Nudity vs child av's

[Melita Magic]

I agree solstyce's post was excellent - and comprehensive. Too bad its reasoning was lost on you.

Orca said: " It does apply if you refuse to make a distinction between your face and your breasts. A distinction artificically imposed on us by sinister powerhungry males, long time ago. Men are too  weak to control themselves so they rather cover up the women. It's a very old scheme and it's about time to break free from it. "

"Breaking free from it" is a very old scheme, too. Nothing new, or daring about it. See: The bra burnings of the 1960s, any nude beach when it first opened, or the recent "going topless" surprise parades here and there (in an apparent attempt to subvert the 'silly law.') What you will see in all cases is not men disapproving but men ogling the participants.

You can't bend other people's thoughts simply by acting as if those thoughts do not exist. Walking around topless won't make men think that breasts are not sexual. It won't make some, most, whatever amount of, parents think that you shouldn't be exposing their child to that. 

I find anyone who honestly can't see why women can't walk around topless in real life, or can't see any reason for other people's preferences to also be honored in SL, (or any place) to be disingenuous. 

 

[Phil Deakins]

Sorry, Perrie, but I can't resist

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

I will not apologize for the fact that Evolution, as he/she/it

progressed the human male from our Neanderthal state

to what we are today, did not choose to remove from us the genetic material that causes us to become aroused by the sight of a female breast.

And while when I was a teenager

I may have ejaculated

more than I urinated, as I have grown older that has reversed itself so I think as scientists refer to the sexual function of breasts as secondary, so has sex become a secondary function for my male member.

---

Neanderthals died out a very long time ago and, although there is or has been some research to determine whether or not anything of the Neanderthals exists in any of us, we are an entirely different species of homo erectus.

I tickled me when I read an old book - early 20th or late 19th century, I think - when a chap ran into the room ejaculating, closely followed by his wife. The image of that made me laugh. Some words have come to mean spomething quite different over time, and that's one of them. So what were you doing as a teenager? Blurting things out (vocally) or what?

[Phil Deakins]

I haven't read every word in this thread but I've read a fair amount and I have a few thoughts on some things that have been said.

1. No part of the human body is obscene - ever - anywhere in the world.

2. Being topless is normal/allowed/legal on any beach in many parts of the world, and I mean females.

3. Females being topless in public is legal in New York, and probably in other parts of the U.S. too.

4. Being naked in public in England is legal - men and women.

5. If the SL ToS prohibits females being topless in G rated sims, then there is no argument, and it is foolish to argue about it. The only possible argument is whether or not the ToS allows or disallows it. Any other argument is irrelevant. Opinions about what should or should not be are different, but they are only opinions and they change nothing. In SL, the ToS is the only thing that counts.

[Melita Magic]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

Neanderthals died out a very long time ago and, although there is or has been some research to determine whether or not anything of the Neanderthals exists in any of us, we are an entirely different species of homo erectus.

 

---

A family member took the new DNA test from National Geographic. Among other things, they claim to have in their database, samples of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA. So, they claim they can tell participants which, if any is included in their own DNA, and how much if so. 

My family member had a small percentage of both.

I am still not sure what that signifies, other than the person is human.

[Phil Deakins]

I'm never sure about it but aren't humans and neanderthals different species, or is it homo sapiens and neanderthals? Either way, neanderthals are a species to us.

The idea that neanderthals didn't die out but merged with the others has been put forward, which is why they look for signs of neanderthals in us.

I've never heard of Denisovans.

ETA: A quick scan of the Google search results indicates that we are humans and neanderthals are not

ETA (again): I looked up Densiovans and it seems that all we have is a finger bone and 2 teeth. That's all the known evidence for their existance. So I'm up to date now

[Melita Magic]

Hmm. I'm not sure if I can quote it (ETA: or if it is proprietary) - the text was included in the results pages, and doesn't seem to be on the publicly accessible areas about the DNA test kit. (Anyone can get one by the way, if they have a spare 200 USD; on National Geographic's website.) 

