Discrimination rules to be added to TOS?

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

12 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

So you mean you don't feel you have the right to say a revealing swimming suit on a child in public is wrong?

No, I'm saying that I am a coward and that it's easier for me to do the shouting inside my head as I leave the beach than to deal with all of the complexities of shouting out loud.  I am as conflicted as most other people are about when and how loudly to shout about things that offend me. I am less conflicted when I have to decide about things that appear to violate social norms, but even then I can be uncertain about what to do. As I said before, only half flippantly, life is not easy.

I see. 

I think for me I gain courage when I see child abuse, or when I see a major power imbalance where there is severe injustice.  Otherwise I tend to let things slide so as not to cause a disturbing scene.

[Arielle Popstar]

I think in some ways we have to be careful that we are dealing with an actual problem rather then what used to be termed a "generational gap". The world is moving on in it's styles and habits just as we moved on from those of our parents and grandparents and that I believe is most evident in virtual.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Rolig Loon said:

No, I'm saying that I am a coward and that it's easier for me to do the shouting inside my head as I leave the beach than to deal with all of the complexities of shouting out loud.  I am as conflicted as most other people are about when and how loudly to shout about things that offend me. I am less conflicted when I have to decide about things that appear to violate social norms, but even then I can be uncertain about what to do. As I said before, only half flippantly, life is not easy.

This is always going to be an issue in RL, and it parallels some of the problems in SL being addressed here.

If one witnesses something that represents, according to your own lights, a clear case of abuse, then one is probably (hopefully?) going to address it.

And if one is self-aware enough to recognize that the lines that define these things are often pretty fuzzy indeed, one will likely take the route you've suggested: protest "privately" by leaving.

The fact that there is fuzziness doesn't mean that one can never make safe judgements however. Were I to see a child being physically abused in any way, I'd intervene, as I'm sure would anyone posting here. It's in that greyish middle ground that we have issues.

And one doesn't want to be "that" censorious old lady muttering (or screaming) about "young people and their lack of moral fibre today!"

[Coffee Pancake]

I think some people here are working on the assumption that AP has to happen for it to count as AP to LL. Just talking about AP in SL can be enough. Or having someone talk about doing AP at you while you naively ignore them.

It's understandable why the reaction to young looking avatars (even if they are 18 or over) is so visceral, even if it and perhaps LL's stance is incorrect (I'm on the record as being opposed to permabans).

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I think in some ways we have to be careful that we are dealing with an actual problem rather then what used to be termed a "generational gap". The world is moving on in it's styles and habits just as we moved on from those of our parents and grandparents and that I believe is most evident in virtual.

This. 

[Rolig Loon]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And one doesn't want to be "that" censorious old lady muttering (or screaming) about "young people and their lack of moral fibre today!"

Even in an anonymous, faceless world of the Internet, you can easily be censured for showing too much moral outrage. Look at how often people post a Gladys Kravitz gif here in the forums. I suspect that most of us will avoid being branded as a nosy Gladys, even when we have every right to speak up or intervene.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

10 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And one doesn't want to be "that" censorious old lady muttering (or screaming) about "young people and their lack of moral fibre today!"

Even in an anonymous, faceless world of the Internet, you can easily be censured for showing too much moral outrage. Look at how often people post a Gladys Kravitz gif here in the forums. I suspect that most of us will avoid being branded as a nosy Gladys, even when we have every right to speak up or intervene.

Or called a "Karen"   

[Luna Bliss]

5 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

I suspect that most of us will avoid being branded as a nosy Gladys, even when we have every right to speak up or intervene.

When you complained about the usage of the word 'pudunk' it was so unlike you to complain that I worried you'd had a stroke or something like the death of a cat had occurred...

[Cali Souther]

I go all over in a variety of avatars - tho,  never as a child avatar ...    I have never been discriminated against.   

I always try to be respectful...   such as the area dedicated to the WW2 era asks you to dress appropriately and even offers free clothing for you to do so.   This is not about discrimination,   it's about immersion.  

As many have said,   go places that are designed for the type of avatar you are wearing at the time.  It's equally unfair to ask someone who pays for land and wants to live in medieval times to allow people who are dressed in neon colors to hang out.

