"Child" Avis and is it only me who is uncomfortable?

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Magnus Brody wrote:

I was concerned about the approach by this one child avi, the content of their profile and their singling out of me.  That is all.

---

I've met a LOT of people in SL who seem to not have a local chat bar... and only IM.

Sometimes I think some copies of the viewer ship with local chat disabled...

Maybe the line she tossed has some special meaning in the UK, but to me it just reads as "lets do something later" and something is a word in my dialect that can mean anything.

A LOT of people in SL are shy about striking up new conversations, and initial attempts can be clumsy. Especially when trying to start something up with someone you're a bit of a fan of. You may have just harshly blown off someone who was hoping to meet a person who's music or venue she was enjoying.

Its a text based medium... a lot of signals are missing in that... and we all judge too fast in it...

[Phil Deakins]

Roleplaying doesn't preclude human avatars. I didn't suggest that it's exclusive to non-human or child avatars.

I think that just about covers your lengthy post Forgive me if I missed something.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Roleplaying doesn't preclude human avatars. I didn't suggest that it's exclusive to non-human or child avatars.

I think that just about covers your lengthy post

Forgive me if I missed something.

---

I'd say you missed all of it.

You're presuming people on furrys and child AVs are playing a role. That presumption is flawed.

[Phil Deakins]

I didn't say that at all. I said that they are 'in' the role of those things. Who did you say had missed all of it?

[KlistiesSeMio Ewinaga]

I'm a furry avi 90% of the time when I'm not RPing at non-furry-friendly RP places.

 

I'm not playing a role when I'm in my usual avi. I just am.

 

When I'm RPing (as a human), however, I'm playing a role.

 

I don't consider people Role Playing unless they're IC on a RP sim, but that's just me

 

 

eta: replied to the wrong person, sorry! ^^;

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I didn't say that at all. I said that they are 'in' the role of those things. Who did you say had missed all of it?

---

You said it, and just repeated it.

"in the role".

My post that you failed to be capable of understanding pointed out the flaw in this biased presumption.

 

I know you have some personal rage irrational against me that's been getting at you for some time...

So you'll often detour your main line to toss an insult my way anytime you see one of my posts...

But you should consider not trying so hard to disavow yourself in order to make your attack on me.

 

[Phil Deakins]

There's no flaw in any of my assumptions. The flaw is in what you think I wrote. If you'd read my posts, you would have seen that I made a distinct difference between being 'in' the role and playing the role (roleplaying). You said "playing" with reference to what I'd said, and then told me that I was wrong. You made a mistake.

You're mistaken. I don't have any rage against anyone. If we post disagreements, it's because we disagree, and not because of who is. Not in my case, anyway. We do tend to disagree on some thing though, but it's only because we have different points of view. In this case, you made the mistake of not reading my posts, and you said I was wrong about something when I wasn't. If you'd quoted me it would have better.

ETA: This is what you wrote about me:-

You're presuming people on furrys and child AVs are playing a role. That presumption is flawed.

I have never said that people on furries and child avatars are playing a role. I said that they are 'in' the role, which they are. Perhaps you don't understand the difference, but I did explain the difference in some detail that you should have understood if you'd read it.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

There's no flaw in any of my assumptions. The flaw is in what you think I wrote. If you'd read my posts, you would have seen that I made a distinct difference between being 'in' the role and playing the role (roleplaying). You said "playing" with reference to what I'd said, and then told me that I was wrong.

---

You're saying 'in the role' and then describing the person playing a role... Attributing to people who adopt certain looks, a false presumption that they are doing to in order to be 'in some role'.

I rightly pointed out that this is more common with the human avatar users than it is with the non-humans and children. Two others in this thread have noted as well they they too do not go 'in the role' when adopting their avatars that are no adult humans.

As is typical, you paid light attention to one, no attention to the other, and then went nuts when you saw my comment, needing to resort to an attack on me in order to reply with you snip about the length of my posts, rather than just being able to reply.

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

You haven't understood, and we've been through it already.

Let's take a furry dog, for instance. Tha avatar is a dog. The avatar is 'in' the role of a dog. The person behind the avatar may 'play' the role of a dog sometime, by peeing on things and barking perhaps, and at other times s/he just behaves as a normal person, chatting away as we all do. While s/he is barking, s/he is "playing" the role of a dog, and while s/he is behaving as a normal person, s/he is not "playing" to role of a dog. At all times, the avatar is a dog and is, therefore, 'in' the role of a dog.