(Hope that was not spam - hehe.)

I found the results (ETA: of my relative, who did one - my idea btw), interesting so I got myself a kit for an early Christmas gift this year. It's sitting unopened, so far. (Those tests are a pain to take. Literally.)

But according to Nat Geo, who make it sound more exciting, Neanderthals are our ancestors, and "left Africa about 300,000 years ago." The Denisovans are "a much more recent addition to the human family tree." They then go into different theories, in a somewhat muddled way, of when Denisovans came about. Sounds like when Neandies left Africa they took a left and other Neandies took a right and "became Denisovans." 

Since my relative has both I'm assuming that they are claiming that means being a descendant of the right turn branch.

It then says Neanderthals and Denisovans came from a group they call H. heidelbergensis. It also says that looong word group (not the Jack Kerouacs among them, but, those left behind moping) had become Homo sapiens "by 130,000 years ago" and did not begin to leave Africa "until about 60,000 years ago." So here we have three groups from the original H. whatsis group: Neanderthal, then Denisovan, and lastly, Homo sapiens, the stragglers.

So I'm unsure how someone could be all three (ETA: Neanderthal, Denisovan, and Homo sapiens - which are all H. heidel-de-blabla) unless all three groups somehow met up within the past of a given person's specific family history. Which must've happened in my relative's case. Since all three groups eventually migrated into Europe, not surprising.

It was a bit like reading TOS to be honest. And also like TOS I still haven't read it all. Lol

And it was a bit like wiping a car windshield with a muddy rag, trying to deciper and synopsize all they had written. Lol

 

[Phil Deakins]

It's all a bit muddy - not just the windscreen

In your post, you said that neanderthals are our ancestors and left Africa about 300,000 years ago. Later you said that homo sapiens began to leave Africa about 60,000 years ago. It seems that both can't be true because we are homo sapiens -  I think My understanding (from TV documentaries) is that neanderthals were already in Europe when humans (we) arrived from Africa.

I was born soon after that and I can tell you that a guy had to be really desperate to fancy a neanderthal woman, but it could have happened, and the DNAs could have been mixed.

The actual existance of Denisovans (thought to be in the eastern lands) may be a bit debateable. The evidence for them is only one bone from a finger and 2 teeth. It could turn out to be a red herring.

Your relative, who has all 3 DNAs might be decended from Marco Polo. He was from Italy (neanderthal and humans) and spent some years in the east (denisovans). Does s/he have a tendancy to occasionally and unintentionally lapse into speaking mandarin?

[Melita Magic]

LOL!

I realized after I reread my post that I had badly worded the bit about when some of them left Africa. So I was rewriting it, probably during the time you were writing your reply. Hope it is a bit clearer now. Tried to splash a bit more water on the windshield. Still a muddy rag, though, as far as my own understanding goes.

For one thing, I agree with you that a piece of a finger bone and an old tooth aren't much to build a worldview upon. I've never been sure we evolved from apes for that reason, either. Because a bone was in the location of later humans, means they are related? What if in fact that's just an ape bone. Sometimes a molar is just a molar.

I don't know. It's all Watson and Crick to me.

I also agree the Denisovans were not a pretty people. Suffice it to say I left out the photographs when sending on the results. (They actually did a forensic clay version complete with wig. Let's just say there probably won't be any blowup doll versions of it any time soon.)

Come to think of it my relative does shout Marco Polo while swimming at times, and is fond of Mandarin oranges.

I could have saved $200!

[Phil Deakins]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

Come to think of it my relative does shout Marco Polo while swimming at times,

and is fond of Mandarin oranges

.

---

Well there you have it. Cast iron proof. It cannot be mere coincidence. And if your relative actually plays polo, either in the swimming pool or on horse back, or eats Polo sweets (round mints with a hole in the middle), it would be even more proof that s/he's a hybrid - not a proper person like wot we are. (Don't tell her that I said that. Those neanderthal women make the Incredible Hulk look like an old softie!)

