Child avatars in Slavery/BDSM

[Perrie Juran]

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

I don't believe LL does anything about child abuse and age play anymore. Just noticed that recently when trying to report a case and after a week nothing has changed.

---

I am slightly confused by your statement, "when trying to report."  This reads as though for some reason you were unable to report it.  Did you actually witnesss firsthand a Child Avatar engaged in Sexual activities? 

I've been involved with the SL Forums for several years now and the topic of SEXUAL AGEPLAY (I wish people were specific when they speak because not all ageplay is sexual) has come up many times.  But I can not think that I have ever read a post where the person stated they witnessed firsthand a child having sex in SL. 

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

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.

---

I think we are all pretty clear on the idea that we are talking about "roleplay" here.  Though on rare occasion some peoples posts do make me wonder.

[TristanMercer]

To make it clear for everyone:

 

1. Said child avatar owns a popular kid sim. This person has the face of a 7 year old.

2. BDSM furniture was from Deviant Designs. When I went and looked, everything in that store...racks, whipping post, throne, tables...all included a sexual menu.

By the postings that I have read...because this furniture has sexual poseballs in it...it is a breach of the CS. More than likely this child avatar was well over 18 in real life. That does not mean just because they are over 18 that they can do the hell whatever.

 

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

I don't believe LL does anything about child abuse and age play anymore. Just noticed that recently when trying to report a case and after a week nothing has changed.

---

Since when has LL ever done anything about child abuse and age play?  Neither one is restricted by the TOS.  Now, if you were to include the word sexual, that's a different story and, as far as I'm aware, LL is rather stringent when it comes to those types of cases.

It's quite possible that what you reported was looked into and found to be unsubstantiated.  This is why I always advocate being sure about what it is you think is going on before hitting that AR button.

...Dres

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

TristanMercer wrote:

To make it clear for everyone:

 

1. Said child avatar owns a popular kid sim. This person has the face of a 7 year old.

2. BDSM furniture was from Deviant Designs. When I went and looked, everything in that store...racks, whipping post, throne, tables...all included a sexual menu.

By the postings that I have read...because this furniture has sexual poseballs in it...it is a breach of the CS. More than likely this child avatar was well over 18 in real life. That does not mean just because they are over 18 that they can do the hell whatever.

---

You mean the TOS, not the CS.  Nevertheless, it does sound like something that's worthy of a report.

...Dres

[Perrie Juran]

---

TristanMercer wrote:

To make it clear for everyone:

 

1. Said child avatar owns a popular kid sim. This person has the face of a 7 year old.

2. BDSM furniture was from Deviant Designs. When I went and looked, everything in that store...racks, whipping post, throne, tables...all included a sexual menu.

By the postings that I have read...because this furniture has sexual poseballs in it...it is a breach of the CS. More than likely this child avatar was well over 18 in real life. That does not mean just because they are over 18 that they can do the hell whatever.

 

---

So are you saying if you had seen this Child Ava leashed and bound to a chair that didn't have sexual poses in it you wouldn't have been upset by what you saw?  Or if they had been just laying on the ground bound and gagged?    (I'm assuming it upset you because you are posting about it here.)

 

Is your real issue that someone was roleplaying a child slave or is it simply that they were using a BDSM chair that happens to have a sex menu in it?

[Ceka Cianci]

---

TristanMercer wrote:

To make it clear for everyone:

 

1. Said child avatar owns a popular kid sim. This person has the face of a 7 year old.

2. BDSM furniture was from Deviant Designs. When I went and looked, everything in that store...racks, whipping post, throne, tables...all included a sexual menu.

By the postings that I have read...because this furniture has sexual poseballs in it...it is a breach of the CS. More than likely this child avatar was well over 18 in real life. That does not mean just because they are over 18 that they can do the hell whatever.

 

---

ya that's the Devpose set stuff..that has been around forever ..and yes it's all pretty much a lot of sex poses in them all..

i would say it's reportable for sure..

