Jump to content
Sariteka

BDSM Lifestyle Banned in SL?

Recommended Posts

Whether I agree with Drake, Alyona, and Syo or not is beside the point.

My point is that the club owner thought it was age (and) play, and LL might think so too.  Thus, my position that it is a grey area.

Edited by Lindal Kidd

Share this post


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

Whether I agree with Drake, Alyona, and Syo or not is beside the point.

My point is that the club owner thought it was age (and) play, and LL might think so too.  Thus, my position that it is a grey area.

Where did LL ever say DD/bg was age pl@y or even possibly @ge play? The club owner was and is wrong. What do you think all these sugar babies call their sugar daddies? That is hardly @ge Pl@y. LL has left BD/sm alone for good reason, they know its is between two consenting adults, not an adult and a child. That is the point. 

Yes a club can ban who they want and i will never say they cant, but the reason assumed here is wrong. Also, to point out, the OP said 

On 10/25/2019 at 9:10 AM, Sariteka said:

The club owner got into my IM telling me Linden Lab has now made it a thing that the Lifestyle is now banned

That club owner is dead wrong. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The club owner is definitly not an instance of validation of this being a grey area. We are talking about someone lying to justify their own behavior. And if a club owners behavior was an indicator to what is within the ToS, then being  under 1,80m (or whatever most height detectors are set to these days) might be a "grey area" aswell.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2019 at 8:02 AM, Drake1 Nightfire said:

1. Little girl subs would be banned from SL as BD/Sm is an adult lifestyle. 

2. There is nothing Grey about an adult sub calling their Dom "Daddy." It is perfectly allowed as it is NOT @ge Pl@y. Good lord, the paranoia is running rampant. So is it a grey area for a latina to call her Dom "Papi?" Please.. No one has the right to tell a sub what to call their Dom/Domme. 

The club owner is a moron. Calling someone Daddy or Mommy doesn't automatically mean its @ge Pl@y. What if he was her Rp dad? plenty of family RP in SL. The big issue is the BD/SM community looks down upon the DD/bg lifestyle. It always amazes me when a group that is shunned by the general populace  turns around and shuns others. 

How do we know that the OP was presenting as an adult?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

How do we know that the OP was presenting as an adult?

She said she was in a DD/bbg relationship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

She said she was in a DD/bbg relationship. 

In Second Life, that's meaningless. The exact same RL people can say exactly the same things and behave the exact same way and the perception and TOS-compatiblity will be different if the "babygirl" looks under 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

In Second Life, that's meaningless. The exact same RL people can say exactly the same things and behave the exact same way and the perception and TOS-compatiblity will be different if the "babygirl" looks under 18.

But that doesn't explain why you see it as questionable that the OP was using an adult avatar. Where do you see the hint for that? If the OP was a child avatar engageing in adult activities in that club, the club owner wouldn't need to go to such lenghts as to make false claims about LL banning BDSM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Syo Emerald said:

But that doesn't explain why you see it as questionable that the OP was using an adult avatar. Where do you see the hint for that? If the OP was a child avatar engageing in adult activities in that club, the club owner wouldn't need to go to such lenghts as to make false claims about LL banning BDSM.

Everything the OP has said indicates that the club owner didn't say that and the warning was just about saying "Daddy." The OP sounds confused - confused enough that I don't know if they realize that the appearance of their avatar makes a difference in a situation like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Everything the OP has said indicates that the club owner didn't say that and the warning was just about saying "Daddy." The OP sounds confused - confused enough that I don't know if they realize that the appearance of their avatar makes a difference in a situation like that.

I still don't get were you are seeing a connection to their apperance? There is no indication at all that the OP is not an adult avatar. To me is assumption sounds just as likely as speculating that the OP is a tiny or a furry.

The conflict between the club owner and the OP arose over the OP calling their dom "daddy", not about how the OP looks like. The club owner also added that the "lifestyle" is now banned by LL (which is, obviously, not true), which confused the OP and lead to this thread. Nothing about that tells me that the OP is confused in the way you assume. They came here to get some information on the truthfulness of this claim.

