Should LL ban Pixel Sex? , Forum Poll Voters Opinion

Im not sure I actually ever said that you said anything about you supporting the banning of sex.

Perhaps you could find me saying that.

I said you made asumptions of where people feel on the subject. And how important they feel sex is. Implying that they would go along with LL banning sex. That I did clearly show in my posts.

I also said you said Sex WOULD be banned. That I very clearly quoted. Quoting it again below, for emphasis.


-------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Jackson Rickenbacker
Its really hopeless isnt it?, theres more people who don't considering sex a driving factor in SL than do. and thats the bottom line so far with the results as the forum sample shows.

Quite honestly if you spend your time having sex frequently or all the time, your really missing out on the most unique and interesting features of SL, commerce and profit. Long after the sex is gone, and beleive me it is going. there will still be commerce and profits, and hardly a single business outside of the sex market is going to miss those who leave Phil R. said himself he didnt intend on having a sexcapade world where anything goes, his vision is a new kind of business platform. So instead of living out your wildest gay fantasies, learn a SL trade and start being a part of the better community LL is talking about.. if not, GTFO. And thats what the real message in the blog post is
------------------------------------------------------

whoa - Jackson is claiming I editited the quoted posts? 0.o

They are all Direct Quotes from this and the other Poll Thread.

I have not , once in 4400 posts ever changed someones words around in a quote.

People might have felt they were taken out of context, I try hard to avoid that - but I do not change what people post.

So why not just say you disagree with my assumtions instead of participating in a cross thread she said/she said battle?

Listen Colette, I have read alot of your posts, not just from the past two days but for a long time, and ironically I agree with most of your opinions, but when you attack me Im going to defend myself, obviously since we have never had disagreements before this I think it would be safe to say that we arent just looking to slam each other, point of the fact is:
You didnt have to do anything but disagree with my perception that rarely had sex should be grouped in with never have sex rather than being grouped in with sex addicts... and that was the initial volley in this battle.

Sorry I fail to see where I put any words in someones name, maybe you should make it a little clearer? for people like me that are too stupid to understand what your talking about?

I never claimed you edited my post, not once. sometimes people read what they want and miss whats written

The majority of the people who posted in your poll thread said this exact thing, but you took it as personal attacks.

But since you brought it up, how many times a day must a person engage in SL sex to be a SL sex addict?

As I beleive you said in a previous post, my interpretation of what is addict and what is rarely could differ from yours

This was my initial "volley" as you call it.




And this was your response:




You went on to accuse me of personal attacks and my posts being an affront to human decency.

All I was doing WAS disagreeing with you.

Thats all im doing now , contrary to your feelings on this.

Sorry if you feel its a war.

I have a professional background that involves the use of data to support conclusions. I simply do not agree with how you took your data and I do not agree with what you felt your data said.

Thats all.

I find it amusing (in a sickening way) that LL claims that "our community has made it clear to us that certain types of content and activity are simply not acceptable in any form." Which community was that, please? Not the one that, as of now, is voting 95% NO on this question.

My attitude: If you don't like what I'm doing, there's a *whole lot* of this world where people aren't doing that (whatever it may be).

If that was not your meaning and I just read it wrong then yes I am truly sorry.

Ok so knowing this, do you really feel that people who marked "rarely" should be grouped with those that proclaim sex addicts? See my point was that they should be grouped with those that say never since on the frequancy scale I belive they are indeed closer then those who claim themselvexs addict, I wasnt trying to slant the idea that more people disaprove of sex in SL , the poll was not about who approves or disapproves, or who should think it should be banned and not, I might have misinterpretated the results from your point of view, but you most certainly misinterpertated my point of view too

I certainly don't remember being involved, or asked if I wanted to be involved, or given an opportunity before the blog post, so that I could share my opinion.

Was anyone?

Broccoli

If the questions is - Do You have SL Sex?

then yes rarely count with the Sex addicts.

Becuase both are answering YES.

------------------------

In your post you decided "Rarely" meant NO.

However the response was "rarely" not "Not anymore"




You also claimed that "Rarely" is not pro-sex. But you have no way of knowing that. You dont even have a way of knowing how often "Rarely" is.

--------------------------------------
See this is the disconnect.

Would someone who chose rarely be lumped into the same catagory as the sex addicts all the time - No, but on that question they would be.

I dont think that LL blog post is about having sex in general, which is exactly what the poll is about, but rather I would think that the blog post is about depictions of violent sexual acts and other degrees of moral turpritude

Sad fact is there is some truely disturbing & disgusting subject matter floating around on rotating prims, we shouldnt have to be forces to see these things

The other day I was flying on the mainland, I passed right by a rotating image of a naked woman tied up on a table with her entrails strewn across her body. Is this freedom?

I ran across a image of an aborted fetus, Im sure many of you have already run across the same thing, again I ask , is this in the name of freedom of expression?

LL post didnt have anything to do with the matter of two people making pixel love in the bedroom of there house, it has to do with "broadly offensive material" just as it says

The question wasnt do you have sex in SL
but nonetheless we do disagree, now lets put it behind us

well you said it -



Sure we can agree to disagree.

No worries.

I don't believe the blog post was about having sex, nor about BDSM, but about things such as the two your describe which are clearly way beyond acceptability.

The problem is that te blog was irresponsibly worded so that it would be interpreted to be about BDSM (even just being on a leash) or pixel sex or guns etc. and carelessly worded to contradict the CS so that it appears to be a new policy rather than reinforcement of an existing one - as a result a lot of people have taken it to mean a blanket ban on anything adult and are protesting, whilst others fear that others will take it as a blanket ban on anything adult and start ARing anything and everything in sight.

Exactly.

And thats why the Lindens shouldnt let Dan L play with the Blog...

Take the Keys, Call a Cab ..

And don't forget LL has shoddy internal policy communication. What is ok to one linden handling an abuse report is not ok for another. So what happens when the first spanking bench is deleted out of world? It sets a precedent. It will happen, mark my words.

I watched Kill Bill yesterday. Again. Not only did I observe a person's entrails being ejected across dear Gogo Yubari's Nike trainers (poor thing, must have taken ages to clean), but decapitation of every limb on the human body, a few beheadings, eyes being plucked out of their sockets .. and what do you know, this incredibly violent footage is perfectly legal to view where I live because I'm over 18 - and of course nobody got hurt during the filming of it.

Do you not feel the same certification standards that apply to films should apply to virtual-worlds?

Having said that, I do think you should have a choice about viewing explicit content (such as that you mention above), and I believe displaying such content in the open (even in a mature sim) is an AR-able offence. Correct me if I'm wrong.I don't recall ever coming across an image of an aborted foetus in SL, but I have seen a silkscreen image of several hundred aborted foetuses in a RL art gallery. So I guess I can see why such images might turn up in an SL art exhibit, educational facilities (you'll find pictures of aborted foetuses in books at your nearest major library) and the headquarters of anti-abortion protestors. Should you be confronted with a warning, a choice, about whether you want to observe such matter. Absolutely you should. Should it be banned? I'm not sure that would be compatible with the goal of SL becoming the 3D Web.

yes it is


yes it is

what you're advocating for is limits on expression and limits != freedom

Big differences here is that you chose to watch the movie, or to find pictures in a library, if you where driving down the road and happened upon a billboard in the public that would be quite a different situation. which is what the case is here in SL

I hardly beleive that being allowed to set up billboards of dead bodies, and forcing passerby's to see them because they are out in public view is considered freedoms of expression. rather I think that would violate CS considering it makes my second life expereince unpleasant. remember ther are no "rights" in SL just rules to follow

and you chose to go in to mature sims but expect to only see pg content.