I'm sorry if you don't understand what I mean, but it's the best way I can explain it. You made a mistake as to what I wrote but it doesn't matter anyway, because this thread isn't about roleplaying, which only came up as a side topic between two other people. I agreed with both of them because I could see the different places they each were looking from.

ETA: I haven't gone nuts at all. Who did you say has a beef against the other? I'd appreciate you quoting the part I wrote that you imagine was me going nuts. Perhaps you've led a very sheltered life lol

[Perrie Juran]

I'm reminded of something I believe it was Pep who said it, "The moment you sign up for Second Life you lie."

We could change that to say, "The moment you sign up for Second Life you begin to Role Play."

[Phil Deakins]

I never roleplay in SL. Any interaction with my avatar has always been interaction with me. I'm not even in a role, except that my avatar looks significantly younger than I am

[Senobia Xenga]

---

KlistiesSeMio Ewinaga wrote:

Over the years, I've found time and time again that the only people who hate or are creeped out/sickened by Child Avis are those who participate deeply in the adult culture of SL and consider everything on SL to be adult - no matter the theme or area they live in/run.

To them, since everything has an underlying sexual nature, they can't possible conceive any reason why an Adult like themselves would like to play a child, and their mind immediately goes to "they must be a pedophile".

 

This is not the case, but I've found this is always the reason for the prejudice.

---

Do you have kids of your own in RL? Imma guess no. Because if you do and you see nothing wrong with them 'hanging out' with middle aged people, I would be the first (of many, I'm sure) to question your parenting skills.

Pedophilia is not the reason for 'my prejudice'. My reason is...I am an adult. I like the company of other adults. I like adult (as in mature, full sentences, proper spelling, good grammar) conversations on a varity of topics on levels that are beyond the grasp of children. I have nothing - not a thing - in common with a teenager, as far as likes and interests go. The only thing I could possibly share with them is my womb- which makes the entire argument creepier than it needs to be. 

That said, I don't intrude on their SL space and I don't go places where they are likely to intrude on mine. If that's your thing, GREAT! I don't have to like it nor do I deserve to be labelled as someone with pedophilia urges that I might not be able to control in the presence of children just because they have a YOU MUST ACCEPT ME! chip on their shoulder.

The SL kiddie whine and complain and bellyache about their right to choose their own path in SL, all the while demanding fairness. There are two sides to the fairness coin and your right to do/be whatever you want in SL and decide what you like or don't is no more important that mine or anyone else's who feels the same.

[Perrie Juran]

Once in a while I play a human too. 

[Senobia Xenga]

---

Syn Anatine wrote:

---

sirhc DeSantis wrote:

A 'why what did I do' reaction? I might consider that if I was dealing with an actual 13 year old as it would be resonable enough - in different circumstances perhaps - but not to another supposed adult. Can't have it both ways.

---

Are you for real? We never stop learning, and any sensible adult would be curious as to why they have offended someone out of the blue. An inquiring mind is a treasure, and asking never hurts whether there's an answer or not. 

Just because we're adults doesn't mean it's not proper to ask the famous question of 'why'.

---

And when given your answer as to "why", you get butthurt because, in your mind, the reason is not valid because it doesn't jive with your own views. Then you turn around and draw conclusions and hurl accusations just like the ones you're speaking out against. 

If you were an adult with the mentality of an adult, you would realize that people's likes and dislikes are as wide and varied as they are and accept that as your answer without bemoaning other people who don't agree with you.

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

I'm reminded of something I believe it was Pep who said it, "The moment you sign up for Second Life you lie."

We could change that to say, "The moment you sign up for Second Life you begin to Role Play."

---

"Quod fere totus mundus exerceat histrionem (because almost the whole world are actors)"

- Petronius (27-66AD)

"For what else is the life of man but a kind of play in which men in various costumes perform until the director motions them offstage?"

- Erasmus (1466-1536)

"All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players.

They have their exits and their entrances,

And one man in his time plays many parts"

- William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

The author of your quote was a bit late to the game and may have been unaware that appearing to misunderstand it makes one look naive. Second Life is simply another wing on the stage.

