*scratches her head a little* Why does everyone care all of a sudden?

Uumm.... Wait, what?

No, paedophilia does not break or scar the child; nor are they defenceless. The damage to the child is done by people like you, who wish to cast it out after it has been the subject of abuse.

And if you feel that the ludicrous, busted-marionette show that passes for sex play on SL is somehow inducive to real life behaviour, then what does that say about the combat sims? Somehow, magically, swordplay with a katana is good and harmless, but sex has a separate and irresistable influence? Bzzzzzt: next contestant!

(oh, and there's some oddities to the situation which your grandstanding has obscured. For one thing, in RL the whole power-dynamic of kiddy sex is that one participant, generally doesn't really understand what's happening. That's the big draw for the perp - being unsuccessful with other adults, they go looking for people who won't disagree with them, or know what they are going after.

This is very definitely not the case with a kiddy-sex encounter in SL: inherently, both parties have to know what they are doing - namely, to play roles as child and adult. it's still sick - but when you stamp it out, you are not protecting an actual child. To understand what's happening in the SL ageplay situation, and the public ageplay situation as icing on that cake, you have to acknowledge that it's a game, and it's being driven by real people. Using it as a direct map for what you want to say about RL abuse isn't going to solve the problems this raises).

What the heck are you talking about? The child avs I have ARed have a long history of cavorting in pedo areas like the corner of nemo sim. It is when they come up to me in a public sandbox that is pg and ask me to build them something for free even that aids them in their sick urges. 2nd it does not make me mad and ARing only takes second, and I dont even tell them I do it. so is not the standard griefer fare, who do things for the reaction

Yeah, and what about the serial killers who shoot each other in combat sims? Who invited or welcomed them here?

Seriously, it's not about welcoming anyone. It's about tolerance. Even if we dislike things, we can't judge them as long as they don't do any harm to anyone and aren't forced on anyone. If the wife of your neighbour dresses up as a schoolgirl in their own bedroom, or if her husband wears diapers, it's no one's business but their own. Even if they place an ad in a magazine and invite others to join them for a threesome, and you happen to read this ad, there's nothing you could do against those adult roleplayers.

Would it be so hard to say "No" or even "Leave me alone" if someone asks you to build something for them? What exactly was the offense that they needed to be AR'ed for, from your perspective? What kind of harm did they do to you?

Of course they're going to go to a sandbox to ask someone to build something. That doesn't mean you should AR them just because you feel that they are objectionable. They don't know that you disagree with their beliefs. They, honestly, haven't done anything wrong to you, unless you consider asking for help something wrong.

The following are the relevant footnotes to comments found here -

http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm

W. L. Marshall, "The Use of Sexually Explicit Stimuli by Rapists, Child Molesters, and Nonoffenders," The Journal of Sex Research 25, no.2 (May 198: 267-88.
ii See H.J. Eysenck, "Robustness of Experimental Support for the General Theory of Desensitization," in Neil M. Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein, eds., Pornography and Sexual Aggression (Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 1984), 314. D. Zillmann, "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography," in Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations, eds. D. Zillman and J. Bryant (Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1989), 129.

And here is a link supporting my claim that pedophilia is a sickness -

http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=zzzuzruzglc&sub_cat=355

And a further, perhaps more telling article from WebMD -

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/explaining-pedophilia

My final lines in the original post were intended as a conclusion, in a very rhetorical sense. However, I'd be open to any challenge that defending children against pedophiles would be contrary to the children's best interests.

Since I haven't seen anyone poke a hole in the logical progression of my argument, I'll make the assumption its sound. You're still free to challenge it, if you think it fits any fallacious categories.

So...having hopefully met the "burden of proof" by supplying what I feel are ample evidenciary links, have at it.

Thanks for casting such a wonderful light on my character as a human being. If you would have only read the entirety of my post, instead of responding like some knee-jerk witch-hunter, you might actually learn a thing or two.

And if you think I'm being harsh, then pardon me. I actually take the time to place what I read in context before firing off a reply that's as patently insulting as that.

That question, together with that name choice, has to be one of my top five "chill down the spine" moments... thanks for that, it's a classic.

I think there's a split here which some people are rampantly abusing: on the one hand, there are child avs playing with or in adult poses. This is (I think we can all agree) just part of the game and a pretty daft thing to be doing; the equivalent of that stupid guy in the UK who went on a muslim rights march dressed up as a suicide bomber, complete with fake explosives round his chest, and got all uppity when he was arrested.

