I have had enough

Not going to delve into the discussion, because frankly it's gotten out of hand.

Most child av's are child av's because they want to be. Not a thing to do with sex at all. Should any depiction of an adult having sex with a child be banned. Absolutely.

I have friends who are child av's being bothered by all this. And that bothers me.

I've started a new group. Friends of Loli's. Just to show that I for one don't think that they are the problem here. Free to join.

That's only part of the point, as relates to this discussion.

Add into the mix that Lolita, at age 12, was not a virgin when she first had sex with Humbert, that honour having gone to a boy of about her own age. The book is more subtle than just "irony". Lolita is sufficiently manipulative that Humbert could be seen as a victim himself in certain lights. This may not be a real world situation - it is a plot device intended to split the reader's loyalties. Today, when child abuse is on every tabloid, even with this device in place, a reader will find it hard to sympathise with Humbert in any way. I think that is a pity.

But for the purposes of relating to THIS argument...both the book and film of Lolita are representations of adult:child sexual realtionships. Regardless of who was the instigator of the sex, if the current Linden Labs decision is applied, both the book and the film become illegal (actually, under Linden Labs policy, you could watch them in private, but not advertise the showing).

The description of pedophiles as "sick" I think is a fair one. It is when people take the extra step to describe them as "evil" that I cannot agree. There is no application form you fill in to be a pedophile, no examination you have to pass. You get BORN that way. Given the choice, I guess any pedophile in the world would choose to be turned on by a full breasted, full figured woman instead of by a child...it's just EASIER that way. And whilst I do not want to extend the comparison with homosexuality, the experiments carried out on homosexuals in the 60's and 70's with electroshock therapy and other forms of negative reinforcement prove conclusively that sexuality is FIXED. Pornography doesn't change it. If you ban the internet tomorrow, you won't save one child from being abused. You'll just stop people like you, who don't like to see it, from having to see it. That doesn't mean it disappeared.

Two great quotes that sum this all up for me.

The first tells us why it was banned - other people didn't like it. That's where the slippery slope argument begins and ends. If that is all it takes, then all you need is a majority and a minority. Thank you, and goodnight.

The second encapsulates the whole "anti" argument..."We don't have to provide any evidence, we just have to scare people"

I think Linden Labs should be congratulated. All they have to do is ban flying and teleportation, and they've created THE most realistic simluation of the real world

If anything it is the laws and regulations of several European Union nations that is the cause of the clampdown. I have long thought that the EU has a lot of crazy, dehumanizing and restrictive laws, but in this instance I am ashamed that the EU and Canada take a much sterner and enlightened look at Child Abuse and Pornography issues than we do in the US.

THAT would be so cool. I can see cabs and bus services and airlines springing up over night.

Would definately slow down camping too, if you had to hike from camping spot to camping spot to find open spaces.

Well. Expecting Linden Labs to change societies' values seems a bit unrealistic.

I have no doubt they will ban whatever sensationalist extremes they feel they need to to avoid sweeps weeks "you wont beleive whats going on.." style coverge by Fox news, etc.

If they had , for example, never banned racist displays, this news coverage would have zoomed in on anti Arab rallies or whatever was being held. Or Klan rallies, Neo Nazis.

I doubt any virtual world run by a large company will allow unlimited freedom of content. Linden Labs is trying to become a larger company. Or attract outside investors, business, etc. The larger the company the less the personal freedoms. Does anyone think that Sony platform people mentioned in the other forum will allow half what goes on in Second Life?

A smaller peer to peer virtual world with little central authority? Maybe there will be more absolute freedom in some place like that. Much like small sites on the internet.

Just compare whats shown on Network TV to what you can see on Cable to what you can see on the internet.

The problem with allowing absolute freedom of content - is to allow absolute ability to offend residents, paying investors, people who watch the news, politicians, law enforcement, etc. Unless your virtual world is somehow protected from all these sources - its impossible to allow that.

Not true at all.

If we create a permissive environment that tacitly gives the green light to child molestation, you *bet* we are gonna see more of it.

Ever been to the golden triangle in southeast asia? Away from the big towns where the Thai government sorta keeps a lid on things?

You have no idea what horrors await if you look the other way.

OK, exactly when do the thought Police start telling what one can think...

