SL Blogger Network

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Personally, I insist on only sex with humans, but I don't kink shame unless it's something that harms someone unable to give or understand consent. Actually, I don't kink shame then, either. I call the police.

But..furries aren’t a kink, it’s a lifestyle. Disagree? Discuss! Maybe you’re lacking info!

[Theresa Tennyson]

6 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Furries aren't animals. They are humans wearing costumes, and they have the ability to give consent. 

 

As are those in Second Life participating in the activities you think should be banned.

[Beth Macbain]

6 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

As are those in Second Life participating in the activities you think should be banned.

Couldn't the same be said for those in child avatars participating in sex? Yet we still consider that wrong.

At least I do anyway.

It's depicting adults have sexual relations with creatures, be it human or animal, that are unable to give informed consent. 

Furries are clearly wearing costumes and not RPing as an actual animal.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Beth Macbain
Typo

[Beth Macbain]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

But..furries aren’t a kink, it’s a lifestyle. Disagree? Discuss! Maybe you’re lacking info!

Being a furry isn't necessarily sexual, so you are correct. It's a lifestyle. My apologies.

[Sammy Huntsman]

Okay I do have one question. So you want blogs and pictures of an erotic nature allowed in the SLBN but Gor Banned entirely from SL? What is your thinking on that?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

32 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

As are those in Second Life participating in the activities you think should be banned.

Couldn't the same be said for those in child avatars participating in sex? Yet we still consider that wrong.

At least I do anyway.

It's depicting adults have sexual relations with creatures, be it human or animal, that is unable to give informed consent. 

Furries are clearly wearing costumes and not RPing as an actual animal

Aye, there's the rub.

Theresa's answer is the same old answer that I've been hearing since I first started posting here over 10 years ago, querying the logic underlying the distinctions we make between certain kinds of representation that are, apparently, "permissible," and others that are "wrong." And it's a hopelessly useless answer for the reason you've laid out here: by this logic, virtually no form of RP or representation should be "objectionable," so long as 1) it's not actually illegal, and 2) it involves RL adults. (We'll take consent as a given, although that can sometimes be problematic too: there are ways other than physical force or threat to compel participation).

For the record, Beth, I disagree with you about banning these kinds of representations of sexuality. But your point is well-taken. I've yet -- and I've been waiting 10 years -- to hear a really convincing argument that addresses the apparently rather arbitrary distinctions we make between different forms of consensual representation here. And I'm not expecting to hear one now.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

31 minutes ago, halebore Aeon said:

Okay I do have one question. So you want blogs and pictures of an erotic nature allowed in the SLBN but Gor Banned entirely from SL? What is your thinking on that?

And this too raises an interesting question. Let's suppose that LL puts a button on their SLBN page for those who want to see blogs that cover "sexual content": this in turn leads to a content warning page, and maybe asks users to confirm that they are over 18, before admitting them to a smorgasbord of good dirty fun in SL.

What kind of "sexuality" is permissible? Gor? Rape RP? Extreme sexual violence? Sex with animals?

Do we need separate buttons for Gor, Snuff and rape RP, Dolcett, etc.? Or, should LL quietly pretend that those things don't exist in SL?

What about BDSM? It's probably sufficiently mainstream that much of it is acceptable, but there's some pretty extreme and violent content there too.

I raise this not because I'm advocating for the inclusion of these things in an adult version of SLBN, but because the problematics of this discussion are being skipped over a little lightly. At some point, someone is going to make a decision about what LL wants publicly associated with its platform. That "someone" is going to be someone in the Linden Lab organization, and the decision is going to be founded, not upon a sense of "fairness" or "justice," and much less upon a desire to represent SL as it actually is, but rather driven by the perceived imperative of public relations and promotion.

I think that a separate and somewhat sequestered "adult" SLBN is actually a good idea, for a variety of reasons. But we'd either better accept that LL's decisions will service their own perceived needs . . . or we'd better start grappling with some really really tough questions about the kinds of content available on this platform.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra
Edited to replace a term that, rather surprisingly actually, is censored by this software with an equivalent that probably isn't.

