Nip Equality

[Beth Macbain]

I've been skirting around this issue for a minute, but I'm going to bring it right to the forefront for @Kristin Linden and the governance people. 

In the photography threads, pictures that include women's nips get removed. However, pics with men's nips don't. Not to mention that we now accept that there are people who identify as other than men or women now, and I'm not sure what the policy is regarding non-specific nips.

Why is there a double standard? LL is a very progressive company, and accepting of all manner of persons. I understand that the forums should not become sexual in nature, but if there is nothing inherently sexual about a man's nips, there certainly isn't about a woman's nips, either. We use 'em to feed babies! Men's nips don't even serve that purpose. 

I'm asking governance to make a change in how the governing of nips is handled, and make the policy clear, and fair, for all. Either all nips are okay, or no nips are okay. Either way is fine, but it's wrong to overlook one and not the other. 

So what say ye? Yay or nay to all nips? 

(And yes, I'm aware that we all need to get out from underneath this lockdown and go back to our normal lives so people like me have other things to focus on than nip equality.)

[Nagafusa Takeda]

I already know all the generic arguments that get thrown out against this but those have been smacked down time and time again and I'm too tired of seeings them to even get into them when someone inevitably posts them but:

 

What I want to know is how deep does this go? does a male avatar with man***** also have his nips censored? does someone using Vtech's boichest have to censor their tips? what percent of muscle mass does a female avatar have to have before their nipples are counted as male? if I photoshop male nipples on a female avatar does it get censored? if I photoshop female nipples on a male avatar will it get censored? what if the avatar is so androgynus you can't tell?

 

[Beth Macbain]

5 minutes ago, MissMagicCakes said:

What I want to know is how deep does this go?

That's why I think it needs to be either all or none. Make it simple. 

[Patch Linden]

28 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

We use 'em to feed babies! Men's nips don't even serve that purpose. 

 

But in SL....   maybe they do?

[Beth Macbain]

5 minutes ago, Patch Linden said:

But in SL....   maybe they do?

You make a wonderful point, sir! 🤭

[Beth Macbain]

Linden Lab: 1

Beth Macbain: 0

[Fritigern Gothly]

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

Simple its because women's nipples are considered sexual and mens are not. Naked women nipples are still not acceptable in most cultures. SL being based in the us, still has to follow us laws about what it does or does not ultimately allow to be seen or shown to others.

[Sassy Kenin]

 

 

Beth you've made some good points about the equality issue, good seeing it brought to attention. hopefully governance can help.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Sassy Kenin
Grammar

[Beth Macbain]

44 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

Simple its because women's nipples are considered sexual and mens are not. Naked women nipples are still not acceptable in most cultures. SL being based in the us, still has to follow us laws about what it does or does not ultimately allow to be seen or shown to others.

Considered sexual by whom? Men? Tough. Get over it. Should SL also not allow partnerships between gay couples? There are some parts of the world where that would get you killed. Legally a woman can whip her shirt off literally anywhere in the US and let it all hang out so long as she’s feeding a child. Also, once upon a time it wasn’t acceptable for a woman to show a bare ankle, or an elbow. Times change. Laws changes. There are cities right here in the USA where I, a filthy woman with my dirty pillows, can walk down the street shirtless. I know you’re gasping in horror!

Please cite the federal, state, county, or city law that would make it illegal for a privately held company in the US to show the bare breasts of any consenting adult on their website. There are thousand of US-based adult entertainment websites that would like to know as well. 

[missyrideout]

8 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

There are thousand of US-based adult entertainment websites that would like to know as well. 

... and none of them can take PayPal.  Sadly, privately held companies hold more sway than governments when it comes to adult content online.

I do agree with you though! 

[Beth Macbain]

13 minutes ago, missyrideout said:

... and none of them can take PayPal.  Sadly, privately held companies hold more sway than governments when it comes to adult content online.

I do agree with you though! 

Okay, adult entertainment websites were a bad example.