This is daft; it's hardly convincing, it's just the same as a Chris Rock comedy routine full of naughty words and concepts - it jumps up and down on people's ideas of manners and politeness, but it ain't what it portrays.

The other part of the split is people using SL as a hidden method of exchanging real pictures of real acts: a bunch of high-energy righteous anger is being triggered by this issue. People who don't really stop for subtleies are creaking out of the woodwork, motivated by this, and they assume that defenders of the daft comedy-capers puppet show stuff, are also defending the picture swappers.

So what if the smartypants libertarians are mistaken about what's under attack, and the rednecks are mistaken about what needs attacking? Doesn't that split need attending to, before we get all riled up?

The first link is about children looking at pornography and has little to do with the topic at hand.

The second link says the following:
"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior."

The nuetrality of the second link is disputable. Also -- it mentions how "adults that have sex with children [...]." and nothing about "Adult that fantasize about having sex with children [...]"

The third link seems a bit more credible, but doesn't really have any information to back up your claim.

aditionally heres something i found interesting:

"Homosexuality was, in fact, listed as a mental illness in psychiatry's main reference book, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, until the third edition came out in 1980."

Note now that homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by most people. Just because something is NOW listed as a mental illness doesn't -make- it one.

Probably the Disney People..or that Congressman that's setting up shop.

Good, I'm glad you feel insulted, as that was in part my intent. If you had spent any time at all talking to professionals in the field of abuse recovery, or dealt with any groups which make recovery for these "poor defenceless people" possible (as children, or as adults) then maybe you wouldn't come across sounding quite so foolish and unthinking. The circumstances of RL abuse simply don't match the fantasies of abuse vigilantes like you - however, you are only too happy to destroy the lives of the abused (note: not the abuser) with your fake and fundamentally vicariously self-serving declarations. In fact, it's your puffed-up buffonlike brutality which encourages abuse victims NOT to report their abusers... but I know you won't read that bit either.

Still, I'm sure that some more ill-controlled anger in the mix will help you to ignore what's being said to you; after all, it's so much more important for you to be The Guy In The Right, than it is to actually ever fix anything.

No "pseudopedophilia" (is that a real word?) does not harm me directly if performed across the grid from me........not even if it's next door to me. It's just pixels "dancing" across my (or someone elses) monitor. Pretty easy to say..........common sense, in fact (again).

However "pseudopedophilia" perfomed anywhere within Second Life DOES harm the community...........which, of course does include you and me. Let's give a little real life example to clarify: Gang violence in South Los Angeles and East Los Angeles (I happen to live in the Los Angeles area) does not harm me or my loved ones directly. I'm not involved so I don't hear the gun shots, screams of the wounded (both innocent and not innocent) or the horror of knowing the unfortunate. But, it does harm my community........harms it greatly. Your argument can be shot down just as easily as you seem to shoot down others' arguments.

You cannot tell me and back it up with any facts at all that depictions of pedophilia (that new word you sprang on me......."pseudopedophilia" does not harm real life children. People with fantasies of child sex do have serious problems. Allowing them a "safe haven" to act out their fantasies so they can "get relief" is total misinformation.....on your part. Your contention that it harms no one is nonsense (approaching BS). You have nothing to back it up at all...........just examples that fit your opinions. Many can come up examples to fit the other side of that claim. However, you seem to take delight in rapping the knuckles to keep them in line. Who elected you as forum expert on this subject? What are your expert creditials? I've seen no evidence that you know anymore about this subject than anyone else.

Why won't you let the discussion take it's course......you afraid someone might have something just as "factual" as you? Believe me, your "facts" (opinions) are just as full of holes as many you have scolded so far.

Nope. What the person who lives in the UK is saying (I was merely trying to support the part of their statement you missed) is that by allowing these images in SL then they could inadvertantly view such images and become party to a crime at that exact moment. Sure the probability of them getting arrested for this are slim to none, barring a bizarre set of circumstances, but they are saying they should not have to worry that their use of SL makes them party to this sort of crime. The fact this imagery can be retained on their harddrive is what makes them party to this crime, and harddrive scanning is how law enforcement collects such evidence. I never said anything about government monitoring, quit reaching for the grandiose...