I believe that neither lying nor role-play are necessarily, or even often, bad things.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

You haven't understood, and we've been through it already.

Let's take a furry dog, for instance. Tha avatar is a dog. The avatar is 'in' the role of a dog. The person behind the avatar may 'play' the role of a dog sometime, by peeing on things and barking perhaps, and at other times s/he just behaves as a normal person, chatting away as we all do. While s/he is barking, s/he is "playing" the role of a dog, and while s/he is behaving as a normal person, s/he is not "playing" to role of a dog. At all times, the avatar is a dog and is, therefore, 'in' the role of a dog.

---

Here you go again making up all kinds of ijmagined conduct of people based on their avatar choice.

peeing on things? barking?

- You're "in the role" there is no different from an "accousation of roleplaying".

My post, which you ignored the substance of in order to post your short little attack of 'your post is too long and you don't get what I said'... was to say this is a false accusation.

The bias is in you - falsely presuming people put on furry avatars, so I suppose, they can pee on your virtual rug or something.

Your presuming, based on bias, that people who choose non adult human avatars do so to get into some role that they "may 'play' the role of a [...] sometime".

You then used that to justify that naturally others are put off by these avatars forcing their 'role' all up in everyone's business...

 

In this thread, we have someone talking perfectly normally - approaching another someone and asking typical questions to open up meeting a person; and a negative encounter ensues.

 

You leap in to justify the negative encounter on a biased presumption that the child avatar was 'in the role' - when the evidence shows nothing of that sort. The evidence show nothing at all for or against...

You just presumed, because it was a child avatar, that it was "in the role" of something... peeing on somebody's rug or barking or whatever it is goes on for these imagined people "in the role" of something.

 

I'm one of three people who pointed this out to you (the other two are not the two you state having agreed with). You don't even seem to have noticed the other two - as you have an obsession with making attack-posts in response to me that's carried through in many threads for some time now.

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I never roleplay in SL. Any interaction with my avatar has always been interaction with me. I'm not even in a role, except that my avatar looks significantly younger than I am

---

And yet you presume this of others...

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Once in a while I play a human too. 

---

I've been doing that since birth.

[KlistiesSeMio Ewinaga]

SL Kids are RL adults, so I'm at a loss where this 'not okay' factor is supposed to come in.

 

Everyone is an adult, and besides a few annoyances, most kid avis I've known have better grammar and speech than many 'adult' avis. They talk about stuff from when they were born IRL most times - movies, music, games, cars, whatever. Your interests are their interests. They are just smaller.

If hanging around with older people was an issue for kid avis, nobody would get adopted or get a family, because suddenly they are surrounded by gobs of older people (that aren't really blood family - GASP - )

 

 

I never said people who avoid kid avis are pedos - I said the ones who hate kid avis often think the kids themselves are sick. I've been told before, as a kid avi, that I was a disgusting human being and that I should be in jail - for saying in my profile I was '12' and that I was attending an rp school. Ah yes, I'm an abomination.

 

Mostly Kid avis just want to be treated fairly. People walk around with sneers or make rude comments when a kid avi is out alone (shopping, usually). There's just a lot of unnecessary hatred because people don't "get it". It's the same for the Furry community. People don't understand it, so they are hateful.

 

 

[So Whimsy]

---

Senobia Xenga wrote:

---

Syn Anatine wrote:

---

sirhc DeSantis wrote:

A 'why what did I do' reaction? I might consider that if I was dealing with an actual 13 year old as it would be resonable enough - in different circumstances perhaps - but not to another supposed adult. Can't have it both ways.

---

Are you for real? We never stop learning, and any sensible adult would be curious as to why they have offended someone out of the blue. An inquiring mind is a treasure, and asking never hurts whether there's an answer or not. 

Just because we're adults doesn't mean it's not proper to ask the famous question of 'why'.

---

And when given your answer as to "why", you get butthurt because, in your mind, the reason is not valid because it doesn't jive with your own views. Then you turn around and draw conclusions and hurl accusations just like the ones you're speaking out against. 

If you were an adult with the mentality of an adult, you would realize that people's likes and dislikes are as wide and varied as they are and accept that as your answer without bemoaning other people who don't agree with you.