[Sammy Huntsman]

9 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And this too raises an interesting question. Let's suppose that LL puts a button on their SLBN page for those who want to see blogs that cover "sexual content": this in turn leads to a content warning page, and maybe asks users to confirm that they are over 18, before admitting them to a smorgasbord of good dirty fun in SL.

What kind of "sexuality" is permissible? Gor? Rape RP? Extreme sexual violence? Sex with animals?

Do we need separate buttons for Gor, Snuff and rape RP, Dolcett, etc.? Or, should LL quietly pretend that those things don't exist in SL?

What about BDSM? It's probably sufficiently mainstream that much of it is acceptable, but there's some pretty extreme and violent content there too.

I raise this not because I'm advocating for the inclusion of these things in an adult version of SLBN, but because the problematics of this discussion are being skipped over a little lightly. At some point, someone is going to make a decision about what LL wants publicly associated with its platform. That "someone" is going to be someone in the Linden Lab organization, and the decision is going to be founded, not upon a sense of "fairness" or "justice," and much less upon a desire to represent SL as it actually is, but rather driven by the perceived imperative of public relations and promotion.

I think that a separate and somewhat sequestered "adult" SLBN is actually a good idea, for a variety of reasons. But we'd either better accept that LL's decisions will service their own perceived needs . . . or we'd better start grappling with some really really tough questions about the kinds of content available on this platform.

The only reason why I am questioning that, is because of one thing. If she is an advocate for sex being on SLBN. Do you not think she would not be about shaming certain kinks and lifestyles. You do raise a lot of good points, and yes I do agree if they were to put it on there. Would they have to put each thing under a certain category? But my whole question was to question her contradiction. She wants to see sex being represented on the SLBN, and says that sex is being put "underground" as it were. But here she is, shaming a kink and essentially doing what she is trying to fight for. Representation of sexual content on the SLBN.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

12 minutes ago, halebore Aeon said:

But my whole question was to question her contradiction.

I don't think the contradiction is Beth's -- I think it's a fundamental problem that LL has skirted around since the very beginning. LL is mostly pretty liberal, almost to a fault some might say, and it really only acts, as it did during the pedophilia controversy over a decade ago, when its hand is forced by legal authorities or really bad publicity.

LL's own attitude towards this is at least a little more complicated than they might like to pretend: the advertisements for Premium Membership used to (and maybe still do?) highlight, over top of a picture of a nice, clean-cut heterosexual couple looking a bit frisky, that Premium affords you more "privacy." Hint hint, nudge nudge, wink wink, right?

[Tari Landar]

There are a lot of things, hell people, I'd like to see removed from sl altogether, or never allowed in sl. That's not me shaming, kink, lifestyle, or otherwise. That is me expressing my dislike or distaste for something or someone-I'm not SHAMING them b saying :I don't like you" or "I don't like what you're doing", wtf kinda logic is that?  That doesn't mean my dislike or distaste would, should, or will dictate how others do or think of things, including LL, that too should be obvious. I'd like to see most of GOR removed from sl too, for all kinds of reasons, none of which matter an iota to anyone but me (and I don't expect them to, no one should)...but, as my dad said..put want in one hand poop in the other, see which fills up first. In other words, wants don't really beget tangible needs (needs in this case being the availability and variety of GOR-the needs or desires of others, and apparently LL, for it to be here..however you want to word that).

Me saying I don't like certain adult things that are present in sl, doesn't mean I think they should be excluded if there ever is (super important IF there) proper advertising(marketing) and venue for such. I don't have to like it, but I'm not asking for it to be excluded when I say I don't like it. It is what it is. So, me saying "I think all GOR should be removed from sl" does not mean the same as "I think GOR should be excluded from the adult version of this convoluted "network"". Can you see the difference, (that's not snarky, please don't think it is, lol) or am I not explaining this clearly? I think it might be the latter, but not sure. Makes total sense in my head, but since I'm not the only one in there....it might not be me talking. 