I hope you'll post the results of your test when you get them back. And if you turn out to be part neanderthal, ignore what I said in the first paragraph - I was drunk and didn't know what I was saying - and my cat made me write it by clawing me until I done it. Also, it wasn't me. I was fast alseep in bed when someone broke into my house and wrote this post. So it wasn't my fault at all.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Sorry, Perrie, but I can't resist

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

I will not apologize for the fact that Evolution, as he/she/it

progressed the human male from our Neanderthal state

...

---

Neanderthals died out a very long time ago and, ...

---

Nudity vs child av's

 

 

:smileywink:  :matte-motes-big-grin:  :heart:

 

[Edit]

I've been waiting a long time for a chance to use that sign what I found. :smileyvery-happy:

[Phil Deakins]

I just couldn't resist it, Coby :smileyfrustrated:

Anyway, it did provide you with what you wanted, so it wasn't all bad

[161488303349]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Sorry, Perrie, but I can't resist

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

I will not apologize for the fact that Evolution, as he/she/it

progressed the human male from our Neanderthal state

...

---

Neanderthals died out a very long time ago and, ...

---

Nudity vs child av's

 

 

:smileywink:  :matte-motes-big-grin:  :heart:

 

[Edit]

I've been waiting a long time for a chance to use that sign what I found.

:smileyvery-happy:

---

 

neanderthals were naked under their bearskins

is why they died out apparently. they itched themselves into extinction I think

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

1. No part of the human body is obscene - ever - anywhere in the world.

...

5. ... In SL, the ToS is the only thing that counts.

---

Indeed, I find it very odd when I see statements like "indecent exposure" in reference to a nude body.  When did it became indecent?  When a baby is born they know nothing about their body being indecent.  Even the parents can look at the baby's nude body and they see nothing indecent about it.  Not in any part.  They see only cuteness.

When the baby grows older, at some stage - depending on the culture - the parents start to teach the baby that it's not all right to go about without clothes.  Thus the indecency of nude body is gradually instilled on the baby's mind.  It must be covered, there is something (wrong?) what must be hidden from public view.

If the baby was raised up by apes, or by some culture which goes always without clothes, the baby would have never learned about the indecency of the nude body.  The nude body would then be the most natural thing, nothing indecent about it.

So the indecency of a nude body is a learned thing, from parents, from culture.  How did humans develop such an idea in the first place?  Hmm... maybe it happened like this: people moved to colder climates, it was necessary to wear clothes to keep warm.  After a while, as wearing clothes was a common thing, people got alienated from seeing nude bodies.  Nude body became something secret, the idea evolved gradually that it was "indecent" to show nude body to others.  Then there is the story about the "forbidden fruit" thing which is used by many supporting the idea that nudeness is something to be ashamed of and thus that indecency must be hidden under clothes.

 

I agree that in SL the TOS is the law which should be obeyed in SL.  Even if we might not agree to all parts of it in our hearts.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

California has the same law...

on a side note, i find it very very funny that these same women who are screaming for "equal right" and "to be treated just like men" get bent when guys and women alike take pictures of your naked chest. Did you really think sexual beings wouldn't want to take pictures? How is that any different from women taking pictures of the well defined male college students at my local beach?

I have no issue with public nudity in any form, as long as its legal. Currently in SL public nudity must be kept off of G rated sims.. end.. of... story..

 

[Shelby Silverspar]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Orca Flotta wrote:

.

You got me wrong here. The male reproductive organ is sexual and it would be against RL laws and SL TOS to swing it around in the open. My boobs on the other hand aren't.

---

So are you telling us that having your boobs touched, kissed, fondled, etc, adds no enhancement to your sexual experiences?

---

But even without breasts, a woman can have sexual experiences. And breast do serve another function as well, where whereas the male dodad, not so much.

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Shelby Silverspar wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Orca Flotta wrote:

.