What you assume is just so unlikely. If the OP would be a child avatar, this thread wouldn't be here. And if the OP was not a child avatar, but would have an avatar prone to be attacked by overly paranoid club owners, there would be more to this conversation than "club owner doesn't want me to say Daddy", as the club owner would see them as a direct target to be reported.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Everything the OP has said indicates that the club owner didn't say that and the warning was just about saying "Daddy." The OP sounds confused - confused enough that I don't know if they realize that the appearance of their avatar makes a difference in a situation like that.

Really? 

On 10/25/2019 at 9:10 AM, Sariteka said:

The club owner got into my IM telling me Linden Lab has now made it a thing that the Lifestyle is now banned

Are you absolutely sure of that or are you just vehemently against DD/bg? 

Appearance means very little. Unless you are in an actual child av. A short female av does not mean child. My human av s just over 6 feet tall, and i get called a child all the time at clubs. Height discrimination is a thing that needs to stop in SL. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 9:10 AM, Sariteka said:

The club owner got into my IM telling me Linden Lab has now made it a thing that the Lifestyle is now banned

 

On 10/25/2019 at 9:29 AM, Sariteka said:

The thing that I don't understand is..I looked at his info and He is a Dom......soooo????

This doesn't sound confused? We don't even know exactly what "Lifestyle" was being referred to.

45 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Really? 

Are you absolutely sure of that or are you just vehemently against DD/bg?

I'm not against any form of roleplay in Second Life.

45 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Appearance means very little. Unless you are in an actual child av. A short female av does not mean child. My human av s just over 6 feet tall, and i get called a child all the time at clubs. Height discrimination is a thing that needs to stop in SL. 

 

Remember that for Second Life purposes "child" is "under 18." Trust me - I used to roleplay as a teenager. My friend list has plenty of "This username is unavailable" entries now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Really? 

Are you absolutely sure of that or are you just vehemently against DD/bg? 

Appearance means very little. Unless you are in an actual child av. A short female av does not mean child. My human av s just over 6 feet tall, and i get called a child all the time at clubs. Height discrimination is a thing that needs to stop in SL. 

Exactly on height, then you know I'm not tall as you seen me enough times in SL to know this.  However agreed; on everything you said so far and see in world again at some point! :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

This doesn't sound confused? We don't even know exactly what "Lifestyle" was being referred to.

Confusion about the contradiction between the claims of the club owner and the information within the profile of the club owner does not amount to what you try to imply. I see it as fairly natural to be confused, that a self-called dom would make statements like the club owner did. One would expect more knowledge (and understanding) from another person, that calls themself part of the BDSM community. But as someone else already pointed out, there are many idiots out there and anyone can call themself whatever they please - even when they have no actual knowledge or connection to a respectable community.

The club owner might have refered to dd/lg being banned by LL (which is still false). The thread title indicates that the OP saw this statement as being generally about BDSM. This could be called a confusion or misunderstanding (from the information we have), but would be easily explained, considering the OP doesn't see their relationship as seperate from any other relationship within BDSM.

Point is, there is no indication that the OP is using an avatar that is a minor. LL does not ban dd/lg and is much less rough and "blanket bombing" in their execution of the ***** rules as the average club owner things they are. As discussed countless times before, even a lack of height does not mean an avatar is a minor. And I still think, if the apperance of the OP would make the club owner believe that they are portraying a minor, wouldn't the reaction be a different one? Because than it wouldn't make sense to simply ask the OP to not publicly refer to their dom as Daddy and then everything is good. It would be more along the lines of an AR and bann for both from the club etc. "Hey, I'm fine with your adult relationship stuff, but calling him Daddy, crosses a line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Syo Emerald said:

The club owner is definitly not an instance of validation of this being a grey area. We are talking about someone lying to justify their own behavior. And if a club owners behavior was an indicator to what is within the ToS, then being  under 1,80m (or whatever most height detectors are set to these days) might be a "grey area" aswell.

