Jump to content

Child avatars in Slavery/BDSM


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2707 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Is this allowed under the CS/ToS? I have witnessed a child avatar, as this is the owner of a widely known kid sim, being leashed and tied up in BDSM furniture.


I have gotten conflicting information from people saying it is allowed because it is not in the CS/ToS, and then on the other side of the fence saying it is not allowed.


Can anyone provide feedback?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Child avatars are forbidden from partaking in any form of sexual activity.  Regardless of what anyone may say, slavery/BDSM is not all about sex... you needn't even have sex to be a part of that type of relationship.  So, if you haven't actually witnessed a child avatar actually engaging in or soliciting someone in order to engage in a sexual activity, I say mind your own business.

...Dres (Cue the droves of people who don't agree with me...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be totally objective on this, I'd say that if the child avatar is tied up as in like a child could be put in a play pen or being led by a baby harness or wrist rein, then there shouldn't be an issue with that.

Context is always key though, and if the BDSM furniture or environment is not condusive to child rearing, then it probably would be appropriate to submit an abuse report.

If you were not comfortable with it, then you should have just submitted an abuse report and left the rest to LL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, because you may think it is a child avatar, doesn't mean that it actually is one... because of differences in scale here in SL, it can sometimes be confusing.  For this reason, I suggest using due diligence before reporting anyone... your report may have dire consequences on those who are completely innocent.

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites


TristanMercer wrote:

I wasn't asking about sex, thank you very much.

I am asking about child slavery and BDSM...as in most countries this is highly illegal.

The reason I said what I did is because the TOS clearly states that sexual roleplay is not allowed, meaning that anything besides that is, thank you very much.  A person with a child avatar can rollplay a slave or being submissive, dominate or tied up all they want... what they can't do is engage in sexual activity.  I hope I've made myself clear.

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites

While BDSM doesn't have to involve sex,  Most BDSM furniture has sex animations.  The Age Play policy is clear on this point.  It is a violation of the TOS.

Under our Community Standards policy, real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of sexual or lewd acts involving or appearing to involve children or minors are not allowed within Second Life. When detected, individuals and groups promoting or providing such content and activities will be subject to sanctions, which may include termination of accounts, closure of groups, removal of content, and loss of land or access to land.

There are three key aspects involved in these materials or acts that are in breach of the Community Standards:

  • Participation by Residents in lewd or sexual acts in which one or more of the avatars appears to represent minors (or the depiction of such acts in images, video, textures, or text) is a violation of the Community Standards.
  • Promoting or catering to such behavior or representations violates our Community Standards. For instance, the placement of avatars appearing to represent minors in proximity to "sex beds" or other sexualized graphics, objects, or scripts would violate our Community Standards, as would the placement of sexualized "pose balls" or other content in areas depicting playgrounds or children's spaces.
  • The graphic depiction of children in a sexual or lewd manner violates our Community Standards.

 

I'd say report it and let LL decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While what you're saying is totally true, the fact remains that some people mistake smaller scaled avatars as being children and that needs to be taken into consideration before acting.  I've never reported anyone until I've confirmed that they are actually playing the role of a child... all it takes is a little conversation.  I'm just saying, before jumping to conclusions, do your best to ascertain what's really going on.  Then, if it's warranted, report the crap out of them.

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Child avatars are forbidden from partaking in any form of sexual activity.  Regardless of what anyone may say, slavery/BDSM is not all about sex... you needn't even have sex to be a part of that type of relationship.  So, if you haven't actually witnessed a child avatar actually engaging in or soliciting someone in order to engage in a sexual activity, I say mind your own business.

...Dres (Cue the droves of people who don't agree with me...)

It might not be sexual, but it is in poor taste regardless.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

While BDSM doesn't have to involve sex,  Most BDSM furniture has sex animations.  The
s clear on this point.  It is a violation of the TOS.