You got me wrong here. The male reproductive organ is sexual and it would be against RL laws and SL TOS to swing it around in the open. My boobs on the other hand aren't.

---

So are you telling us that having your boobs touched, kissed, fondled, etc, adds no enhancement to your sexual experiences?

---

But even without breasts, a woman can have sexual experiences. And breast do serve another function as well, where whereas the male dodad, not so much.

 

---

Well, it stops us from breaking our nose when we run into a wall.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Shelby Silverspar wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Orca Flotta wrote:

.

You got me wrong here. The male reproductive organ is sexual and it would be against RL laws and SL TOS to swing it around in the open. My boobs on the other hand aren't.

---

So are you telling us that having your boobs touched, kissed, fondled, etc, adds no enhancement to your sexual experiences?

---

But even without breasts, a woman can have sexual experiences. And breast do serve another function as well, where whereas the male dodad, not so much.

 

---

i could have sworn i use mine to pee... and as a kick stand when sleeping.:matte-motes-big-grin:

[Perrie Juran]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Shelby Silverspar wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Orca Flotta wrote:

.

You got me wrong here. The male reproductive organ is sexual and it would be against RL laws and SL TOS to swing it around in the open. My boobs on the other hand aren't.

---

So are you telling us that having your boobs touched, kissed, fondled, etc, adds no enhancement to your sexual experiences?

---

But even without breasts, a woman can have sexual experiences. And breast do serve another function as well, where whereas the male dodad, not so much.

 

---

i could have sworn i use mine to pee... and as a kick stand when sleeping.:matte-motes-big-grin:

---

Mine makes a great yardstick also.

It also substitutes as a towel hanger.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

[Dilbert Dilweg]

LOL. Nice Boobie Fact sheet

[Solar Legion]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

It's all a bit muddy - not just the windscreen

In your post, you said that neanderthals are our ancestors and left Africa about 300,000 years ago. Later you said that homo sapiens began to leave Africa about 60,000 years ago. It seems that both can't be true because we are homo sapiens -  I think

My understanding (from TV documentaries) is that neanderthals were already in Europe when humans (we) arrived from Africa.

I was born soon after that and I can tell you that a guy had to be really desperate to fancy a neanderthal woman, but it could have happened, and the DNAs could have been mixed.

The actual existance of Denisovans (thought to be in the eastern lands) may be a bit debateable. The evidence for them is only one bone from a finger and 2 teeth. It could turn out to be a red herring.

Your relative, who has all 3 DNAs might be decended from Marco Polo. He was from Italy (neanderthal and humans) and spent some years in the east (denisovans). Does s/he have a tendancy to occasionally and unintentionally lapse into speaking mandarin?

---

IfyouwishtogettrulytechnicalPhil, ourcurrent"branch"iscalled homo sapiens sapiens - or at least, the last time I checked, that was the official designation. It seems to have changed in recent years.

[solstyse]

Much of what you wrote made it easy to see your satements as political, whether that's how you meant them or not. when covering breasts is likened to covering the face, that looks to me very much like a discussion of "religioius freedom." when you mention gender equallity and base it upon the fact that a man doesn't need to cover his chest, that looks to me like an issue of "social justice." Sorry if I misinterpreted, but those points you made are the clues that led to my flaw in logic.

The main point I was trying to make is that we can all agree here that the emphasis that society places on covering certain parts of your anatomy are overblown. But I think of G rated land as a haven for people who disagree with us. It is such a small percentage of land that it's not worth fighting over. And just like rl, different places in sl have different dress codes. Spending as much time as I do on private land as I do, I can speak for the relevance of these codes. It's something I always pay attention to. Just like rl, sl has places that are formal, informal, "period correct" if it's a historical sim, etc.