 

From the report, I think it's clear the club owner DID think it was a gray area.  But that doesn't matter...the club owner can require any dress code/behavior code they want, and ban anyone they want, REGARDLESS of what the ToS says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 11:34 PM, Selene Gregoire said:

giphy.gif

aawww baby sinclair :) i really do miss that show.

Anyways i get similar stuff thrown at me cuz im a tiny meerkat but i got friends who are into the whole BDSM and they aren't banned. I got a non bdsm friend i sometimes call mommy, my account is still active.
If ever in doubt, ask a linden either by a ticket or live chat.

Edited by VenKellie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rambly and a bit drawn out because I've been reading the topic so far and want to read other's thoughts and opinions on the subject. I also haven't slept yet so my mind is swiss cheese and this is my word vomit. 🤣

I've been partaking in various BDSM subsets for years online and offline, and Daddy Dom/Mommy Domme has always been one of those subsets of BDSM that I consider to be in a gray area by default. A lot of people see it as something that involves incest or underage partners, even though BDSM is supposed to be for adults and include the major things such as consent and safety protocols. Or they assume it requires such things like diaper play or age regression.

Does it have people who are underage joining in on the activities or intentionally seeking out underage partners? Yes, like other subsets. There are predators and abusive people out there, just as there are kids deeming themselves mature enough or feeling entitled to be allowed to participate in something because some aspect of that activity "belongs" to them. Like, toys, in this case.

DD/LG (or, DD/BBG here) can be as simple as two people sharing nicknames and playing with toys together, or it can be as indepth and involved as a lifestyle involving age regression, diapers, and baby speak. Hell, it can be unrelated to "child-like" activities and be just a sugar daddy relationship. "I call you daddy, you buy me things." It differs for everybody, really. It's like, a spectrum. There's a LOT of things it can involve. Sex, to varying degrees, or no sex at all. A derogatory relationship in which the little is a brat or the daddy is the boss and the little is there to serve his every whims, or a positive relationship in which the daddy is the protector and the little is his princess.

Some people, like me, prefer nonsexual stuff. I was abused as a child, and I *really* did not have a great childhood. I like to do simple stuff. Coloring books, collecting stuffies, playing video games and board games, as a few examples. It's just a way for me to zone out and toss some of the stress aside.

Daddy, by itself, is a title that can be just a kink people have. Something they enjoy being called, and not actually tied to the DD/LG dynamic. I know plenty of men that are fond of "daddy" but see zero appeal in DD/LG. Same for the term baby girl. "Baby" is a endearment I hear used a lot, in all sorts of relationships across different generations. It can be platonic, or it can be romantic, or it can be sexual.

When it comes to online activities like roleplay in Second Life or on sites such as F-list, I am used to DD/LG things being avoided like the plague. Either because, as I mentioned before, people assume it requires certain aspects (age regression, incest, underage) or they've had the unfortunate event of running into toxic situations or participants who use it as a excuse to write for a "12 year old character" (or any other underage age) rather than engaging in a ADULT roleplay activity or a roleplay activity where their ADULT character is also roleplaying.

There's the added level of avatars in Second Life, and it is *really* easy to have an avatar that comes off as a kid. I'm 27 irl and my avvies I've used to roleplay are all in their mid twenties. I've had people tell me on both sides I look like a teen and I mean, I like cute stuff and I'm short and I can see why they'd assume it.

And, there's also the fact that kinks and fetishes and whatnot don't automatically come with blanket consent. It's like the story of a friend getting mad their other two friends are partaking in subtle toy use when on a public outing. The friend never consented to be there as a participant in their friends exhibitionism. I have always kept my kink stuff, names included, to private when the area I've visited doesn't specifically give it the OK or have an umbrella rule that would include it. I don't want to 1. Make someone uncomfortable and 2. End up breaking a rule and having my enjoyment of visiting wherever ruined.

So I can totally understand why a club owner or anybody else would be hesitant or just give an outright NO when it comes to partaking in such things around them or while on their sim. I don't think their response was all that great, as they could've just said that it's not allowed on their sim, but in the end it's their property and their rules. Something to take the L on and keep in mind for future interactions and when picking places to hang out while participating in a lifestyle.