Under our Community Standards policy, real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of sexual or lewd acts involving or appearing to involve children or minors are not allowed within Second Life. When detected, individuals and groups promoting or providing such content and activities will be subject to sanctions, which may include termination of accounts, closure of groups, removal of content, and loss of land or access to land.

There are three key aspects involved in these materials or acts that are in breach of the Community Standards:
  • Participation by Residents in lewd or sexual acts in which one or more of the avatars appears to represent minors (or the depiction of such acts in images, video, textures, or text) is a violation of the Community Standards.
  • Promoting or catering to such behavior or representations violates our Community Standards. For instance, the
    placement of avatars appearing to represent minors in proximity to "sex beds" or other sexualized graphics, objects, or scripts would violate our Community Standards,
    as would the placement of sexualized "pose balls" or other content in areas depicting playgrounds or children's spaces.
  • The graphic depiction of children in a sexual or lewd manner violates our Community Standards.

 

I'd say report it and let LL decide.


Whew LL has a brain!

Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden Ceriano wrote:

While what you're saying is totally true, the fact remains that some people mistake smaller scaled avatars as being children and that needs to be taken into consideration before acting.  I've never reported anyone until I've confirmed that they are actually playing the role of a child... all it takes is a little conversation.  I'm just saying, before jumping to conclusions, do your best to ascertain what's really going on.  Then, if it's warranted, report the crap out of them.

...Dres

I was responding to the fact that while there may not have been sex involved, it was still against TOS for a child to be using most BDSM furniture.

I agree whole heartedly that short does not equal child.  I didn't address that specifically as you had already brought that up in your excellent advice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find it right now but about a year and a half ago was a very long thread on this subject.

The OP was someone who enjoyed role-playing a NON SEXUAL child slave.  It was quite a heated discussion.

Many people including myself found the idea repugnant.  One of the issues that came up was that his enslavers were getting off on it sexually in RL even if no sexual activity was apparent in SL.  That could happen. 

I myself did not like the idea of this kind of role-play and was pretty emphatic about it at first and engaged the OP in the discussion.

He made a pretty good 'argument' for it as a legitimate role play.  After all, through out history children have been enslaved.  He was also emphatic that there was nothing sexual for him RL about it and that he would not engage in it in SL either in a sexual manner.  But he did recognize that ultimately he could not know how his enslavers were really responding, that is, if it aroused them RL.

Personally speaking, if there is no sexual activity involved in the RP, I can see nothing in the TOS that would forbid it.  While we may find the whole concept of child slaves repugnant, I actually consider it less repugnant than some of the adult activities that are allowed in SL as long as it is non sexual.

Someone at LL may consider the fact that BDSM furniture was used in the role play a violation of the child sex rules.  But I have also seen a lot of BDSM accessories that had no pose balls or menu for sexual activity attached to them.  All you could do was chain the person up.  That was it.  And as someone else has already stated, not all BDSM involves sex.

As a form of role play, while I may not like it or understand it, it is a legitimate role-play character.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

Promoting or catering to such behavior or representations violates our Community Standards. For instance, the
placement of avatars appearing to represent minors in proximity to "sex beds" or other sexualized graphics, objects, or scripts would violate our Community Standards,
as would the placement of sexualized "pose balls" or other content in areas depicting playgrounds or children's spaces.

 

I think THIS is the key phrase, here. There may not be any sex involved, but child AVs are not allowed in proximity to "sexualized graphics". This includes BDSM equipment.

But I do agree to engage the participants in a discussion before flying off the handle, so to speak. See what it's all about. Child slavery is not against the TOS, if you just RP it. It's when you start using props that it gets a bit sticky.

Good luck...Hopefuly, this situation will be resolved by you not running into them again.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


TristanMercer wrote:

I wasn't asking about sex, thank you very much.

I am asking about child slavery and BDSM...as in most countries this is highly illegal.

Are you referring to graphical representation (pictures) in this statement? 

