Women degrading advertising in search

[CarlottaAdagio]

Why are almost all of the advertisements in the adult search women degrading? Sex is sex. Men and women having fun. Sex is not degrading women! I don't accept: "Then don't tick the adult box in search". Degration of women has nothing to do with adult or whatever. It is simply wrong! And if I search for some ordinary shop that is located on an adult land I have to tick the adult box and have to suffer this women degrading stuff. I am so tired looking at open pussies and male boots pressing down a naked woman's head!

[Freya Mokusei]

You must be new.

Power and control fantasies are some of the oldest and most prolific, as well as being some of the easiest to fulfill in online spaces. They're often encouraged (in Second Life) by both sides as a transactional arrangement (using your example, one partner chooses to 'submit' while the other chooses to 'lead').  The choosing is central. In Second Life it's not possible for another user to have status over you automatically, one must choose it, making shame-inducing or degrading behaviour impractical. Indulgence and hedonism are natural things to want to explore, and substantially safer to do so in a virtual environment, it shouldn't be much surprise to see exaggerated fantasy material.Degrading becomes a subjective but prevailing taste pandered to by those who market sex.

Sex may be sex but sex also sells, and Second Life - as with the rest of the Internet - suffers slightly from Porno Vibes. Much content is produced to heteronormative tastes and the "straight white male" gets a lot of consideration in the Second Life economy, for both activity and sensory rewards (e.g. looking at "pleasing" things).

Some of the choices for stock imagery suck, sure. We don't have OFCOM or the FCC or advertising standards bodies, and there's no requirement for "water shed"-style censorship, so the content is very different to other media. Important to remember though, that these images aren't chosen in a vacuum - they're part of a culture that's over-compensating for the fact that these dynamics are highly sought-after (by those looking) but rarely satisfied.

Does this diverge a little from "real life"? Maybe - but the messages are the same. Is it any more harmful? Nah. Pretending morality has a definite answer to a complex cultural issue that you don't agree with ("it is simply wrong!") is childish and unrealistic. It may not be what you want to see - that's fine and you're doing the most you can do by complaining about it - but you don't get to control what's popular, or decide what's unfair or offensive to others.

[CarlottaAdagio]

I am in second life for 5 years.

About transactional arrangement: If about 80 % of the female avatars wanting to be degraded are men in real life then your assessment is wrong. And whenever you hear about statistics it is stated that a great number of female avatars are male in real life. Play your own **bleep**. It's so easy.

About the real women that want to be degraded in SL it is known that they are having a psychologically problem. So many abused women on SL. You should know that or go on dreaming...

You say: "Some of the choices for stock imagery suck, sure". - Yeah that is my point! LL should do something about it. Everytime I try to exite someone for SL I hear the same: Nah - this is only for kinks. Just pornographic stuff.

Wow, what great advertising for SL!!

[Freya Mokusei]

I see you have an agenda. That's fun and I hope you enjoy it but I'm not interested in silly senses of morality and out-dated shaming behaviour. Again, you don't get to choose how other people enjoy Second Life.

Making up fake numbers discourages genuine truths about the human condition. Seeking degradation-as-play is not at all unhealthy (you claim that it is, and this is a lie) and minimising the perspectives of real women (it's well established that many women enjoy sex and power-play, and online erotic play in general) damages your case more than helps it. Suggest you try a more balanced approach in future.

Your opinion is that LL should "do something about" the imagery. Great, go nuts with that blind crusade if that's how you feel. It's not how I feel, so we're at an impasse.

[CarlottaAdagio]

Again: You say: "Some of the choices for stock imagery suck, sure". - Yeah that is my point! LL should do something about it. Everytime I try to exite someone for SL I hear the same: Nah - this is only for kinks. Just pornographic stuff.

Women who want to be degraded... Yes there are some, maybe even many.. but have you ever thought why they want it? Please go into the subject and find out about these women who were abused in childhood or live and now go through degration again and again....