If nothing else, it's a opportunity to catch up on the SL TOS, the teen safety guidelines, and the LL's stance on age-play. Many of which fall under common sense, IMHO.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2019 at 9:18 AM, miaminightmare said:

*Points up at what you said.*

I totally agree and you have clearly done your research. While I may have agreed with some of what the others were saying on certain points I have agreed entirely on your comments. I am glad you said it. You actually saved me a lot of explaining to do so thank you for that. lol There is in fact a very grey area DD/LG or DD/BG whichever one prefers all of which you explained so I am not going to. Except to say that the context of how a person present themselves in public and the image that they project is exactly how others will perceive them and act accordingly. I also want to point out again like I said earlier BDSM is a lot like Linux and has various different flavors. BDSM is NOT just a life style only. There is such a thing as bedroom BDSM which isn't really a life style. Not really. People have a lot of weird kinks and are in to a lot of really weird stuff. To each their own. It's practiced on many levels and in various degrees. Anyone who has clearly done the research will know this as well also. That being said moving on.

The problem I see in SL is people more often then not do not use their common sense when going out. There is no real way for the club owner to know what context by the OP's type that may or may not have been used in. And if it was a Non-BDSM club then I am sorry people but you don't go to a club and expect to play romper room and patacake and expect everybody to be ok with it. This is where using our common sense comes in to play. Know when and where to say and do certain things at. It's not rocket science. Come on now. lol 🙄

Now direct to the point. Was the owner fair in how he handled the situation? Probably not. Hard to really say with out exactly knowing how it all went down.

Was the owner justified? Absolutely. He erred on the side of caution and frankly to be entirely honest I don't blame him one bloody bit for it. Anyone who has done the research will know exactly why that is.

Now me, personally if I was running the club I would not have banned no one for it. I would have just simply asked my SL wife what is the polite way of saying I'd knock that BS off if I were you and whatever she said to say then that's what I'd say it and be done with the whole bloody thing after that. lol I mean usually if your polite to people they will be respectful in return so unless not which is another matter all together it shouldn't be no problems realistically speaking. Everybody should chillax and have a good time. ;)

Was the owner full of it as far as the BDSM banned statement? Totally. We all know this. If it ever did get banned that'd be 90% of the population gone. BDSM generates a lot of cash flow with in this platform. That's the guns and the butter baby. So LL ain't trying to hear that mess. lol 😜

On 10/31/2019 at 6:55 PM, Pussycat Catnap said:

I thought NOT being in the BDSM Lifestyle was banned...

 

If anything I'd be more inclined to believe this. lol Nuff said. Lmao!!!!😁

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is ZERO grey area when it comes to DD/LG or DD/Bg relationships. They are both adults. Period. Neither participant is a child, either in RL or SL. Saying there is a "grey area" over and over only leads to misinformation, and FUD. Stop. Please. Thats like saying all furries are perverted sex maniacs just because that was the perception decades ago. Even when it wasn't true.

A sugar daddy has NOTHING to d with a DD/BG relationship. Most Sugar babies have multiple sugar daddies. There is nothing about it that is part of a DD/LG or DD/Bg pairing. They are adults, who want someone to pay for things for them. BG/LG need someone to care for them, not pay for things, emotionally care for them. Vast difference between the two. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

There is ZERO grey area when it comes to DD/LG or DD/Bg relationships. They are both adults. Period. Neither participant is a child, either in RL or SL. Saying there is a "grey area" over and over only leads to misinformation, and FUD. Stop. Please. Thats like saying all furries are perverted sex maniacs just because that was the perception decades ago. Even when it wasn't true.

A sugar daddy has NOTHING to d with a DD/BG relationship. Most Sugar babies have multiple sugar daddies. There is nothing about it that is part of a DD/LG or DD/Bg pairing. They are adults, who want someone to pay for things for them. BG/LG need someone to care for them, not pay for things, emotionally care for them. Vast difference between the two. 

