Jump to content
IvyLarae

What are some of your pet peeves?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, AyelaNewLife said:

It teaches men that women are walking sex objects that you insert coins into.

I had to check, and yep... this is a fetish... and there are videos.

image.png.13e6b61a38f1afc2db1c57a44cc8e804.png

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My pet peeve is when I'm shopping on MP, no demo but says there is a demo inworld, so I go to the inworld store, look for the demo and guess what???? THERE'S NO DEMO! That frosts my cake! They just lost a sale because I can't see how it would look on me. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I had to check, and yep... this is a fetish... and there are videos.

image.png.13e6b61a38f1afc2db1c57a44cc8e804.png

There are times when I think I'd be happy to trade every "reaction" button we have in this forum for a "facepalm" one.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

There are times when I think I'd be happy to trade every "reaction" button we have in this forum for a "facepalm" one.

The next time someone asks if I can "break a ten", I'm gonna think of a roll of quarters in a whole new light.

ETA: Actually no light... no... wait...

...oh hell, there are videos for that too.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The next time someone asks if I can "break a ten", I'm gonna think of a roll of quarters in a whole new light.

ETA: Actually no light... no... wait...

...oh hell, there are videos for that too.

/me chucks the brain bleach to Maddy

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, anniepany said:

My pet peeve is when I'm shopping on MP, no demo but says there is a demo inworld, so I go to the inworld store, look for the demo and guess what???? THERE'S NO DEMO! That frosts my cake! They just lost a sale because I can't see how it would look on me. 

What's worse is when you go to the "store" to find the "demo" ... there is no store. Only abandoned land or someone's home. bringit.gif.0912a1bfd25306fcece7a9cd3ea240c6.gif

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

There are times when I think I'd be happy to trade every "reaction" button we have in this forum for a "facepalm" one.

facepalm.gif.7a72a3085f1eb37150e04b2c0a56edc1.gif

Grab it. Then you can drag it from the folder into your posts.

You're welcome. xD

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Do you think that this is more prevalent than it once was? Or is it the same old old? I used to be pretty in touch with gender-related issues in SL, but it's been a while, and I don't have a very clear sense of the recent trends, except that BDSM and D/s relationships are (unsurprisingly) much more prevalent (and in the open) than they were 8 or 9 years ago.

Selling sexuality has always been a thing, of course; what's relatively new (or newly widespread) is the idea that the only way a woman will tolerate a relationship (however brief) with a man is in return for cash. I've no idea about SL, as I've been here less than a year, but in RL this is definitely on the rise - or at the very least, the public awareness of this attitude has risen dramatically. There has been an explosion of premium snapchats, streamers that aren't overtly camgirls, all the way to the de-tabooification of sugar relationships among students over the last few years. Social attitudes will bleed over into SL; but I have no idea if SL is responding to the RL phenomenon or got there first.

11 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Ok, this is a real question, and not a criticism or "gotcha" thing: I struggle with what I'm about to ask you myself, and I don't have anything like a definitive "answer" to offer up. I'm honestly interested in your view.

You distinguish between consensual "sugar relationships" and escorting, and what is, I guess, a less "formal" arrangement whereby women expect to receive remuneration for "services rendered."  I am, for what it's worth, entirely in agreement about these being legitimate, because they are consensual, and reflect, presumably, the woman's choice as to the way in which she wants to pursue relationships. The real evil is when women are compelled by social, political, legal, or economic necessity into exchanging sex (or whatever) for money: that's clearly not happening here, and especially not in SL.

But in your criticism of less formalized economic relationships between men and women, you reference what I have often seen termed the issue of "social harm": the idea that, however consensual and beneficial a particular behaviour might be on a personal level, it can cause "harm" on a broader, social level by normalizing or reinforcing stereotypes or particular kinds of power imbalances. For instance, a male Dom leashing a female sub in public is (especially in SL) pretty clearly consensual -- but is this public display of what can certainly look like a gendered power imbalance reinforcing certain social stereotypes about the places of men and women in society?

So, my question (finally): how, really, does the phenomenon that you criticize differ in its effects from more formalized economic arrangements such as sugar relationships or escorting? Do they look different? Wherein really lies the effective distinction?