 

[Tex Monday]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

So are you saying if you had seen this Child Ava leashed and bound to a chair that didn't have sexual poses in it you wouldn't have been upset by what you saw?  Or if they had been just laying on the ground bound and gagged?    (I'm assuming it upset you because you are posting about it here.)

Is your real issue that someone was roleplaying a child slave or is it simply that they were using a BDSM chair that happens to have a sex menu in it?

---

 

 Ok...getting back to the point, if I may...we are not here to determine why the OP was offended. The question put before us is whether or not this violates the TOS. I am with you in that child bondage of any kind is reprehensible (hope I spelled that right), but it is not our position to determine someone else's morals. SL has a lot of different things for lots of different people.

I think we need to stick to the point, Perrie, and not bring someone's moral or kinks into this. :matte-motes-sunglasses-3:

[TristanMercer]

I am against all child slavery to begin with, so you asking that is kind of a moot point to make.

I asked for clarity regarding the BDSM furniture in itself towards child like avatars, plain and simple.

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

It's quite possible that what you reported was looked into and found to be unsubstantiated.  This is why I always advocate being sure about what it is you think is going on before hitting that AR button.

...Dres

---

Which is why I asked above if she actually witnessed first hand a Child Ava engaging in sex.

As I also said, all these years in the Forum I can not recall ever reading a substantiated FIRST HAND claim.  It has always been second hand.  Even in Tristan's OP he did not witness a sexual act, only a Child Ava bound and in a (BDSM) chair.

I'm not saying it has never happened nor that it doesn't happen.  Just that everything I've ever read has been second hand accounts.

[Perrie Juran]

---

TristanMercer wrote:

I am against all child slavery to begin with, so you asking that is kind of a moot point to make.

I asked for clarity regarding the BDSM furniture in itself towards child like avatars, plain and simple.

 

---

ok

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

It's quite possible that what you reported was looked into and found to be unsubstantiated.  This is why I always advocate being sure about what it is you think is going on before hitting that AR button.

...Dres

---

Which is why I asked above if she actually witnessed first hand a Child Ava engaging in sex.

As I also said, all these years in the Forum I can not recall ever reading a substantiated FIRST HAND claim.  It has always been second hand.  Even in Tristan's OP he did not witness a sexual act, only a Child Ava bound and in a (BDSM) chair.

I'm not saying it has never happened nor that it doesn't happen.  Just that everything I've ever read has been second hand accounts.

---

actually i've posted up a time or two about the guy and child avatar i found in my house when i came home one time..

you may have not seen the post or the thread though..

that was the onyl time for me..

and wow what a place to run passed it also..my own house lol

 

i was pissed..

i ended up getting a whole new bed..and i really liked that bed too..

that was last summer or or spring..i can't remember off hand..

i didn't see much though..but that was enough..they pretty much stopped soon after they seen me tp in..then started trying to find a door or something it looked like..

no doors there at 4k meters up..i ejected and ban them and they either flew or fell..

bleh!!1

[Perrie Juran]

---

Tex Monday wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

So are you saying if you had seen this Child Ava leashed and bound to a chair that didn't have sexual poses in it you wouldn't have been upset by what you saw?  Or if they had been just laying on the ground bound and gagged?    (I'm assuming it upset you because you are posting about it here.)

Is your real issue that someone was roleplaying a child slave or is it simply that they were using a BDSM chair that happens to have a sex menu in it?

---

 

 Ok...getting back to the point, if I may...we are not here to determine

why

the OP was offended. The question put before us is whether or not this violates the TOS. I am with you in that child bondage of any kind is reprehensible (hope I spelled that right), but it is not our position to determine someone else's morals. SL has a lot of different things for lots of different people.

I think we need to stick to the point, Perrie, and not bring someone's moral or kinks into this. :matte-motes-sunglasses-3:

---

Sticking to the point then, I think the caveat here will be whether the furniture was being used in a sexualized manner.  LL may take that into account, but then again they may not.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

It's quite possible that what you reported was looked into and found to be unsubstantiated.  This is why I always advocate being sure about what it is you think is going on before hitting that AR button.

