Consentual Adults

Is it ok for one adult to kill and eat another adult with their consent?

If not, then why are other forms of dehumanization acceptable in second life society whereby predators are allowed to prey upon vulnerable residents who consent to being harmed?

Uh????
May I ask what you are talking about?

Morwen.

reality != virtuality

In a roleplaying scenario ... if the participant being killed consents and is sure they won't want to continue with that storyline/continuity any longer, I don't see why not. If they do want to continue with the RP, then I hope all parties involved can settle on some sort of way for their continuing participation without needing to buy a new alt.

This is thinking by logic though, it may be incorrect in the actual scheme of things. My understanding is, as a relative newbie, that if it's not griefing or breaking the system/causing somebody some sort of loss without consent, it's okay.

I like my pixels with catsup and loads of salt.

My undead rogue in World of Warcraft eats dead opponent's corpses for yummy salty goodness that makes her rub her tummy in satisfaction.

I think I should be ostracised and locked away in an asylum in real life.

The only things that are not acceptable in SL are those things that are specifically mentionned in the TOS.

Also, there are no humans in SL, only avatars made out of pixels. How can you dehumanize something that is not human to start with?

On an unrelated note, I heard a girl say that her friend was cyber-raped. How does that work? Did some guy walk up and type "/me rapes *name of victim*" in open chat? I'm baffled at the concept of "cyber-rape", if anyone can enlighten me as to how this is even possible, I'd be grateful to know. Surely if someone just roleplayed that they were raping someone, the victim would have to go along with the roleplay for it to work, otherwise either ignoring the (for want of a better word) "rapist" or simply saying "No, you aren't" negates the possibility of cyber-rape.

It's all very silly really.

No, it isn't silly: the arbitration point here isn't consent, it's distress. There are RP predators, and RP prey, irrespective of the nature of the roles being played - and discovering that you are prey is a very distressing revelation, if you were not aware of that condition.

That's quite a different thing from "consent". I've heard a lot of people brandish the idea of consent and I do agree that where it is with-held, there's no question that a wrong has been done.

HOWEVER, speaking as an experienced RL RP practitioner, I learend very early on that there is little worse than seeing someone exceed their own limits, without realising it was happening - and the aftermath isn't pleasant, either. I have come to believe that it's vital not just to obtain consent in an explicit way but to RE-CHECK it, as one progresses through a scene. Prey-type people tend to get tongue-tied very easily, and will fail to claim their rights to self-determination, just when they should be doing so. This produces a few threads we see here (the recent "collaring" one springs to mind), and more to the point, produces distress.

Personally, I don't want people getting distressed. I try to minimise it, even when that means coming to understand their silliness in rather too much tedious boring detail. Yet, in RP, there's a fine balance - people like being excited, but don't like it when their own minds deliver them a nasty shock.

My benchmark for RP excellence is the astonishingly fine balance struck by the Dr Who scriptwriters, who are famous for making a tea-time sci-fi show that the under-10's love to watch - from a position hiding behind the sofa. it seems to me this is a superb challenge, and also a very good way of exposing those RP predators who are in it simply, really, as a more subtle and advanced type of greifer.

I agree that it's distressing, Gummi, but that doesn't make it rape. You have totally missed the point of what I was saying. I wasn't arguing that it shouldn't be upsetting, I'm just saying that since rape is forcing someone to have sex with you, virtual rape is impossible.

What I said stands, you can't rape someone in SL because to engage in any sexual activity requires tacit consent in the form of them engaging in the role play also.

There are some people who enjoy RPing the role of a rape victim, that's their business. They are still not being raped, they are engaging in the same kind of consensual (consentual? who knows?) sex that many RL couples enjoy in which one party is dominant and one is subordinate, often roleplaying resistence. Again, I'll press this point, it is not rape if the "victim" engages in the role play - that's unspoken consent - it's just sex then.
But if it's not rape if the victim engages with the role play, and the rape requires that the victim does go along with the role play (otherwise it's just some guy talking about raping someone who probably by that point has muted them anyway) then this creates a paradox in which the only conclusion is that cyber-rape is impossible - the very concept contradicts itself for this reason.

I was talking about someone who had been minding their own business and had apparently been cyber-raped by a stranger - they were not part of a role play (other than the general role play involved in merely being in SL, obviously) involving sex of any sort, but simply going about their daily, non-sexual, business. I maintain that this is not possible. What happened to this friend of a friend is not rape, it's sexual harrassment - which is bad but it is still not rape.

Only in SL.

ooooooh ohhooohh EAT ME! EAT ME! (@SS first)

This is an odd question, but I'll toss an answer out there anyway, having some small bit of experience in this area.

If one adult has something that turns him/her on and is lucky enough to find a like minded adult to do it for them then by all means they should have at it. This is especially true in SL where we are freed from such concerns as STDs and physical injury. People who engage in such behavior generally have a list of limits, communicated beforehand to their partner(s) and some method for anyone to halt the activity if they become uncomfortable.

The people who do these things are having fun, usually lots of it, and there's nothing dehumanizing about making someone feel good. This is true even if they derive pleasure from something that you find unpleasurable.

If you find such behavior offensive or unacceptable there is a remarkably simple solution: stay out of the dungeon.

I think Jauani just needs to get laid.

I eat at least one consenting adult every day

Extremely tasty ... AND makes you stop asking really stupid questions.