 

[Sammy Huntsman]

12 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

There are a lot of things, hell people, I'd like to see removed from sl altogether, or never allowed in sl. That's not me shaming, kink, lifestyle, or otherwise. That is me expressing my dislike or distaste for something or someone-I'm not SHAMING them b saying :I don't like you" or "I don't like what you're doing", wtf kinda logic is that?  That doesn't mean my dislike or distaste would, should, or will dictate how others do or think of things, including LL, that too should be obvious. I'd like to see most of GOR removed from sl too, for all kinds of reasons, none of which matter an iota to anyone but me (and I don't expect them to, no one should)...but, as my dad said..put want in one hand poop in the other, see which fills up first. In other words, wants don't really beget tangible needs (needs in this case being the availability and variety of GOR-the needs or desires of others, and apparently LL, for it to be here..however you want to word that).

Me saying I don't like certain adult things that are present in sl, doesn't mean I think they should be excluded if there ever is (super important IF there) proper advertising(marketing) and venue for such. I don't have to like it, but I'm not asking for it to be excluded when I say I don't like it. It is what it is. So, me saying "I think all GOR should be removed from sl" does not mean the same as "I think GOR should be excluded from the adult version of this convoluted "network"". Can you see the difference, (that's not snarky, please don't think it is, lol) or am I not explaining this clearly? I think it might be the latter, but not sure. Makes total sense in my head, but since I'm not the only one in there....it might not be me talking. 

 

But here is the thing, and we run into a dilemma here. A conundrum, that would ripple throughout all lifestyles of BDSM. If we get rid of one of them, or get rid of most of it as you said. Than we gotta start looking into other parts of BDSM and removing bits and pieces from them too. So essentially cutting out the bits we don't like or we don't find are good for SL. It just turns into a problem that would ultimately be the fall and potential closure of SL. A lot of people come to SL to explore certain part of themselves free of judgement and shame. Take me for example, I live in Canada but there are some pretty backwoods extremely conservative parts. I am trans, and I use SL as a way to help my gender dysphoria, until I can get the money and move. I am not gonna up and leave SL once that criteria is met. But here is the thing, SL is used as an escape but at the same time it is used as a place to be able to be yourself without being judged or shamed. So by saying most of Gor or any lifestyle for that fact, you are in fact telling these people it's not alright to express themselves. From what I understand of Gor, and my current partner used to be a part of it. It's basically a woman is property of a man. And if the woman is consenting, and cool with it, than I am totally fine with it. People are allowed to be into this kinda thing. Also if you ban part of it, it makes no sense. You either ban it all together or not at all. Can't cherry pick certain aspects you don't like, yet keep the parts you like around.

Edited September 29, 2019 by halebore Aeon

[Sammy Huntsman]

12 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I don't think the contradiction is Beth's -- I think it's a fundamental problem that LL has skirted around since the very beginning. LL is mostly pretty liberal, almost to a fault some might say, and it really only acts, as it did during the pedophilia controversy over a decade ago, when its hand is forced by legal authorities or really bad publicity.

LL's own attitude towards this is at least a little more complicated than they might like to pretend: the advertisements for Premium Membership used to (and maybe still do?) highlight, over top of a picture of a nice, clean-cut heterosexual couple looking a bit frisky, that Premium affords you more "privacy." Hint hint, nudge nudge, wink wink, right?

Being as Liberal as it is, you really can't sit here and allow one action, but condone the other. You either gotta allow both or none at all.

[Tari Landar]

Ftr, I should make this clear, I am not necessarily advocating for, or against, adult stuff to be on this..whatever LL wants to call it. Although I do think it could,  be done (and it is done in other places, along these similar lines-and I'm not suggesting it's necessarily EASY, just possible) with the proper policies and controls, hard limits on things, (all of which would rest on LL's shoulders to determine) etc.. in place. I know it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of happening BECAUSE LL isn't capable of implementing and enforcing proper policies when and where needed. It may be that they simply don't want to-which I suspect is due in large part to how many resources will need to be allocated and how few they have already. It's not a finance thing(imo) because LL makes bank (folks, none of us would be here if they didn't, lol), but the other resources necessary, man power mostly, may just be one of those "eh, we don't wanna" deals-which is par for the course. I'm not "shaming" LL for taking that path if they do, lol. It wouldn't be the first time they made a decision to not do something because they simply didn't want to.

