"That is not what I meant, at all": How to Connect Respectfully

[Scylla Rhiadra]

9 hours ago, Gadget Portal said:

Yeah but...

If you look like a duck, you're in no position to expect people to think you're a swan. 

Now, I'm not saying duck hunting is without blame, I'm just saying, if you're a swan that looks like a duck, it's probably a good idea to keep a low profile at the pond come hunting season. 

Ya know I love you, Gadget, but . . .

Beth kind of says it here:

1 hour ago, Beth Macbain said:

What I expect is that ducks and swans be treated with the same amount of dignity and respect regardless of what season it is. 

Eventually, even ducks get tired of having to be the ones to accommodate themselves to the hunters. And, you know, there are things we can do about it.

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 hours ago, CoffeeDujour said:

I have a few anims from the only AO I could find where my arms don't clip into my body AND i've not accidentally stood on a fire ant nest, all because I don't want to be a brand_1 stick figure barbie.

I wonder if anyone would be interested in a sort of run-down of decent AOs for women? Of course, not everyone is going to want the same thing, and there are people who will want preening, posturing AOs, which is fine. But there might be interest in a kind of overview of the options available for those who don't want to be, as you say, "brand_1 stick figure barbie."

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 hours ago, BelindaN said:

Yeah this! I have a few anims for myself but my two alts only have a couple each. Thats not to say I might go out any time and binge on AOs. I don't think AOs should be read too seriously for all the above reasons, I just pick the ones I like, for my own amusement......

I used to assemble my own AOs, choosing animations individually from any number of animation makers, and then putting them into a Zhao HUD. It had the advantage that I'd only get the ones I wanted, but it did tend to make my avatar look a bit "busier," because most professional-assembled AOs have sort of "transitional" animations to move you more gently from one "major" pose to another. The other thing, for the same reason, is that the transitions were sometimes a bit jerky, because the animations weren't made to move from one to another.

I could probably still do this, but it would require a lot more work to get it right than I'm probably willing to put into it these days.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I used to think “Demi” meant something else, like it means “half” in “Demigod”.

Yeah, it does. I don't get the etymology for "demi" in this case. It's actually a bit of a pejorative.

2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Most men can’t even spell monogamy.

I think some believe it's a STD.

Which, for them, maybe it kinda would be?

("Doctor, what's wrong with me?"
"I'm sorry to tell you that you have acquired a case of monogamy. You can only have sex with the same person for the rest of your life."
"OMG. Is there no CURE?")

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

I haven't found a single AO that doesn't have at least a couple of those ridiculous literally-no-one-stands-around-like-this-ever animations so instead I put together my own using the Firestorm AO. So easy to use and instead of buying entire AOs, I just buy the single animations that I like. I hate, hate, hate the ones where I'm moving around in like a 10 foot space that completely disregards anyone I may be running over when I'm just trying to stand there.

Agreed. The one I have, as I say, isn't TOO bad that way (and actually, it photographs well, which is something I do a lot, so that's good). It also has a "proximity" feature, that restricts your avi to reasonably stationary animations when another avi is detected within a certain distance.

2 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

As for the male one, I won't even return an IM from any guy wearing the one that paces in circles and makes the guy look like he is  about to attack someone. I have no idea why anyone would use that. And who checks their watch that often? How many guys even wear a watch anymore?

I guess this is just part of the hypermasculine counterpart to hyperfemininity in SL. Women mince and posture like they were girlish fashion models, and men brood and look simultaneously "important" and a bit thuggish. It's of a piece with the overly-muscled, broad-shouldered, low-browed mesh avatars and skins that are so prevalent these days.

All that's fine, of course, if you like those looks; I don't necessarily object to them on ethical grounds. But the unrelenting SAMENESS of it all, and the lack of alternative models, gets wearisome.

[Bree Giffen]

I always look for an AO that doesn’t walk around the place while I'm standing still but most of the ones I use have at least one of these.

But on topic, I agree on respect for everyone no matter how they dress. The person who makes respect a part of their pick-up game will probably do well in SL. 

[Love Zhaoying]

21 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

3 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Most men can’t even spell monogamy.

I think some believe it's a STD.

If they mistake it for “mahogany”, perhaps it’s a disease of the um..”wood”.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

THIS. When it comes right down to it, people who are jerks are going to be jerks no matter what a person is wearing. I get hit on more when I'm wearing sweats in SL than I do when I'm wearing nothing but a thong and cupless bra. But I like wearing thongs and cupless bras.

If I'm looking to pick up a guy for sexy time, doesn't it make sense then that I go out dressed more like a "normal" person? And that when I'm dressed all "sl*tty" I'm dressed for me, and not to pick up guys?

