Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Aard Andel

age play

Recommended Posts

Just curious ... why is LL so fixated on preventing (virtual) "age play" when it allows so many other (virtual) illegal activities, many of which are worse, e.g. rape, incest, bestiality, torture, snuff, etc.?

Romeo and Juliet would be banned in SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of the child pornography laws in the United States.  I'm also pretty sure an episode concerning child pornography being preformed in Second Life by some German couple (or group) some 5 or 6 years ago.  Linden Lab is a private company and they can dictate what is and is not permissible in SL.  The could forbid blondes in SL if they chose to.  Some of the things you listed, in my opinion, should be outlawed but they are not.......it's my choice to stay because I can avoid that activity (if I could not then I'd have been gone a long long time ago).

I applaud LL for their stance on age play.........a line has to be drawn somewhere and when it comes to children I'm 100% behind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they really started to crack down on ageplay when it became mainstream media. Germans really raised a big stink about it I guess and it hit the media and brought bad vibes for LL.

I would imagine if anyone raised a big enough stink about the other aspects, the same thing could happen

I am glad they do take a firm stance on it as well

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in other words you're saying they have no morals, they are just playing the odds. But in my opinion those other things are way worse. Let's face it, teenagers are interested in sex just like the rest of us, it doesn't have to be exploitive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst part is that its turned into height discrimination against those of us who refuse to accept the SL standard that a normal adult is over 6 feet tall. Meanwhile the age players are still having their fun behind closed doors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call if morals or whatever you choose.  If LL ignored the potential of huge lawsuits and got sued to the point of bankruptcy, then would you say they were "stupid"?  It's business.   There is not huge outrage for beastality (not to mention that it's impossible for an animal have an account in SL), role playing rape (that's actually not an unusual adult female fantasy), torture (BDSM is really a pretty big real life fetish), and snuff is killing someone.......ever visit WoW? 

If sexual age play is a problem for you along with other "moral issues" then you have a choice.  Avoid those activities or leave SL (that was my choice years ago when I first came into SL...........I chose to stay and avoid).  It you are trying to find fault with LL's stance on sexual age play, you'll loose.........I'm sure LL won't miss you.

I'm putting "sexual" in front of "age play" for a reason.  Age play, in itself, is not forbidden.......it's sexual age play that will get you perma-banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The height thing is a crock, by the way. There is nothing inthe TOS to dictate how tall you have to be to get into an adult establishment, it's done by owners who are scared s***less of LL and impose it of their own account.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My avatar (both my main and my alt) are just at 5' 2" tall (measued against a prim)..........I've never been harrassed or discriminated against.  Not in the over 6 1/2 years I've been in SL.......not once!!  I do get comments, sometimes, saying something along the lines of "Gee, Peggy, you're short".  That's not harrassment nor is it discrimination.  It's like someone saying "Hey Peggy, your dress is blue".  A statement of fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, Peggy,  it's ok with you if I RP an 18-year-old being raped by my father, or my transsexual grandmother, or the family dog, but I can't RP 16-year-old Juliet having a romantic affair with a 17-year-old Romeo. Way to go, lady, you're really defending us against vice, aren't you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are about 100 miles out of line with that comment, Aard. Nobody was 'defending' anything. You asked a question. It got answered: there was a good reason to believe that sexual age-play in Second Life would result in legal action against residents and Linden Lab. End of story.

 

ETA: If LL were based in the UK your Romeo/Juliet story would, one assumes, be fine: age of consent there is 16. We all hear about how it was much younger in Elizabethan times and it was, but it didn't end then. The age of consent in Britain was 12 until 1875, when it was raised to 13. The current limit was set 10 years later. In some European countries it is still as low as 13. Because (no doubt) of the legacy of those Plymouth Rock people we in the US get slightly horrified at the idea of sex with someone under 18. In truth we're probably at the high end of that scale; presumably the original ages were based on the onset of Menses and that typically happens much younger.

 

also to remove an 's' which hopefully nobody noticed. I knew better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I get the picture. Rape, torture, bestiality snuff, dolcett etc. are all okay until someone threatens to sue, then it's a business decision, not a moral one. Meanwhile, my 100-year-old grandma can be banned from an adult sim for having an avatar less than five feet two, eyes of blue, or banned from SL altogether if she mentions the dreaded word "sex." It all makes perfect sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think a matter of "all okay until someone threatens to sue."  It's more a matter of "all ok until the legislators in the USA or a jurisdiction where LL have a lot of customers make virtual representations of it illegal," because then, at the very least, LL finds itself in danger of criminal prosecution and, quite possibly, pressure being brought on ISPs in various countries to block SL altogether.

And of course businesses take business decisions.   What on earth do you expect them to take?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One gets the distinct impression that your "moral outrage" has less to do with the fact that virtual rape, incest, bestiality, torture, snuff, dolcett, etc. are allowed than the fact that sexual ageplay is not (aided by a quick glance at your profile).

If you expect many tears to be shed over that, I think you're looking in the wrong place.

Nice Real World Profile Picture, btw. I thought those were supposed to be G-rated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aard Andel wrote:

in other words you're saying they have no morals, they are just playing the odds

 

no they playing the legalities. is an actual crime in some rl jurisdictions. is also a crime in some of those jurisdictions to facilitate it. nobody at linden is going to volunteer to go jail just bc someone else thinks is more or less moral

also the worser crime argument never impresses a rl judge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aard Andel wrote:

Moral decisions? Is that too much to ask?

Why do I need a business to take moral decisions for me?  I'm perfectly capable of doing that for myself, thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, nice ad hominem argument against me personally. Too bad it conflicts with your J. S. Mill quote. Now can we get back to the question?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LL's policy is in keeping with the U.S. Federal statute/law that outlaws all depictions of "sexual age play" a.k.a. child porn.  The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the definition.

LL's policy is here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Clarification_of_policy_disallowing_ageplay

The Federal Statute "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children" is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A

More information is here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States  Specifically the sections: 

  • 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
  • Section 2252A
  • Further Developments



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...