How about Vogue? Most art museum websites? Twitter? Nudity doesn’t equal pornography and I think most people understand that. I’m not even suggesting full nudity. Or any, really. No topless women? Fine, as long as there are no topless men either.

I’m asking for equality here, and if that means no bare breasts, that’s okay as long as it’s applied equally across the board.

[Seicher Rae]

2 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

Please cite the federal, state, county, or city law that would make it illegal for a privately held company in the US to show the bare breasts of any consenting adult on their website.

I think you mean show the bare breasts of any pixelated character used by any consenting adult on their website.

And I totally agree. There's so much gray area in the photo threads the "ban" is just silly. Either all or nothing. Forget nonbinary. In SL we have purple creatures of undetermined gender with six nips... that's a lot of Photoshopping.

[Seicher Rae]

3 hours ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

Stuff

The 1890s are calling. They want their antiquated attitudes back.

[Fritigern Gothly]

3 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

No topless women? Fine, as long as there are no topless men either.

THIS! So much this!!!!!

[LittleMe Jewell]

4 hours ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

Simple its because women's nipples are considered sexual and mens are not. Naked women nipples are still not acceptable in most cultures. SL being based in the us, still has to follow us laws about what it does or does not ultimately allow to be seen or shown to others.

There are plenty of places in the US that are much more enlightened and women can now sunbathe topless and even walk around topless.

[kiramanell]

Double-standards aside even, we're talking about nipples here. Who even cares?! Why, apparently some rather prude companies do.

And no, Patch, sorry, but I'm not rewarding points for suggesting men's nipples might be used like women's nipples in SL. If anything, that argument only serves to demonstrate the double-standard, as you should be disallowing men's nips then too.

But why even sensor at all?! We're merely talking nips here, for nips' sake!

[Sukubia Scarmon]

I think it's not even about nipples being seen as sexual, or morality, or whatever serves an excuse. It's about womens bodies being governed by others who decide what we're allowed to do with them because surely we can't make that decision for ourselves. 
 

[Alwin Alcott]

5 minutes ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:

 because surely we can't make that decision for ourselves. 
 

no difference for men... but some really can't

on topic... no problems with a certain level of nudity on the forums, but keep adult stuff where it belongs. ( same inworld.. some go shop dressed like they'r selling their merchandise...do it at appropriate regions.. not just everywhere)

[Pixie Kobichenko]

6 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

Considered sexual by whom? Men? Tough. Get over it. Should SL also not allow partnerships between gay couples? There are some parts of the world where that would get you killed. Legally a woman can whip her shirt off literally anywhere in the US and let it all hang out so long as she’s feeding a child. Also, once upon a time it wasn’t acceptable for a woman to show a bare ankle, or an elbow. Times change. Laws changes. There are cities right here in the USA where I, a filthy woman with my dirty pillows, can walk down the street shirtless. I know you’re gasping in horror!

Please cite the federal, state, county, or city law that would make it illegal for a privately held company in the US to show the bare breasts of any consenting adult on their website. There are thousand of US-based adult entertainment websites that would like to know as well. 

What’s convoluted- recently Oklahoma passed a law by way of being part of the 10th circuit court of appeals- or did away with one (I could google to be precise but you get the idea)- but now according to the ruling that affects six states- a woman can have a breasts bare in public, regardless of nursing.  BUT many county & city localities turned around & said Oh no you can’t & are still imposing decency statutes.  
Haven’t heard anything about it really since late October- suppose the lockdown & winter has something to do with that & I’d forgotten about it.  I’m going to assume as people begin venturing out this summer it might be in the news again.  Loads of people itching to go canoeing & floating on the Illinois River.  Tho the prospect of that doesn’t appeal, sunburns, snakes & poison ivy.

[AyelaNewLife]

I sympathise with LL here. It's not purely their decision.

They not only have to follow the laws of where they are based - California, USA - but in many cases also have a duty to follow the relevant laws for other nations too, with respect to users from said nations. There's two relevant sets of regulations here; 1) rules regarding child pornography, and 2) rules regarding access by children to pornography.