The first link is merely to the page. The footnoted references are from clinical studies of rapists and child molesters, and refer to the impact of viewing pornography on their urge to commit sex crimes.

As for the rest of your evidentiary disputes, simply refer back to the information about desensitzation.

For a refutation to be valid, show me something that counters what I've given you...specifically something that says "viewing online porn is harmless".

Since pedophilia is widely accepted as a mental disease (something you may cast aspersions on, but again offer no evidenciary refutation of your own), then its aberration is obviously something to be guarded against.

As for earlier arguments that the "broken child" is not the result of pedophila, I am simply stunned. That implies that the sexual molestation of a child is harmless? I'd really like to see someone defend THAT position.

And as far as the "broken child" arguments relavance is concerned, it remains very much so. If the chain of reasoning for my overall argument remains intact, allowing pedophiles access to such "virtual molestation" will only fuel their desire for a real life encounter. And the end result of that...is very tragic indeed.

If you want to make statements that pornography has little or no impact on the commission of child sex crimes...feel free. But as was demanded of me...show your proof.

Maybe you noticed the online counter. People are leaving already, mostly towards Socilitron (sp?).

And no people = no customers = no interest from companies.

How do you know where they are going to?

Gummi...the part of the post you missed was the one saying I'd act as devil's advocate.
But, since the only thing you seem capable of doing is continuing to insult both my character and intent, then it seems quite obvious you've missed the bloody point that I'm on your side.

And if you'd taken the time to visit any of the rest of my postings anywhere else on this forum, you'd find me to be one of the most ardent defenders of adult roleplay on SL.

WOOAHHH woah...

You're likening SL ageplay to... RL GANG VIOLENCE? O.o

You didn't even give an example! you made a gigantic jump. You never said HOW gang violence in LA affects your community, you just said that it does.

If you want to make a good example out of that, you should start by comparing the community in RL to the community in SL. I, for one, feel that they are different. Since people aren't dependent on other people in SL, things you do rarely affect your neighbor or your neighbors land.

Additionally, you must supply a valid argument. Don't take an example from RL and use it to back up a claim about SL. If there was ever such thing as gang violence on the grid that affects you, then it could be used to back up a claim.

i will go back and read everyone's posts in a moment, out of curiousity.

i defined sexual ageplay for people in real life and told then it was being banned in Second Life. Then i asked then what they thought about it. The first question they asked is whether real life child porn was involved. I said no of course not. The second question they asked was are any real life children in Second Life participating in sexual ageplay. I said no of course not.

Then they started laughing.

Well if everyone in my real life doesnt see a problem with sexual ageplay then i dont see why i should question it either. I mean they dont even play Second Life. Id say they are more objective about what is real and what isnt.

And curiously, they all said the same thing. Sounds like harmless roleplay to them and if any actual pedos are participating in it then thats even better . . one less pedo on the street abusing a child. At least this way they have an outlet. Well thats what everyone in the real world is saying to me about it. And that sounds about right to me.

I personally dont think sexual ageplay is even a real form of pedo because its actually a form of bdsm. Go look up the term Daddy dom and you will know what i mean. Those men have no interest in real life children. They are pervs who love dominating women. Well good for them. And why not? Kinky sex is fun.

It really does make me laugh tho how the bdsm community in sl was kinda quiet when people started going after ageplay, trying to distance themselves from it. Even tho ageplay is BDSM. and now suddenly everyone is worked up when they come after the rest of the community too. Kinda ironic dont you think?

Cause I know alot of people, and words are spreading. Not all go there, but the fractions I know are on the move. I don't claim it being the whole part of the SL people to talk for - just a huge bunch, and everyone knows other people and so on.

Been to Sociolotron. A 2D world with crap graphics, truly run by the majority-- a huge gang with zero morals who don't care who they step on to get to the next "big level up". (trust me, it's a lot less pretty there than even the most heated debate or argument ever was, or ever will be, here).

Could be somewhere else, or it could also be that the summer's nearly here & people are taking time off and actually *GASP* going outside.

What you have supplied was far from proof. Sure, it's all statement from authority, but that doesn't make it true, nor does it make it "proof."

I"m still waiting for your proof, Sophia.

Guess it isn't coming..........so I'll just read on and chuckle.

Wait you mean there are jobs as pages? I thought the only options were camping or being a stripper.