SL is about "...Imagination coming to life in an alter reality that we build..."

I don't care what you dream up...

As long as it's not in my backyard

I say again...how many times do YOU have to see child pornography before it turns you into a pedophile? Does it REALLY work like that? Or do you have some sort of immunity, so that it only affects everyone ELSE?

Your comment is just inflamatory, its not based in logic.

Someone who was attracted to something would begin to research it on the internet. After enough time they might wish to act it out online. Later they may wish to give in to those urges and try in real life.

When its playing Black Jack - no one asks for proof that playing black jack on the internet leads to RL Black jack playing. Its impossible to quantify. The Urge to play Black Jack must have existed at some level first though.

People with curiousities they feel are wrong - seek acceptance. If that accpetance is readily availible then they begen to operate from a comfort zone.

As I mentioned before a number of people get into BDSM or RL Gor after trying them out online. I know some.

I also know a troubled young woman who felt depressed, began to research others with similar feelings on the internet and began cutting herself since others claimed thats what they did, researched web sites on the acceptance of cutting, and self deluded herself into feeling this was normal behavior. Eventually she would lash out becuase "people didnt understand cutting" Its a snow-ball effect. It does happen. Its hard to quantify though.

There is no way to know how child porn influences a pedophile without the sort of study thats nearly impossible to conduct.

This is turning the whole slippery slope arguement back on those afraid of other things being banned. When someone takes one step into a taboo, then eventually feels some level of comfort, what stops them from taking the next step?

To turn the question around- How many who find no acceptance of their behavior anywhere might stay at the dark fantasy stage and never act on those feelings?

How can you know? You cant.

Is it worth the risk in the name of freedom? Not really. Pedophillic sexual fantasies arent something that need to be tolerated.

Ill go back to what Ospery said - some things people should learn to rise above.

The sexual attraction to images of children being one of them.

The only problem that i have is that Linden Labs should clearly and explicitly state its policy to the community rather than targeted selected sim owners and land owners. This has been a condition that has been allowed to flourish and changing that now is not simply a matter of applying existing policies as though it were always the case that this was prohibited. Clarification needs to take place so that people with child avatars who do not engage in these activities know that their accounts are not at risk. As far as all these discussions of rights, legality and "proving harm," there are many behaviors in communities that are simply not tolerated without explicit laws, some of these are based on compassion and tolerance. After 9/11 many people altered behavior toward jokes, games, and movies given that they were simply not in the mood for certain kinds of entertainments given a climate of grief. Maybe this process is part of a learning curve for any of us who want to participate in a virtual "community." Community in itself doesn't imply that the only rule is that everyone gets to do exactly what they want. For those of you who want to want to argue about rights and legalities and look for scientific proof of harm, I would suggest that you picture and address your arguments to individuals who have experienced the trauma of sexual abuse and who want to prevent it for children. Should they not as well have the right to participate in a virtual world and not be exposed either in search or profiles to content which suggests their experiences are analogous to a game or a joke? At a very minimum, I would think that you would support the spirit of the community standards which have a goal of supporting the "community" by not allowing expressions of hatred or racism toward specific groups. At a very minimum I would think that you would argue that the classification system needs reform, since there is no commonly held use of the term "mature" that includes depictions of child sexual acts, but there should be away in fairness for those who do not want such content do be able to opt out, without excluding them from the other more commonly accepted content that reflects the term mature. All of this is more a matter of consideration rather than inquisition. If a group of people are only devoted to the proposition that "I should be able to do whatever I want" without considering how to address sensitivities and vulnerabilities of its members than there is really not a community.

But what you are lacking is the proof...the proof that the acceptance somone finds is not, in itself, enough. Ageplay on SL is unique in that because there is an adult mind behind the child Avatar, meaning said "child" is far more than a child could ever be in real life. Any attempt at acting that out in real life would be met with screaming, fighting, and general unpleasantness I am sure.

Are there people who would not see that? Quite possibly. But those people are your real life abusers with or without SL - take away the ageplay fantasy from them, and you take it away from all the other people who are logical enough to see where SL ends and RL begins.