1. Regardless of what we might think, boobs are still viewed as sexual by many people - and many courts. Allowing topless women means allowing topless girls and teens - as consistency is key, and no one can argue that the adult female nipple is not sexual while also banning the teenage female nipple. Not only would that be uncomfortable for many, that would likely have legal consequences too.
2. 16 and 17 year olds have access to SL. Regardless of what we might think in practice, they are legally still minors, and are crucially registered as such. Sure, teens lie about their age to see far worse than a few pixel boobies; but that's entirely different to when Linden Lab are on paper aware of their age. 

In both cases, Linden Lab also needs to consider the PR implications. Even if they get away with an "acktually" in court, who the hell wants to be known as the platform that caters for nonces? Especially given the long history Second Life has with a tiny yet stubborn minority of paedophiles.

The only realistic option would be to keep female nipples out of the forum, marketplace and General areas, with perhaps allowing adult topless women in the adult sections. Remember, Linden Lab would need to be consistent across the entirety of Second Life, and would not have radically different rulesets for their various platforms.

That leaves your second option, of banning male nipples to even things out. Putting aside my personal opinion on the delectability of the male chest, the cultural norm is that topless men are allowed. Being more puritanical than society as a whole would not only be kinda ridiculous, but would result in an avalanche of moderation issues. We're talking about a purge of most marketplace listings involving partially or fully topless men, a mass purge of any men in just shorts on a General-marked beach, etc... utterly unworkable. Not a chance of this working out.

As much as I hate to admit it - the status quo is therefore the best option for Linden Lab. It sucks that this is the case... but it is.

I sympathise with LL here. It's not purely their decision.

They not only have to follow the laws of where they are based - California, USA - but in many cases also have a duty to follow the relevant laws for other nations too, with respect to users from said nations. There's two relevant sets of regulations here; 1) rules regarding child pornography, and 2) rules regarding access by children to pornography.

1. Regardless of what we might think, boobs are still viewed as sexual by many people - and many courts. Allowing topless women means allowing topless girls and teens - as consistency is key, and no one can argue that the adult female nipple is not sexual while also banning the teenage female nipple. Not only would that be uncomfortable for many, that would likely have legal consequences too.
2. 16 and 17 year olds have access to SL. Regardless of what we might think in practice, they are legally still minors, and are crucially registered as such. Sure, teens lie about their age to see far worse than a few pixel boobies; but that's entirely different to when Linden Lab are on paper aware of their age. 

In both cases, Linden Lab also needs to consider the PR implications. Even if they get away with an "acktually" in court, who the hell wants to be known as the platform that caters for nonces? Especially given the long history Second Life has with a tiny yet stubborn minority of paedophiles.

The only realistic option would be to keep female nipples out of the forum, marketplace and General areas, with perhaps allowing adult topless women in the adult sections. Remember, Linden Lab would need to be consistent across the entirety of Second Life, and would not have radically different rulesets for their various platforms.

That leaves your second option, of banning male nipples to even things out. Putting aside my personal opinion on the delectability of the male chest, the cultural norm is that topless men are allowed. Being more puritanical than society as a whole would not only be kinda ridiculous, but would result in an avalanche of moderation issues. We're talking about a purge of most marketplace listings involving partially or fully topless men, a mass purge of any men in just shorts on a General-marked beach, etc... utterly unworkable. Not a chance of this working out.

As much as I hate to admit it - the status quo is therefore the best option for Linden Lab. It sucks that this is the case... but it is.

[Chaser Zaks]

The whole "female nipple" debate is a massive mess. Personally, I don't see why it was sexualized in the first place, and I do not see it as a sexual thing, but here is my thoughts regarding it being as neutral as possible:

We could for presume that the female breasts are probably considered sexual due to using them as a place to slide a hotdog, but this opens a whole other can of worms.
The anus, for example, is also not a sexual reproduction organ, however it is considered explicit as well, presumably due to it being a place to insert hotdogs.

With the above in mind, should the mouth also be considered explicit? What about hands and feet? There are even some countries who say ankles are explicit.

Butts can also be considered explicit, but now we also have another issue: Cartoony butts vs realistic butts, why is one explicit and the other not explicit?
If you show your avatar's butt in a general region and you are wearing a realistic avatar, you will likely get in trouble. But if you go around pantless as bugs bunny, you will not get in trouble.

So lets get back to basics and focus on just the female breasts. Say we set some ground rules on breasts, which I will promptly question, defining what is a explicit breast and what is a non-explicit breast:

• Non-explicit: A topless woman, any setting you would normally see a topless man in, say weight lifting, or at the beach, maybe doing some yard work.
• Explicit: Suggestively rubbing her breasts.

The reason why suggestively rubbing the breasts can be seen as explicit as it is seen as "sexy", but you also have men who flex their muscles who some people will also consider "sexy". What makes the difference here?

--end thoughts--

The whole logic behind the "x is explicit and y isn't explicit" baffles me. It should be as simple as "Is it used for sexual reproduction? If so, it is sexual. Otherwise it is not.", but the more you look into it, the deeper the rabbit hole gets and you find yourself questioning why this and not that?

As for LL enforcement of it, I believe it is a case of "Well our laws say it is explicit so we say it is explicit", especially when a majority of all states/counties in the United States also say it is explicit. Not saying I agree with the decision of the law, it is just "that's the norm".

Edited May 15, 2020 by Chaser Zaks
Wording

[Marigold Devin]

1 minute ago, Chaser Zaks said:

The whole "female nipple" discussion is a massive mess. Personally, I don't see why it was sexualized in the first place, and I do not see it as a sexual thing, but here is my thoughts regarding it being as neutral as possible:

We could for presume that the female breasts are considered sexual due to using them as a place to slide a hotdog, but this opens a whole other can of worms.
The anus, for example, is also not a sexual reproduction organ, however it is considered explicit as well, due to it being a place to insert hotdogs.

With the above in mind, should the mouth also be considered explicit? What about hands and feet? There are even some countries who say ankles are explicit.

Butts can also be considered explicit, but now we also have another issue: Cartoony butts vs realistic butts, why is one explicit and the other not explicit?
If you show your avatar's butt in a general region and you are wearing a realistic avatar, you will likely get in trouble. But if you go around pantless as bugs bunny, you will not get in trouble.

So lets say we set some ground rules on breasts, which I will promptly question, defining what is a explicit breast and what is a non-explicit breast:

• Non-explicit: A topless woman, any setting you would normally see a topless man in, say weight lifting, or at the beach, maybe doing some yard work.
• Explicit: Suggestively rubbing her breasts.

The reason why suggestively rubbing the breasts can be seen as explicit as it is seen as "sexy", but you also have men who flex their muscles who some people will also consider "sexy". What makes the difference here?

--end thoughts--

The whole logic behind the "x is explicit and y isn't explicit" baffles me. It should be as simple as "Is it used for sexual reproduction? If so, it is sexual. Otherwise it is not.", but the more you look into it, the deeper the rabbit hole gets and you find yourself questioning why this and not that?

As for LL enforcing it, I believe it is a case of "Well our laws say it is explicit so we say it is explicit".

Hotdogs hahahaha.

 

[Chaser Zaks]

Just now, Marigold Devin said:

Hotdogs hahahaha.

 

I have to stay at least somewhat PG, and I couldn't figure any other way to word it.

I think for the most part, in the context it is used, it is for educational and study purposes, and not a explicit discussion, so I do not think LL will mind too much as long as it is constructive.

[Marigold Devin]

Just now, Chaser Zaks said:

I have to stay at least somewhat PG, and I couldn't figure any other way to word it.

I think for the most part, in the context it is used, it is for educational and study purposes, and not a explicit discussion, so I do not think LL will mind too much as long as it is constructive.

Your post was very beautifully worded, Chaser. I just find myself laughing at what I perceive to be seaside postcard humour/euphemism.

And anyone who can put a smile on my face or bring laughter to my day is a good egg.