So let me see if I get this right. Because they are ADULTS as you put it in a DD/LG or DD/BG relationship and if you and everyone else singing the same tune as you actually bothered to do your homework then you'd know there is a group in that life style that very well do participate in *geplay and if said couple in to that decided to engage in that then that to you does not constitute a grey area? Is that what your telling me? So Mr. Fubar can pretend to be 50 and bang Misses Fubar who is pretending to be 10 and you don't think there is a freaking grey area there? It's just all ok in your head right because they are adults? It's all good because their adults and nothings grey of jacked up about that right? You know what? That is some kind of logic man if that's what you think. You and everyone else on that gravy train ride might want to reevaluate some stuff.

Let me ask you another question. What happens when Mr. Furbar finally decides he is tired of pretending? What happens then? Come on tell me what happens when he decides he want the real damn deal? Then what? Feeding that fantasy still ok because they are adults? No grey area right?

And really your gonna bring furries in to this like that is some how the same freaking thing? Dressing up like Goofy and getting your corn dog nuked is one thing, but if we are talking about fetishes about popping your corn dog in a dogs tail end I bet your gonna tell me there is no grey area there either ain't ya? It's all good and made in shade that his corn dog is stuck up the dogs butt because he is a consenting adult too. Is that the logic your going with? Seriously?

Let me ask you something brother. You got kids? I ask because I can't imagine someone who's a parent taking that stance and actually having the audacity to say there is no freaking grey area there. Do your homework brother. Do your homework. Because news flash there is a grey area. You saying there is not is actually spreading the misinformation here because you are sadly misinformed my friend. 🙄

Edited by Velk Kerang
Corrections.
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Velk Kerang Two adult avatars, operated by two adults is not a grey area, according to the ToS. Thats a fact.

Is it weird what they do? Yes. Is it creepy? Hell, yes. Are parts of that community f'ing disgusting people? Absolutly. But thats true for a lot of communities/things and doesn't change that there is no grey area happening. No part of the ToS is calling for caution, when one adult avatar calls another one Daddy.

None of that has anything to do with the questions you ask further down. If Mr. Furbar deciedes to engage in sexual actions with child avatars, he is clearly violating the ToS. If he goes for the "real thing" he has become a criminal. But since you like that kind of logical pattern developement, lets apply it to other situations: Take pet play for example. Insanely popular in the realm of BDSM. One part takes on the role of an animal, the other the one of the owner. Just like with DD/LG you have a roleplay setting with a natural power imbalance, you have room for discipline, while also having a trusting, caring relationship. Now...would you say, that people who participate in pet play are in a grey area? That they will certainly want to go for the "real thing"? And thats also exactly the same angle the comparison to the furry community has, which you already brushed off, but which is even more valid, as there are statistics, that the fandom does contain zoophiles. (Disclaimer: In my personal opinion neither pet play nor being a furry indicates that the person has an interest in zoophilia and its rude to assume this as a stereotype).

Again, this is a ToS based discussion, not a "my opinion determines what is a grey area is or not" discussion. Talking down to Drake in this way is also not a good form tbh.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

@Velk Kerang Two adult avatars, operated by two adults is not a grey area, according to the ToS. Thats a fact.

All my comments are regarding the topic of that form of BDSM and are based on facts. That's not a ToS thing and ToS has absolutely nothing to do with it what so ever. My point is there is a grey area in that part of the community in which that community frowns up on. This is also fact. All of which had EVERTHING to do with my questions I asked. It's a grey area in that part of the BDSM community regardless of if it's in SL or RL that don't have a thing to do with it and trying to hide the reality behind the ToS does not change that FACT. Fantasies fed can sometimes lead to tragedies in reality.

1 hour ago, Syo Emerald said:

Again, this is a ToS based discussion, not a "my opinion determines what is a grey area is or not" discussion. Talking down to Drake in this way is also not a good form tbh.

