Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

So if a man is twenty years older than his wife, this offends you?

If a 14 year old girl, who is of legal age, with the capacity to consent, decides to sleep with a 34 year old man. How is that different than a 22 year old woman deciding to sleep with a 42 year old man (or woman). That is the thing about an age of consent, that is the time when a person has control over their body. It is the time when the opinion of the parents regarding sex cease to matter.

So you think an 19yo engageing insex with a 17yo ia as wrong as a 30yo with a 14yo?

Are we talking childplay or teenplay here or both?

I agree with you til it gets grey with young adults and older teenagers. There's no difinite line there but by child play I will assume we are talking young teens down to newborns, so assuming that it basically encompasses those not physically enabled for reproduction functions which is just wrong virtual or otherwise even in private IMO.

Most wouldn't consent for them to have sex with another 14yo either.

What if it's a machinima Western?

These are all questions that arise out of the wavering status of reality in SL. Is virtual enaction real enough that you should be responsible and legally liable for what you do with your avatar (or what your avatar does to you)?

Is it, conversely, a form of fiction, where you collaborate with other puppeteers to make stories. If so, how are stories accountable? How do we legislate for dramatic context?

It is perfectly acceptable for a private company to ban the advertising of virtual sexual ageplay. People are getting het up about freedom here but as far as I can see people are still able to make whatever forms of private theatre they're interested in making.

Human fantasy is unruly, context is all and in RL consenting adults have long played with age, infantilism, power relations, dress up etc in the privacy of their homes, however edgy, distasteful or silly one may find that. (What is spanking but a headmaster or nanny punishment fantasy? - and yet it's one of the most common fantasies for both genders in England. That does not mean that 30% or whatever harbour unnatural desires ).

I think the privacy principle is an appropriate thing. Consenting adults can do what they wish in private, but please don't make what for all the world looks like very nasty graphical material and display it in the metaverse. Seems fair enough to me, so fair play to LL.

I would like to say my reasons for posting on this issue is that I am a "ventor". Until the other day I had no knowledge age sex role play was common or wide spread in SL. In fact I still hope it is a marginal issue that will not affect the vast majority of us.

I am also a corporate user of Second Life, albeit a very little one. I use SL to promote my first life business and am open about my real life ID. I use it as a type of interactive website, as I said in a previous post. SL IS an intense interactive media to communicate with others, and that could well suit my own business in the future.

But, if role play virtual sex became wide spread I would withdraw from SL completely as it would be damaging. I suspect many other first life businesses would feel the same. Second Life businesses could well suffer too if there was an exodus of people from the platform and the growth curve turned negative. This in turn (together with wide spread media coverage) could spell the death of SL.

Those are my own reasons for being very upfront on this issue, simple financial interest in the use of this platform, together with the moral arguments I have also presented.

Regards

John

Good point John but many are here like myself are here to play games, others are here to make money from us, however our playtimes/shopping may actually involve buying your products & services too if they exist in SL. Most of us are descreet enough to engage in cybering/cybersex without you knowing anyway, it is a common online thing, much like an interactive erotic book, but we are good people don't tar all cybersex as bad. The games will be here always, but the "games" played by some are in grey area's for many peoples tolerances, many here explore past tolerances they would fear to do in RL too. Some of us are here to act or immerse ourselves in roles to escape our real lives too. Perhaps we need to have X rated sims as well, some push past the boundries in private, some are silly enought to do so in public too leading to clamping down & publicity such as this, where before what isn't known widespread doesn't get stomped.

Its AGE Role Play I am against, not the adult sex industry or other groups involving role play in general within broad guide lines. Although I may approve or disapprove of certain activities it is not my place to dictate what other avatars do or not do because that will amount to censorship.

However all rules have exceptions and Age Role Play is a rare almost singular one. That is my view and I think I have said my piece on this issue.

This didn't happen in SL but still very similar:

http://tinyurl.com/228fa3

Isn't the key here what the community wants? Or at least what the majority of the community wants? If there were a vote does anyone think the age players or whatever they're called would even be allowed in world much less able to publically advertise? Or should the desires or rights of the few take precedent over that of the majority. What kinda world would that be?

I don't believe in censorship but there (at least IRL) are such things as common courtesy, and socially norms and yes MORALS OMGZZZ!!!1! imagine that! The vast majority of people do not consider having fake sex with fake children creative, an issue of free speech, or whatever other excuse you want to wrap around it. The fact that these people have to be told how to act in public says all I need to know on the subject.

