Okay - so how PG is PG?

Probably just don't show female nipples, vagina, asshole or male penis. scrotum, asshole.

I was told (in a different context) that *THIS IMAGE* was deemed by him to be offensively mature... of course.. that person was a jerk.

But that really highlights the problem... An avatar can be clothed from head to toe,and have all their "naughty bits" (by social convention) covered... and still be considered offensively mature in nature. It's a SUBJECTIVE judgment.. made by the judger, not the judged.

This pic, I think, demonstrates the flaw in the issue. But for the most part, "common sense" can help define what is mature, and what isn't. Kissing, and nudism shouldn't be offensive, regardless of what someone tells you a linden told them 3 years ago. "There is no rule six" (some of you will actually know this reference, and it's not a movie). Nudism may be best moved to mature land, to avoid issues (harassment).. but it is not, in and of itself offensive... especially when required to sell a product (like skin.. not sportscars).

Similarly though, my assertions that these things AREN'T mature.. is just as valid as someone's assertion that they are. in the end, the Lindens will be the final arbiters. If their aim is to unify the Mature and Teen grids... that will make it very hard to do business... unless they give us an LSL method to "deny payment by affirmed age". So if the user states they are under 18, then we can reject their payments. This doesn't stop a person from lying, but thankfully, the onus no longer is upon the internet content provider to verify the age of their customers.

Frankly, I really don't want children in my adult game. I am an adult, I like doing adult things with other adults. (and yes, that can mean pretending to be children doing utterly childish or childlike things)... I have no desire to interact with real children in this game. There are children living in my home, and I won't so much as allow them to be in the same room while SL is on my computer. I strongly disapprove of any attempt to "legitimize" minors participating in this Online Service, and I think more should be done to limit the access of non-verified accounts. (like maybe having non-verified accounts unable access mature content at all?... and notice I didn't say "free accounts.. I can tell the difference, can you? -Teleport failed.. sorry, you must have a verified account to visit this area. Click here to get verified! It's free!).

For the most part though, I don't think anything is "out of control". Many things have no controls in place.. but I don't see anything as "ruining SL" at the moment (other than Linden Lab's questionable software development). People take things too seriously sometimes, and this game has a realism to it, that makes people take the ususal forum drama, and online relationship drama, far more seriously than they would otherwise.

Perhaps that's because there's real money involved.
I think it's more because we imagine ourselves to be our avatars (I most certainly do),,, and when bad things happen to our avatars, we feel like those bad things have happened to us.

Hrm I remember it differently.

Way back when I got my first land- you had to request it on the forums and state what you want. Waterfront, mature, ect. I didn't know the difference so I looked around and found a thread where possibly a different Linden (or could be the same you never know with that group) said that you can have naughty pictures inside but not on the outside. That if I remember right it pertained to houses. That they didn't care what you did inside your house as long as no one outside could see or hear.

On another note.. didn't it used to be that you had to click the mature box? I seem to remember someone yelling at me about it when I was a live helper.

Then again, I've always thought it was pretty lame that certain people couldn't even deal with me cursing on my own bloody land.

Thats my issue I dont want any subjective judgments involved.

I want an Objective standard.

If no one can define 100% what nudity is then you basically risk being in violation of the rules.

On many beaches they definie how much cloth a bikini must have, etc.

Basicaily IF 50% of the butt cheeks have to be covered, including the crack , the genitals must be 100% covered including any hair and 50% of the breasts must be covered , including the nipples - then someone come out and say it.

I have a really skimpy suit that covers all my "nughty" bits that im sure I couldnt wear in front of the lindens in a PG zone. I know it but is no way I can find it written down anywhere.

Just Like Winter cant about her picture.

Access according to payment info status is a property any land owner can enforce. It's up to you to do that, basically. And given that LL probably prefer to be seen as a "hands off platform provider" that means as little nannying as possible from them.

So urge fellow land owners to ban NPIOF in any locations that wouldn't be suitable. If enough people do that, then most of SL becomes effectively no-access to unverifieds.

I'm not going to say whether that's a good or a bad thing, but you have the power to do that, and other landowners have the power and right to not do that if they choose (and that's their decision).