It was both actually. I commented on each part accordingly. Let me correct you on something. I did not talk down to Drake. Did I talk HARD to Drake? You bet I did. I was blunt, hard, and straight to the point. I don't BS around or mince words at all. Guilty as charged. Yes ma'am. He came out hard so I acted accordingly and responded in kind. Drake is a GROWN MAN and I am a GROWN MAN and those of us in the GROWN MENS CLUB talk hard. That's just how we roll. I am old school and hard core and I don't apologize to nobody for it. I am from the dinosaur age not the politically correct age and I absolutely DO NOT have sensitivity training as you can very well see. lol It is what it is. People can either accept it or don't accept it. Put a choke hold on it and wrap it up in a gift box and send it away even if they like. I don't really care what they do.

Now did I get a bit heated? Absolutely. I am not ashamed to admit it. I almost lost it because protective mode kicked in and when it comes to child safety of which it has been known to become a threat from that side of the community I'll go from 0 to 990 in a split second of a heartbeat. In fact I edited my original heated response to tone it down to a respectable level. So I am sorry if you, him, or anyone else does not think so, but when it comes to that particular topic and some one says to me what he just said then good form is NOT a priority to me. As in AT ALL. Putting the REALITY on the table however is. You can believe that.

You think because we are talking about ToS and it is people on avatars that some how that exempts the same rules and precautions and dangers on SL that we take in RL? You think no child has ever sneaked on to the grid before? I can assure you they have. Everything I said stands regardless of platform. You take that same situation in the examples I asked and place it in SL RP and the question still stands. Feeding a fantasy is feeding a fantasy regardless of the platform of which you choose to do it in or if your doing it in real life. To think otherwise is ignorance and I don't do ignorance when it comes to children. 

You think just because Mr. and Misses Fubar jacked in to the Matrix that somehow made it all better because that's what the ToS says? Tell me my lady you seriously can't think that right?

And for the record and clarification my hypothetical questions I presented Mr.Drake with are not just for him only. Oh no no no no no. ANYONE on that gravy train ride can feel free to answer them at any given time.

As I said I have ZERO sensitivity training here. I will drop the reality HARD because I want it to register people. That's the problem with the world today now. To many afraid to speak the truth of a situation or scared they are going to hurt someone feelings. People think because they make up new words to describe situations that some how changes the REALITY of things. It doesn't.

I am no push over. I stand by what I said and I meant what I said. I presented the reality as it in fact is. Now people can choose to either accept it or they can BS themselves all day long if they like. What people absolutely can NOT say is that they were not informed. And when misinformation is presented I will absolutely correct it. Especially on something like this.

1 hour ago, Syo Emerald said:

Thats a fact.which you already brushed off,

Last and final point. I did not brush anybody off. I stuck up for them in all actuality. Apparently that is a fact that eluded you. I was blunt and straight to the point on that as well. Not trying to be rude, but I am not going to break it down and draw a diagram for people so for you and those who didn't understand where I was coming from on that hey then sorry, but I can't help you with that. For those that did get it thank you and appreciate ya.

Now on that note I am going to take a station break off of this topic and a pause for the cause. I am acknowledging the fact that Drakes comments struck a hard nerve. So for now I am out.

To Drake. If you feel like any of my words were a personal attack on you or talking down to you then I will apologize for that. I am hard, but I am also fair. I can assure you now I am not personally attacking you or anyone. I am however attacking the position on the matter. HARD obviously. You are welcome to continuing doing the same. Trust me I won't take it personal. ;)

Edited by Velk Kerang
Corrections.

Share this post


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

So let me see if I get this right. Because they are ADULTS as you put it in a DD/LG or DD/BG relationship and if you and everyone else singing the same tune as you actually bothered to do your homework then you'd know there is a group in that life style that very well do participate in *geplay and if said couple in to that decided to engage in that then that to you does not constitute a grey area? Is that what your telling me? So Mr. Fubar can pretend to be 50 and bang Misses Fubar who is pretending to be 10 and you don't think there is a freaking grey area there? It's just all ok in your head right because they are adults? It's all good because their adults and nothings grey of jacked up about that right? You know what? That is some kind of logic man if that's what you think. You and everyone else on that gravy train ride might want to reevaluate some stuff.