There's a crap load of things I do and say in the privacy of my own home that aren't even illegal that I would never even consider doing in public. Why are people so bothered by the fact that LL has said you can't bonk your daughter in public? Why is this an issue. It's not about censorship or slippery slopes. It's about not using a monitor as a justification to engage in behaviors that you wouldn't otherwise. Nobody said you can't bonk your daughter in private.

Maybe they should just make a fetish only land. Or maybe someone will get smart and setup some PIs.

I guess when people say age play they need to be more specific on are they voting on, teenplay, childplay ot infantplay? Consentual or non-consensual situations?

your joking right?

I wrote out a long response to this. Im usually open minded to debate.

But I decided you must be joking.

For those of you who cant tell the difference in ability of a 14 year old and a 22 year old reguarding the ability to make choices about consent - I really can not understand you.

I will never understand you.

This is what I meant when I said that humanity is changing Colette. There's a simple fact that many are blind to these days: children (older than 13 at least - minimum 14) do understand perfectly well what they're doing - not all of them, but enough.

Hell, I'll admit here and now - I'm twenty three, never had a real sexual encounter (the girls in this town are stuck up snobs for the most part) but I can tell you this: aside from a few positions, there's nothing new about sexuality I've learned since I became rather aware at 12. Nothing.

Only a fool would not learn as much as they could - even if only reading and comprehending what they read - once they become aware of sexuality. Even then I will admit that many have a very sheltered life .... but that does not change much, all those who are sheltered have that is different from others is that they know less.

You may never be able to understand those that see this and simply accept it - but personally? I'll never understand how people can be so willingly blind either.

I mean no offense with this response - I am simply explaining my earlier meaning to you.

This is all noise -

The ability to learn the mechanics of sexual intercourse has NOTHING to do with the ability to provide consent and to understand the potential consequences of someones actions.

Im begining to think most non-parents dont have the real world experience to realisitcally understand the words they are typing onto their posts on consent.

Not that it matters - the sexual age play resitrictions dont have anything to do with the age of consent.

True, but I'm not sure anyone can truly understand that unless they've been around the mulberry bush a few times, no matter their age. A virgin in their 30s might have no idea how the consequences of making a relationship sexual might affect their life. They lack the experience. Not that I'm saying this from any first-hand knowledge.

We rarely disagree, but on this we do. He raises a good point, from a legal standpoint. Technically speaking, if the age of consent in a jurisdiction is 14, then the 14 year old has the same legal control over his body as the 22 year old does over hers. In a society where th4e age of legal consent is 14, then that society has made the determination that yes, 14 year old is as capable to make the decision as a 22 year old, or a 42 year old.

Of course this raises the question that you are trying to answer, which is whether a 14 year old human has the ability to make that decision. I think they do, you will of course disagree, but then as a societym today, most people over the age of 30 are uttery oult of touch with what teenagers do. And most want to forget what highschool was like for them. In all honesty, most 14 year olds are more responsible today than I was at 22.

I know for damned sure I was much more responsible at 14, when I was making sexual descisions than I ever was at 22. I think the question of the abilty of a 14 year old to make a responisble decision is entirely dependent on the particualr individual. Ther eare plenty of 22 year olds who uttery lack the average 14 year old's ability to " make choices about consent" and yet we allow them to do it all the time.

The age of consent is a more or less abritrary decision, and it is not the same even across the united states. Some states have laws setting it at 17, and others much earlier. Up unitl the 1980's there were jurisdictions whose marital consent age was as low as 13, and sexual consent not much higher. You might feel comfortable with it being 18, but that number, like most arguments on this forum, are largely born out of some sentimnetal desire to protect some illusionary concept of childhood, rather than address the realities that most teen-agers live in. In truth, I think parents are terrified of how responsible, adult and far thinking most teenagers have to be on a daily basis.

You are right though, this ageplay thing has nothing to do with the age of consent, as age play is something that is done, for purposes of SL, as a role play activity between two consenting adults.

What supreme court decision?

A 30 year old is mature enough to weigh the consequences of how any major change in her circumstances might affect her life, losing her virginity included. Hardly any fourteen-year-olds are anywhere near ready to make that kind of decision. Their brains are simply not yet wired to handle the responsibility. When laws were passed making 14 the age of consent, it was an emergency clause to keep babies from being born "in sin," as it was called in those days. Most of the time, a gentleman had to have the approval of the father of his intended before he could "come courting." Courtships that lasted several years were not unheard of. "Age of consent" at any age was really of very little consequence, since premarital sex was illegal! Also, the education of young girls beyond the ability to read their scriptures and do the simple sums required to run a household wasn't seen of very high value. The emotional maturity of a woman was also not much of a concern, since the law and the attitudes of the time kept females in a childish role for their entire lives. (Not able to vote, often not able to own property in their own names, no or limited right to divorce, etc.) Let's remember that this was the patriarchial mindset of 150+ years ago, and it is an aberration that these laws are still on the books in this day and age.