...Dres

---

Which is why I asked above if she actually witnessed first hand a Child Ava engaging in sex.

As I also said, all these years in the Forum I can not recall ever reading a substantiated FIRST HAND claim.  It has always been second hand.  Even in Tristan's OP he did not witness a sexual act, only a Child Ava bound and in a (BDSM) chair.

I'm not saying it has never happened nor that it doesn't happen.  Just that everything I've ever read has been second hand accounts.

---

actually i've posted up a time or two about the guy and child avatar i found in my house when i came home one time..

you may have not seen the post or the thread though..

that was the onyl time for me..

and wow what a place to run passed it also..my own house lol

 

i was pissed..

i ended up getting a whole new bed..and i really liked that bed too..

that was last summer or or spring..i can't remember off hand..

i didn't see much though..but that was enough..they pretty much stopped soon after they seen me tp in..then started trying to find a door or something it looked like..

bleh!!1

---

ty, and agreed, bleh!!!

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

It's quite possible that what you reported was looked into and found to be unsubstantiated.  This is why I always advocate being sure about what it is you think is going on before hitting that AR button.

...Dres

---

Which is why I asked above if she actually witnessed first hand a Child Ava engaging in sex.

As I also said, all these years in the Forum I can not recall ever reading a substantiated FIRST HAND claim.  It has always been second hand.  Even in Tristan's OP he did not witness a sexual act, only a Child Ava bound and in a (BDSM) chair.

I'm not saying it has never happened nor that it doesn't happen.  Just that everything I've ever read has been second hand accounts.

---

actually i've posted up a time or two about the guy and child avatar i found in my house when i came home one time..

you may have not seen the post or the thread though..

that was the onyl time for me..

and wow what a place to run passed it also..my own house lol

 

i was pissed..

i ended up getting a whole new bed..and i really liked that bed too..

that was last summer or or spring..i can't remember off hand..

i didn't see much though..but that was enough..they pretty much stopped soon after they seen me tp in..then started trying to find a door or something it looked like..

bleh!!1

---

ty, and agreed, bleh!!!

---

i forgot to add how i got rid of them..i edited that post hehehe

[Tari Landar]

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

I don't believe LL does anything about child abuse and age play anymore. Just noticed that recently when trying to report a case and after a week nothing has changed.

---

I have had the exact opposite experience. I reported 3 people for this(and yes, I was 100% certain before even thinking of reporting, and had chat logs to verify what they were doing). The people I reported were all banned. I don't know if they were IP banned, but they were banned. I was expecting a suspension for them, to be honest, but nope LL slammed down the banhammer on all 3. The only reason I know they did, is because one of the people is someone I actually know very well in rl and sl, and that person sent me a msg bitching about being banned. I had no idea he was that sick, though. Yes, I have since distanced myself from that freak of nature.(and no I don't care if that's mean, it takes a sick and twisted individual to even think such things, let alone act them out). Had they not chosen a platform I was allowing them to rez/change on, I never would have known. I have no doubts that wasn't the first time.

[Melita Magic]

---

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...)

---

Avoiding the semantic argument,

Being tied to S & M furniture for money at least, is seen as a lewd act under penal code. (Cue the puns.)

I would certainly AR any obvious child avatar in bondage equipment. That isn't some sort of cerebral activity, it's designed for someone's sexual release.

 

[Leia36]

I agree, Its not acceptable in my opinion. I made a thead about something similar last year and got flamed, the thread ran to 13 pages with a guy telling me that its all role play and therefore acceptable, wonder where he is now..

ETA This is the link

Child AVs and ToS

2nd ETA
After a quick read of my old thread, I am reminded how sensitive this issue is, The things he wrote hurt a lot at the time and I am still quite angry that he got so personal, lets be careful here.

