Linden Lab is Correct to Ban Sexual Age-Play

Seemed like a challenge to me. "Your point is worthless unless you have the balls to name yourself" is a crappy way to silence those who disagree with you.
If you call for others to name themselves and then answer with "I don't need to prove myself", you're a hypocrite.


Stop challenging people to name themselves then, and trying to smear them with the same brush as the sexual ageplayers.

I'm not in support of sexual ageplay, but posts like this let the side down. This whole thread seems designed to troll.

You miss the point entirely Vryl. The fact that you would just "whitewash" what I just said saying its word games shows the type of person you are. And its so entirely pointless to argue with someone like you and was not my intention when I posted. So ive said my peace, have a fun time.

Now, I have never defended your point, nor hte counterpoint.
Personally I think that adults have the right to do what they want to in terms of role play--that is, that if one wants to take on the role of a child and get molested, that's their choice. I by no means judge that choice--to condone or condem.

I have, on the other paw, been someone who did role play as a child in a sexual situation. Why? Well, for one, it was different. Two, I like trying new things. Three, what better way to satisfy reason #2 than to role play being introduced to sex for the first time?

If you think about it, you can only learn about sex once, and if you have children, someday you'll have to teach them about it. There isn't really a good way to go about it: on one side you have "teach by example" (OMG! SEX IN FRONT OF CHILDREN!) and on the other you have the way the school system does it, which, frankly is boring and stupid (all the guys take the class so they can see porn legaly, they don't actually learn anything). A third choice is to let them expirament, but society has determined that to be taboo (sex out of wedlock).

So, in the end we remove sex from our children's view and tell them "no, bad" and never really teach them anything. At which point they either become sexually repressed or they take it into their own hands and become perverts at an early age.

Sys, this is the quote to those people who wish to defend sexual age-play. I said this because it is shocking to me that anyone in their right mind whould take such a stance using their real identity.

This thread was NOT started as a troll. I am utterly outraged and disgusted as are MANY others in SL over the recent press coverage and activity in SL regarding sexual-age play.

I applaud Linden Lab for having the "balls" as you call it to ban those people and make it illegal in SL. Others have started threads defending sexual age-play so I created this thread to support the decision of Linden Lab and also to give my input as is my right and as everyone who should care about children should want to do.

Vryl Valkyrie


Draco,

Thanks for your post but I do not agree. There is no way in the world that anyone could ever convince me or milions of others that desiring children sexually is ok. It is not.

Vryl Valkyrie

Oh? You want that too?
Though I'm technically not defending it, I will divulge my real name (good luck finding me though).
Major Johnson.

Isn't this the very definition of trolling and flaming?

Flaming (posting a message that is intended to incite anger or directly attack a person or persons), Spamming (multiple posts of the same topic or discussion), and Trolling (a post with an intentionally contrary opinion written with the intent of inciting or getting argumentative opinions) are strongly discouraged.

When does it get closed?

I defend it because I value free speech and expression, not because I agree with it, and I will until someone can come up with direct proof that real children are being harmed by age-play.

-Kevin (Susenko) Vinck

The reasons for defending this have been posted over and over on other threads, some of them to you personally. However, you continue to attack and incite and accuse, veiling your accusations and insults so thinly, you might as well come out and say what you're thinking.

The reason that the child's voice isn't heard here is that... well... there are no children here, or at least there aren't supposed to be any. You project these scenarios, based on nothing but personal opinions (which you most kindly state as facts, thank you very much), with nothing to back it up.
What kills me about your hypocricy is that you post trolling garbage like this, and you have several times, but then post your opposition to LL's actual attempts to DO something about children on the grid!

Someone... PLEASE shut down this thread.

Hi Mickey,

If trolling is the case.. then you and many others have certainly done the same thing or worse. Someone is bound to disagree.

Please stick to the subject of the thread or do not post at all. This thread is about showing support for Linden Lab making it illegal in SecondLife for taking part in sexual age-play revolving around children. Thanks.

Vryl Valkyrie


Edit: As for shutting down the thread, I would think they would have to shut down all threads who also show support for sexual age-play revolving around children. Now I shall place you on my ignore list. Have a nice day.