IF such a change were to be implemented, I'd want to see such a change implemented grid wide.. not as some form of case-by-case discrimination. If it's Linden Labs making a blanket policy that "unverified accounts can't access 'Mature' content.. I'm okay with that. I'm not okay with 13% of stores banning unverifieds simply because they're unverified.

it may seem like the same thing to you.. but it's not. If this is the only assurance LL can give us that "most of our clients will be adults" then they should do it. But I'm not going to be one shop that bans unverifieds while my competition doesn't. I don't have anything against unverified accounts, and have actively refused to patronize businesses that banned my unverified friends.

BUt that said.. in terms of a "new approach" to the "unverified problem" and the lack of even the most basic of "age verification" attempts by LL.. I would be encouraged by such a move to bar unverivied accounts access, unilaterally, to all mature rated content.. thus increasing the likelyhood that they would become verified. (to an unverified, being "banned" from a parcel due to payment status just looks like a banline, and doesn't give them an incentive to become verified... it just makes them resent the land owner).

In truth.. it's an awkward issue, and I can see both sides of the issue. (no real strong convictions either, aside from the issue with my unverified friends being singled out for banning). I know a lot of people use unverified alts, and not all of them use them for greifing. So having your "undocumented alt" barred from all mature sims.. would be a bit of a drag. I dunno.

Never said I had all the answers.

Someone has to say... a search which returns "peeing vagina" when someone types in "money chair" is not exactly helpful. I have to agree, though, that Sturgeon's Law definitely kicks in when it comes to SL sex entrepreneurs.

Having spent some time in RL directly concerned with verifying that everyone in a sex party was indeed over 18, I have a lot of sympathy for anyone in this situation. I believe the practical upshot, these days, is that of "fair warning". You are expected to announce that you are doing adult things, and you have your own right to privacy. If those under the relevant ages then choose to violate your privacy and ignore instrcutions, you are not responsible for them.

Place a Winnie the Pooh over each nipple, and a Hunny Pot, uhm....you know where.

I thought "Last Tango in Paris " was Brando's nude scene.....

The problem with borrowing the 'PG' standard from the MPAA is that all of the MPAA ratings are meaningless, based upon the arbitrary whim of a panel that reviews each movie, considers studio kickbacks, and then assigns a rating designed to make the most financial impact to the movie in terms of whether the members of the MPAA want the movie to succeed or not.

So the 'PG' standard was doomed from the beginning to be helpful in any way to anyone.

That's why some parents' groups have, quite thoughtfully, resisted attempts to translate the MPAA movie ratings into television content ratings. Instead of relying upon a stranger to decide what is best for a child that the stranger has never met or cares about, parents would rather that the ratings identify the types of content to the parents so that the parents themselves can decide whether they want their children to view the television show.

Of course, all Second Life users are supposed to be adults. None of us require anyone telling us what is appropriate or inappropriate to see. We don't need content filtered out to protect us because we are not of the maturity level to handle it. We are probably all using Second Life without the benefit of parental guidance. For us adults, the issue is not one of whether content is appropriate. The question is simply whether or not we want to be exposed to certain content or not.

For us adults, I think most of us would be better served by a system that, instead of telling us what might be appropriate for a child to view with the benefit of parental guidance, identified specific kinds of content which we could avoid for whatever reason we have to avoid it.

I'm no prude, I like some sexual content, sometimes. I would just like to decide the times at which I access sexual content, and the times at which I don't want to be bombarded with it.

I think, and this is just me, that there is a difference between a picture of a nude woman standing and smiling, and a picture of a woman with her eyes closed and her hand apparently in motion over her genitalia. I would only consider the latter to be sexual.

Maybe that means that content identified with 'nudity' would be okay with me, while content identified as 'sexual' wouldn't be. Maybe someone else would prefer to avoid either. If the content were specifically identified, maybe we could make those choices.

Having been in Colette's shop, there are definitely advertisement pictures with nudity, but I don't think that any of those pictures could be considered in any way sexual.

This is an excellent point.

At no time should we be expected to be KID SAFE.

Until such time that Linden Labs decides to allow teens on the grid.

What we have to be is Prude Safe; Or those who hate nudity Safe; Or Those Christains who missed 'the Song of Soloman' safe; or whatever you want to call it.

