Jump to content

How does your avatar look today ?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 36.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is my current avatar. She's an Usagi Child ^.^  

i was wondering around a SIM one day, and some dude private messaged me tellin' me he loved my look... he was very polite and kind, asked me to stop running and turn my AO off for him, so i did... the

I find it very entertaining to switch my looks according to my mood. I woke up one day and decided to change my shape into a more petite and "model" look.   Before (with Genesis Lab bento head):

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

When I critiqued Zeta's picture, I provided a careful, overly-lengthy, element-by-element analysis of the photograph, explaining why I thought it meant what it meant. I very consciously did not criticize any of the people involved, nor did I attack the lifestyle and choices that might (or might not: I don't see anything inherently "kinky" about this pic) be represented. At no point did I even mention BDSM, D/s, or kink: they're not relevant to my discussion. I was critiquing an image, nothing more.

You might have engaged with that analysis, Roxy, and told me why you thought I was wrong. You chose not to.

You might also have asked yourself why Maddy and I lavished praise on Ayela's picture of a lesbian D/s couple, but not on Zeta's, before identifying our remarks with an anti-Pride and anti-kink attitude. You might have asked: what's in Zeta's picture of a fully clad man sitting around a bevy of half naked girls, that is not in Ayela's picture? What is there in Ayela's picture, which literally dramatizes and embodies the mutually caring relationship between Domme and sub that derives from a consensual exchange of power, that's not in Zeta's? Why did they like the one, and not the other? (Hint: we explained why.)

But that would have entailed engaging with what Maddy and I actually said, rather than simply firing off a personal attack that labels the two of us kink-shaming homophobes. And apparently there are at least 9 people who agree with you, so I guess that's good, right?

You've known me long enough to know that I don't shy away from a fight, or from an unpopular opinion. I expected debate. I like having my ideas challenged.

What I don't like is to be grossly misrepresented in a personal attack, and a drive-by shooting substituted for an actual substantive discussion.

I have no more to say, literally, on this. A careful reading of what I and Maddy said should make it clear that what you've said here is nonsense. If you can't be bothered to do that, then I guess that's your right.

I really didn't want to get in depth on this here. But, here we go..

I did not imply you were kink-shaming homophobes. In my anger, I said you were kink-shaming hypocrits. I apologize, it was harsh.

I will assume an innocence of intentions, but the result is that you did attack some very core kinks. The scene depicted was very much a D/s one. Certainly enough that other people saw, and even mentioned the kink shaming that went on. Sitting at a Dominant's feet is a very common shared kink in the D/s community. Dressing as your Dominant wishes (the closely matching outfits implies that) is yet another fairly common kink. Scantily clad? Whoops, another kink. The very much implied power imbalance it's really the core of D/s. Someone on top, someone on the bottom. Really the main shared kink. (And seriously, what about a throne isn't the epitome of D/s in SL?)

What's missing in Ayela's picture are any of those outward trapping of D/s. Don't get me wrong, it's a lovely picture and I'm really very happy for her happiness. But, without the context of already knowing their relationship, the relationship portrayed in the picture could have been of any sort and not exclusively D/s. In fact it really doesn't imply D/s at all. And that's the difference between the images.

What you're failing to understand is that Orwar could have been replaced (sorry again Orwar!) with a Dominantly dressed woman and that would have changed nothing of what the scene portrayed. Speaking for myself, as someone active in the D/s community for 11+ years in SL alone, I saw a family portrait. Something that cannot commonly be done without consequence in the real world.

So tell me if I read your analysis of your problems with the image wrong. Those were the salient points right? A power imbalance with a man on the top, with women scantily clad in matching outfits in subservient positions? You saw those as negatives. They aren't in D/s. I saw an image of women portrayed doing as they wished in SL. Not your cuppa? That's cool. They aren't demanding you join in a poly-amorous D/s relationship of your own. They're merely existing and such dynamics DO exist in SL. They are part of the community, and part of the D/s community.

That's where I found it hypocritical. Love is Love, even if you personally aren't comfortable with how that dynamic plays out. Isn't the point of Pride awareness to allow anyone to live their lives as they wish if it harms no one? And to do so without fear of reprisal or criticism?

I will fight for their right to exist without criticism, just as I'd hope they'd fight for me. Just as I hope you'll fight for all of us, even is it's not to your taste, because it's the right thing to do, right?

And so, I too am done with carrying this on here. Should you wish to talk elsewhere Scylla, I'd be happy to.

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Roxy Couturier said:

Should you wish to talk elsewhere Scylla, I'd be happy to.

Thanks for this Roxy. And please accept my apologies for my own harsh response to your first.

Some of your points I take; others I disagree with. Key is that all of these are ideas that are susceptible to discussion. And maybe, at some point, and in some other place, we can have that.

I said somewhere above that sometimes communications "say" things that are unintended, and that this is something that certainly happens to me. My criticism of the picture, and Maddy's, have been very clearly read by most people as an attack on kink. I think that's a misreading, but more to the point, although D/s and BDSM were never what I intended to criticize, I clearly did not do a good enough job of conveying that.

Again, thanks for this thoughtful and very worthwhile response.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2020 at 6:49 PM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

So, let's talk instead about the composition. It features a single man, dressed elegantly in an expensive-looking "power suit," sitting on a chair that is large and grand enough that it might almost be a throne. And around him, clad in sexy lingerie, are four women. None of them are afforded the privilege of a chair: indeed, two are seated on the ground, at his feet. Their state of semi-nudity strongly contrasts with the man's elaborate and nearly over-dressed state. The focus of the picture is squarely on the man: he is at the centre of the pic, and the arrangement of the women, who float on the margins (literally and metaphorically) draws the eye to him.

The man looks powerful, and the more so, of course, because of his obvious position of dominance over the women who appear, as Maddy says, as "ornaments" -- like his dress, and the very grand chair upon which he is seated, they are important mainly as testimony to his power. The fact that the women are in sexy lingerie (no granny panties here!) attests to their sexual availability to the man: he can choose whichever he wants, like someone delving into a box of chocolates. The women are also, for this reason, interchangeable cyphers: all are beautiful, all are in a position of subservience, and all are at his beck and call, sexually. There is only really one "person" in this picture, and that is the man: the women are props. This pic is, despite the semi-clad state of the women, not about sex. It's about power.

 

It's definitely about power. Power imbalance, more specifically. Question is, is that bad?

Do I, in general, like women being portrayed (and treated) as "having been plucked from the pages of Playboy Magazine, ca. 1965."? Yeah, no; but primarily so, because those depictions denote a form of exploitation -- 'voluntary' only in the sense of 'sexual object' being the prettu much designated, only role for a woman (other than cleaning the house).

But what if it truly IS voluntary? I'm not talking about love, but, in psychology, it's an undeniable fact that sex very often contains an element of power, as in: 'having it over someone else', or, subsequently, at the other far end, 'being dominated.' I'm not even talking about BDSM even, per se; but a typical role-play, where the man is a doctor, and the woman the nurse, or the woman the chamber maid, or tying someone up, whatever, is all about the 'enticing' notion of having sexual power over someone. When others call this a 'kink', I understand and respect their use of the term, but, personally, from a psychological point of view, I'm not entirely sure power in sexuality even qualifies as kinky, really.

 

Quote

Now, to be clear: I am not imputing any of this reading to a conscious decision the part of any of the participants in this picture. I don't for a moment believe that the women pictured here set out to create an image that would embody a desperately out-of-date conception of male power. I certainly do not assume that the meanings embodied here reflect the actual relationship existing between any of the participants. It's a carefully posed photo, a work of photographic "art," and not a signifier of an actual state of being.

 

 

What if the women actually did "set out to create an image that would embody a desperately out-of-date conception of male power."? As long as such role is chosen, I honestly see no problem with that. Personally, being a 'sub' (did I use that right?) is not my thing, really; but I can clearly see the validity of the psychological notion that power is enticing (sexually); and thus, conversely, that being dominated can be so equally. It only becomes abusive, or societal unwanted, when there's no true free will involved (or when, with those playboy women in ca. 1965), figurating as sex toys was de facto the only thing you could do with your 'free' will, to count in the male world). Other than that, be Pride as can be!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roxy Couturier said:

I really didn't want to get in depth on this here. But, here we go..

I threw the first rock here, and I'm both gay and kinky. I saw the image as more Hugh Hefner than D/s. It's that context that bugged me as it evokes historical patriarchy. As I mentioned in my comment about Ayela's image, I'm a real pain in the ass about displays of power imbalance in ambiguous contexts. The mutual care and respect shown in Ayela's image would be hard to misread.

If the four women shown are not Hugh Hefner ornaments, but rather Orwar's subs, my concern lessens but doesn't vanish. Reversing the genders of the participants would both buck the historical patriarchy and shift the context towards D/s, but still wouldn't earn a like from me.

25 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

What if the women actually did "set out to create an image that would embody a desperately out-of-date conception of male power."? As long as such role is chosen, I honestly see no problem with that.

If the women in the shot actually chose to favorably depict male patriarchy, I'm back to objecting. If they're portraying a negotiated power imbalance within a consensual D/s relationship, I've less concern, but still some concern over the portrayal. Were I ever to show imagery of a D/s relationship, I'd take great care to ensure that it conveys a balance of respect and care that overwhelms any displayed imbalance of power or control. D/s is about loving and I'd make that clear.

 

In the world outside D/s (and to some extent within it) there still exists significant imbalance of power, un-countered by any balance in respect or care. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

If the women in the shot actually chose to favorably depict male patriarchy, I'm back to objecting. If they're portraying a negotiated power imbalance within a consensual D/s relationship, I've less concern, but still some concern over the portrayal. Were I ever to show imagery of a D/s relationship, I'd take great care to ensure that it conveys a balance of respect and care that overwhelms any displayed imbalance of power or control. D/s is about loving and I'd make that clear.

 

Male patriarchy is about inherent male superiority. (Or innate male dominance, as in decreed by some 'Divine Order' or nature). Naturally, I am opposed to that as well. 😛 (But I can see how my words might have been interpreted that way). 'A negotiated power imbalance', as you call it, I don't object to. That's just a choice 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

b1f376556755265072d12faec8e89a52.png

I don't know if anyone else is doing the Bare Face Challenge on Flickr, but I had a nice time with it, even if it's not in any official capacity.  No makeup, no lashes, and no outside editing.  Taken in Black Dragon.

  • Like 39
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ajay McDowwll said:

And now for something completely different.  Clearly somebody forgot to restock the coffee...

Waking the Demon_final.png

 

You nee something stronger, You need NOPE! 🤩 Beautiful transformation, though. ❤️

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kiramanell said:

 

You nee something stronger, You need NOPE! 🤩 Beautiful transformation, though. ❤️

Thanks, Kira!  I owe most of it to Orwar and Nephtyria -- I had a ton of help with shopping and sourcing everything :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

VERY NICE!

Did you create the skin colors in-world or post-production?

Thank you :)

That's part of the skin itself. It's from a fatpack that I bought years ago - by The Plastik in collaboration with Trap - called 'Atharne', and I'm using the 'Mizuko' version. Since it also contains system skins it's perfect for BoM looks like this. Below is the full male set (there's also a similar female set) -

1805547902_PlastikTrapAtharneSkins_.thumb.jpg.afdf656d88c63acdc36e3458c8f8bbbc.jpg

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...