Argh! And I was just about to post "First!" and "I call BS on this whole thread, Virile Vampire just keeps repeating the same 'x sickens me' stuff over and over and not making any valid points, as though she wants to lose this debate"... but you noticed that first, so I don't get dibs

Take Care,
Lorna.

p.s. If we give up a piece of everyone's freedoms, to try to buy a little virtual safety for kids who aren't allowed on the grid anyway, what kind of trade is that? How many people could be driven away with no healthy outlet for their fantasies, left with no alternative to acting them out IRL? How many kids, abused by someone who instead could have been safely in a private sim RPing with another adult, is too many? Thats right, One is too many.

I don't know the answer to whether a ban would protect or endanger kids, but what I see so far, the evidence weighs towards "endanger" and the anti-freedom campaigners do not seem interested in actual evidence either way.

Pardon? Did you just call me a troll because I disagree with you? Wow.

Love it.

You write "Someone is bound to disagree", then basically say "Do not post if you are going to disagree..."

Thanks for taking up the points made in opposing posts and answering questions when asked, trying to explain yourself and... oh... wait. That's right, you refuse to do so.

To touch on your edit, the only threads I'd agree with you on are ones started, like this one, to inflame, incite etc. You're not interested in having a dialogue on this, or anything. You just want to pontificate and have everyone agree with you. That's not discussion. That's not what forums are for.

As for being on your ignore list? YAY for me! I wouldn't want the closed-minded "Queen of the Vampires" to pay ANY attention to me. I find you sick and disgusting.
I find vampirism in SL to be incredibly dangerous, as it leads to dangerous behaviour in real life, encouraging any child who gets into it on SL into life-threatening actions. Sharing blood in real life increases risks of HIV, AIDS, Hepatitis and sepsis.

However, you don't hear me calling for it to be banned, even though it is potentially FAR more dangerous.

The REASON I defend and oppose people like you is that I have actually done some research on this and have spoken to people and tried to figure stuff out about it.
You? You just kneejerk and react, based on nothing.

It is very dangerous in RL. Clinical vampirism is classed as a mental disorder supposedly triggered by a key event during childhood. Remember that guy Renfield in Bram Stoker's Dracula? They used his name for it. It is called Renfield's Syndrome.

I would hope that no-one would argue against an adult in RL having sex with another adult dressed in a fancy dress sexy schoolgirl outfit.

Likewise an SL "adult" avatar (controlled by an adult) having sex with another SL "adult" avatar (controlled by an adult) in a fancy dress sexy schoolgirl outfit as long as it was clear this was an adult avatar dressed up.

The problem in SL is that there is no age setting for an avatar - just height. So basically it boils down to it is ok to have sex with a tall avatar dressed as a schoolgirl (as that is clearly an adult!!!) but not a short one!

Likewise, I am now worried when I meet a short adult avatar in SL, just in case, even though we both know this is a short adult, someone takes a snapshot out of context and claims this is a child!

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for allowiing sexual age play here - just very worried that as avatars have no age setting, that people may be accused of age play when they do not believe they actually are, just because an avatar is short!

I've no idea whether allowing paedophiles to act out their fantasies in a virtual world is therapautic or just makes the urge to enact these in RL stronger.

I do know that given the choice between a paedophile "abusing" an adult controlled child avatar in SL, or that same paedophile absing a RL child, which one i would prefer to happen

Well I'm going to jump in with a thought of mine.....though I'm sure I'll get slammed (or at least told to produce "proof".

The original poster of this thread expressed outrage at sexual ageplay.........and I agree with her 100%. But, like always, one desenting opinion crops up and the flame fest is on. Disagree........that's fine. But to accuse the thread of a troll (or troll bait) is showing me a few things about the accusers......none of which are good. This thread is not a troll nor is it bait.........it's an offer for intelligent discussion about a very important subject. It's not about what adults do between concenting adults. It's about adults acting out sick fantasies involving children..........the children are not present (or, as someone pointed out, should not be present). Those adults posing as avatars are the ones with the fantasies. And there is a very real possiblity that one or more of those adults will not be satisfied with the roleplaying............the imaginary abuse. And one or more of those concenting adults could very well decide that that roleplaying was so much fun that it would be vastly more fun to actually find a real child for the "next step".