This is the problem when you demonise a minority. You picture all child abusers as mindless drooling perverts, enslaved by their unnatural lust. You conveniently ingore a very INconvenient truth, that MOST real child abuse occurs within the home. Most abusers are fathers, uncles and other "responsible" adults who I am sure are torn equally between that lust and crushing, wracking guilt - not necessarily over what they HAVE done, but over what the know they WANT to do.

Give them the SL fantasy, and they have an outlet. You may still punish the real evildoers who cannot draw the line. The problem is, the general public cannot draw the line either.

Delion Leroux meditates, focusing on the inner vibrations resonating throughout his pixels...

I see... I see... A locked thread in the future.

Seriously, there's nothing that will come from debating this. It's like discussing religion or politics. A lot of people will end up mad and not a lot of people will change their opinions.

So please, just let it go

Regardless of opinion, this is probably the single truest post in this thread. I call time here, I shall not post again.

Ok, well, perhaps I will pursue a little literary critcism afterall:

You've done a nice job describing this literary device; however, I disagree with your conclusion that people today find it harder to sympathize with Humbert. In fact, I would argue the opposite. I believe you have glossed right over the biggest irony of all. Nabokov explored a taboo, using a literary device intended to place the reader in the extremely uncomfortable position of sympathizing with a pedophile. The point was to allow the reader to sympathize with Humbert and then become horrified by this sympathy for Humbert.

However, today, the term "Lolita" has been reduced to simply refering to a sexually promiscuous underage girl. Humbert's role as the pedophile has been, essentially, disregarded in common usage. Google search "Lolita." You won't get a bunch of hits talking about subtle narrative devices. You'll get a zillion hits for underage porn. So much for the lack of sympathy for Humbert!

And the way this relates to SL is this: Sexual age players aren't constructing great works of literature with subtle plot devices aimed at getting the reader to be introspective about serious subjects that effect society. No, they're acting out sexual fantasies for their own selfish interest.

I know, I said I wouldn't post, but this isn't arguing for or against, I'm simply pointing something out, which I didn't realise until I read your above post.

Linden labs decision has made things WORSE. they haven't BANNED ageplay, they have simply said "don't advertise it". as you said "there is no commonly held use of the term "mature" that includes depictions of child sexual acts" - but there WAS a term that modified it so that it did - ageplay. If you see "mature" and "ageplay" together, there is only one interpretation. By effectively banning the use of that word, but not ageplay itself, LL have made it MORE difficult for people to avoid ageplay if they choose.

I am sure that all the groups that previously supported ageplay still exist. They will have "mature" in their descriptions, and no indication of what that may cover. Anyone could now stumble into ageplay without warning, whereas before it was quite clear.

I would be against the outlawing of "mature ageplay" altogether - but at least it would be a more rational decision than the half way house that Linden have opted for. Under the current system, you can bet your bottom dollar that it still goes on, and you can bet your last cent that some clown from Fox (or similar) will spend the next slow news day tring to find it.

And this really IS my last post.

Griffin though I largely disagree with your position on this issue, yes there is a logic to your viewpoint, and I see and respect that.

There are some offsite forums that are far more appropriate to discussions like this; perhaps we'll cross paths again offsite.

This being the 'Resident Answers' forum makes true forum discussion kind of difficult, because if we aren't answering a resident question we really have exceeded what we are allowed to talk about here.

Active sites I'm aware of include sluniverse.com and secondcitizen.com.

I think I'm done with this issue myself; I've pretty much said my piece too.

In response to the last post, I'm sorry but I think that your wrong...the term ageplay is ambiguous....If it weren't there would be no problem with the current state of affairs. the only fair way to approach this is what they have done...through language...
language that describes...advocates..advertizes..... It would be impossible and unfair to assess by an avatar's appearance. The point is not to eradicate these kinds of behaviors...only not to give them sanction and publicity. If some still choose to participate in them...they will be subject to the complaint process if those activities are not absolutely private. There's a lot that I don't like that happens in Second Life....but I don't care what people do....and I'm not on a campaign to eliminate everything I don't like...but I draw the line here. I'm all for protecting the rights of the minorities.....but what about the minority..who have experienced sexual abuse...or work with those that have....that don't want to participate in this content or see it advertised....are you just going to tell them to go away?
In taking these steps Second Life is simply joining what most communities consider the norm.