This is an interesting insight. Could this phenomenon be a version of the one whereby some men seem to be actually attracted to the challenge of "succeeding" with a woman who has explicitly said she's not available? A goodly proportion of the men who hit on me have clearly read my profile, where I state quite explicitly, clearly, prominently, and firmly that I'm not available. I know this, because they'll often quote parts of my profile back to me. So, if they've read it, why are they still trying?

Is it more "fun" or more "exciting" to pursue a woman who is not obviously available -- either because she's said she's not, or because her dress seems to signal that she's not?

Or, alternately -- and this would really not surprise me -- are some men secretly or not-so-secretly contemptuous of women who wear their sexuality on their sleeves? What they want is a nice, modest, humble "Girl-next-door" type, rather than a woman who might be sexually aggressive, demanding, or self-confident?

(This is probably not a factor as such, but the historical emphasis upon virginity and chastity for women was always about choosing a woman who would be "faithful," and not pollute the bloodline -- and line of inheritance -- with bastards.)

I don't know that there's any way to test this, except perhaps anecdotally.

I do know that I am personally much less attracted to men who shout their sexual credentials loudly in everything they wear, say, or do. It's not that I'm not interested in sexually active and self-confident men, but rather that I tend to suspect that those who focus almost exclusively on their sexuality and machismo do so because they don't have an awful lot else to offer.

[Zeta Vandyke]

15 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think it would be really interesting to do a sort of survey of AOs. They are usually advertised according to the kind of mood or personality they are supposed to represent (at least, the ones I know are), but it would be sort of instructive to see what kind of a range of behaviours and motions are represented

Using Vista's Esther myself. Not overly sexy. Quite elegant and natural. And works decent enough with gowns too.

On the topic, I don't think your outfit matters much in how often you get indecent proposals. Its the intent that the person doing the proposals logs in SL with. There are people who see SL as just an online sex platform. They will contact you with just that intent, no matter how properly dressed  (or not) you are, or whatever the circumstances or environment. Have received proposals in so many occasions that made absolutely no sense at all, some of them even come from people not even on the same region as you are, they just send out random IM's to online group members, so they do not even see what you are dressed like. And generally, if they are just out here for sex, and not building op social relationships, no set of rules of engagement or outfit will make them act with dignity and respect. Well, that's my experience and opinion anyway

 

[Eva Knoller]

Re: AOs.. I find the Vista ones too busy even. And 90% of the female avis on the grid use the same three AOs from them, which is fine, but not what I wanted. I bought breathing stand animations from Ana Poses that have slight subtle movements of hands and arms. I loaded into the Firestorm AO, and I have been extremely pleased. The stands transition nicely.

[BelindaN]

25 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I do know that I am personally much less attracted to men who shout their sexual credentials loudly in everything they wear, say, or do. It's not that I'm not interested in sexually active and self-confident men, but rather that I tend to suspect that those who focus almost exclusively on their sexuality and machismo do so because they don't have an awful lot else to offer.

The thing which really does my head in about this is on the nude beaches...….*coughs*….(where I'm never nude by the way)……...the guys who have elephantine accoutrements, and don't get me started on the Mr Universe muscles...…….really? I'm more likely to engage with a skinny looking guy with a pair of shorts on...………..

[Scylla Rhiadra]

29 minutes ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

On the topic, I don't think your outfit matters much in how often you get indecent proposals. Its the intent that the person doing the proposals logs in SL with. There are people who see SL as just an online sex platform. They will contact you with just that intent, no matter how properly dressed  (or not) you are, or whatever the circumstances or environment. Have received proposals in so many occasions that made absolutely no sense at all, some of them even come from people not even on the same region as you are, they just send out random IM's to online group members, so they do not even see what you are dressed like. And generally, if they are just out here for sex, and not building op social relationships, no set of rules of engagement or outfit will make them act with dignity and respect. Well, that's my experience and opinion anyway

That there are people for whom sex is pretty much the only attraction of SL is certain: I'm sure we've all met men (and maybe women) like this, probably frequently. And I'm totally cool with that -- so long as their assumptions about the point of the platform don't start interfering with my enjoyment of it.

There's another, slightly different kind of man -- and in this case, it's always a man -- who has decided that the first thing they need to do once they've established themselves in SL is to find a "girlfriend," or, sometimes, a partner. And in the cases I'm thinking of, it's not necessarily about -- or at least mainly about -- sex. I think it's about a particular culturally-determined kind of "status" that goes along with having a woman on your arm, as though you haven't really "succeeded," or proven your masculinity, until you can lay claim to the possession of a "girlfriend" (or partner). I think, from my experience anyway, this is associated with particular RL cultures and ethnicities, where older notions of machismo still apply in ways that they don't, at least so prominently, in the middle-class Anglosphere. Interestingly, I've found that the men I've met who fit into this model can actually be rather sweet and endearing: they're not necessarily anxious to show off their macho sexuality. Rather, the focus is on an older (and, of course, still sexist) paradigm of man as "the provider" and "paterfamilias."