Proof? I doubt there is any concrete proof on this subject. No one is going to admit such a thing for some study..........they know it's disgusting and would never let it be known in real life. But, studies have been conducted on people who do have bizarre fantasies and a certain percentage do decide to make those fantasies come true. Think a peeking Tom is harmless? It's pretty much a fact that peeking Toms have an unnaturally high rate of commiting sex crimes.......eventually. What I'm saying is it's very likely that eventually one of those "concenting adults" playing sex with another concenting adult who is roleplaying as a child will find it just not enough. And then a child could be in danger when that "concenting adult" decides it's time to make it real..........and one is too many.

We can't wait for "proof".............the just may require some unknown child to be abused first. It's time to get off your high horse shouting "it's my right", "I'm just roleplaying", and "Big Brother is watching". Don't take a chance with some defenseless child who has never heard of "ageplay". Be an adult...........be a protective adult. Forget your petty, stupid "what ifs". Those are so much less important.

Here's another reason why the Lindens are right to ban it. One of the things pedophiles do during the grooming phase is show kids child pornography. It helps them convince their victims that sex with an adult is OK because all these other kids are doing it. I have no proof that this is actually happening and I really, really hope I'm wrong, but how hard would it be for a pedophile to create an account for a child and show them the kinds of things you can do here, starting out with flying and so forth then progressing to sexual activity? Age verification would be very difficult in this case because an adult would have a much easier time than a child of getting false identification.

Well you just gave another great reason for the whole age verification process being pointless. It would be totally simple for an adult to create an account for a minor with their details as a second account. And no way for Linden Lab to know it. In fact, wouldn't that be just the kind of "gift" one of these predators would dangle for an impressionable kid who doesn't have access to video games at home maybe?

And how about all those folks who are over 18 but still have friends that are under 18? They could do exactly the same thing for their friends. Unless Linden Lab is going to restrict folks to one account per ID. Wouldn't be suprised if that isn't coming soon.

Here we go again..........massive thread drift. It's not about verification. It's about "ageplay"..........or for you purists, "childsex play", or whatever.

Tons of threads to state your worn out objections to "verification".

Peggy,

That's a well written post, and I can tell your feelings are in the right place. Given a choice between perverts doing things in SL or having to do them in RL, your logic inescapably, like a black hole, draws you to the conclusion that they should be thrown out of SL just in case they end up doing both. That was my reading of it, reminds me of a movie where some mother thought her daughter wasn't being ladylike enough, so she threw her out of the house onto the streets and the daughter ended up having to become a whore, but hey at least the mother didn't see it, right? And she might have done it anyway? -- thats just my personal reading, I know your intentions are good, I just don't know if you're thinking it through or just reacting.

Besides which, didn't I see this post in the SL-Quake topic about combat areas in SL?


or was it based on this post in the furries forums?


No, wait, it must have been this one from the BDSM in SL forums:


Argh, now I'm confused, it could even have been from this one:


Sorry, I was mistaken. Your post was completely your own work. I just thought it looked like all these others because so many people think that you can ban a fantasy and make it go away, and that fantasies are things people want to do in real life. My bad.

Take Care,
Lorna.

You know you're right..........you can not ban a fantasy and make it go away. How silly of me to think such a thing.

And you're right I never read those quotes from other threads you to laborously searched and copied for my pleasure. My post was entirely my own......you got that part right.

But I got a big part right in my post too............I got slammed.

You can't ban a fantasy.........but you can ban people who have those fantasies. It helps me to feel clean for one. But it also gives those sick fantasiey holders one less place to express themselves. This a society of sorts.........let the perverted sickos have their way because "it's their thing" and the whole society suffers. Keep the sick pukes away from me. Keep them away from my life..........put them in the gutter where they belong. Flush down the toilet like they deserve. And I won't let someone who's so "enlightened" as yourself sway my thinking.

Some things are more important than beastiality, BDSM, homosexuality, violent combat, and suicide. Children..........way more important. Tell me I'm wrong..........then convince me and others. Stupid comparisons..........stupid thinking.

Lorna Rocks.....

Why is this thread still open? The OP is obviously a troller/flamer out to make trouble. Hey you moderators please close this!

Why is it a flame thread or a troll thread? It's merely supporting LL's direction on making 'sexual ageplay' on the less than desirable list of SL activities.

It rubs you the wrong way? You don't agree? It's a troll?

Well if you say so............I guess.

Mainly because the OP labels everyone a supporter of ageplay who disagrees with anything she says. If this isn't flaming I don't know what is.