Let me ask you another question. What happens when Mr. Furbar finally decides he is tired of pretending? What happens then? Come on tell me what happens when he decides he want the real damn deal? Then what? Feeding that fantasy still ok because they are adults? No grey area right?

And really your gonna bring furries in to this like that is some how the same freaking thing? Dressing up like Goofy and getting your corn dog nuked is one thing, but if we are talking about fetishes about popping your corn dog in a dogs tail end I bet your gonna tell me there is no grey area there either ain't ya? It's all good and made in shade that his corn dog is stuck up the dogs butt because he is a consenting adult too. Is that the logic your going with? Seriously?

Let me ask you something brother. You got kids? I ask because I can't imagine someone who's a parent taking that stance and actually having the audacity to say there is no freaking grey area there. Do your homework brother. Do your homework. Because news flash there is a grey area. You saying there is not is actually spreading the misinformation here because you are sadly misinformed my friend. 🙄

Just because a paedo says he is part of a community does not actually make them part of said community. Paedos are found in EVERY class. So, because one Catholic priest diddles a few kids does that make all priests suspect? One Scout leader makes them all bad? You do realize that there have been plenty of people in standard BD/SM that have been arrested for paedophilia, right? Why isnt the whole community suspect? Lets take your what if further, shall we? what happens when the guy interested  in Dlcett in SL decides he wants to kill and eat his neighbor? What about when the Gorean Warrior decides to storm into Wal-Mart and take a few slaves? @ge Pl@y is banned in SL. In your examples those are NOT a DD/BG relationship. That is a paedophiliac relationship. 

And yes, i have kids. Which is why I know what a DD/BG relationship actually is. Its not about sex with kids. Its about care and protection. Perhaps you should do some research yourself. ANY DD is vehementy against paedos. But hey, lets just smear a who group of people who are innocent of wrongdoing. DDs do NOT want to have sex with kids. Plain and simple. No grey area. They just dont. Anyone who does isnt a DD. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Its not about sex with kids. Its about care and protection. Perhaps you should do some research yourself.

200% this.

12 hours ago, Velk Kerang said:

So Mr. Fubar can pretend to be 50 and bang Mrs. Fubar who is pretending to be 10 and you don't think there is a freaking grey area there? It's just all ok in your head right because they are adults?

Yes, two consenting adults doing anything with each other in private is always okay, no matter the subject. (Not applicable to SL because SL isn't "private" in the same sense. It's LL's platform, they can and will kick you off.) Children, those with developmental disorders, and non-humans cannot give informed consent, either.

12 hours ago, Velk Kerang said:

Let me ask you another question. What happens when Mr. Fubar finally decides he is tired of pretending? What happens then?

Then there are no longer just consenting adults involved, and it's becoming a crime. It's also a little odd that you're only focusing on "Mr." What about "Mrs?" Her role's alright in your own example?

All of your points (even the ones I didn't quote here) are emotionally loaded or strawmen. Before you can start questioning the holes in someone else's logic, you'll have a lot of work patching your own.

Edited by Wulfie Reanimator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Velk Kerang said:

It was both actually. I commented on each part accordingly. Let me correct you on something. I did not talk down to Drake. Did I talk HARD to Drake? You bet I did. I was blunt, hard, and straight to the point. I don't BS around or mince words at all. Guilty as charged. Yes ma'am. He came out hard so I acted accordingly and responded in kind. Drake is a GROWN MAN and I am a GROWN MAN and those of us in the GROWN MENS CLUB talk hard. That's just how we roll. I am old school and hard core and I don't apologize to nobody for it. I am from the dinosaur age not the politically correct age and I absolutely DO NOT have sensitivity training as you can very well see. lol It is what it is. People can either accept it or don't accept it. Put a choke hold on it and wrap it up in a gift box and send it away even if they like. I don't really care what they do.

Did you slam your genitals onto the table after typing this? You know, to underscore the manliness some more, you man.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 6

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...