[Syo Emerald]

I had reported a group, because of their description text and picture which both leaded to the result that it was all about sexual contact to children. The picture was even a RL one. But nothing happend. The group still exists and only changed their picture recently, to make it harder to judge if a minor is shown or not. The text got a little bit cut, I think. For me still obvious whats going on in this group...but as I say, LL doesn't really care.

[Lucretia Brandenburg]

That does seem frustrating. I have noticed that several of those groups use slightly veiled language and imagery in their logos that meets the letter of the law so to speak, even though it is obvious that it's a group for sexual age players. If they changed the wording and logo so it isn't blatant, whether repugnant or not, it doesn't seem to be against the rules.

[Lucretia Brandenburg]

I read the age play policy and thought it was crystal clear. Then I read it again and it wasn't so clear ...

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 part I underlined is the part that seems open to some interpretation. "other sexualized graphics, objects or scripts" ... most beds have sex animations, as another person started a thread elsewhere complained about. I too have run into difficulty finding a PG bathroom (finally did after a long search). So what is a sex bed? If a bed has sex animations but isn't used for sex, if there are no sexualized graphics or objects or scripts running, is it a sex bed?

Not trying to be argumentative here, it just struck me as interesting that something I thought to be crystal clear can be interpreted differently. It reminds me a bit of the signs you can see in furniture stores saying that to try out the furniture, people have to be fully clothed. As if it's not sex with one's clothes on.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Lucretia Brandenburg wrote:

I read the age play policy and thought it was crystal clear. Then I read it again and it wasn't so clear ...

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 part I underlined is the part that seems open to some interpretation. "other sexualized graphics, objects or scripts" ... most beds have sex animations, as another person started a thread elsewhere complained about. I too have run into difficulty finding a PG bathroom (finally did after a long search). So what is a sex bed? If a bed has sex animations but isn't used for sex, if there are no sexualized graphics or objects or scripts running, is it a sex bed?

Not trying to be argumentative here, it just struck me as interesting that something I thought to be crystal clear can be interpreted differently. It reminds me a bit of the signs you can see in furniture stores saying that to try out the furniture, people have to be fully clothed. As if it's not sex with one's clothes on.

---

If it has sex scripts its a sex bed, or whatever. There are plenty of PG beds, couches and other furniture.

If you are fully clothed and no parts are hanging out or standing at attention, how is it still sex?

@OP.. AR the hell out of them. as other have said, a child in a bondage rack is a sexual situation.

[Lucretia Brandenburg]

It's that fully clothed part Drake ... you know those jeans that let a guy drop his pants to mid thigh ... i know, I don't really consider that fully clothed but I've seen some people who take offense when told they aren't fully clothed with their stuff hanging out.

[Maryanne Solo]

No most beds do not have sex anims.That's so annoying.

This is not a personal attack Lucretia pls.

I just hate how that's what >everyone< thinks about SL. 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Lucretia Brandenburg wrote:

It's that fully clothed part Drake ... you know those jeans that let a guy drop his pants to mid thigh ... i know, I don't really consider that fully clothed but I've seen some people who take offense when told they aren't fully clothed with their stuff hanging out.

---

 

ya that wouldn't be clothed..

where wearing shorts and letting everything below your mid thigh show would be..

and really it's not about being fully clothed..

it's about making sure your wee wee's and baginas and bewbies and bungholes are covered..

lol

 

some merchants make their own rules more strick  anyways..just so they don't have any misunderstandings..so maybe for them they want you in pants and shirt..

the problem comes in when people think they can skirt around them in ways you just described..

 

heck i worked for a club..we had a rule for people..no penises out in public..

so what does someone do?

this one guy shows up with a pink strap on walking in saying..i'm not wearing a **bleep**..i'm not wearing a **bleep**!! naa naa.

we told him..yes you are..

he said this is not a real **bleep**..

i said..niether is an sl **bleep**..it just represents one..and that's what a pink strapon does..represents a **bleep**..so take it off or you will have to leave..

he left.. lol