Again, I'm asking this from a real place of perplexity: I don't have an answer, although god knows I've looked for one. In real terms, the difference lies in the formality of the exchange in the first two instances, which sets it off from other kinds of economic exchange and social interaction. But does that really mitigate the way that this reinforces stereotypes? I honestly don't know.

I'd draw a pretty big distinction between a couple that pools their resources together, even if said contributions are not equal, and a less formalised relationship in which the foundation is a transfer of money in one direction in return for affection and intimacy. While they might seem superficially similar, that difference in foundation is crucial. I'm not sure there is a clear distinction between a 'trophy wife' and a sugarbaby, or a sugarbaby and an escort.

People respond much more strongly to feedback than simply what they see. If a man goes looking for a partner, and gets a string of rejections and "sure, but it will cost you" 's, what do you think will happen? Will he go back to the gym, try and make himself a more attractive prospect? Or will he just get out the wallet? What if that man then asks out a girl, and just assumes that he will have to pay up and so offers a sweetener? And so you get this positive reinforcement feedback loop, incentivising the monetisation of sexuality.

I agree that the primary evil is when women have no choice but to sell their sexuality. However, I think a secondary evil is when men (as a whole) are compelled by social necessity to buy sexuality. That's extremely unhealthy for all involved, men and women, and would have a massive amount of collateral damage. There are many that would say that women should be free to do what they want with their bodies, including sell them; and I agree. But here's the thing about living in a free society - I get to say that the decisions of others are stupid and harmful, and that the people making those decisions are (intentionally or otherwise) seeking to turn back the clock on every inch of progress made in the 100 years since women gained that basic democratic right to vote in the UK.

Just to provide some context for anyone that cares; I came from a family in which both parents had a career for well over a decade, before my father chose to step down and become the full time parent while my mother pursued her career. I think (and mountains of research backs me up on this) that the breadwinner + housekeeper married couple model is the best way to raise a family, by a massive margin. Please note, that entire sentence was gender blind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes a lot to annoy me, I think that is a result of being on the Internet for too many years.

It took me a while to think of something specific to SL  :) Not enough that I get really angry, but it is kind of annoying.   I like playing around with vehicles in SL, and at times while in my boat, jet, or even helicopter I may accidentally go through restricted areas and get instantly kicked off.  It happens mostly while I'm in my jet, and it is my own fault because I like flying a little lower and watch the landscape, but it really destroys any sense of immersion I may have been experiencing.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WillowTenage said:

It takes a lot to annoy me, I think that is a result of being on the Internet for too many years.

It took me a while to think of something specific to SL  :) Not enough that I get really angry, but it is kind of annoying.   I like playing around with vehicles in SL, and at times while in my boat, jet, or even helicopter I may accidentally go through restricted areas and get instantly kicked off.  It happens mostly while I'm in my jet, and it is my own fault because I like flying a little lower and watch the landscape, but it really destroys any sense of immersion I may have been experiencing.   

Imagine its RL and you just got taken out by a SAM 

:)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, AyelaNewLife said:

Selling sexuality has always been a thing, of course; what's relatively new (or newly widespread) is the idea that the only way a woman will tolerate a relationship (however brief) with a man is in return for cash. I've no idea about SL, as I've been here less than a year, but in RL this is definitely on the rise - or at the very least, the public awareness of this attitude has risen dramatically. There has been an explosion of premium snapchats, streamers that aren't overtly camgirls, all the way to the de-tabooification of sugar relationships among students over the last few years. Social attitudes will bleed over into SL; but I have no idea if SL is responding to the RL phenomenon or got there first.

Interesting. I've not run into evidence of this myself, except insofar as there has been a pretty huge explosion in the popularization of D/s relationships generally in the last decade or so -- but that, of course, isn't specific to the issue of the exchange of money for sex. It might account at least partially for a rise in "sugar relationships" though. The student thing is particularly worrisome, because this actually is tied directly to economic disparity and need: there has certainly been a pretty well-documented rise in the number of students, especially female, turning to sex work in order to offset massive student debt.

I think SL is often at the leading edge of these kinds of trends, because it's a relatively "safe" place to try out new things. LGBTQ communities were very big and prominent here from an early date, for instance. And there has always been a more open and public acceptance of things like BDSM and D/s, and even of more iffy forms of RP (such as snuff play and gynophagia) here.

1 hour ago, AyelaNewLife said:

I'd draw a pretty big distinction between a couple that pools their resources together, even if said contributions are not equal, and a less formalised relationship in which the foundation is a transfer of money in one direction in return for affection and intimacy. While they might seem superficially similar, that difference in foundation is crucial. I'm not sure there is a clear distinction between a 'trophy wife' and a sugarbaby, or a sugarbaby and an escort.

I'd say that depends on the contractual nature of the sugarbaby or escort relationship. Where there is a relatively formal arrangement or contract -- such as an agreement for a power exchange, or a negotiation that makes it absolutely clear that this is an exchange of money for "services," then that at least sets it off and distinguishes it from other relationships. A "trophy wife," on the other hand, represents a kind of implicit assumption that society itself is built upon and tolerates the selling and consumption of women and their bodies: it's not explicitly framed within the context of an exchange that involves agreement and consent.

1 hour ago, AyelaNewLife said:

If a man goes looking for a partner, and gets a string of rejections and "sure, but it will cost you" 's, what do you think will happen? Will he go back to the gym, try and make himself a more attractive prospect? Or will he just get out the wallet? What if that man then asks out a girl, and just assumes that he will have to pay up and so offers a sweetener? And so you get this positive reinforcement feedback loop, incentivising the monetisation of sexuality.

Yes, generally agreed, although a new phenomenon that relates to this is the "incel," the angry man who believes access to sex and women's body is a right, rather than a privilege that is a corollary to a real relationship, or an exchange.

1 hour ago, AyelaNewLife said:

There are many that would say that women should be free to do what they want with their bodies, including sell them; and I agree. But here's the thing about living in a free society - I get to say that the decisions of others are stupid and harmful, and that the people making those decisions are (intentionally or otherwise) seeking to turn back the clock on every inch of progress made in the 100 years since women gained that basic democratic right to vote in the UK.

I generally agree here as well, and yes, it is your right to acknowledge the right of women (or anyone in general) to choose to do something, while still reserving for yourself the right to criticize or subject it to analysis. I actually have a similar attitude towards BDSM and D/s: I totally recognize that, in their "proper" forms, these are consensual exchanges of power, and that women, and men, have a right to choose these roles. But I have serious ideological issues with the fetishization and implicit acceptance of the legitimacy of power imbalances that these imply. I reserve the right to articulate my concerns, even as I acknowledge the right of practitioners to ignore them.

I think we too often confuse and confound critique with a desire to censor or legislate. I don't want to "ban" BDSM or D/s, just as I'm sure you don't want to criminalize sex work. But I do want people to reflect upon the implications of what they choose to do.

1 hour ago, AyelaNewLife said:

Just to provide some context for anyone that cares; I came from a family in which both parents had a career for well over a decade, before my father chose to step down and become the full time parent while my mother pursued her career. I think (and mountains of research backs me up on this) that the breadwinner + housekeeper married couple model is the best way to raise a family, by a massive margin. Please note, that entire sentence was gender blind.

I don't doubt that what you say here about the benefits of this kind of division of labour are true. The chief problem here, of course, is an economic system that has entrenched inequity, with the result that in most instances both partners are compelled to work, or the woman ends up the caregiver, not out of necessity, but because she likely earns less money.

Thanks for your thoughtful and full response! It's lovely to be able to discuss these sorts of things without straining to be heard over the shouting.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

There are times when I think I'd be happy to trade every "reaction" button we have in this forum for a "facepalm" one.

I would like a "double like" button.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AyelaNewLife said:

Selling sexuality has always been a thing, of course; what's relatively new (or newly widespread) is the idea that the only way a woman will tolerate a relationship (however brief) with a man is in return for cash. I've no idea about SL, as I've been here less than a year, but in RL this is definitely on the rise - or at the very least, the public awareness of this attitude has risen dramatically. There has been an explosion of premium snapchats, streamers that aren't overtly camgirls, all the way to the de-tabooification of sugar relationships among students over the last few years. Social attitudes will bleed over into SL; but I have no idea if SL is responding to the RL phenomenon or got there first.

I'd draw a pretty big distinction between a couple that pools their resources together, even if said contributions are not equal, and a less formalised relationship in which the foundation is a transfer of money in one direction in return for affection and intimacy. While they might seem superficially similar, that difference in foundation is crucial. I'm not sure there is a clear distinction between a 'trophy wife' and a sugarbaby, or a sugarbaby and an escort.

People respond much more strongly to feedback than simply what they see. If a man goes looking for a partner, and gets a string of rejections and "sure, but it will cost you" 's, what do you think will happen? Will he go back to the gym, try and make himself a more attractive prospect? Or will he just get out the wallet? What if that man then asks out a girl, and just assumes that he will have to pay up and so offers a sweetener? And so you get this positive reinforcement feedback loop, incentivising the monetisation of sexuality.

I agree that the primary evil is when women have no choice but to sell their sexuality. However, I think a secondary evil is when men (as a whole) are compelled by social necessity to buy sexuality. That's extremely unhealthy for all involved, men and women, and would have a massive amount of collateral damage. There are many that would say that women should be free to do what they want with their bodies, including sell them; and I agree. But here's the thing about living in a free society - I get to say that the decisions of others are stupid and harmful, and that the people making those decisions are (intentionally or otherwise) seeking to turn back the clock on every inch of progress made in the 100 years since women gained that basic democratic right to vote in the UK.

Just to provide some context for anyone that cares; I came from a family in which both parents had a career for well over a decade, before my father chose to step down and become the full time parent while my mother pursued her career. I think (and mountains of research backs me up on this) that the breadwinner + housekeeper married couple model is the best way to raise a family, by a massive margin. Please note, that entire sentence was gender blind.

Speaking from a male point of view,

There are certainly girls that have in their profiles "here is my sl wish list" or "ask me for rates" I will avoid those like the plague. However if dating and a girl wants to live with me that is fine and I wont be asking for rent from her and yes I might give her a gift here and there. However that isnt much different to rl in my experience. When they expect those things its a no go. If they don't then fine.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KanryDrago said:

Speaking from a male point of view,

There are certainly girls that have in their profiles "here is my sl wish list" or "ask me for rates" I will avoid those like the plague. However if dating and a girl wants to live with me that is fine and I wont be asking for rent from her and yes I might give her a gift here and there. However that isnt much different to rl in my experience. When they expect those things its a no go. If they don't then fine.

I always paid my share when I was living with my boyfriend in RL.  I paid some bills and bought groceries and such.  I never paid rent to my boyfriend, only to the landlord.  It's not that I didn't expect those things I wouldn't even want them.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Donna Underall said:

I always paid my share when I was living with my boyfriend in RL.  I paid some bills and bought groceries and such.  I never paid rent to my boyfriend, only to the landlord.  It's not that I didn't expect those things I wouldn't even want them.  

rl is a little different though its 100's of dollars not 2 or 3 dollars a week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

rl is a little different though its 100's of dollars not 2 or 3 dollars a week

Dunno about that though.  When my partner and I first moved in together in SL, he wanted to pay rent.  (it was 50L$ a week at that time)  I said no, we fell out and I moved out for 2 days until he understood my point of view.  If we were going to do this we shared the cost of everything equally not including random gifts.  It was important to me even when it was such a small amount.  It's been that way for 10 years now :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Selene Gregoire said:

What's worse is when you go to the "store" to find the "demo" ... there is no store. Only abandoned land or someone's home. bringit.gif.0912a1bfd25306fcece7a9cd3ea240c6.gif

Been there done that too. Ticks me off royally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the RL amounts involved and the actual necessity of outfits etc in SL, I have always assumed that all the would-be sugar babies (and yeah, there do seem to be more than there used to be) are really more interested in playing out the fantasy than anything else. My understanding is that to be an RL sugar baby with vast sums of RL money involved, one generally has to fall into a looks and age demographic that most of us mere mortals don't fit, but it's nice to imagine.

I know there are some people who are genuinely on the breadline, but I think it's fair to say that most people can stump up the RL cost of a new SL outfit or mesh body, and if you really can't then you've got much more serious problems to worry about. Land is a bit more expensive but most would-be sugar babies don't seem to be after that.

Same goes for all the escorts and sex workers and so on. The actual RL amounts most of them will be earning, in comparison to the hours worked, is so pathetic that you have to conclude it's the experience and fantasy that's calling them more than Linden signs in their eyes. I know there was a wannabe sugar baby on here a little while ago looking for USD $350 a month, and maybe she found it, but the consensus seemed to be that it wasn't likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent the afternoon sorting through most of the free group gifts given out over Christmas, along with a large pile of free poses from the Pose Fair, I have this to say:

When the revolution comes, creators that don't include unpack scripts in their boxes will be the first to the gulag.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

Having spent the afternoon sorting through most of the free group gifts given out over Christmas, along with a large pile of free poses from the Pose Fair, I have this to say:

When the revolution comes, creators that don't include unpack scripts in their boxes will be the first to the gulag.

So funny! I am in the opposite camp: I *prefer* no-scripted boxes that I can unbox manually (or even better: no boxes at all, but rather a folder when I "purchase" the item) :)

After almost 13 years in-world, I *still* rez all "boxes" (even if they are called HUD: Wear Me") on the ground, right-click and choose Open - then manually drag from that widget into my inventory *where I want it to be*. :)

Edited by Alyona Su

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too.  I get really upset with these unpackers that think they know where I want to put things in my own inventory.  I wish creators would quit using them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

So funny! I am in the opposite camp: I *prefer* no-scripted boxes that I can unbox manually (or even better: no boxes at all, but rather a folder when I "purchase" the item) :)

After almost 13 years in-world, I *still* rez all "boxes" (even if they are called HUD: Wear Me") on the ground, right-click and choose Open - then manually drag from that widget into my inventory *where I want it to be*. :)

 

3 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

Me too.  I get really upset with these unpackers that think they know where I want to put things in my own inventory.  I wish creators would quit using them.

Okay, I'm having a serious "what if I'm the crazy one?!" moment here, what am I missing? :P

What's the difference between being delivered a folder, and having a box (for backup purposes) that when clicked, delivers a folder... in exactly the same place as the first folder? Seems like the end product is exactly the same.

And either way, does it actually affect you? If the box has an unpacker script, then I can just click and I get my folder for me saving me the 'pain in the ass step', and you both can manually rez the box and manually unpack the contents. Everyone wins!

Unless there's "anti-rez" scripts or something that stops you doing that. That would indeed be dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

 

Okay, I'm having a serious "what if I'm the crazy one?!" moment here, what am I missing? :P

What's the difference between being delivered a folder, and having a box (for backup purposes) that when clicked, delivers a folder... in exactly the same place as the first folder? Seems like the end product is exactly the same.

And either way, does it actually affect you? If the box has an unpacker script, then I can just click and I get my folder for me saving me the 'pain in the ass step', and you both can manually rez the box and manually unpack the contents. Everyone wins!

Unless there's "anti-rez" scripts or something that stops you doing that. That would indeed be dumb.

I guess this is very individual thing. For me is more comfortable to open the box rezzed on the ground and to move into desired location in inventory only the content I want.

For the instance I got inventory folder "Tops" and there I prepared subfolder "Black top brand XY". I rez box on the ground and from there I move in that subfolder only version for my mesh body. I don't need LM to store, I don't need texture with the brand logo and 4 or 5 versions for bodies I do not own. 

Automaticaly unpacked it would create folder in main inventory, there I would have to erase manually what I do not want and then - the tricky part - to hold the folder and move it 6 km across the inventory and all my folders to the right place, to the folder "Tops". Much less comfortable (even when my mouse currently doesn't have hiccup and doesn't drop thigns in random folders during that process)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, loverdag said:

For the instance I got inventory folder "Tops" and there I prepared subfolder "Black top brand XY". I rez box on the ground and from there I move in that subfolder only version for my mesh body. I don't need LM to store, I don't need texture with the brand logo and 4 or 5 versions for bodies I do not own. 

Automaticaly unpacked it would create folder in main inventory, there I would have to erase manually what I do not want and then - the tricky part - to hold the folder and move it 6 km across the inventory and all my folders to the right place, to the folder "Tops". Much less comfortable (even when my mouse currently doesn't have hiccup and doesn't drop thigns in random folders during that process)

You got it exactly.  The unpacker assumes that I want everything in their package and knows where I want to put it in my inventory.  So then I have to find its stupid folder, erase the stuff I don't want, and move the stuff I do want to the right place in inventory so I can find it again.  It is SO much easier for me to just create a subfolder where I want it and then drag/drop the few things I want from the contents of the delivery box rezzed on the ground.

Share this post


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...