I once dj'd for a club that would not allow a good friend of mine to come because she choose to live her SL as a child.   She doesn't talk like a child,  but it didn't matter - their rule was NO CHILD AVATARS.   I'll be honest,  it pissed me off at the time.  It was a moderate sim with no real adult activity.  You had to play clean songs... but nothing I could do about it.

Of course ...   a year later,  when the owner got a "daughter"  it was suddenly OK to invite your child avatar friends.     

Life's a beach   Roll with the waves!

 

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

38 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

7) So now you get to DD/bbg. Also, so not my thing. In fact, I have it in my boundaries that I will not call my dominant "daddy." That just skeeves me out. HOWEVER, that is me personally. I have no problem with others doing it. Appropriate setting, rules, etc. When I have been at DD/bbg places, the ones I've gone to they are not using child avatars. Young looking, usually, but heck my avi looks young too. (I keep thinking 25-ish?)

Well, I have issues with DD/BBG play, as you can imagine, but I'll readily acknowledge that most, probably the vast majority, of that kind of play has nothing to do with AP (as Coffee is cleverly calling it). Infantilization of women? Yes. But that's not nearly the same thing.

It's the combination of DD/BBG play with other forms of RP that might be the issue in terms of potential violations of the ToS. (Notice all the emphatic italicization there!). And there, it's not the DD/BBG play itself that is the problem: its combination with things like "incest" play merely suggests that what is happening might be a violation.

43 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

9) I don't think you can make SL to RL assumptions or arguments. There are differences. So it does bother me when I see references to RL child bad things (not sure what I can type here without the stupid ***** happening) and pixels run by adults in a manner that is within TOS and is in appropriate settings in the same breath, the same one to one correlation. In my opinion the logic fails.

I'd agree, assuming that I'm reading you correctly here, that attacks on child avatars and activities that do not represent a violation of the ToS are wrong-headed, and represent a kind of moral panic.

And even when they do, there is definitely NOT a one-to-one correspondence here, for the obvious reason that no real children are (presumably) involved in SL AP. So, to say that SL AP = the RL equivalent is wrong, just as "r*pe" in SL is nothing at all like RL r*pe.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't other, different RL implications and ramifications for AP role play. And most obviously, among those ramifications are possible legal consequences.

47 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

8 ) So are the sexualized child avatars RUN BY ADULTS in appropriate areas, doing things within TOS? Then... I do not care what anyone does to whom, with what. It is not appropriate to run a scene at Uber. In your own home? I do not care. SL avatars are cartoons, they are not RL. People have fantasies, and fantasies are not reality. Most people, I think, wouldn't even want to have their fantasies in RL.

This is interesting because it relates to something I've been noting here for ages.

Because no actual RL children are involved in AP in SL (again, presumably), the rational for banning or allowing should be identical to the rational for permitting or banning any other form of representation of illegal activity.

The actual justification for banning the representation of AP is identical to that which could be deployed for banning the representation of r*pe here, because in neither case is there an actual "victim."

So, in theory, ban one, and you should ban the other. Allow one, and both should be permissible.

Now, I say that as an exercise in logic. But somehow, because of the weight we as a culture give to the importance, vulnerability, and "innocence" of childhood, we pretty much all of us feel at a visceral level that one is much worse than the other.

To be clear, I am NOT making an argument that AP should be allowed because CARP and similar representations of violence against women are allowed. NOR am I making the argument that both should be banned.

I'm really just noting the inconsistency. I find it interesting, and maybe suggestive.

[Ceka Cianci]

Ok, what does AP stand for?

[Theresa Tennyson]

2 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Ok, what does AP stand for?

The Play that Must Not Be Named.

[Seicher Rae]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Popped out her quotes in bold, below.

Getting down into the weeds while I have protective gear on is hard...

It's the combination of DD/BBG play with other forms of RP that might be the issue in terms of potential violations of the ToS. (Notice all the emphatic italicization there!). And there, it's not the DD/BBG play itself that is the problem: its combination with things like "incest" play merely suggests that what is happening might be a violation.