Edited June 21, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Beth Macbain]

14 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Is it more "fun" or more "exciting" to pursue a woman who is not obviously available -- either because she's said she's not, or because her dress seems to signal that she's not?

Or, alternately -- and this would really not surprise me -- are some men secretly or not-so-secretly contemptuous of women who wear their sexuality on their sleeves? What they want is a nice, modest, humble "Girl-next-door" type, rather than a woman who might be sexually aggressive, demanding, or self-confident?

As we've already seen from the duck hunter analogy already used here, yes, I believe men enjoy the game of trying to score with a woman who has said no for whatever reason. Perhaps it goes back to the caveman era?

As one of those women who wears her sexuality on her sleeve (if I'm wearing sleeves) both men and women can be openly contemptuous, especially in adult places as odd as that seems. You'd think people would be more open to it. I think it has been so deeply ingrained in women that we are supposed to be coy and demure and play the same hunting games in the role of "prey" that we don't know what to do when a woman refuses to play the game that way, or play it as a game at all. One of the tools for playing that game is sl*t-shaming. The ratio of men to women in SL is, what, 1:334598745? By negging other women to the men surrounding them, they are increasing their own odds of grabbing one of the rare men in SL. 

There's also an intimidation thing going on as well. Since I won't be intimidated by the so-called hunters, I must be one of them, right? A man, that is. I've voiced with people before who say, "OMG... you really are a woman!" because they felt... well, let's just say one of my former partners has in his profile to this day that I found enjoyment in emasculating men (nothing could be further from the truth). I just didn't let him walk all over me and he resented that. 

shrugs

Men are weird. 

But so are women. 

I don't think there is any question, though, that we are in a place in society right now where people who are contemptuous towards another type of human feel emboldened to shout it out and act it out. 

The issue is a big (orange) mountain to tackle.

[KanryDrago]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

There's another, slightly different kind of man -- and in this case, it's always a man -- who has decided that the first thing they need to do once they've established themselves in SL is to find a "girlfriend," or, sometimes, a partner. 

Absolute twaddle, women are just as prone to do this but you aren't going to see that as you are a woman. Just like girls also send photo's of exposed body parts as a first overt contact. I know I have a folder full of them.

Can we have less of its only men do that

Both genders have their idiots

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, BelindaN said:

The thing which really does my head in about this is on the nude beaches...….*coughs*….(where I'm never nude by the way)……...the guys who have elephantine accoutrements, and don't get me started on the Mr Universe muscles...…….really? I'm more likely to engage with a skinny looking guy with a pair of shorts on...………..

Well, this isn't entirely off-topic . . . but, really, some men have the strangest ideas about what women will find attractive.

I'm sure that there are women who oooooh and aaaaaah about that expensive, scripted mesh attachment that they bought, wherever one buys such things these days. Maybe a mesh thingy is the equivalent to owning a muscle car in RL? But, really, how impressed am I likely to be about the fact that someone bought a toy that may have set him back a few dollars? And that would probably end up poking out between my shoulder blades should he actually use it with me?

[Zeta Vandyke]

The "I must have a partner now or I'm not complete" thingy is quite non gender specific really though. Both RL as SL. I know so many girls too, who just must have a guy on their arm, and like nothing more than show them off and tell everyone how perfectly well settled they are (specially to single friends.. sigh)

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, KanryDrago said:

Both genders have their idiots

Of course they do, Kanry. But they aren't necessarily the same kind of idiots.

Gendered expectations and behaviours are a real thing, because our culture has embedded them in the way we are brought up. Men and women are sometimes stupid in the same ways, but they are as, or more frequently, dumb in different ways, because they've been taught to be.

3 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

Just like girls also send photo's of exposed body parts as a first overt contact. I know I have a folder full of them.

Can we have less of its only men do that

This has got absolutely nothing to do with the phenomenon I'm describing. I don't doubt that you've got "binders full of women," just like Mitt Romney. But that, again, is a different sort of behaviour than what I'm talking about. The men I am speaking of don't send genital pics: the culture they come from is more old-fashioned than that.

Now, if you can show me a large prevalence of women who believe that their SL is not complete until they have found a "boyfriend," then you'd be making a relevant point, because that is parallel to the case that I'm discussing. Actually, I'm sure that there are women who are like that -- but even then, the cases are a bit different because the roles assumed by each in this particular traditional monogamous model are different for each gender.

You're trying very hard to find evidence that this is another "us versus them" thread. It is not. I'm every bit as interested in the particular models that underwrite female behaviour in SL. Your own insights would be interesting: as you note, I've not experienced how women go about "connecting" to men first-hand.

