Sex objects in a general rated map!? I found some in there!

[Ceka Cianci]

---

oberon Zuta wrote:

if i see a girl and i know what animations are possible with her - is this a sex object or not? Is it allowed to think about that in a public area?

---

your first problem would be you are looking at a girl as an object.. which we are not..so the answer to that is no..

the second is we are not "IT'S"!!

third..thinking is allowed anywhere..

but just because you think it.. that doesn't make them whatever you think they are..

[oberon Zuta]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

 

Wat.

Do you have some kind of mental deficiency? No, a 'girl' is not a sex object. Print this information out and stick it to your forehead, or file under

T

for

Totally Fuppin' Obvious

.

You're either a poor troll or a ridiculous example of humanity.

---

Ok - it seems you are memeber of the Board of the mind control programm - so i ask you:

If i think she is a sex subject - is this correct now? And if i remember what animations such a sex subject is able to use - is it allowed to think about that in a public area?

No sex, no humanity, neither ridiculous ...

[Perrie Juran]

---

oberon Zuta wrote:

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

 

Wat.

Do you have some kind of mental deficiency? No, a 'girl' is not a sex object. Print this information out and stick it to your forehead, or file under

T

for

Totally Fuppin' Obvious

.

You're either a poor troll or a ridiculous example of humanity.

---

Ok - it seems you are memeber of the Board of the mind control programm - so i ask you:

If i think she is a sex subject - is this correct now? And if i remember what animations such a sex subject is able to use - is it allowed to think about that in a public area?

No sex, no humanity, neither ridiculous ...

---

<ooc>

If all that you see when you look at a woman is a repository for your ejaculate don't be surprised if you get emasculated here.

While I know that there are woman who describe themselves as ejaculate receptacles in SL (they use a different word that gets censored here), even they don't consider themselves 'objects.'  And your use of the word 'subject' is not very flattering either.

</ooc>

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

oberon Zuta wrote:

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

 

Wat.

Do you have some kind of mental deficiency? No, a 'girl' is not a sex object. Print this information out and stick it to your forehead, or file under

T

for

Totally Fuppin' Obvious

.

You're either a poor troll or a ridiculous example of humanity.

---

Ok - it seems you are memeber of the Board of the mind control programm - so i ask you:

If i think she is a sex subject - is this correct now? And if i remember what animations such a sex subject is able to use - is it allowed to think about that in a public area?

No sex, no humanity, neither ridiculous ...

---

<ooc>

If all that you see when you look at a woman is a repository for your ejaculate don't be surprised if you get emasculated here.

While I know that there are woman who describe themselves as ejaculate receptacles in SL (they use a different word that gets censored here), even they don't consider themselves 'objects.'  And your use of the word 'subject' is not very flattering either.

</ooc>

 

---

Unless I misinterpreted (which I never, ever, ever do! ;-) Oberon was being satirical. The OP saw rubs(sp?), baths and toilets in a GENERAL rated sim and found them inappropriate. The implication here, absent explanation beyond "I did not use them", is that the OP envisions within these objects some kind of sexual capability.

Oberon then extended the observation to what I think is a logical and absurd endpoint, though messing up the perspective a bit at first, then correcting it after Freya's comment. If the OP finds rugs, baths and toilets to be unsuitable for a general rated sim because of their capacity to host sexual activity, one could imagine that women, or men, could be found even less suitable. If I'm on a general sim and see a home containing bath and toilet, I think nothing of it. If I'm on a general sim and see a handsome fella or beautiful gal, my primordial wiring may light up like a Christmas tree. I certainly envision sexual capability within people far more than I do within tubs.

Of course this is SL and we're accustomed to objects rather than avatars containing poses, so we view the world a bit differently, but I enjoyed Oberon's satire.

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

oberon Zuta wrote:

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

 

Wat.

Do you have some kind of mental deficiency? No, a 'girl' is not a sex object. Print this information out and stick it to your forehead, or file under

T

for

Totally Fuppin' Obvious

.

You're either a poor troll or a ridiculous example of humanity.

---

Ok - it seems you are memeber of the Board of the mind control programm - so i ask you:

If i think she is a sex subject - is this correct now? And if i remember what animations such a sex subject is able to use - is it allowed to think about that in a public area?

No sex, no humanity, neither ridiculous ...

---

<ooc>

If all that you see when you look at a woman is a repository for your ejaculate don't be surprised if you get emasculated here.

While I know that there are woman who describe themselves as ejaculate receptacles in SL (they use a different word that gets censored here), even they don't consider themselves 'objects.'  And your use of the word 'subject' is not very flattering either.

</ooc>

 

---

Unless I misinterpreted (which I never, ever, ever do! ;-) Oberon was being satirical. The OP saw rubs(sp?), baths and toilets in a GENERAL rated sim and found them inappropriate. The implication here, absent explanation beyond "I did not use them", is that the OP envisions within these objects some kind of sexual capability.

Oberon then extended the observation to what I think is a logical and absurd endpoint, though messing up the perspective a bit at first, then correcting it after Freya's comment. If the OP finds rugs, baths and toilets to be unsuitable for a general rated sim because of their capacity to host sexual activity, one could imagine that women, or men, could be found even less suitable. If I'm on a general sim and see a home containing bath and toilet, I think nothing of it. If I'm on a general sim and see a handsome fella or beautiful gal, my primordial wiring may light up like a Christmas tree. I certainly envision sexual capability within people far more than I do within tubs.

Of course this is SL and we're accustomed to objects rather than avatars containing poses, so we view the world a bit differently, but I enjoyed Oberon's satire.

 

---

Watson, I think the woman may be correct!