That's RL. In SL, I personally don't want to see or hear about sexual "ageplay." It may not BE child abuse, but it smells like child abuse, and I find it disgusting. I do not want it up in my face. I want it pushed as far back into the deep dark corners as possible. If I could "vote it off the island," I would do so in a heartbeat. People who want to act like this should be thankful that the Lindens are still letting them do it in private.

Eh... old enough maybe to make a better guess, but I think it's one of those things you can only understand after you've been through it. I had a coworker who lost her virginity in her late 20s. She was devastated when he broke up with her a week or two later. Me, with all my worldly experience had become quite familiar with such situations by then.

Whatever. It's a side argument. It's a crappy Monday and I need to let it out somewhere.

Do you have a single stitch of legislative or documentary evidence to support these aseertions regarding the emergency nature, or intent of these laws?

I am willing to defened sexual age play between consenting adults as an activity on its own. What two people over the age of 18 decide to do together is thier business. Period. The law has no right to regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults. It is fundamental privacy.

I am not a sexual age player. I am not a furry or a gorean either.

I am certainly inot freedom, particualry freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is freedom of thought, and the entire purpose of the System of gevernment that I am sworn to uphold is the free flow of ideas. This is not a luxury, it is a core freedom upon which my country was founded. I am not willing to compromise it for the sake of some collectivist ultiliatrain notion of protection. Indivisuals are responsible for thier own behavior and should be held accountable as individuals. Period.

I beg for rational discussion supported by evidence. So far noon can establish that any age player in SL has, infact, ever had sexual contact with a minor in RL. Noone can establish, in fact, that any age player in SL is a RL pedophile. And noone can establish that age play in SL is, in fact pornographic or obscene under any constitutional standard.
I would suspent the underlying reason is that people are basing arguments off of thier general opinions of the idea of age play, rather than some developed evidence of an actual instance of harm.

Thus we have made ageplay, even sexual age play, between consenting adults, a status offense not based on any actual misconduct but rather upon..well upon nothing.

I would argue that nothing in SL is a public expression, since we all must join and obtain access. LL would aruge they are not a public forum since they retan the right to regulate content, so in point of fact, no foreign law is violated since SL is by its nature, a private association.

As far as slippery slope arguments, the funny thing is, that by and large, in the history of compromising human rights, they always fall along a slippery slope. We can watch it in recent times as the eroding away of the 4th amendment to allow police broader powers in the war on drugs. We can see it in the Patriot Act, and in the Guantanamo bay detentions. We are watching it happen in SL as we speak.

The more LL needs corporate sponsorship, the more things will have to be "decent" for the god fearing good consumers, less we offend. I am in favor of offensive. I am in favor of individuals being responsible for thier actions and I am in favor of freedom. This whole position is wrong, and simply serves to bring SL in line with the marketing policies of potential sponors, and does not serve as the voice of the residents.

The Irony is, LL Is trying to open the doors to more users. To make LL more web 2.0, and yet by restricting things in this manner, they take SL farther away from its new direction. I thought SL was more intereing and more adventerous when it was a platform, and not some would-be replacement for the internet.

I think this is basically the deal. LL wants more corporations involved. So yes they need to apear more mianstream.




Even web 1.0 especially in the US is gradually going more corporate.


--------------
I think there will eventually be a net thats truley protected by free speech (however thats defined when it comes about) - but I dont think Second Life will be it.

A good example is the racsist type displays. In real life in the US these are protected under the first ammendment. In a constitutionally guaranteed web 2.0 or whatever this would also be protected.

But I dont think Second Life should allow them.

If Second Life did allow everything the first ammendment would guarantee I dont even see it surviving long enough for a web 2.0 to be at the end of the tunnel.

