Ageplay.. whats allowed and whats not?

Of course - but I was pointing out a problem with your argument. Comparing avoiding child avatars as a class to wanting to avoid rapists and pedophiles builds the false assumption that child avatars are, by extension rapists and pedophiles. I suspect you will find the opposite to likely be true.



What you've provided is context. The hammer itself is not the problem. It's the hammer being wielded in a threatening fashion. By the same token, a child avatar itself is simply a child avatar: no context. If (to go back to the first a bit) you see me in-world, for example, would you automatically assume me to be threatening? Would you feel the same abut other child avatars?

In context, would your feelings be different if the child avatar was walking around in a questionable outfit (say, a "sexy schoolgirl" outfit like what many places sell) with an "escort" tag over her head?



How exactly would this work? What would tag the asset server to disallow it on a child avatar? It cant simply be a question of height, because every hobbit, smaller-than-human furry, and little person would then be barred unecessarily. Would this require instead registering one's avatar (not all kid avvie players *always* play kid avvies) or a "nanny" attachment (I mutter to myself, "do not Godwin this thread".

Mari

Espectro - could you let me know in-game which sim this was in? I'd like to look over their covenant.

Mari

I'm proud to say here, now Najmah has become my Daughter in SL. I have always tried to be there for her over the past five years, and she has been there for me. Now that we have taken on this new relationship I'm going to, Like any new parent, Do my best to love, and nurture Naj, and share the Joy she always spreads.

Love you my Little one.
Angel.

Yay! 'grats!

Mari

Um.. I really need to clarify here. First, I wasn't comparing child avatars with rapists and paedophiles. I was comparing *how people treat* child avatars, with how people treat *suspected* rapists and paedophiles. (Remember than *anyone* can be a *suspected* rapist or paedophile, depending on the viewer's way of deciding suspicion.)

Secondly, this isn't a point of view that I'm *putting forward* or *defending*. I'm simply saying that it's human nature. It's a very unfortunate aspect of human nature, it's horrible, it's unfair, but it is human nature. And role-playing colliding with human nature is a very common thing on SL, and often quite painful. In fact that could also be a part of what you describe.



I, myself personally at this moment, probably would not.

But if I was a German citizen who was aware of the recent news there? I think I probably would.



Yes, definately. I would leave the area, or ask them to leave if it was a place I owned. But the problem is, any other child avatar is only a single round of updates (which takes maybe 2 seconds?) away from that. And let's remember that the SL environment is seen by many (note: "seen by many" - it isn't necessary true) as a) containing a lot of sexual content; and b) prone to griefing.



Non-PG items couldn't be attached in PG areas. Then, child avatars could freely play in PG areas - by definition they shouldn't want to do anything Mature, right? - with no fear for others.

This is by and large my point: do not fear a child avatar because we *could* do something. If you do that, you need to fear everyone on SL. I mean, that lemon on your left could become a child AV with a prim penis within 30 seconds (depending on lag, of course). They could also become anythign else in that amount of time. Ergo, fearing child avvies *as a class* based on what they *could* do becomes silly.



My home is in a mature sim (it was my mom's land at first, of course). One of my workplaces is in a mature sim (it happened to be the mainland sim they purchased space in initially, even though the jmall itself is "PG" (well, "G" really) in content. I am, IRL, an adult. I may not do anything mature with my avvie, but I would prefer to not have my land or livlihood cut off from me - would you?

I'm looking at the larger issue here: you seem wiling to provide levels of discrimination against a class of avatar based on appearance of the avatar, and with a notion that we *could* do something bad. Me, I'm not interested in doing anything bad, but I woudl rather not be treated as some sort of "special limited class" based on my choice of avatar. I suspect you would not like to have LL or anyone tell you what you can or can not do with your avfvie based on appearance, no?

All this said, the idea of "rated" attachments sounds good, by me - but that would be more of an age verification issue, based on real age. It would not affect a "child avvie" any more than any other avvie.

Mari

I met a lovely little asian lady yesterday in SL. She's an escort. She originally modelled herself on her true form. On appearing she asked the club owner if he liked her new 'fat girl' image. In truth she was not fat and in fact still slimmer than a lot but this brought home this whole misconception again. I think it's utterly crummy that she felt intimidated enough to make her avatar *unrealistic*. Admittedly she said she'd now got the breasts she would have liked IRL but heck, why can't everyone realise that across the world we come in all shapes and sizes?
I hear what Yumi says about fearing the proximity of child avatars in the present furore of sexual ageplay but I refuse to be intimidated. This isn't far from the issue of mixing with the teens ala the other thread.
I didn't come to SL to be isolated.

It *is* silly, in general - just like fearing *all* men because they might be rapists is, to be honest, quite silly - but people still do it all the time.

The other reason I think is that, on top of this "danger" angle, some people just don't enjoy being with child avatars. This isn't saying anything bad about you or the other players of child avatars - it's just that several child avatars I've met like to run around acting in childish ways, even with strangers who may not be interested in being part of their role-play. Even just talking about your "mummy" will feel weird and uncomfortable to some people.



Of course not, but it should be perfectly possible to move either of these, and maybe there could be some kind of compensation deal allowed for doing this.



The only way that would be possible is if you somehow trained everyone on SL to completely ignore appearance when socialising, and that isn't possible. Certainly some sims put limits on what avatars you can wear there, some parcels go further. But even then, any time you're on Second Life there's a good chance you've walked past someone who would have treated you differently or maybe invited you to something, if your avatar was different.

Which, at least with the former example, would not be workable. Because who is to say what my in-world mom and dad do after us kids turn in for the night (I don't, but I can assume)? WOuld they therefore restricted by a PG tag as a result?

For that matter, consider the situation of a friend of mine, "J." She plays a kid sometimes, an adult other times. She owns land ina mature sim. Will she not be able to use her home based on which avatar she happened to be in? The logistics on this are crazy.

One more thing, that was pointed out to me last night: Linden Village is in a mature sim. Should I be cut off from one of the few avenues to meet Linden staff in-world?

Mari

You seem to be taking the view that there can't possibly be any restrictions put on you, that you should be 100% free to do as you please, etc. Which is an OK position to take, but the problem is, this isn't about whether LL should create rules or not, but about how people are going to work together with each other. The only thing that the law says is that if people don't want you on their land, they don't have to accept you there. If you - as was described above at the start of this thread - are finding it problematic that people won't allow your non-sexual child avatar onto their land then you need to somehow compromise with them for that. One possibility will be to introduce new rules to SL so that other people know you cannot possibly be a threat. This isn't a law or rule I'm making up, it's just how things are - LL are not going to change the rule that they can ban anyone from their land they choose.

You would be free to switch to an adult avatar any time you wanted to visit a Mature sim. I presume that, if you wanted to meet with the Lindens, you would not be role-playing at the time.

My position is that there should not be any restrictions put on me that would not be put on ALL avatars in Second Life. I disagree with restrictions based on class, particularly unworkable ones. I *really* have an issue with being called guilty based on 'crimes' I am not committing, based purely on the possibility of me committing them.

Before we impose more rules or laws (what's next? Mandatory spaying and neutering of furries?) - why not work on trust, ya know? Why would I even *want* to attach a sexual device onto myself? Ick.



Clearly, you've never been there when I've visited with them.

Mari

I only have one acct and one av. It happens to be a child av. I have had no problems visiting a M sim and have never been banned from one.

My av is a non-sexual av and I still enjoy going to some dances at M sims, that belong to friends who Ive known for years.

A Rule making my av not allowed in a M sim is completely asinine.
If a land owner asked me to leave, I would. However a LL Rule that I could not go to a M sim, simply because of my av would open up a whole can of worms. I trust LL to never make a ruling like that simply based on a av one chooses to be.

There are already tools we have in place and no specific rulings against a certain type of av is needed.

Um, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this! An avatar is just an appearance that you have at any given moment. What you seem to saying is that, for example, it's unfair to ban naked avatars from PG sims; to make it fair, that restriction would have to be applied equally to avatars who are not naked.



The problem with working on trust is that there's too much difference in stake between the parties.

If an obviously underage avatar attaches a sex device while in a country that doesn't have a law covering virtual child porn, they take no risk at all - while the German who sees them risks having their life ruined by an RL investigation. Trust between general groups (not between individuals, I am sure that you as an individual can be trusted) doesn't work too well when there's a difference of commitment like that between the parties.



Well, ok, it must be a bit weird to have a child asking for technical support though

No. It's like saying that any avatar wearing clothing should be banned from a PG sim, because they COULD decide to get naked.

Saying that child avatars must be banned from Mature sims because they MIGHT be the avatar of someone who wants to have sex while wearing such an avatar is like the banning a clothed avatar because they MIGHT get naked.

At no point did I say, or have ever said, that they should be banned from Mature sims.

I said that I can sympathise with people who might have the fear of child avatars becoming sexual at any moment, and even though these fears are not particularly rational, if you wish to be socially accepted by people you generally have to adapt to them rather than the other way around.

Above I did say that "... then, child avatars could freely play in PG areas...". That was not meant to suggest that child avatars could not enter Mature regions, only that their freedom there would not be guaranteed in the same way. In the scheme I suggested, parcel owners in PG areas would have no reason to ban a child avatar for fear they'd exhibit sexuality - it would be impossible for them to do so, as the items would refuse to attach. Parcel owners in Mature areas would not have that protection, but may choose to allow the child avatar or not as they see fit. If they chose not to allow it then, well, that *is* their choice.

Glad someone got what I was sayin'

Mari

I thought you were pretty clear, Mari, and agree with you entirely. I was just surprised that some people seemed to not understand it, though some of it was reaching the point of willful misinterpretation (from my viewpoint). So I thought I'd try an example of my own.

Well done, you've won a forums argument!

Now tell me how this makes more people in SL decide to allow child avatars onto their parcels?