But please contribute to the conversation instead of consistently misreading it to advance your unfounded thesis that there is some kind of nefarious "war of the sexes" being acted out here.

[KanryDrago]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 

You're trying very hard to find evidence that this is another "us versus them" thread. It is not. I'm every bit as interested in the particular models that underwrite female behaviour in SL. Your own insights would be interesting: as you note, I've not experienced how women go about "connecting" to men first-hand.

But please contribute to the conversation instead of consistently misreading it to advance your unfounded thesis that there is some kind of nefarious "war of the sexes" being acted out here.

Sorry Scylla I am going to pull you up every time you make these wrong assertions. If I talked about women the way you talk about men you would quite rightly pull me up on it. If you make assertions its only men that do something when its blatantly false then yes I am going to correct you. Just like Zeta did.

We get it you are an ardent feminist, however all you do is turn people like me that support sexual equality against your whole movement. It is clear from many things you post you have an agenda and it show's in the language you choose. You don't see me pulling up most of the other women here on this do you. Perhaps you should reflect its not me its you

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 minutes ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

The "I must have a partner now or I'm not complete" thingy is quite non gender specific really though. Both RL as SL. I know so many girls too, who just must have a guy on their arm, and like nothing more than show them off and tell everyone how perfectly well settled they are (specially to single friends.. sigh)

Right. As I said to Kanry, above, I'm sure there is a parallel model that applies to some women.

Again, though, I guess I'm speaking of a particular kind of model, which is a sort of reflection of older ideas of the nuclear family: the man is the provider, the woman is his helpmate, raiser of children, and keeper of the house. In that kind of model, having a girlfriend is a bit like owning a car or buying a house -- it's a sign that one is succeeding, and progressing as one should down the preordained path of culturally accepted standards.

[Zeta Vandyke]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Now, if you can show me a large prevalence of women who believe that their SL is not complete until they have found a "boyfriend," then you'd be making a relevant point, because that is parallel to the case that I'm discussing. Actually, I'm sure that there are women who are like that -- but even then, the cases are a bit different because the roles assumed by each in this particular traditional monogamous model are different for each gender.

You got a good point here. The motivation is different. For most of those girls I mentioned, the thing they are after (and show off with) is being settled and established, having caught a guy in their web to settle and have a family. Not in having an eye candy trophy on their arm.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

Sorry Scylla I am going to pull you up every time you make these wrong assertions.

Kanry, I like and respect you, truly. And I am actually delighted to be "pulled up" -- in the sense of being corrected or challenged -- by anyone. That, for me, is the point of this kind of thread.

But you don't address the specifics of my response to you (which Zeta does), which turns on the fact that, far from making an assertion about all men, I was talking about a particular cultural model of masculinity.

I have conceded, will always concede, that there are women who are idiots. An absolutely central point of feminism is to educate women so that they stop those kinds of behaviours.

But I am speaking in specific cases, and you're coming back at me with a blanket ad hominem. Respond to my points, not to what you think my agenda is.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Beth Macbain]

20 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, this isn't entirely off-topic . . . but, really, some men have the strangest ideas about what women will find attractive.

I'm sure that there are women who oooooh and aaaaaah about that expensive, scripted mesh attachment that they bought, wherever one buys such things these days. Maybe a mesh thingy is the equivalent to owning a muscle car in RL? But, really, how impressed am I likely to be about the fact that someone bought a toy that may have set him back a few dollars? And that would probably end up poking out between my shoulder blades should he actually use it with me?

Whoa now... let's not be dismissing the artistry that is the Aeros brand of that particular attachment! 

I'm joking but not... I won't do the thing with a man who doesn't have an Aeros!

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Whoa now... let's not be dismissing the artistry that is the Aeros brand of that particular attachment! 

I'm joking but not... I won't do the thing with a man who doesn't have an Aeros!

See, this is how I age myself.

In MY day, it was Xcite.

 

/me toddles off despondently on her walker.

[Beth Macbain]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

See, this is how I age myself.

In MY day, it was Xcite.

 

/me toddles off despondently on her walker.

Oh, things (thingies?) have MUCH improved since the days when xcite was the gold standard! 

I have been called a c*ck connoisseur...

[Scylla Rhiadra]

10 minutes ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

For most of those girls I mentioned, the thing they are after (and show off with) is being settled and established, having caught a guy in their web to settle and have a family.

That's such a fascinating borrowing from RL culture! Are there cultures within SL that value the appearance in women of being "settled and established"?

I think that, for the men whom I have described as valuing what you term "arm candy," the status is carried over into SL because, mostly, they hang out with other men and women of the same cultural background. In that sense, this particular RL model of male-female relationship has sort of colonized SL even though, in practical terms, it actually makes no real sense here.