Also, besides being bound and leashed in BDSM furniture was there any thing else there of a sexual nature?  A sex bed? Sex pose balls? Etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Tex Monday wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

Promoting or catering to such behavior or representations violates our Community Standards. For instance, the
placement of avatars appearing to represent minors in proximity to "sex beds" or other sexualized graphics, objects, or scripts would violate our Community Standards,
as would the placement of sexualized "pose balls" or other content in areas depicting playgrounds or children's spaces.

 

I think THIS is the key phrase, here. There may not be any sex involved, but child AVs are not allowed in proximity to "sexualized graphics". This includes BDSM equipment.

But I do agree to engage the participants in a discussion before flying off the handle, so to speak. See what it's all about. Child slavery is not against the TOS, if you just RP it. It's when you start using props that it gets a bit sticky.

Good luck...Hopefuly, this situation will be resolved by you not running into them again.

 

the big part of that phrase is the whole thing really...

that is about the advertising and promoting and luring and catering for those things..

it's more about placing bots or models..things like that

 

if you break it down you see what they were saying..it was manily for land owners and stores and clubs and search and things like that..

Promoting or catering to such behavior

Promoting or catering to representations

 

For instance, the placement of avatars appearing to represent minors in proximity to "sex beds" or other sexualized graphics, objects, or scripts would violate our Community Standards, as would the placement of sexualized "pose balls" or other content in areas depicting playgrounds or children's spaces.

 

Promoting or catering to such behavior or representations violates our Community Standards.

For instance, the placement of avatars appearing to represent minors in proximity to "sex beds" or other sexualized graphics, objects, or scripts would violate our Community Standards, as would the placement of sexualized "pose balls" or other content in areas depicting playgrounds or children's spaces.

 

we already know child avatars can be around those things..they just can't be using them..

not saying it's a good idea.. but they can be around adult things..

it wouldn't be smart standing next to a sex bed..but it's certain bye bye if they use one..

 

EDIT: let me just add this  because it kind of falls under the part where i was talking about search and land and thing..

if a child avatar is standing next to a sex bed and promoting or catering and doing advertizing to jump on the bed with it..

that falls under that rule..

if it's just minding it's own business or just hanging out talking with friends..and the conversation happenes to be going on next to a sex bed..it's not breaking the community standards..

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want to play semantics can somebody define BDSM furniture?  The OP states nothing more than that the child AV was being, "... tied up in BDSM furniture."  This, from my limited knowledge (honestly), could be a chair, a St Andrew's Cross or any rough flat table I presume.  All of which in themselves are not sexual objects unless there are some particularly weird fetishes out there.

Therefore, we would have to know the name of the piece furniture in question and know for a fact, by observation or admission by those present at the time, what kind of scripts it contained.  Otherwise it could just as easily be specualted that it was RP involving a child AV tied to a chair, however unsavoury that maybe to the overwhelming majority of us.

I would advise that if your conscience is that troubled then report it, but don't be surprised if nothing happens due to the few facts that you've supplied.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sy Beck wrote:

If we want to play semantics can somebody define BDSM furniture?  The OP states nothing more than that the child AV was being, "... 
tied up in BDSM furniture
."  This, from my limited knowledge (honestly), could be a chair, a St Andrew's Cross or any rough flat table I presume.  All of which in themselves are not sexual objects unless there are some particularly weird fetishes out there.

Therefore, we would have to know the name of the piece furniture in question and know for a fact, by observation or admission by those present at the time, what kind of scripts it contained.  Otherwise it could just as easily be specualted that it was RP involving a child AV tied to a chair, however unsavoury that maybe to the overwhelming majority of us.

I would advise that if your conscience is that troubled then report it, but don't be surprised if nothing happens due to the few facts that you've supplied.

thank you...that was my point as well. the child was tied up...most BDSM furniture (unless I'm mistaken or shopping at the wrong stores...) contains some sexual poseballs in it. That would definitely make a difference.