Since I am always a child av and I go to many places over a day, some M, some PG and even a couple BDSM or Gor sims. I goto most of the M ones to either shop or visit with friends I have know for years.

I always behave, knowing that some may have doubts about my reasons for being there. I also have never been asked to leave for any reason.

I hope if Im ever asked to leave land for a reason that is for some rule I have broken for the particular land. Not for a percieved notion that I may do something wrong.

I dont force myself where I may not be wanted. All I ask is to respect me for what I am, not for something I may be.

*nod* But the original posting that started off this debate was about someone who was thrown out of a Mature sim for being a child avatar.

I was only suggesting that one potential reason for this, is that the person doing the throwing out didn't want to take the risk of the child doing something sexual. I don't agree with that viewpoint myself, but if the person doing the throwing out did, then since it is their land SL says we have to give them the right to take that viewpoint - and figure out how to work within it.

An here I did't know this was about winning or losing. Had I know, I mighta brought my "a" game!



Yes. Long before it got into (to paraphrase) "Linden Lab should rate objects so child avatars cannot attach them."



Any landowner has the right to control their land the way they see fit. I know my own home location has a security orb on it to block random folks from spending too much time there as well.

Most, I gather, aren't so much worried about "kids doing something sexual" as much as assuming that all kid avatars are creepy. Whether creepy because of the fears of sexual ageplay, or out of a general "Oh-my-goodness-this-is-an-adult-how-weird-is-this?"

Of the former, and what my argument has been, is that *any* avatar can attach an inappropriate/undesired sexual attachment at any time. With dat in mind, I'd rather keep away from male newbies.

Mari

Well, that *would* have a benefit - people would no longer have to be afraid of child avatars attaching sexual things. As a result, they might be more accepting of child avatars on their land. Yes, it _is_ an extra restriction on child avatars and it _isn't_ very fair, but as was mentioned above, people are already being unfair to child avatars by keeping them off their land. But although it's unfair, we can't remove their right to do that. So, what can we do? Well, what I'm suggesting is that we could be unfair about something else (saying that childavs can't attach sex things) which doesn't matter so much, since an innocent childav player wouldn't want to attach sex things and would not be losing anything by not being able to. Hopefully, people will then become more willing to let childavs onto their land, because they have the reassurance that they can't do any sex things.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Yes, it's unfair, but it's going to be unfair either way because we can't take away the final right of landowners. So better to be unfair about something that an innocent childav player wouldn't care about (being unable to attach sex things) than something that probably they would care about (being unable to go places that maybe they wanted to)

Now yes you can also say that OK, _any_ avatar might attach a prim penis in a PG sim, so why not restrict them all? Well if there was object rating then actually this might be a good idea, but this is beside the point - the question as a whole isn't worth asking. It's simply reality, based on the original messages here, that landowners are objecting to child avatars and not to others. Trying to analyse why this is, and decide whether it's fair or not, is all wasted effort - because even if you think it's unfair or for a bad reason you can't take away their landowners' rights.



I think some people see wearing a child avatar as "imposing roleplay", but most child avs I've spoken to haven't actually been like that at all - they've been really nice . Oh, and I did once see a schoolgirl av speaking in a gruff male voice on the voice test on the Beta grid and no-one minded, but maybe all the people who hang around in sandboxes on the Beta grid are committed virtual-worldies and no longer bat an eyelid to that kind of thing.

The difficulty is, of course, that such is unworkable. There's no way to get such a system to work, because there is no way to accurately flag a child avatar as, well, a child avatar (as opposed to a hobbit, short (accurately sized) human, midget, pixie, tiny, etc.

This is why I indicated earlier why it really comes down to an individuals' actions as well as overall education, coupled with general trust.



Well, they already can have that reassurance from me, cuz I tink most folks who have come across me on here already kinda 'get' me, ya know? So maybe if more folks know me an other kid avvies, they'll fell more reassured, too.



An there's the real point. Mosta us is really nice.

(imposing roleplay? That's the other threa I've been reading...)

Mari

Imposing Roleplay is about as ridiculous a statement as Forced Sex in SL. A resident can't impose anything on another resident. If you don't wish to engage in a particular Roleplay, don't . Walk away. Virtually everyone of us is Roleplaying something at one time or nother, unless your avatar is an exact copy of you and you dress the same way, and engage in the same activities as you do in RL.

BTW Mari, since the other thread was closed, I cry when I watch Dumbo, too.

I'm sorry to say it, but I think that's actually correct; countries with laws against virtual child porn don't usually care about the in-character context. They simply ban sexual images "resembling children" - the reason *why* the avatar looks like a child doesn't matter, and no matter what they're meant to really represent.

I'm not a lawyer, but this can be predicted by common sense - if they allowed this, every paedophile trading photoshopped images of kids (which is what the "virtual child porn" law was really intended to stop) could just add in a pair of wings..



But you can't "educate" people to drop their guard in a world where griefers are unrestricted. I'm sure you know that most people in SL are quite nice and pleasant, but you still have a security system, and so do I. The problem is that this is the first time in SL where someone can grief you by just enabling you to _see_ something.