 

---

You get an A in assuming and an A+  in putting words into my mouth.

Unless that was a general you, then you get an A+ in assuming anyway.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

I'm reminded of something I believe it was Pep who said it, "The moment you sign up for Second Life you lie."

We could change that to say, "The moment you sign up for Second Life you begin to Role Play."

---

"Q

uod fere totus mundus exerceat histrionem

 (because almost the whole world are actors)"

- Petronius (27-66AD)

"

For what else is the life of man but a kind of play in which men in various costumes perform until the director motions them offstage?"

- Erasmus (1466-1536)

"

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players.

They have their exits and their entrances,

And one man in his time plays many parts

"

- William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

The author of your quote was a bit late to the game and may have been unaware that appearing to misunderstand it makes one look naive. Second Life is simply another wing on the stage.

I believe that neither lying nor role-play are necessarily, or even often, bad things.

---

Those men may have been late to the game also:

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

 

Personally I would maintain, "While all lieing is role playing, not all roleplaying is lieing."

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Magnus Brody wrote:

I'd be grateful for your opinions.

---

It seems to me that you jumped to conclusions based on nothing more than your own assumptions as to the intent behind this person's actions.  It's just as likely that they were looking for a father figure in SL as it is that they wanted to jump your bones.  While I would have given them the benefit of the doubt, you're prefectly within your right not to have done so.

What rubs me the wrong way is the fact that you deemed it necessary to AR this person based on nothing more than a feeling, rather than on any sort of substantive evidence.  As such, your AR will be completely unactionable, therefore only serving to clog the system and making it take even longer for action to be taken against those who are actually doing something wrong.

...Dres

[Magnus Brody]

Please quote from any of my posts where I said I AR'd them, or did you just jump to that conclusion?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Magnus Brody wrote:

I'd be grateful for your opinions.

---

It seems to me that you jumped to conclusions based on nothing more than your own assumptions as to the intent behind this person's actions.  It's just as likely that they were looking for a father figure in SL as it is that they wanted to jump your bones.  While I would have given them the benefit of the doubt, you're prefectly within your right not to have done so.

What rubs me the wrong way is the fact that you deemed it necessary to AR this person based on nothing more than a feeling, rather than on any sort of substantive evidence.  As such, your AR will be completely unactionable, therefore only serving to clog the system and making it take even longer for action to be taken against those who are actually doing something wrong.

...Dres

---

Dres, Magnus did not AR the 13yo. I see how one could get that impression by reading the responses, which I suppose proves that none of us is immune from jumping to conclusions.

Magnus has got rather beat up here, and I think he's handled it with grace. That's pretty impressive from a fella who looks like he does in RL!

;-).

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Magnus Brody wrote:

Please quote from any of my posts where I said I AR'd them, or did you just jump to that conclusion?

---

I apologize, I thought I read that you had.

...Dres

[Lesyonn]

Hello Magnus,

I am a reader not a poster of this forum. I did feel the need to reply to this post, because I feel you have been hung out to dry with many forced personal opinions of others here.

It's personal prefernece to ban anyone from a sim they pay for. I don't feel that you are ban happy from the responses you have given after the rude ones you have received. I am a male in my 40's in the United States. I can see that people are not seeing past themselves from all the accusations that you had AR'd the avatar when you didn't. I do not associate with child avatars because I have that choice and I owe no explaination for it. You don't either.

I don't know how people can come to the conclusion that the internet is so safe for kids, even with parents over their shoulders. If there is a will there is a way. In the US there is more pedophilia with chat rooms and internet activity then believed. No, the whole world is not bad, but there are more bad apples on the internet searching out children. I have a relative you is task force, their job solely is to get the people (men and women alike) who seek out our children. SL is not all about sex. However it is a social platform where people can be anonymous. That right there is a recipe for caution.

I am a father. I am not naive nor am I paranoid. I am logical and some of the responses you got were not very logical but personal. It's what happenes when you post on a public forum. You came for advice and you received both unbiased and forced opinion. I think you did right. You acted upon your own instincts and you are the only person you have to answer to. There are many people on SL that shouldn't be here, RL wise. I don't feel men think that way because we come here to do sexual interactions, we know better. If RP or not, the conversation should have stopped when you said no. Now if you were female I wonder what kind of answers you would have received.