Most of my other novel was in regards to *marketing, not just the blogger network itself-I don't think I made the lines clear enough. Marketing and advertising to potential end-users is a whole different ballgame than making a blog and copy pasting others' content in it which is geared towards and presented to existing end users(this "network" is the latter). 

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

I don't have to like it, but I'm not asking for it to be excluded when I say I don't like it.

This is a fundamental and important point that I constantly run across. I dislike, and will vehemently criticize, all sorts of forms of RP and representation in SL, but that doesn't mean that I want to see it "banned."

Similarly, in RL, I dislike (in no particular order) most conservative political parties, most organized religions, music that employs misogyny in its lyrics, and Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. But I don't believe any of these things (or people) should be banned. On the contrary, I'd strongly protest any attempt to do so, and actually really fundamentally believe, because I don't think it's healthy to live in an echo chamber, that these viewpoints, however much I despise them, are important.

It's ignorance, intellectual laziness, or rhetorical opportunism that lies behind accusations that a critique of something equates to a form of censorship.

[Tari Landar]

4 minutes ago, halebore Aeon said:

But here is the thing, and we run into a dilemma here. A conundrum, that would ripple throughout all lifestyles of BDSM. If we get rid of one of them, or get rid of most of it as you said. Than we gotta start looking into other parts of BDSM and removing bits and pieces from them too. So essentially cutting out the bits we don't like or we don't find are good for SL. It just turns into a problem that would ultimately be the fall and potential closure of SL. A lot of people come to SL to explore certain part of themselves free of judgement and shame. Take me for example, I live in Canada but there are some pretty backwoods extremely conservative parts. I am trans, and I use SL as a way to help my gender dysphoria, until I can get the money and move. I am not gonna up and leave SL once that criteria is met. But here is the thing, SL is used as an escape but at the same time it is used as a place to be able to be yourself without being judged or shamed. So by saying most of Gor or any lifestyle for that fact, you are in fact telling these people it's not alright to express themselves. From what I understand of Gor, and my current partner used to be a part of it. It's basically a woman is property of a man. And if the woman is consenting, and cool with it, than I am totally fine with it. People are allowed to be into this kinda thing. Also if you ban part of it, it makes no sense. You either ban it all together or not at all. Can't cherry pick certain aspects you don't like, yet keep the parts you like around.

Did you not read a word that I said or something? Where on earth did I say that LL should get rid of something I don't like? Where?

People can express themselves however they wish, I don't give a rat's left nut. I don't have to like it. They don't have to like what I do, think, or say, either. I'm cool with that. 

I specifically said MY dislikes and distaste for things should NOT dictate what others do. It's not this damn complicated, lol. 

I didn't say "LL BAN THIS", I said "I don't like something".

I may be blind, but...those words are not the same. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, halebore Aeon said:

Being as Liberal as it is, you really can't sit here and allow one action, but condone the other. You either gotta allow both or none at all.

I have to disagree: this is a reductive binary. In real life we accept, because we have to, that there are always shades of grey, and that hard and fast rules invariably are either unworkable or produce injustice. Life, and Second Life, is more complicated than this suggests.

[Tari Landar]

6 minutes ago, halebore Aeon said:

Being as Liberal as it is, you really can't sit here and allow one action, but condone the other. You either gotta allow both or none at all.