Basically PG in SL exists for those who dont wish to have sexual content pushed on them. But they also want it to be about not having to accidently see any too. Okay , whatever.

Most of us dont consider nudity in an of itself offensive. Most dont consider four letter words all that objectionable either. These "minor" Mature things shouldnt be scaring people in a 18+ world.

You may want an objective standard, and it's a reasonable desire, but it will never happen.

Put a skimpy bikini on the model, one that would pass muster in a PG movie, and move on. Or photoshop in a floating banner or whatever, if you prefer -- that saves the trouble of two photo shoots for each product (one PG, one mature).

The image you posted would be considered by a lot of reasonable people to be rather blatantly sexual and inappropriate for teens. Never mind the fact that most of the teens in question would find it tame compared to images they see elsewhere. I thought it was fun, but I'm not easily offended. Face it, though: pasties are an intentional tease to get around just the kind of objective standards you're looking for, and that image does make an impression.

The problem here is that the issue is not an objective one; it's a matter of perception. You're just selling shapes, but of course you want to sell sexy ones. So, you have to walk the line. It would be convenient for you if there were objective standards, but it will never happen, and frankly, an objective standard would easily thwarted and thus not serve the purpose.

I didnt post the image. Winter Did

I was thinking of a lil more cover up than that for nipples.

I think its hypocritical for someone to hold me to a standard they wont give an objective definition.

We should not be expected to make SL teen safe.

Teens arent supposed to be here.

However the CS PG rules state no nudity so Id like a more clear definition of nudity.

My current plan is to take the pictures in Lingerie that could be shown on US TV. Its going to involve taking around 160 screenshots. So Id like to get it right the first time.

I did. It's ironic, because the character in that pic is wearing latex from neck to toe. (note the color variance above and below the collar) The "x's" are only there because the latex over the breasts is translucent, and the nipples still show through a tad. Every "naughty bit" is double covered. The genitals are in fact triple covered.

You want MY opinion on what's acceptable? There's a lingerie dealer (Lingerie by INSOLENCE) who's vendor art really evokes RL lingerie ads. I mean really.. the photography is absolutely stunning. The kinds that RL lingerie mall stores might put in their windows.

But it's only one person's opinion. I certainly don't make the rules.

Decency Quotient =

( # of square inches of fabric / # of meters from the nearest beach )

Times:

The number of primary or secondary reproductive attributes or attachments exposed * the radian arc of viewability of the avatar (TWO_PI for outdoors, 0.0 for completely enclosed in a windowless/closed-door room)

Plus:

1 point per sexually/erotically provocative attachment or article of clothing, group title or blatently suggestive avatar name or other such hovertext attachment or animations of engaging in sexual or evauatory biological functions.

Minus:

1 point for being in a mature sim well away from a PG border
1 point for restricting access to the current parcel
1 point for being above 500m or below 10m

Your score:
-10 to 0 - Candidate for the Mousecateers!
0 to 5 - arguably worksafe enough to be in a PG sim.
5 to 15 - Stick to mature regions
15+ - don't forget to report your earnings to the IRS.

Although obviously you are making a lil joke =)

Its actually better and more well defined than the current Linden Standard

I stand corrected about Winter's post (not yours), and my mention of teens was irrelevant. I stand by my statement that you won't ever get an objective definition, because it's a subjective matter. Ayn Rand would have agreed with you, but she wasn't consulted when they made the rules.

I think if you use a bit of taste and judgement you'll do just fine. I confess I don't quite understand why people buy shapes at all; it's so much more fun to just play with the sliders. But they do, and thus your mutually beneficial business. Capitalism at work and play.

Actually, no, your mention of teens wasnt irrelevant. Extroplate down the road the possible results of "cleaning up" Second Life.

Im aware I wont get an objective standard. That doesnt mean we dont deserve one. These are bannable offenses after all.

Its not about Taste and judgement.
I dont think most of my nude vendors would be considered in bad taste by most people.

Im glad people didnt agree with you about the shape business. Since me selling shapes mod/copy and at low prices kinda kick started a nearly non-existant industry.

Lol, now I have got to have about 200 competitors.