And at least, do you really think my agenda is fun? So you think it is fun if abused women go through degrading and abuse because they are sick?? Nah - you cannot think this!

[Freya Mokusei]

 Still being silly. Your agenda is (hopefully) fun for you, but it doesn't stand up in the real (or virtual, haha) world. I've been clear - perceived sexual degradation in Second Life is rooted in choice, thrill and preference. Sex dynamics in Second Life are as stable - as healthy - as those in real life, it's just that some of the imagery is exaggerated to strongly appeal visually.

I've gone into this subject many times, have extensive experience with abuse survivors, as well as self-image, relationship balance and associated issues. I've studied psychology and sociology. I have many years experience in healthy expressions of kink, emotional intelligence and risk awareness. You don't know my experience and, again, attempting to minimise it is not helpful to your case.

Can guarantee you're barking up the wrong tree with your perspective. It's old-fashioned and does not match up with reality. Fans of 50 Shades of Grey (as one example) are not any more inclined to have suffered abusive relationships, go away with your silly self.

Arguing against blind ideology isn't very interesting, moreso if they're just keyboard warriors. If you plan on taking action (not here, LL don't read forums) now that you've heard an explanation for what you've seen, please go and attempt that. If you're waiting for more explanations, then maybe wait and see if anyone is more open to your point of view. I am not.

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

SL primarily consists of user generated content.  As such, the bulk of the content will reflect the bulk of the userbase.  The content you're seeing is a reflection of the majority of financially contributing users.  Otherwise known as Linden Lab's cash cow.  ()

Suggesting removing the content is bascially requesting that they stop making money.  Demanding a company to stop making money is folly, to say the least. =^-^=

While a common mode of thought is that SL is what you make of it, the greater truth is that SL is what we make of it.  "We" as in all of us, everyone, and all at once.  In order to change SL, you're going to have to start with all of humanity.  Good luck with that. ()y

 

 

[CarlottaAdagio]

Yes, Imnotgoing sideways, you are absolutely right! This is exactly what I think! It is all about money.

Misogynist men are ruling SL and we will not be able to do a thing about it!

But, I will not stop to point out to these sick men. As I am a person and I am paying real money to SL.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

CarlottaAdagio wrote:

Misogynist men are ruling SL

---

Called it. Why can't we do anything about it? Are [non-misogynist | non-men] powerless (my position is no, yours appears to be yes)? Aren't you perpetuating victimhood by making this claim?

If it's all about money then I find it hard to believe it must also be all about misogyny. Sounds more like you've identified a pattern, and are attributing false cause through a very poor understanding of both sexes motivations in seeking adult activities here and a misplaced sense of personal morality.

I've never met any of these men you describe. Do they exist? Any volunteers? What are the benefits of a landowner using Search to degrade women, will more men turn up at the event? (no, they won't)

If this mythical class of men are supposed to be "rulers" (why are they 'in charge', can't they be an 'undercurrent' or 'counterculture'? Do they have more power?) they're doing a pretty bad job of it, maybe your claim is hyperbole and you enjoy framing things to suit your own narrative.

I'm a person too, and one who enjoys the freedom SL provides. Tackling a non-issue like this only threatens this freedom, to the detriment of all of us and this platform as a whole. My thing is pointing out logical incongruities and nonsensical arguments, and I've plenty of material here.

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

Time to search MP for robes made of coarse camel's hair. =^-^=

 

 

[Rhonda Huntress]

It sells.

If images of puppies and kittens brouigt in more money, that's what you would see.

[Conall DeCuir]

Quote

Misogynist men are ruling SL and we will not be able to do a thing about it!

But, I will not stop to point out to these sick men.

 

I would appreciate it if you would not generalize so much and are also more open to what other people want. Not every man (i would say rather very very less men are)  in here is a misogynist and thankfully not every woman is a hardcore feminist.I can assure you that me and most of the other men are pretty normal. So stop to accuse us ALL.

If you do not like it, you do not go there. It is as simple as that. If you do not like it, you just do not enter the roleplay. If your vision of living out fantasies differs, you must build up something for yourself and then you can keep out what you do not want to have close.

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

CarlottaAdagio wrote:

Misogynist men are ruling SL and we will not be able to do a thing about it!

---

Nonsense! I rule SL and I LOVE women. Even as I'm writing this I have several of them chained up in my dungeons, waiting for me me to get round to them. AND I feed them (leftovers from my table). Wherever you get your information from, you should change your source, because it's totally and utterly wrong.

[Alwin Alcott]

i think they should do what they'r good in... and some just like to work on their back and don't have the possibilitie to use more than their body.

But what i really have against it is there's no check on maturity of their employees and forecast to totally unreal earnings.

Verfication is do a voice check and free ride for the madam or pimp that runs the place.

Minors can do camwork at several of those clubs and advertise it in the general parts of SL/ forums

IMHO it belongs in the adult section. I hate for example to see that slutty movie in the employment forums being posted often...

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

 Still being silly. Your agenda is (hopefully) fun for you, but it doesn't stand up in the real (or virtual, haha) world. I've been clear - perceived sexual degradation in Second Life is rooted in choice, thrill and preference. Sex dynamics in Second Life are as stable - as healthy - as those in real life, it's just that some of the imagery is exaggerated to strongly appeal visually.

I've gone into this subject many times, have extensive experience with abuse survivors, as well as self-image, relationship balance and associated issues. I've studied psychology and sociology. I have many years experience in healthy expressions of kink, emotional intelligence and risk awareness. You don't know my experience and, again, attempting to minimise it is not helpful to your case.

Can guarantee you're barking up the wrong tree with your perspective. It's old-fashioned and does not match up with reality. Fans of 50 Shades of Grey (as one example) are not any more inclined to have suffered abusive relationships, go away with your silly self.

Arguing against blind ideology isn't very interesting, moreso if they're just keyboard warriors. If you plan on taking action (not here, LL don't read forums) now that you've heard an explanation for what you've seen, please go and attempt that. If you're waiting for more explanations, then maybe wait and see if anyone is more open to your point of view. I am not.

---

I don't know that Carlotta is being silly, but she is ignoring a lot of evidence, as do most people. One study won't settle any arguments, but there is some evidence that kinky folk are... okay!

http://www.livescience.com/34832-bdsm-healthy-psychology.html

Mind you, they might have reached a different conclusion if I'd been in the study population, but it's too late now. I think it'll be a long time before science gets a good grip in kinky behavior, but at least it's trying.

I've been incinerating people in SL since the day I discovered fire, some more than once. I get great pleasure out of doing it. There has been no uprising against me... yet. I have good reason to believe that every one of my flaming victims...



...would be horrified by anything approaching this behavior in RL. We all understand that the outward appearance of our play does not necessarily reflect the underlying relationships we form. I am the Wile E. Coyote to everyone's Roadrunner, and that play leaves us (or at least me, which is all I care about) smiling.

SL is a relatively safe place for people to play, and play is important. Here's my umpteenth link to Stuart Brown's TED talk about that...

 

Although I'm certain there are mysogynists in SL, and women vicitimized by them, I suspect that happens less often than in RL, and when it does happen, the consequences are hopefully and probably less dire. Women have much more power here. We have the power to mute, derender and... log out. If ever there was a place to play behavior that's "outside the norm", SL is it.

 

If I am to believe the "men playing women" statistics that are so often thrown about, I can hope that, for every two women who are victimized by a mysogynist man, one of them is actually a man who learns what mysogyny feels like, and stiffens his resolve to fight it in RL.

Meanwhile, you're not in my gallery. I've a burning desire to remedy that.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I don't know that Carlotta is being silly, but she is ignoring a lot of evidence, as do most people. One study won't settle any arguments, but there is some evidence that kinky folk are... okay!

http://www.livescience.com/34832-bdsm-healthy-psychology.html

Mind you, they might have reached a different conclusion if I'd been in the study population, but it's too late now. I think it'll be a long time before science gets a good grip in kinky behavior, but at least it's trying.

 

---

Sex studies are hard, and SL makes this slightly harder (must. not. euphamise). Women are very well represented in literary types of pornography (common in SL), and this is well established. Could talk about economic differences such as play vs. need, skill vs. unskilled, independent vs. promoted but this gets windy and unnecessary when the one throwing up complaints isn't interested in discussing cause-and-effect, and already has their viewpoint set in stone.

My reference to "silly" comes down to her repeated use of buzzphrases and calls to her imagined morality rather than putting her time into investigation or understanding. There's obviously a bigger problem in her methodology and this laziness will seep into most of her claims very quickly. Doublespeak and hypocrisy weakens every argument that's been made, and the logic in use perpetuates far more evil than some 100px images in Search. A bit of effort and she could create a reasonably interesting discussion (for some), but all this type of attack does is polarise and bewilder, without coming to any calls to action.

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Although I'm certain there are mysogynists in SL, and women vicitimized by them, I suspect that happens less often than in RL, and when it does happen, the consequences are hopefully and probably less dire. Women have much more power here. We have the power to mute, derender and... log out. If ever there was a place to play behavior that's "outside the norm", SL is it. 

If I am to believe the "men playing women" statistics that are so often thrown about, I can hope that, for every two women who are victimized by a mysogynist man, one of them is actually a man who learns what mysogyny feels like, and stiffens his resolve to fight it in RL.

---

 

All of this. SL holds a mirror to reality, exaggerates some areas and misses some more. Sure SL isn't a magical place without unfairness, but removing nuance from these conversations (as pre-programmed positions tend to do) removes helpful voices from the conversation instead of helping address the problems, as well as promoting division. Have brought up a couple of instances in this thread where that's happened (Conall also).

Have always felt - very strongly - that the safety aspect of exploration in SL is powerful, along with the general spirit of celebrating female sexuality (vs. reality, which will often seek to punish female promiscuity). I would need to hear an incredibly persuasive argument to be convinced that reducing choices in what people can find in-world would be a good idea.

I'm well-aware you want to burn me down, and am okay with this.

[Kelli May]

---

CarlottaAdagio wrote:

I am in second life for 5 years.

About transactional arrangement: If about 80 % of the female avatars wanting to be degraded are men in real life then your assessment is wrong. And whenever you hear about statistics it is stated that a great number of female avatars are male in real life. Play your own **bleep**. It's so easy.

 

...

---

Except that you, I and LL themselves have only anecdotal evidence for the number of men-playing-women, and how many of those are involved in so-called degrading acts. The value of any correlation between two numbers you are basically guessing is zero.

 

---

CarlottaAdagio wrote:

 

...

About the real women that want to be degraded in SL it is known that they are having a psychologically problem. So many abused women on SL. You should know that or go on dreaming...

 

...

---

This is absolute rubbish. The simplest online search for "bdsm and mental illness" will bring back huge numbers of articles along the lines of "Fans of bondage and S&M report better mental health" (that one on the NHS UK web site, so hardly sensationalist, but possibly NSFW). The DSM-5 now excludes consensual BDSM from lists of mental disorders, and links between the two are tenuous and dated.

Abused women on SL? Possibly, but you are guessing again, and BDSM != abuse.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

My reference to "silly" comes down to her repeated use of buzzphrases and calls to her imagined morality rather than putting her time into investigation or understanding. There's obviously a bigger problem in her methodology and this laziness will seep into most of her claims very quickly. Doublespeak and hypocrisy weakens every argument that's been made, and the logic in use perpetuates far more evil than some 100px images in Search. A bit of effort and she could create a reasonably interesting discussion (for some), but all this type of attack does is polarise and bewilder, without coming to any calls to action.

