do that? i'd rather go around the issue and say i'm an adult avvie that looks like a kid and get my kicks in sex dungeon with ball gags. ah freedom! a short childlooking avvie, but an adult avvie. yes! freedom at last...
such bs.

Acceptable adult behaviour towards children, yes. In this case non-sexual.

She's just saying it isn't the best choice for arguing a point

You seem to suffer from "Black and White perception"

The book and movie were both widely controversial. I wouldn't use it as an argument for your point. It's definetely not the poster child for a depiction of acceptable adult behaviour.

This would also prohibit someone who was sexually assaulted as a child from writing about the experience. Or, for that matter, any novels about sexual predators regardless of how they are depicted.

also if i don't like the President i should become a canadian. why does everyone ignore the post someone else wrote that they dress up their child looking avvie in leather bondage, but they "say" its a short adult avvie?

part of the problem is that many of the 'incitement' laws are new/and or mostly untested

It may be interesting from a legal perspective to see what happens with some of the 'suacide' sites legally in the coming months/years as they seem like they're going to be the first targets of laws that are increasingly taking a dimmer view of people inciting others to commit illegal/violent acts.

Aka if you do pose as a child and tempt someone into 'simulated' sex with a minor, do you have some degree of legal responsibility for that act if the person then goes on to injure a real child later. The answer is a big fat, mabye. Its not something i would take lightly though, given the severity of the crimes that paedophiles commit, and the extremely severe sentences that are routinely levied against them... i would have to say you are probably going to be better off just not tempting fate in that particular way.

No .. if you don't like the president you are fine , we are talking about children portrayed as sexual objects in SL remember? I see a huge difference from your example and the matter at hand.

And dressing up a child looking AV in leather bondage isn't nearly as bas as people having sex with a child looking AVs because childen looking AVs turn them on sexually.

The quote you used

says nothing about what YOU said.

It carried the presupposition that the depiction of acceptable adult behavior is a valid criterion for judging art. Since this presupposed argument was not previously a part of the discussion, I asked a question about it directly.

It carried the presupposition that the depiction of acceptable adult behavior is a valid criterion for judging art. Since this presupposed argument was not previously a part of the discussion, I asked a question about it directly.

Since when does Judging = Permitting?