And picking your battles is only a matter of practicallity. I meant choose the ones that really matter. When you wrote in response to me "I never look at land ratings, I just went to that particular store to look for houses. As it so happened it was a tuesday and I was topless. I'm not going anywhere to protest something or start a revolution, was just going on at my usual business" that was actually your first indication in the whole thread that being topless in G rated land was actually accidental. Until then, the way you expressed yourself did make it quite easy to mistake what you did as going to G rated land dressed more appropriately for M or A land on purpose. That's where my language of "committing an act of civil disobedience" came from.

Now, if accusing you of committing an act angers you, then I think you might be mistaking where i'm coming from. I personally applaud when people commit a necessary act of civil disobedience. I personally have participated in a few such acts. It is, at least to an American, part of being patriotic, and part of being human. To be as technical as possible, any action performed is commiting an act of one form of another.

Speaking of language, isn't this quote by you a bit more offensive? "Men are too  weak to control themselves so they rather cover up the women." And honestly, in my experience, BOYS may lack such self control, but men don't.

Now, to be perfectly fair, there is reason for the obsession that modern men have with breasts. I saw a documentary once that I wish I could remember the name of to cite. But the message is something I remember quite well. Throughout history, for reasons that were practical, men preferred women with SMALLER breasts. Think of victorian times and the fact that they wore corsets. The turning point was acutally censorship. In the early days of movies (long before sound was even a part of it) the films could get quite risque. What happened was that with the introduction of censorship and rating systems, people had to cover more. And what became the feature that defined feminity? Yep, breasts. Why? Because clothig did not cover their size, and they are something that only one gender has.

I guess the best summary of what I'm trying to say is that G land is set aside specifically for people more sensitive than most. LL as a "for profit" corporation sees some logic and increased revenue for setting aside these rare parcels of land. Everybody is satisfied and happy if only on "topless tuesday" you stick to land that is familiar, read land ratings since that is a special day, or both. Being allowed on land that has two out of three of the ratings really doesn't make it a battle worth winning, since you really can't claim to have drawn the "short stick" there. Just be a tad more cautious on the day that you choose to be topless, or do your shopping on one of the six other days of the week. It's really a very small consession to make.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Orca Flotta wrote:

Men are too  weak to control themselves so they rather cover up the women.

---

I just saw the above quote in the previous post and I had to respond to it.

You are quite wrong. It's the covering of female breasts that makes them attractive to men. If bare-breasted women were the norm, female breasts would hold no more attrraction to men than female hands do. It's the 'secrecy' that makes female breasts attractive to men.

The private parts of the human body are intrinsically unattractive. Male bits look positively ridiculous, female upper bits have nothing special about them other than they are there, and the female lower bit is positively ugly when viewed close up. And yet they are all normally attractive to the opposite sex. Why? Solely because they are normally kept out of sight. When they are revealed, especially if only briefly, both sexes automatically look. It's very difficult not to look. When they are covered, we want to look - we are attracted.

So it's nothing to do with men being unable to control themselves. If there's any lack of control in men, it's more likely to occur when female parts are covered. But there's no lack of control in men at all, and your statement barks up the wrong tree.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Suki Hirano wrote:

SL is for 18+ only correct? I believe this is in the ToS?

---

To actually answer the OP.. NO, SL is for children 16- 18 and adults that are 18+. The TOS is written to protect the children and the adults in SL. To put it simply, IF the minors in SL have registered properly, big IF there, they will be only able to access and view G rated land. Even if the G sim borders a M or A sim they cannot see into it. To keep the adults safe all you have to do is follow a simple rue about public nudity on G sims not being allowed. Don't proposition or accept any offers from anyone on a G sim and you won't get in trouble. Keep all your parts fully covered and you wont get in trouble.

Being a person that has spent quite a bit of time in a state that allows female toplessness I can count on one hand the number of women i have seen topless in public. If it is such a huge frickin deal to have equal ability to be topless, why are they not using it? Perhaps they feel the need to cover up to protect the children. Or to help cut down on car accidents.

[Echo Hermit]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

And that's what I've learned today :matte-motes-agape::matte-motes-big-grin: