"Share" is taken out of the viewer completely?

[Prokofy Neva]

8 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

No one is going to argue that getting drunk is a good thing, or that putting oneself in dangerous situations is not unwise. Are there really any women out there who are NOT made aware of this every time they are at a bar, on a first date, or walking a quiet street at night?

Your characterization of alcohol consumption and its relationship to date rape falls into a highly recognizable pattern associated with sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape: the tendency to suggest that the best remedy is one that involves the victims surrendering rights, rather than the perpetrators correcting their behaviour. Getting harassed in the street? Maybe you shouldn't be wearing such "provocative" clothing! Did you get assaulted while out one night? Well, clearly there are places that you, as a woman, shouldn't go. Did you get beaten or raped by your spouse? Well, you knew he was violent: why didn't YOU leave him? Etc., etc., etc.

In this way, addressing the very real and pressing issues of harassment and sexual assault becomes -- surprise! -- just another mechanism to restrict the freedom of women, and control THEIR behaviour. If that succeeds, we needn't even bother addressing the criminality of the perpetrators; if we keep the candy safely out of sight, they won't even be tempted.

Alcohol is probably involved in about 50% of date rape cases, but the most important determinant is not, in fact, the intoxication of the victim, but rather that of the perpetrator. And in many cases, the alcohol or drug consumption of the victim has been engineered (including through the use of date rape drugs) by the perpetrator.

Yet your analogy has almost nothing to say about the alcohol consumption of the rapist: instead, you choose to focus on the drinking of the victim. Why choose this particular analogy, which in practical and rhetorical terms suggests that the origin of the crime is in the woman's behaviour? Here are your exact words (emphasis added):

Yeah, no. This is not "truly the story." The "story" is that we, as a culture, would rather reduce the liberty of women to make exactly the same kinds of lifestyle choice these men are making, than address the way in which those men sometimes abuse their own freedom.

My issues with and reservations about representations of sexual violence in SL have been a matter of public record here, in-world, and on the blogosphere for over 11 years now. I even produced an exhibit on the subject in 2010 that is still up. I'd be delighted to give you a personal tour.

You and I differ in our views on this subject in at least 3 ways:

• I respect women's right to choose their own mode of sexual expression, even if I personally dislike or disagree with it.
   
• I don't believe that these representations should be banned, for a number of reasons, not least of which is 1) above.
   
• I distinguish between representations of gendered sexual violence (e.g., Gor) which are premised upon repressive assumptions about the power imbalances between men and women, and BDSM, which, properly understood anyway, is not gendered, and has nothing to say intrinsically about women's supposed "inferiority" or "natural" submissiveness.

I'm not on board with you on your crusade because your views on this are reductive, oppressive, and retrograde. But don't accuse me of having nothing to say on the subject. And I certainly don't need your guidance on how to approach it.

 

So you're suggesting "the right to get $$$$-faced drunk"? Why? That's not a very kind thing to advocate for women. It's self-destructive and stupid. And there is no such "right" in any formal sense; it's a negative right in the sense that there is no formal restriction on anyone over the drinking age getting as plastered as they wish,even to the point of death by alcohol poisoning.

The very real issues of sexual harassment and especially sexual assault are indeed real. But they are a subject of another debate -- what you do about them. I'm not for prosecuting people on charges that come from one accuser, with no ability to provide exonerating evidence, no right of discovery, no ability to cross-examine witnesses, etc. -- the regular features of due process in an independent judiciary. I'm for taking all cases of rape on college campuses -- and by the way, all cases of molestation of children by Catholic priests -- to the police or FBI or authority responsible and have them prosecute it in a system that doesn't violate suspects' rights on the way to justice. I think in the end more justice will be achieved in real justice systems, not fake justice systems, because it will be less possible to cover up and to favour only those wealthy enough to get good lawyers. Other than prosecution, there is a wide range of educational solutions, some of which make sense, and some of which are re-education in the Chinese style. I'm not interested in debating the remedies for fixing men with you because your views are extreme and you don't debate in good faith.

Re: "Alcohol is probably involved in about 50% of date rape cases, but the most important determinant is not, in fact, the intoxication of the victim, but rather that of the perpetrator. And in many cases, the alcohol or drug consumption of the victim has been engineered (including through the use of date rape drugs) by the perpetrator."

It doesn't matter if the perpetrator's drunkenness is a factor, TOO; that's not preventable for a woman (except by what, urging the passage of a law that bar the sale of alcohol to ANY male of ANY age?), but her own drinking levels ARE controllable. This INFANTILIZATION of women and implying that their own control of their own drinking as as defense against rape somehow "exonerates" or "makes it easier" for rapists go to the heart of what is so terribly wrong with radical feminism. It's absurd and untenable for every day life.

I've read a lot of these cases, especially after a girl made a FALSE claim of rape on my daughter's campus, her college went into complete overdrive in response, but then never had the decency to provide as much publicity to the girl's admission that her claim was entirely concocted. There's one case even involving a famous person in Second Life whose case illustrated the shocking lack of due process and insanity around these cases. I've read everything about "Mattress Girl" who really has no case and never did. 

It's simply not true that there are "many" cases of the use of drugs. The garden variety of case is that the girl gets drunk at a frat party and can't get out of a bad situation. The solution is not to get drunk and even not to go to frat parties. Anything beyond that can be debated or implemented but it starts with that basic respect for a woman's right and ability to control her own situation.

So, after you get done with your extreme hypotheticals and dubious statistical claims, meanwhile, there is a practical solution for date rape: prevention. And that is the analogy to use with photo-taking. So either this can be drastic prevention -- don't leave your sim or never go to a party in RL. Or prudent prevention - leave your sim and either ask people not to take your picture or *don't care*. You could add to this a debate about how women should dress to avoid unwanted attention in SL or RL. I'm not interested in that debate because I believe in freedom of expression and the right of women to dress as they wish regardless of the "male gaze". I would point out that if you undress naked at an event to try on clothes -- something I see people doing time and again, like idiots -- then don't be surprised if some men take photos of you and ridicule you or harass you. Again, *not* stripping naked on a public sim is a prudent piece of advice to avoid scandal and picture taking. 

It's always useful to remember how the FIC took the side of the "Upskirt Museum"  (Google it) -- which should have been closed, and its creator banned, in my view, since it was harassment of the kind that doesn't fall into the "public sphere" freedoms. 

Yes, I choose to focus on the victim's drinking because it's the one thing in this equation that is readily fixable by real action in a timely manner. Fixing the male rapist is harder, and involves a wide range of remedies about which people will not agree.

You know in your heart that if the woman doesn't get totally drunk, she's that much better off and you'd likely follow this advice in your own life or wish your daughter to follow it, or your sister or best friend.

Yet you pretend it's a distraction or a detraction or some kind of making common cause with criminals. That's because you are UNABLE TO CONCEIVE of remedies and solutions that don't involve totalitarian control by radical feminists. And sorry, no one is going to let you make a society like that or let you get very far with that, and what has happened with Title IX and its ability to de-fund universities that don't prosecute even frivolous and false rape charges is a good example. It's undone -- and quite frankly might have been undone by a president far better than Trump.

As for this: "I distinguish between representations of gendered sexual violence (e.g., Gor) which are premised upon repressive assumptions about the power imbalances between men and women, and BDSM, which, properly understood anyway, is not gendered, and has nothing to say intrinsically about women's supposed "inferiority" or "natural" submissiveness" -- I realize you are in no position to see the inherent hypocrisy and preposterousness of this "nuanced" view.

The ONLY way we can live in a world with this view prevailing is if you and your little friends take totalitarian control over society and like the Red Queen, say whatever you wish a word to mean, and change it at will. In other words, only arbitrary and subjective likes and dislikes and beliefs and non-beliefs of the sort amply illustrated here about what is "gendered" or not could affect the society, and not law and the rule of law. 

Your "nuanced" views of violence against women are simply reprehensible and merely provide a marker for your overall extreme ideology. If you're going to invoke "consent" for BDSM, you'd have to invoke it for Gor, too; perhaps Gor just doesn't seem as well executed in the literary fashion you admire or has more stark sexist cliches than the typical ones on the BDSM scene to which you seem curiously colour-blind.

BDSM is always practicing on people who haven't consented in just the way you are now, by demanding they submit to some "special" and "nuanced" and "proper" way of understanding their arcane rituals -- which at the end of the day, are merely the mundane and sordid story of abuse of power and lying about it.

I'm well aware of your exhibits and your views and your lectures and admonishments about this are hardly required. I'm calling out *once again* how hypocritical it is to posture about date rate and drinking and accuse those of invoking the need not to get drunk as "aligned" with rapists. It's indefensible and self-discredits.

The reason I have even bothered with this inane off-topic debate is because I think the claim that sharing photos outside of SL is fundamentally "unethical" is wrong and unjustified and rooted in just that aspiration for totalitarian control over others that comes from the extremist feminist and extremist transgender movements, and I fail to see why any of us need to countenance that sort of oppression.

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Prokofy Neva

[Prokofy Neva]

19 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

Rape is like lynching: neither can be used in an analogy.

(Y'all see what I did there, right?)

Oh, gosh, Qie, too clever by half.

The analogy here isn't to rape, however; it's to PREVENTION. Just as not getting drunk is a prevention of rape you can't argue with if you are in good faith -- barring the far less frequent cases of strangers assaulting you on the street -- so not going out in public places OR asking anyone who happens to photograph you at that individual moment not to share OR not caring if they do are preventions that would serve better instead of blanket bans on sharing outside of SL under the false belief it is "unethical".

Just to remind you of the topic of the conversation.

[Prokofy Neva]

9 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

No one is going to argue that getting drunk is a good thing, or that putting oneself in dangerous situations is not unwise. Are there really any women out there who are NOT made aware of this every time they are at a bar, on a first date, or walking a quiet street at night?

Your characterization of alcohol consumption and its relationship to date rape falls into a highly recognizable pattern associated with sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape: the tendency to suggest that the best remedy is one that involves the victims surrendering rights, rather than the perpetrators correcting their behaviour. Getting harassed in the street? Maybe you shouldn't be wearing such "provocative" clothing! Did you get assaulted while out one night? Well, clearly there are places that you, as a woman, shouldn't go. Did you get beaten or raped by your spouse? Well, you knew he was violent: why didn't YOU leave him? Etc., etc., etc.

In this way, addressing the very real and pressing issues of harassment and sexual assault becomes -- surprise! -- just another mechanism to restrict the freedom of women, and control THEIR behaviour. If that succeeds, we needn't even bother addressing the criminality of the perpetrators; if we keep the candy safely out of sight, they won't even be tempted.

Alcohol is probably involved in about 50% of date rape cases, but the most important determinant is not, in fact, the intoxication of the victim, but rather that of the perpetrator. And in many cases, the alcohol or drug consumption of the victim has been engineered (including through the use of date rape drugs) by the perpetrator.

Yet your analogy has almost nothing to say about the alcohol consumption of the rapist: instead, you choose to focus on the drinking of the victim. Why choose this particular analogy, which in practical and rhetorical terms suggests that the origin of the crime is in the woman's behaviour? Here are your exact words (emphasis added):

Yeah, no. This is not "truly the story." The "story" is that we, as a culture, would rather reduce the liberty of women to make exactly the same kinds of lifestyle choice these men are making, than address the way in which those men sometimes abuse their own freedom.

My issues with and reservations about representations of sexual violence in SL have been a matter of public record here, in-world, and on the blogosphere for over 11 years now. I even produced an exhibit on the subject in 2010 that is still up. I'd be delighted to give you a personal tour.

You and I differ in our views on this subject in at least 3 ways:

• I respect women's right to choose their own mode of sexual expression, even if I personally dislike or disagree with it.
   
• I don't believe that these representations should be banned, for a number of reasons, not least of which is 1) above.
   
• I distinguish between representations of gendered sexual violence (e.g., Gor) which are premised upon repressive assumptions about the power imbalances between men and women, and BDSM, which, properly understood anyway, is not gendered, and has nothing to say intrinsically about women's supposed "inferiority" or "natural" submissiveness.

I'm not on board with you on your crusade because your views on this are reductive, oppressive, and retrograde. But don't accuse me of having nothing to say on the subject. And I certainly don't need your guidance on how to approach it.

 

The idea that getting drunk and making yourself vulnerable to rape is "freedom" is a good illustration of what is wrong with your philosophy.

Taking responsibility yourself not to get drunk to that point is in fact practicing the empowerment women should be conceded and avoiding the infantilization you claim you wish to avoid. 

A woman deliberately infantalizing and incapaciting herself from reckless drinking is NOT a subject of freedom; she is an victim of her own bad judgement, and therefore UNFREE.

Andrea Dworkin famously said that the punishment for a college woman getting drunk at a party should be a hangover, not a rape. Yes, that's a great saying and I admire it. But there's a correllary, which is that you do not need to administer punishment to yourself of any kind -- you can avoid getting drunk. 

We live in a society in which we just had years of experimentation, with Title IX and other measures, to prosecute boys on the slightest whim as a means of controlling date rape. It didn't work. It ruined lives needlessly. It didn't protect women. It undermined justice as a whole in society by violating due process. It didn't capture the worst perpetrators. It unfairly punished some who were not the worst or actually innocent. In the meantime, the problem of alcoholism among women has only grown by leaps and bounds, in part because it was factored out of the equation by feminists. What a terrible disservice to young women. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

9 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Would another example of lack of common sense be when someone who regularly makes wild accusations and personal attacks and generally acts like some sort of amusing cartoon character when griefed not only complains about the griefing and yells for more enforcement, but demands technical "solutions" which they don't understand and can easily be circumvented?

 

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

No, because the accusations I have made about the griefing of a notorious "educational institution" for example are not "wild" and not "personal attacks" but valid and to the point, which is why they and their alts are banned from SL, and not me. They involve crashing their own sims, not just other people's, with rogue scripts and stealing with rogue viewers. Nothing wrong with complaining about this, and I do, and that's a good thing. The real issue is why you exonerate and even celebrate these criminals.

 

 

[Qie Niangao]

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

... are preventions that would serve better instead of blanket bans on sharing outside of SL under the false belief it is "unethical".

Just to remind you of the topic of the conversation.

I'm not particularly interested in that topic because I think it's silly and 95% of posters to this thread already agree with your position on that topic. I don't get why heavy artillery is needed to make a point that practically nobody was disputing.

But because you insist on that topic, a couple points that have probably already been mentioned but I don't remember seeing them:

The Lab doesn't do anything to restrict sharing outside Lab properties simply because it's not practical to do so -- not because there's some first amendment-like "right to share" that would prevent punishment inside Lab properties for transgressions outside those properties. Theoretically, the Lab would be perfectly within its rights to delete SL accounts (or whatever) for folks who post SL content on Facebook (or wherever). It would be impossibly stupid of them to do so, but there's nothing legally preventing them from doing it.

Also, while there's no "ethical" constraints on sharing, there may be copyright problems, but only if the rules aren't followed. The whole elaborate policy for sharing images of in-world content is not there primarily to protect anybody's "privacy" -- it's to give due notice to folks who use the platform that as long as image-sharers abide by those policies there is no possible recourse to copyright: everybody who uses the platform has already granted license according to those terms. That's what they're for.

[Beth Macbain]

I so wasn't going to engage, but...

@Prokofy Neva - You like to fall back on logic and common sense. Okay, let's do that. Two (strangers) go out one evening. They both go to a bar with friends. They both drink alcohol. One of them gets drunk, has a terrible hangover the next day, and a bit of embarrassment due to some drunk texting. The other gets drunk and rapes someone.

Which one should be encouraged not to drink? Logic and common sense would both dictate that the person who commits a violent crime maybe should be the one who needs to change their behavior. 

If you think neither of them should drink alcohol, okay, we can talk about prohibition and how well that worked out last time. If you want to talk about the very real problem of college binge-drinking, we can talk about that as well.

In your scenarios, you're talking about women drinking and men raping. Why is it that your sole focus is on the women changing their behavior and not the men? The women aren't the problem. Why should I be unable to go to a bar and have a couple of drinks when it's perfectly fine for men to do that? 

Why are women always the ones who have to alter their behavior and not the men? 

4 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

BDSM is always practicing on people who haven't consented in just the way you are now

And as far as your issue with BDSM - You have no knowledge of what BDSM is. I am a submissive woman who practices BDSM in SL and RL. Nothing happens to me without my approval or consent. 

Though I am the submissive in my relationships, by choice, I am the one who holds all of the power. One word from me - one tiny word - and everything comes to a halt. The dominant has everything to lose in that situation. If he doesn't abide by my wishes and cease, he destroys the entire relationship. He must hold himself in complete control and be aware that at any moment, I hold the power to stop everything. The power is mine. The choices and decisions are mine. Anything and everything that happens to my body is my decision. If you think otherwise, you are wrong. 

It is clear to me that you have issues with alcohol. Someone close to you was an alcoholic, I bet, and you were hurt. I'm truly sorry for that. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol can control themselves. You have clearly experienced the opposite. Your opinion doesn't change the truth, though.

You also clearly have issues with your own gender, but you do you, boo. Just leave the rest of us women out of your puritanical and priggish life choices. You are free to live your life however you wish, as am I. These twisted notions you have about excusing men of all their behaviors while damning women for doing nothing wrong are troubling, to say the very least.

Bottom line, though. The person who cannot control their violent impulses is the one who needs to change their behavior, stop going to bars, to parties, walking down the street, hanging out with friends, whatever, not the potential victims of his violent urges. How that isn't common sense to you is utterly beyond me. 

I don't know why I'm bothering trying to explain this to you. You won't listen, you won't open your mind, and you certainly won't admit that your viewpoint on these things is dead wrong. 

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

[Lots of mostly rather off-topic stuff]

I'm not going to bother responding at length to your double-barrelled screed, not because I don't think you don't raise interesting and worthwhile issues, but for two reasons: first, this entire discussion is likely going to be nuked very shortly by the mods, and I don't want to waste half of my morning writing something that is doomed to be deleted momentarily, and second, your posts, as interesting in some ways as they are, actually have little to do with the thing I called you out for.

And the latter is because your entire strategy here is about misdirection. The vast majority of what you have said above takes me (and "feminism," re-imagined as a sort of monolithic, Central Committee-directed ideological enterprise) to task for my supposed authoritarian response to this social problem, i.e., rape culture and its particular expression through date rape.

This is interesting, because nowhere here have I said so much as a word -- beyond saying it must be stopped -- about how we should remedy the prevalence of date rape. I am apparently a "Marxist" (lol) and a totalitarian (no less than three times!). And you conclude this on the basis of what? This is not merely a reductive analysis of my stand on this issue: it's an outright fiction built upon . . . what evidence, exactly? You've set me up here as a straw(wo)man, presumably because it's easier to go on the attack against a made-up totalitarian conspiracy (of which I am apparently an operative) than it is to address the actual thing that I've criticized you for, which is your victim-blaming.

What this finally comes down to is your conflation of two very different problems: student, and indeed, almost exclusively women student drinking, which is a venial sin at worst, and sexual assault by men, which is not. And your focus is almost entirely upon women "taking responsibility" for their drinking and personal safety (which, yes! Of course they should), rather than upon their assailants "taking responsibility" for their literal criminality.

[Edited to add, because it's important]: these are your actual words:

On 12/14/2019 at 11:02 PM, Prokofy Neva said:

The problem begins with her failure to assume responsibility for her own incapacitation. That's truly the story.

The "problem" of date rape, you explicitly state here, originates with the woman getting drunk. I can't recall seeing a clearer example of victim-blaming anywhere.

It's rather ironic, surely, that you should be accusing me of a totalitarian ethos, all the while explicitly asserting that women should deal with their victimization at the hands of rapists by curtailing their own freedoms. And yes, the essence of freedom is in fact the right to make bad choices, as well as good ones. Real totalitarianism is when someone else preempts your choice, and removes your ability to choose anything other than what they have decided is the "right" choice.

I've not much more to say about this. The characterization of my views you've provided above resembles me and my perspective not at all, and I'm not going to bother taking on your fictionalized depiction of modern feminism because it would be pointless, and utterly irrelevant to this thread. What is relevant to this thread is that you employed a deeply problematic analogy that is underwritten by a victim-blaming approach to this issue. And you've doubled-down on that above.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Lyssa Greymoon]

Oh, this looks like an interesting and informative topic

[Seicher Rae]

13 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Did you try saving a snapshot to anything but disk or inventory?  Betcha a linden they don't work.  (I haven't tried either, so it's an honest wager)

The save to profile works. But as to the others, no I haven't. In the past when I have wanted to email a picture, I save to disk first. When I want to save to Flickr, I save to disk first. I've never used those options given in the viewer. I don't use Twitter. But you're right, I haven't tried.

I honestly do not understand the big deal about this topic, on a technical side or ethical side, but I guess it must be a major life event for some.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

8 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Oh, this looks like an interesting and informative topic

It will be gone soon, and we will all be able to return to our regularly scheduled programming about something trivial that LL has done to the SL viewer, or someone's problems turning on user names.

And won't that be lovely?

[Seicher Rae]

5 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

The reason I have even bothered with this inane off-topic debate is because I think the claim that sharing photos outside of SL is fundamentally "unethical" is wrong and unjustified and rooted in just that aspiration for totalitarian control over others that comes from the extremist feminist and extremist transgender movements, and I fail to see why any of us need to countenance that sort of oppression.

I was just scrolling through and this caught my eye, and I literally did a spit take of my morning coffee. I can't stop laughing. It isn't like I ever read through Prokofy's notoriously long rants; I learned not to do that ten years ago. It seems like every PN OP turns into a s**t show, and the quote above is just one reason why. Well, that and the rape comment made that started this u-turn. Really, why do people keep feeding into this? :::rhetorical::: Meh, I think the biggest mystery is how anyone has so much time on their hands that they can routinely churn out pages and pages AND PAGES of mind-numbing nonsense on a single topic. I'm a fast typist and I couldn't do it and get anything else done. Kudos, I guess?

[Luna Bliss]

[Lyssa Greymoon]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

It will be gone soon, and we will all be able to return to our regularly scheduled programming about something trivial that LL has done to the SL viewer, or someone's problems turning on user names.

And won't that be lovely?

It'll never last. Someone will complain about banlines and before you know it, ten pages of

[Solar Legion]

Well ... Share to e-mail works fine still, just took a throw away picture and sent it to the Snapzilla upload address.

Heh, no point in linking said image as it was deleted once I verified it still worked.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Solar Legion

[Seicher Rae]

1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

Well ... Share to e-mail works fine still, just took a throw away picture and sent it to the Snapzilla upload address.

Even more I'm sensing a much ado about nada. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!

[Solar Legion]

2 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

Even more I'm sensing a much ado about nada. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!

Honestly the targeted Share functions (Facebook/Twitter/Flikr) really weren't all that needed to begin with.

Facebook has a mobile uploading e-mail and honestly if a "social media" or similar web system doesn't then it is not worth anyone's time. The additional systems are for the sake of being convenient/lazy.

[Prokofy Neva]

1 hour ago, Beth Macbain said:

I so wasn't going to engage, but...

@Prokofy Neva - You like to fall back on logic and common sense. Okay, let's do that. Two (strangers) go out one evening. They both go to a bar with friends. They both drink alcohol. One of them gets drunk, has a terrible hangover the next day, and a bit of embarrassment due to some drunk texting. The other gets drunk and rapes someone.

Which one should be encouraged not to drink? Logic and common sense would both dictate that the person who commits a violent crime maybe should be the one who needs to change their behavior. 

If you think neither of them should drink alcohol, okay, we can talk about prohibition and how well that worked out last time. If you want to talk about the very real problem of college binge-drinking, we can talk about that as well.

In your scenarios, you're talking about women drinking and men raping. Why is it that your sole focus is on the women changing their behavior and not the men? The women aren't the problem. Why should I be unable to go to a bar and have a couple of drinks when it's perfectly fine for men to do that? 

Why are women always the ones who have to alter their behavior and not the men? 

And as far as your issue with BDSM - You have no knowledge of what BDSM is. I am a submissive woman who practices BDSM in SL and RL. Nothing happens to me without my approval or consent. 

Though I am the submissive in my relationships, by choice, I am the one who holds all of the power. One word from me - one tiny word - and everything comes to a halt. The dominant has everything to lose in that situation. If he doesn't abide by my wishes and cease, he destroys the entire relationship. He must hold himself in complete control and be aware that at any moment, I hold the power to stop everything. The power is mine. The choices and decisions are mine. Anything and everything that happens to my body is my decision. If you think otherwise, you are wrong. 

It is clear to me that you have issues with alcohol. Someone close to you was an alcoholic, I bet, and you were hurt. I'm truly sorry for that. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol can control themselves. You have clearly experienced the opposite. Your opinion doesn't change the truth, though.

You also clearly have issues with your own gender, but you do you, boo. Just leave the rest of us women out of your puritanical and priggish life choices. You are free to live your life however you wish, as am I. These twisted notions you have about excusing men of all their behaviors while damning women for doing nothing wrong are troubling, to say the very least.

Bottom line, though. The person who cannot control their violent impulses is the one who needs to change their behavior, stop going to bars, to parties, walking down the street, hanging out with friends, whatever, not the potential victims of his violent urges. How that isn't common sense to you is utterly beyond me. 

I don't know why I'm bothering trying to explain this to you. You won't listen, you won't open your mind, and you certainly won't admit that your viewpoint on these things is dead wrong. 

 

No, that's not logic at all. For most people who aren't isolated in extremist cults of self-selecting them and suffering from this problem of leftist journalism who have had some kind of upbringing in one of the world's major religions or some kind of ethical belief system, liberal or conservative, this is NOT logic.

Logic is about accepting responsibility for your actions; for "do unto others what you would have them do unto you"; with not blaming others for your self-induced problems. The moral of your story in the bar is that if the woman doesn't want to fall prey to the irresponsible man, she herself does not get drunk and leaves. Full stop. This shouldn't be so hard. But it is, because of the journalism problem and poor upbringing in the modern world and all kinds of factors.

I've made no claim that only women should alter their behaviour, and your extrapolation of this out of a common-sense prevention advice is all-too-typical of these leftist -- and authoritarian/totalitarian movements. You fly in the face of the truth. I've said reasonably and practically that a woman can solve the problem of men who rape, drunk or not, by not getting drunk herself and *leaving*. As I've already said multiple times, the discussion about how you "fix" men who are drunks and rape women is a separate debate and one I'm not interested in having with you, given your views, which are predictably leftist and authoritarian, from everything I've seen here.

You've flagged your belief system as BDSM, and you've rung all the chimes on the typical apologia for this belief system, and I can only say, go to the Alphaville Herald 15 years ago where I had long debates for weeks on end (as did others) with the BDSM apologists who make all these predictable arguments that it is "choice," that really the sub is the controller, and blah blah blah. None of it is persuasive; none of it is born out by reality, not only by looking at RL court cases, but the numerous "safe hubs" for subs that exist in SL.

You're also exhibiting the very typical intolerance to transgender even by the transgendered, especially by males. I don't have "issues with my gender". I have a male avatar in a virtual world. Your attitude to this *should be*, according to your ideology exhibited so far, an affirmation that I can express myself as I wish -- why, even getting drunk to the point of incapacitation. But it isn't, is it. My opposite gender in a virtual world is "having issues". Your imaginary "sub" life is a glorious affirmation. And blah blah. It really gets tiresome, and you can't see yourselves.

If you want to limit your exposure to the dangerous males of the species, you don't go to frat parties in general -- there are many other kinds of parties and entertainment -- and you don't get drink to the point of irresponsibility at any party. Call me when you have a daughter, and you airily tell her as she dresses up to go out to a party, that she can get drunk if she wants to, and that really society should try to reform these male monsters. I'll wait.

Common sense is common sense. It's about how you deal with PRACTICAL REALITY, not the illusion of the heavily ideological world consistent with your left-wing and BDSM views.

I think it's indicative that the only people in this conversation are you and several others of the same extremist views and lifestyles, and me, who is not anonymous and not afraid. The fear of harassment and fear of seeming politically-correct haunts many and makes them not participate.

You're welcome to have the last word as this debate has become repetitive and predictable. Few people outside leftwing journals, Twitter, and online forums and chat groups are counseling women that it is fine to get drunk and risk rape at parties. Most colleges have policies against drinking. Some even have various remedies like pick-up services you can call. No one who is in charge of a college dorm anywhere is advocating that the problem isn't women getting drunk, but only men getting drunk and raping women. Fortunately, the extremists have not yet had that great an effect on college campuses although they have on other issues. 

Believing that it's fine for young women to get drunk and expose themselves to rape isn't having an open mind; it is having a closed one, corrupted by ideology.

 

[Solar Legion]

Linking your Second Life account with your real life information has nothing whatsoever to do with "fear" or any other such nonsense - it is nothing more than one of the many ways you use to try and dismiss the opinions/statements of others and this has been shown to be the case time and time again.

Furthermore you've once again shown that you do not even halfway understand the lifestyles or ideologies you rant, rave and rail against and frankly bring them up/behave this way to get a rise out of others ... 

Why you are still here is utterly beyond my comprehension.

[Beth Macbain]

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

...word vomit...

Okay, I'll take the last word.

You are wrong. 

[Solar Legion]

When even Jon Snow knows more than you, it is time to pack it in. 

[Amina Sopwith]

 

[Seicher Rae]

2 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

 

 

[Luna Bliss]

Prokofy, please say you are only poking the feminists for fun. Admit that you actually understand how women have been blamed for sexual assault throughout the ages simply for being sexual beings, and that you know at this moment in time, among polite society, it's best to focus more blame on the other person in the equation for awhile but you just can't resist provoking others. Although you probably would not jump up and tell those attempting to swallow food at the dinner table that you have to poop, or insist on exclaiming to others at the Jewish synagogue that Hitler had at least one redeeming value as a painter, for some reason on a forum you just can't resist. You are not that dumb to believe these theories you spout, right -- you just want to stir the pot a little?

Edited December 16, 2019 by Luna Bliss

[Desiree Moonwinder]

 

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Desiree Moonwinder

[Seicher Rae]

On page one of this thread, a Linden explained why the changes to the viewers were made. Why the thread didn't end there should be a mystery. It isn't because: Prok.

The ethics thing is ridiculous, as have several people, including Prok have mentioned, and why. The TOS has been reprinted and discussed. 

I have no idea why the clip of what Qie wrote two weeks ago has just been added to the mix, because if you go back to THAT thread, it doesn't say anything different than what was said here, and I'm really thinking there is a problem of comprehension here, and stubbornness that just won't quit (like an obnoxious thread a while ago surrounding mental health and one whackjob who just wouldn't stop).

Yeah, it is boring around here, but is it THIS boring for THIS thread to keep pinging? I guess the answer is "yes" since I just typed here again. I'm nothing if not self-aware of my own irony.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Seicher Rae