Well, I guess Ageplay is now Officially banned

I agree but what we are discussing here is not children and not child pornography.

Nope...Untrue

LL banned two consenting adults for simulating child sex. Not just "sexual acts".
If you take a picture of a child and adult having sex... is it Child pornograpghy? Of course it is.
If you then take that photograph...and do a drawing of it... (with the intent of stimulating someone sexually).. is it still child pornograpghy? of course it is.
If you take a memory of an image of a child having sex...and you create an avatar...and you take an adult avatar and you simulate the activity... whilst viewing the very grapphic pictures on your screen of that simulation... for sexual pleasure..is it child pornography? You bet!!!
So lets say you just imagined sex with a child... and you created an avatar that was meant to simulate a child... and you got an adult to have sex with it because the thoughts of having sex with children turned you on...is that wrong? HELL YES!!!
I cant think of a situation where sex with a child, simulated or otherwise as anything but wrong... if I am wrong... tell me so.

Hrm, ever read Lolita?

What about a novel that is about a child who is the victim of sexual abuse?

What about a classical painting of a half naked child? You or I may not find that sexually exciting but a pedophile would. A pedophile finds a photograph of a fully clothed child exciting.

We can't make the world safe from crazy people at the expense of everyone else.

Lets try not to get too caught up in the technicalities of the arguement...

I stand by my statement. I cant think of a situation where SEX WITH A CHILD, simulation or otherwise is anything but wrong.

I never mentioned a half naked child... I am talking about sex weith a child. and yes...Ive both read and seen Lolita, I do not see how that is anything to do with this situation.

This is an ADULT doing an act that does NOT PENETRATE the other ADULT. It is PIXELS.

You are wanting to criminalize IMAGINATION. You just admitted it. You are the thought police. Holy crap.

I stand by my statement. I cant think of a situation where SEX WITH A CHILD, simulation or otherwise is anything but wrong.

I never mentioned a half naked child... I am talking about sex weith a child. and yes...Ive both read and seen Lolita, I do not see how that is anything to do with this situation.

Yes it is, that is TOTALLY what we are discussing here. The act of simulating sex with a child is a form of child pornography... it is totally about children because without the aspect of CHILDREN in this event, we would not even be having this debate.
Lets try not to get too caught up in the technicalities of the arguement... its not about thoughts or dreams or the restriction of what happens between to consenting adults. Its about two people simulating sex with children and getting banned.

I retract...

Actually... its meant to be about "ageplay" being banned in secondlife. So to get totally back on the topic of this thread and how it was started...

Yep, it sure is...and I for one wont miss it at all.

Alice

Oh not this argument again... It is no more pixels than a phtograph on a computer is pixels. is it...or is it not designed to stimulate the viewer? Is it not an image? iS IT NOT DEPICTING SEX WITH A CHILD?
are we really meant to look at secondlife and say... hmmm I need to go and buy some more pixels for my pixel to sit her pixel down on because it would go well with the pixel and pixels I bought from that pixel the other day? no... Im sorry to be froank here..but that is utter bullshit.
No officer...thats not a gun its just molecules....

Lolita is the depiction of a grown man having a sexual affar with a minor child. What, is it irrelevant because it's something you happen to have enjoyed?

Can we agree that an avatar in Second Life is not a real child?

If so then can we agree that no actual children are involved in any kind of ageplay in SL (going by the assumption that the people playing the avatars are adults, as per SL t.o.s.)?

If so then no actual children are being harmed. In that case what is the problem? (Please try to be more objective that "it's wrong"/"it's sick"/etc...)

I remembered that also, which is probably why our esteemed congress did an end-run around that ruling in 18 U.S.C. 71 § 1466A (probably attached to a farm bill) in 2003. This law is so "necessary and proper" that it has resulted in one conviction since its enactment.

Lolita is the depiction of a grown man having a sexual affar with a minor child. What, is it irrelevant because it's something you happen to have enjoyed?

Philip has always been fond of comparing SL to a country. Well, what kind of country are we making? While what I quoted above sounds reasonable on the face of it, it's actually completely contrary to the principles the US was founded on - to protect the minority from the tyrrany of the majority. There is no right not to be offended. This isn't about ageplay, or aniti-semitism, or nazi iconography. Those are just flashpoints along the road to where we are now, and though I have no love for ageplayers, I think it's a very sad day in the history of our feldging virtual country. We have now begun to outright ban the offending of the majority. Criminalizing something in which no harm comes to anyone based on what they might do in the future is not only irrational, it's a dangerous precedent to set.