I think you answered your own question really. Don't take the term "rape" in "cyber-rape" too literally. Cyber-rape isn't literal rape, it is extreme sexual harrassment.

Ooh.. good trollin'!

Mari

I love posts like these, comparing two completely different things, then hopping on a moral high horse as though a point was made.

"If someone can eject me from their property in SL, why can't I set landmines around my house to blow up dogs that piss on my roses?"

"If I don't have to go to the bathroom in SL, does that make it ok to crap my pants in RL? Hmm? You never thought of it that way, did you? I just blew your miiiind, man!"

Isn't there a word for posts like these? Kev something... oh, no.. that's right. Begins with a "tr" and ends with an "ollbait"

dear noob,

there is nothing different about preying upon the emotianally or mentally frail either in SL or in RL.

SL is not outside of RL. it's a subset of RL. the sooner you come to terms with this, the sooner you can wash away your sins.

Brilliant! You start with an insult... a feeble one, at that... then babble about there not being a difference between SL and RL.

You HAVE to be kidding, right? Playing the troll for something to do, yah?

How can you go from cannibalism in real life to "preying upon the emotianally [sic] or mentally frail"? You start with a physical act, now it's an emotional or mental one?
Don't you see how you can't compare the two? You're twisting things to suit and moving the goalposts whenever someone debunks your nonsense.

Oh, and for the record, whatever nonsense you want to think about SL and RL, they are two completely different, seperate things. I cannot fly in Real Life. I cannot conjure up a house in seconds in Real Life (although, with the lag issues I've been having, I can't do this in Second Life, either!). I can't change my appearance with the click of a button in Real Life. I cannot transport instantaneously from one point to another in Real Life.
I also cannot hurt anyone in Second Life. I cannot force anyone to do anything against their will in Second Life. I cannot rape, torture, eat, punch, kiss, fuck, suck, lick, throw, touch or prey on someone in Second Life.

If you can't see the difference, I don't know what to say to you.

As for my sins, don't you worry about them. They are between me and MY god.
They are none of your business, you arrogant putz.

I would have to disagree, the last time I looked, real life did not have a quit button. Rape fantasy does not equal preying upon the frail. A person playing SL makes a concious effort to log into the game. This concious effort in itself implys consent. If you consent then you are not being preyed upon.

As to your insult of the other poster, it does point to your lack of decorum and manners.

What a bunch of nonsense.

Ooh what server do you play on? I would love to play with your Undead rogue, so cool.

Wu, if we protect every one abused here, there would be no one left.

But that's completely impossible within SL.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if "it" is "ok" or not. (at least with regards to the rest of your post)


It IS okay to create the ILLUSION of it in SL... or on a stage... or in a movie...

Walking around as a bunch of polygons is dehumanizing enough... without nonconsentual victimization don't you think?

So.... What ARE you getting at? People shouldn't be allowed to create illusionary situations in which violate RL taboo's?

--
All the world's a stage...

I love these discussions. You're very sure what rape is, and what it isnt - unfortunately, on MY planet, it's nowhere near as cut and dried as you suggest. not can there ever be a workable concept of "implied consent", no matter how often you repeat it. What's even worse is, as I am sure you will agree, we are talking about influencing people who are sufficiently clueless NEVER to go through any of these carefully crafted processes of "consent".

(at least in the UK, a woman may decide at any point in the whole of the rest of her life, that a sexual encounter she had was "rape", and she will be given a more than fair hearing. Some do this because they feel they have no other means of redress, in some way, because they are "distressed", in the way I have tried to outline here. Accordingly, I think it's only sensible to examine the nature of that type of "distress" and have mechanisms for both bringing it out, and coping with it. This would make life a lot easier for everyone - because when this kinda shit hits the fan, both the alleged perp and the soi-disant vic are going to waste a lot of time and emotional energy sorting out the shrapnel that results)

Am i to take it from this, that anyone who consents to an activity that you find personally distasteful is, in your Opinion "emotianally or mentally frail"?
This harkens back to one of the Oldest arguements i have read in the Forums, that being, "A Person Cannot Knowingly or in their right mind Consent to an activity where they can, or Will come to Physical harm, to do so is by definition a symptom of Psychological Disturbance or Mental Disability." In effect, this appears to be what Juani is trying to sell us.
I'll answer this in the same way i have answered before.
Boxing, Hockey, Football, Wrestling, Thai Boxing, Judo, Kendo, Karate, Etc,Etc,Etc. The List is Huge.
In actual fact people consent to Violent amusements every day with FULL and COMPLETE knowledge and Understanding of the Potential for Injury Caused by direct Physical assault by ones partners in these Passtimes. The only REAL objection that seems to still hang on is that Certain Passtimes between consenting adults have Sexual rewards, instead of Monetary ones, That the aim is to attain pleasure, not a trophy (I think however Many atheletes Can tell you of their "Adrenaline High" though, and how rewarding that is for them).
Despite your Highly Inflamatory example, the Answer remains the same. Consent is Only NOT possible, where an activity is Prohibited by Law. Murder and Cannibalism Are prohibited in Most RL jurisdictions, so No, Consent is Not an Issue. In SL, Murder and Cannibalism are NOT physicly Possible, SO two persons INDULGING in a FANTASY by Mutual consent are Not doing anything wrong any more than two people playing Grand Theft Auto.

Angel.

Please don't feed the trolls.