I'm tempted to have a final word on this..(not the final word, but the final word from me) as Linden Labs has already decided, the discussion is moot. I believe that they have done the right thing rationally legally, ethically, and it is the only alternative that they really had. I wonder for myself how it is possible to have a community of sorts, and to have compassion for so many different points of view. But I don't have a lot of sympathy for arguments about rights, creativity, or slippery slopes. There are so many other issues that fall within those realms to get excited about. What we are talking about is adults who want to spend their time simulating sex with children, and to do that in a way where it is publicly advertised promoted and celebrated. That seems to be the bottom of a slippery slope to me. I don't see that as the first step to where you will see Shakespeare or even Lady Chatterly's Lover being banned.
When you read about Second Life it often is described as a wave of the future...you can have telepresence with people all over the world, there are new opportunities for learning, cultural interchange, commerce, and entertainment. One can well wonder given the hype and the advance of technology what virtual communities like Second Life will be like in the future....what will happen to "reality"when VR is as real as real. It already real enough that many of us spend many hours online, and count online friends whom we never met, as close or closer than real life friends. But the whole issue about ageplay and the quality of the discussion reminds me of what a TV commentator said of a U.S. Presidential debate in the 80's:
"We have the most advanced and costly technology, miles worth of cable, all so we can hear one grown man tell another 'I told you so.'"
It really seems that Second Life is almost like a microcosm for the internet. Will these virtual communities bring people together in new positive ways, or isolate them, individuals sitting alone before computer screens seeking only to gratify themselves in one way or another? (and caring less about real world issues like child abuse.)
While I don't have a lot of sympathy for some of the arguments, I have great sympathy for individuals who have suffered sexual abuse as children. I have to, as I work with them as a counselor, have had friends among them, and know children who have had it. I realize that some of those people may be on the opposite side of the argument than I am.
There may be some who feel they are working through their issues in this way, or some who feel that this is just the way they are made now, and this is a form of entertainment for them. To the former as a counselor I would say that you will never be able to work though your issues in this way, please talk to someone. To the latter, I would ask, If you don't consider yourself a pedophile, and you are probably not one, what does it mean that become so exercized about your rights to be able to simulate sex with children? People who are convicted sex offenders sometimes undergo a form of behavioral treatment, they attach what is called a genital seismograph that measures blood flow and then take measures as the person watches images to see what makes them aroused. If simulating sex with children in Second Life turns you on...I would ask how could it not affect your perception of reality....of children and of your own sexuality. If you believe that this is a natural and purely understandable form of entertainment involving human rights, creativity, and self expression, I would ask you to take a test. You've expressed your outrage in these forums...sitting alone as we do in front of a computer screen; would you tell a neighbor about it? a coworker? your boss? a relative? Would you write a letter to the newspaper or to a public official complaining of this challenge to your human rights? If the thought of adults simulating sex with children does not send a shudder up your spine....but this does...I would pay attention to that shudder...and ask yourself what does it mean?
Finally I have to reiterate that I believe that Linden Labs has done exactly the right thing..and I don't believe that other fantasy groups have any need to fear censorship.
May the Second Life Community flourish, may all who have participated in this discussion flourish.
Respectfully,
Pablo Umpqua

The reason ages of consent in these areas is so low has nothing to do with whether or not the minors were able to make informed decisions on sex. To assume it does is ignoring the history.

The reason the age of consent is so low is becuase these were the ages when parents would begin to get their daughters married.

To a lesser extent unmarried young women of low social standing would also need to be availble for sex - since if they were of "marriagable age" then having sex with them was "fine" I guess wanting to have sex with women 'old enough to marry' is natural. I doubt most of these men thought much of these women.

It was fairly common for Middle and Upper class men to engage in sex with these young women before they got married (and after ofc) - either working as prostitutes or those in menial jobs hoping for favors or naively hoping to catch the gentleman's eye.

As our culture has changed and people have started getting married later, combined with the fact the status of women has improved (after a hard struggle) this age is finally being raised to a more realisitic one.

There is a considerable difference in whether a 14 year old is old enough to engage in sexual intercourse with another 14 year old and whether that 14 year old is old enough to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult.

You often see adults as out of touch, you did on the teen second life debate also. But really as a parent its less being out of touch and more the weight of a pretty awesome responsibility that cuases us to seem that way.

Did I want to have sex at 14? Yes I did but I was also scared to. I was also struggling with doubts over my sexuality at a time when being bi or lesbian wasnt nearly as accepted as it is now. Being Bi certainly wasnt "cool" like it is in high schools now. Was I as capable of making consent sexually as an adult? No. Not a chance.

My daughter 16 has a childhood freind (15) will be a father next month. His mother is single she is a "Lunch lady" his father is out of the picture. Did he make an adult sexual decision. Not really. Sure at 22 he could have made the same dumb move, but at 22 he would at least have been responsible for the consequences.

Also - the "children know more today" idea is silly. The human experience really has changed far less during the development of civilization than a lot of people think.

I'm afraid not, I took those sociology courses over 20 years ago. I no longer own the books. I'd google and see what I can find, but you can do that as well as I--if you just aren't interested in blowing smoke to obscure the real point of the argument.