LL makes judgement calls on what's allowed and what;s not all the time. So, no, they don't gotta do anything at all and they very much can sit there and allow one action and not the other. We can either accept they will allow things we don't like, and avoid those things using the tools they provide for us to do so(or, you know, our own moral/ethical/behavioral compasses)-provided they remain within the confines of whatever legalities they must to stay compliant of course, or we talk with our feet and move on down the road. There is no middle ground where you get to dictate what LL does or doesn't do, there never has been. I mean, yeah sometimes they listen to us (smart business folk do sometimes listen), but we don't dictate jack all, lol.  

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

From what I understand of Gor, and my current partner used to be a part of it. It's basically a woman is property of a man. And if the woman is consenting, and cool with it, than I am totally fine with it. People are allowed to be into this kinda thing. Also if you ban part of it, it makes no sense. You either ban it all together or not at all. Can't cherry pick certain aspects you don't like, yet keep the parts you like around.

Yes, you can "cherry pick." And we do, all the time.

So, ok -- you're fine with Gor, because the users are consenting. Indeed, they are.

So, by the same logic, you're ok with a sim that RPs the KKK and the lynching of "consenting" black men? How about RPing German WWII concentration camps? Is pedophilia ok? What about groups that are explicitly built around homophobia and transphobia (and believe me, such exist).

Your "all one, or all the other" approach to this is going to produce either a Second Life that is so homogenized and boring that even Mike Pence would find it dull, or one that is so stuffed full of violently racist and sexist content that it'll make 8Chan look tame.

[Tari Landar]

That's a weird misquote, lol (not your fault, I hate when the forums do that)

But I agree with Scylla, and she says it better than I can, or will, anyway...I had to remove an awful lot of not nice things in my other posts. I think I'll go take a walk in the rain.

 

[Sammy Huntsman]

11 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Yes, you can "cherry pick." And we do, all the time.

So, ok -- you're fine with Gor, because the users are consenting. Indeed, they are.

So, by the same logic, you're ok with a sim that RPs the KKK and the lynching of "consenting" black men? How about RPing German WWII concentration camps? Is pedophilia ok? What about groups that are explicitly built around homophobia and transphobia (and believe me, such exist).

Your "all one, or all the other" approach to this is going to produce either a Second Life that is so homogenized and boring that even Mike Pence would find it dull, or one that is so stuffed full of violently racist and sexist content that it'll make 8Chan look tame.

I was talking about lifestyles within BDSM, not about certain things like that. I don't know where you got that, when it specifically states in the TOS behaviour such as the RPs you described is totally a no no. Yeah I could have explained it better, but the thing is. But again, I was referring to the BDSM lifestyles and sexuality on SL. Not about race or past stuff that happened in history.

[Mollymews]

6 hours ago, Selene Gregoire said:

We've already had one separate Teen grid that was shoved off on all the adults when LL shut it down. Why on earth would we need another one?

Honestly, SL is no place for someone who is under 18. It was never intended for children. IMO, it should be 18 and over only. And if they want a place for the underaged, they can bring back the Teen grid.

When things aren't broken you don't fix them LL! Teen Grid wasn't broken! 

If they can give the underaged a continent of their own that is not accessible by over 18s, I'm all for it. Just don't take away the adult G rated regions. They have their place and purpose.

i was working from the current rules for having an sccount

18+ maingrid level access. G + M + A

16-17. maingrid level G

13-15. restricted private estate level G. The restricted private estate level G also allows 16+ accounts including adults, access as invited by the estate owner. To get this kind of estate, Linden have rules governing RL identity

at the moment 16-17 yo's  can go to any G rated region on the grid

my view is that while under 18s (16-17s) are allowed to have an account with this access level, then all of the G mainland regions should be on a continent of their own

edit add: what I am advocating is that the inworld view for the different levels should be consistent for the residents. A practical way to do this is by continent ratings

Edited September 29, 2019 by Mollymews

[Annie Nova]

On 9/27/2019 at 2:53 PM, Beth Macbain said:

Personally, I don't mind people thinking that. I believe they will be very surprised when they arrive and learn that it is much more than just sex. 

I think you aren't reading all my words. You're skipping over all the parts where I say to diversify the advertising (and I do count blogs in this, just to keep it on topic). 