In a somewhat related story I read today in the Washington Post that movies that depict smoking will now receive higher MPAA ratings. I'm offended by the assumption that people can't express taboo thoughts, or be exposed to the representation of things that might be harmful, without having the self control to do the right thing when it counts. I personally find that kind of reasoning, and the inevitable restrictions of civil rights and speech that come with it, more offensive than two adults who I don't know from Adam playing out a devient and shocking fantasy under mutual consent.

The idea of prevention is the snake oil of people with agendas - we can prevent terrorism and it will only cost you your privacy. We can prevent child abuse and it will only cost you your freedom of expression. And in all cases, no, they can't stop it, but freedoms once traded for false promises of security and prevention, are much more difficult to reclaim than to trade away. This is about so much more than ageplay.

No it isn't. The issue here is real life pornography in SL, and that is what the criminal issue is. The issue you keep smearing into this is what two adults do on SL, which is none of my business or yours. Two adults, as pixels.

Nope, and I didnt particularly enjoy it. I found the original story did not tug at any of my emotional heart strings... and I never once found it to be a "page turner". I sat through most of the Kubric version of the film and ...as with most of his films..thought it to be a bunch of useless tripe just based in controversy rather than good acting or good direction.

It is irrelevant because I asked for a situation where sex with a child was anything but wrong. Do you think that sex with a child is ok? Did "lolita" make you THINK that it was anything but wrong? did it justify sex with children?

I answered NO to all of the above...what about you?

try this one; It's a problem because most people consider pedophilia to be wrong/sick/etc

Your argument is that it is "intended to sexually excite" therefore it is child pornography. Who decides what is "intended" to sexually excite? A book can describe the rape of a child and it's intention is to horrify the reader. But a pedophile would find that exciting. Should it be banned?

I agree with you that those who simulate sex with children via their avatars are doing it for the obvious reason, for the most part. The idea of having sex with children turns them on or they wouldn't be doing it. There are exceptions for sure but in the main what you see is what you get.

But you are going further than SL and arguing for criminalizing any depiction, even if no child is harmed in the process.

That's a dangerious standard you're presenting there my friend. Many people (perhaps even most) consider homosexuality to be wrong/sick/etc. There was a time when most people considered blacks to be subhuman. The majority cannot be allowed to dictate what is right and wrong. Mob rule cannot exist in a free society.

Well alright you are making two different arguments.

I think most people would agree that any depcition of a child having sex with an adult is morally wrong. Sometimes that is the very point of it.

You are calling it child pornography. Which is a crime.

Nope. The issue is not real life pornography in secondlife. Although that WAS a part of the original story..and IS totally wrong. We have already discussed what the point of this is... and if your not getting it, its only because you dont want to.

Yes...I am totally arguing that ANY depiction of sex with a child is wrong.and I am proud of it. to say that no child was hurt "in the process" is to presume that you are somehow able to be involved in the process...when in actual fact you werent.
Is there anything to say that either of the adults in question werent looking at child porn whilst they were doing it? no... we cant presume that. and I still stand by my statement that if you allow people to act on their fantasies regarding having sex with children, you put children at risk.

Nope, and I didnt particularly enjoy it. I found the original story did not tug at any of my emotional heart strings... and I never once found it to be a "page turner". I sat through most of the Kubric version of the film and ...as with most of his films..thought it to be a bunch of useless tripe just based in controversy rather than good acting or good direction.

It is irrelevant because I asked for a situation where sex with a child was anything but wrong. Do you think that sex with a child is ok? Did "lolita" make you THINK that it was anything but wrong? did it justify sex with children?

I answered NO to all of the above...what about you?

Yes...I am totally arguing that ANY depiction of sex with a child is wrong.and I am proud of it. to say that no child was hurt "in the process" is to presume that you are somehow able to be involved in the process...when in actual fact you werent.
Is there anything to say that either of the adults in question werent looking at child porn whilst they were doing it? no... we cant presume that. and I still stand by my statement that if you allow people to act on their fantasies regarding having sex with children, you put children at risk.