I think there a couple of distinctions I'd like to make about my own viewpoint on this matter. First, I do NOT equate pedophilia and hebophilia (a.k.a. ephebophilia). They are two distinct things, and hebophilia is not classified as serious a disorder as is pedophilia by the APA. In short, I have much less problem with people who want to roleplay being teenagers and being sexually active than I do with people who want to play prepubescent children for the purposes of sexual activity. (Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to both, but I find pedophilia to be the more objectionable of the two.)

I would also like to point out that if two consenting adults want to roleplay a sexual scenario where either or both are playing children (or teens), fine. Put on your diapers and have at it. But the problem is that in SL, you don't see adult avs roleplaying children--you see CHILDREN, whereas in RL roleplay you see two ADULTS pretending to be children. And THAT is the reason LL has taken on ageplay as an issue. Without age verification, there is no way to tell whether a claim that one is a child in a profile is roleplay or a statement of real life truth. Yes, that could be easily resolved with age verification, but we don't have it--pragmatics wins over theory every time.

As for arguments that what two adults do in private is their own business, I absolutely agree. So have fun in private. But make it public, either in a public forum, classified ad, profile, giant rotating advertisements over your club, or so forth, it's not protected--not by LL, not by the constitution, and not by the SL community.

Property and intellectual rights extend in TWO directions. I have a right to think and believe what I want, but I do not have the right to impose exposure to certain of those beliefs on anyone. Whether or not a person has the right to plaster walls with pictures of nubile young girls is immaterial--a neighbor's right to sit on the porch and not have to see rotating signs advertising Lolita Escorts is equally valid. And to people who would say, "Then don't look," I say "then go to your next city council meeting and get the law that keeps an adult bookshop from opening up next to a grade school repealled." It won't happen, because civilization depends on commonweal, not individual rights--and the rights of the masses to protect themselves against things commonly held to be objectionable is and always has been absolute.

So to all those age players who think they have a right to advertise their sexual activities, let me suggest this: If this is all okay, start your own grid. Stop asking LL to cover your rights and take control of them yourself. Stop asking the community to do accept something it clearly won't, and build a place where acceptance is a given. And most importantly, stop asking LL employees to wait for the Feds to show up at THEIR doorstep with the warrants--assume responsibility for your issues, your lifestyle, your roleplay choices, and stop trying to make the rest of us share responsibility for something we find objectionable and morally blighted.

Kam

I think Pablo and Kamael have summed up this thread very nicely in their two posts above. I agree. I think, basically, we all agree. And importantly, so does LL, which has made it clear now that such public display is prohibited.

LL has also said that it is working on an effective means of age verification. I think that is the most important issue to deal with now: Get the kids out of the adult grid.

Well alot of large words and a twisty phases don`t really prove anything. Only that you can twist and mold any situation to suit your purpose.....



Ok then its ok to do things that are in real life tacky and unlawful In RL like age play is a sexual way it ok? Wel I sure glade i am not your child ( sure HOPE your not a parent )........ Who knows how you are in role playing......sadning




Why are you doing a switch now? make up your mind?

What is worse then ageplay breastitly? Oh you might like that too right?



Child abusers SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED MY LAW They know how to get around LAw and are at times the most trusted people in any commuity? Your fence sitting.. give it a break....

"tell them to go away?! "
Well No but monitoring and taking action about Ageplay is a step in the right direction.....



Well We are a VR life right? .well yes

If they did what you said we would have worse problems with those issue due to the fact of less control and even more abusive players.....


Overall..........Nice two side stand here nor are you for it and do seem to support it. Nice fence sitting........For some reason why don`t i believe the wrtter of this remark.....

You might get a B- for Comm 101 class content and information.......But for Research you get a D.......

Usagi

I'm tempted to have a final word on this..(not the final word, but the final word from me) l 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

lol unless your a secret closet moderator your gonna have a hard time making any final word speeches.

final word as in now I shut up not I get the final word

Regardless of my own personal opinions about ageplay, which I won't state here as this subject has been thoroughly debated, what I DON'T understand is how a babyfur can be regarded as a child avatar? I would imagine the depiction of sexual acts involving children in SL would have to include avatars who looked like children? Children are human last I heard.