It's a slippery slope we're going down here, people. The OP really needs to do some legwork and find out what was going on, if he's interested in doing so. We can sit here and make assumptions all day long, but we don't know the exact circumstances that were going on at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sy Beck wrote:

If we want to play semantics can somebody define BDSM furniture?  The OP states nothing more than that the child AV was being, "... 
tied up in BDSM furniture
."  This, from my limited knowledge (honestly), could be a chair, a St Andrew's Cross or any rough flat table I presume.  All of which in themselves are not sexual objects unless there are some particularly weird fetishes out there.

Therefore, we would have to know the name of the piece furniture in question and know for a fact, by observation or admission by those present at the time, what kind of scripts it contained.  Otherwise it could just as easily be specualted that it was RP involving a child AV tied to a chair, however unsavoury that maybe to the overwhelming majority of us.

I would advise that if your conscience is that troubled then report it, but don't be surprised if nothing happens due to the few facts that you've supplied.

ya i think something like that would be where i would have to think about that part that LL always say's..

 

when in doubt just play it safe and don't hehehehe

i'm not an expert on bdsm or anything.. so i couldn't say where things would fall on that..

i've never done it and really don't even know what the acronym stands for lol

 

i was just making sure the rules posted were not mainly getting concentrated on a tiny part of it..because the whole thing plays a part in the meaning of that rule..

picking out one section of it in the middle can have it sounding like a whole other rule..

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


TristanMercer wrote:

I wasn't asking about sex, thank you very much.

I am asking about child slavery and BDSM...as in most countries this is highly illegal.

To answer this question,

 

  1. In all likelihood it was not a child, but an adult using a child avatar so there most probably is no child involved.
  2. You cannot be a slave in SL.  You cannot forcefully enslave anyone in SL without their permission.
  3. BDSM is not illegal between consenting adults in the U.S.A.  the host country of SL's servers.  Please refer to your own country's statutes on whether you are allowed to participate or observe such acts though.
Link to post
Share on other sites


Tex Monday wrote:


Sy Beck wrote:

If we want to play semantics can somebody define BDSM furniture?  The OP states nothing more than that the child AV was being, "... 
tied up in BDSM furniture
."  This, from my limited knowledge (honestly), could be a chair, a St Andrew's Cross or any rough flat table I presume.  All of which in themselves are not sexual objects unless there are some particularly weird fetishes out there.

Therefore, we would have to know the name of the piece furniture in question and know for a fact, by observation or admission by those present at the time, what kind of scripts it contained.  Otherwise it could just as easily be specualted that it was RP involving a child AV tied to a chair, however unsavoury that maybe to the overwhelming majority of us.

I would advise that if your conscience is that troubled then report it, but don't be surprised if nothing happens due to the few facts that you've supplied.

thank you...that was my point as well. the child was tied up...most BDSM furniture (unless I'm mistaken or shopping at the wrong stores...) contains some sexual poseballs in it. That would definitely make a difference.

It's a slippery slope we're going down here, people. The OP really needs to do some legwork and find out what was going on, if he's interested in doing so. We can sit here and make assumptions all day long, but we don't know the exact circumstances that were going on at the time.

i agree and ya it would get them in trouble if there were sex poses in it for sure..

they don't even need to be using the sex poses..

 

i don't know how LL would look at bdsm only..

i guess it woudl matter if it were moderate or adult content maybe?

heck i don't know..

that's why if it were me in a child avatar..i would take the safe road and just not get on it hehehe

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sy Beck wrote:

To answer this question,

 
  1. In all likelihood it was not a child, but an adult using a child avatar so there most probably is no child involved.

 ************************************************************************************************************************************

Just to clarify....That's the issue..there are not really many children playing SL (meaning people under 18). It really doesn't matter if the person behind the keyboard is a 90 year old man, if he's showing a child in a sexual situation, it's against the TOS.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2707 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...