Yeah, but "silly" might be seen as polarizing, yes? I'm sure I harbor some pretty silly beliefs, but if you call me silly... okay bad example. You get the idea.

Sure SL isn't a magical place without unfairness, but removing nuance from these conversations (as pre-programmed positions tend to do) removes helpful voices from the conversation instead of helping address the problems, as well as promoting division. Have brought up a couple of instances in this thread where that's happened (Conall also).

It's nice to have your mind already made up in black and white. The thinking required to handle nuance is hard work. If you're going to get someone to do that thinking, you've got to make the effort look attractive. And that's even harder work.

I'm well-aware you want to burn me down, and am okay with this.

Just okay? C'mon, tell me you're looking forward to it, I sure am!

---

 

[steph Arnott]

She should stick too writting about "doomsday believers" at least then the study would exceed ten people.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

steph Arnott wrote:

She should stick too writting about "doomsday believers" at least then the study would exceed ten people.

---

Doomsday isn't something I believe in, it's something I'm trying to make happen.

[steph Arnott]

Is one of her subject writings.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Yeah, but "silly" might be seen as polarizing, yes?

---

Indeedy. It would be unhelpful to use this in a conversation where I thought the other party was open to reason. Fortunately, my purpose in posting to this thread is in establishing the ridiculousness of the OP's logic and how it applies both ways - so "silly" matches well. This isn't at all the first time this conversation has happened here, there's little to prove that's interesting to me (just like how I've avoided wasting my time by retrieving sources). I don't need (or really want) to convince the OP of anything, they have no chance to effect change and their ignorance seems to have been proven to myself adequately at this point (so I have disengaged).

My approach to threads differs depending on the receptivity of my audience. In this case, agreement is high and the threat is very-very low. I'm at about 2-steps above posting lolcats twirling on stripper poles (I'm hoarding them for safe measure).

I am excited to add fuel to the fire! I got to meet Phil last week (and have been holding back from making jokes about his purported dungeon ever since) and that was coooool. I have your jelly platter still set up at home. Just timing! Can't get in-world 'til at LEAST tomorrow and that might be hit-and-run. >.<

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Yeah, but "silly" might be seen as polarizing, yes?

---

Indeedy. It would be unhelpful to use this in a conversation where I thought the other party was open to reason.

How do you know someone's not open to reason? How do you know someone is?

Fortunately, my purpose in posting to this thread is in establishing the ridiculousness of the OP's logic and how it applies both ways - so "silly" matches well. This isn't at all the first time this conversation has happened here, there's little to prove that's interesting to me. I don't need (or really want) to convince the OP of anything, they have no chance to effect change and their ignorance seems to have been proven to myself adequately at this point (so I have disengaged).

I think you're preaching to the choir. You're not trying to convince the OP, and the rest of us probably don't need convincing. And that raises the spectre that you have no chance to effect change either. Welcome to my world!

I am excited to add fuel to the fire! I got to meet Phil last week (and have been holding back from making jokes about his purported dungeon ever since) and that was coooool. I have your jelly platter still set up at home.

Just timing! Can't get in-world 'til at LEAST tomorrow and that might be hit-and-run. >.<

I'm rarely in-world, so it'll be more hit-and-miss, and miss, and miss, and miss... I'll eventually get you, my pretty.

---

 

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

How do you know someone's not open to reason? How do you know someone is?

 

---

Experience! Had this confirmed on page 1 by the OP themselves. Not one to waste time beating bushes that I don't need to (they don't enjoy it, or beat back).

I was largely arguing to convince myself, and to rehearse my own position. Was satisfied with the choir though, is good to be in sensible company.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

I'm well-aware you want to burn me down, and am okay with this.

---

No, Freya, no! That way lies madness (I oughta know).

On the other hand, it would give you a nice pic to go with your current very funny signature ;-).