Currently, if a potential new resident goes solely by what they see on the SL website or LL's current methods of advertising SL, they wouldn't have a clue that adult content exists since LL pretends it doesn't and refuses to acknowledge it. 

To twist your last sentence around, sex is part of this world, and same goes for SL. 

While I do agree that sex is a huge part of SL, when I joined sex was not why I joined. I joined out of curiosity because I wanted to see if it really was real. It wasn't until much later that I found out that you could actually have sex in SL. But, consider the majority of people that see an ad or a blog about SL and are intrigued by the fact that you can build things, sell things and even work in SL. That would be the big draw for them, and when they came inworld they realized that being in SL is almost like RL but perhaps in a more positive way. I know that you love sex, you've made that abundantly clear in a lot of your posts and yes I also enjoy sex in SL not everyone will have the same outlook as you do when it comes to sex. Call it prudish if you want, but you can't expect everyone to fall in line with that kind of thinking, no matter how much you want it. Again, as Halebore has said, How do you showcase it without showing the bits and bobs and not making it sleazy. As far a corn stub is concerned, it's not how I would want SL to be advertised. (if that's what you are suggesting by adding video to that site) to me that would just bring in a lot of sleazeballs (not that everyone that watches corn are sleazeballs, because I know they aren't) I'm just saying, not everyone wants SL sex shoved in their face. 

I don't even know if what I wrote makes any sense because I'm not feeling all that great, so if it doesn't make sense, just ignore it and move on lol

[Sammy Huntsman]

4 minutes ago, anniepany said:

While I do agree that sex is a huge part of SL, when I joined sex was not why I joined. I joined out of curiosity because I wanted to see if it really was real. It wasn't until much later that I found out that you could actually have sex in SL. But, consider the majority of people that see an ad or a blog about SL and are intrigued by the fact that you can build things, sell things and even work in SL. That would be the big draw for them, and when they came inworld they realized that being in SL is almost like RL but perhaps in a more positive way. I know that you love sex, you've made that abundantly clear in a lot of your posts and yes I also enjoy sex in SL not everyone will have the same outlook as you do when it comes to sex. Call it prudish if you want, but you can't expect everyone to fall in line with that kind of thinking, no matter how much you want it. Again, as Halebore has said, How do you showcase it without showing the bits and bobs and not making it sleazy. As far a corn stub is concerned, it's not how I would want SL to be advertised. (if that's what you are suggesting by adding video to that site) to me that would just bring in a lot of sleazeballs (not that everyone that watches corn are sleazeballs, because I know they aren't) I'm just saying, not everyone wants SL sex shoved in their face. 

I don't even know if what I wrote makes any sense because I'm not feeling all that great, so if it doesn't make sense, just ignore it and move on lol

Heck, I came to SL cause I saw an article in a business magazine about Anshe Chung talking about virtual real estate. I read through the article, mind you this was back in 2007. But even then, I never once thought that SL was about sex, nor had intentions to do so. My Intentions were to try and make a name for myself on the grid. Fast Forward almost 12 years later, I am kinda doing that but not as I originally intended to. I blog, and found enjoyment out of doing that. But yeah as you said, not a lot of people come in just for the sex. Most of us have heard it by word of mouth, or even by seeing it on TV or even in magazines. I know a lot of people who came here, cause they saw it in the office or CSI: NY. Actually I watched that episode of CSI:NY, it was really good. Now I want to watch it now.

[Annie Nova]

On 9/28/2019 at 6:11 AM, Whirly Fizzle said:

I wonder if "The Whisperer" & "Virtual Secrets" applied 💣

God, I hope not lol

 

[Sammy Huntsman]

3 minutes ago, anniepany said:

On 9/28/2019 at 7:11 AM, Whirly Fizzle said:

I wonder if "The Whisperer" & "Virtual Secrets" applied 💣

 

3 minutes ago, anniepany said:

God, I hope not lol

 

Please god no, we don't need smut like that tarnishing SL's name anymore than it does.