I can't speak with authority on DD/bbg. I'm slightly knowledgeable and that's about all I want to be. If the people are both adults then it is ok with me. If it is within TOS then it is ok with me. (Probably, frankly if it is outside of TOS, too, but no one asked me to make the rule... I'm not entirely sure exactly, precisely what the rules are since I don't go there.) I do know that DD/bbg isn't AP, but also agree there's a whole lotta gray area in there. Go to Fetlife (or don't) and you'll see paunchy 60+ guys and their obviously mature girls in plaid mini skirts... It ain't my thing, but... what y'all do in any of your bedrooms or kitchen floors with consent? Don't care. Don't want y'all in mine, either.

ETA: cuz this wasn't long enough   Don't forget, just because it is incest doesn't mean a child is involved. 

And even when they do, there is definitely NOT a one-to-one correspondence here, for the obvious reason that no real children are (presumably) involved in SL AP. So, to say that SL AP = the RL equivalent is wrong, just as "r*pe" in SL is nothing at all like RL r*pe.

Yup. And in both worlds there is a thing called CNC (folks can google it or not, it is far outside the scope of this post and thread). Consenting adults is the "net net" of everything I said.

Because no actual RL children are involved in AP in SL (again, presumably), the rational for banning or allowing should be identical to the rational for permitting or banning any other form of representation of illegal activity.

Apparently I am horribly ignorant of TOS (readily admit it, I don't do much of anything, as far as I know, that would come close to a violation so... willfully ignorant I guess). So that said, I'm a tad confused. I think you are saying that AP in SL is the only thing singled out for banning as a representation of illegal activity. And if so, that is an interesting point I have never thought of. Of course, then you'd be getting into "illegal where?" issues, if you look at drug laws. They aren't even uniform in the USA for pot. (pauses a moment to be wistful at the thought of a  Mountie on his horse hand delivering my bag of gummies, like my bff asures me happens all the time).  

I've have had very nice, rational people, chew me out in sims for my avatar carrying around or using a lit cigarette. Um. What? I don't smoke IRL, and second-hand smoke bothers me, but apparently Seicher doesn't have an issue with it. I'm not sure she has lungs. It is kind of like that, and that is rather my whole thought process: It is SL. It is pixels. It is adults. In interactions between adults, if there is consent... everything is fine with me, in theory, just I don't want to see 'everything.' So I will tuck this little bit in as part of my unpopular stuff: I don't think AP, as I understand it, should be banned, any more than my avatar walking around with a joint should be... appropriate setting, common sense, etc.

I have no problem with certain types of avatars being banned from certain sims. I might be peeved (wrong thread) if there was a sim that banned pale white brunette females with green eyes (and there probably is), but... your sim your rules. I never really wanted to visit there anyways!

So, in theory, ban one, and you should ban the other. Allow one, and both should be permissible.

Now, I say that as an exercise in logic. But somehow, because of the weight we as a culture give to the importance, vulnerability, and "innocence" of childhood, we pretty much all of us feel at a visceral level that one is much worse than the other.

To be clear, I am NOT making an argument that AP should be allowed because CARP and similar representations of violence against women are allowed. NOR am I making the argument that both should be banned.

I'm really just noting the inconsistency. I find it interesting, and maybe suggestive.

I agree completely. As I have just said above, I've noted what my view is (given my tenuous grasp of the actual verbiage of TOS). That is an inconsistency. In SL the logic holds: If you ban (or allow) one, it follows you should ban (or allow) all. That the logic isn't the law of the land is also consistent with LL and "logic schmogic."

Edited August 22, 2022 by Seicher Rae
geez Scylla you're making me type like Prok today... in length only, hopefully not in ponderousness :)

[Ceka Cianci]

6 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

The Play that Must Not Be Named.

Oh ok.  So many acronyms in the world. that I'm forgetting the ones that I did know.. hehehehe

[Seicher Rae]

5 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Oh ok.  So many acronyms in the world. that I'm forgetting the ones that I did know.. hehehehe

Same! I had to be jolted to remember "AP" and then went "oh. right. that!"

But the one I'm stuck on is @Scylla Rhiadra's CARP. I tried googling it, got pages of fish. Tried variations and... who knew the acronym CARP stood for so many things and yet I know I haven't found the one Scylla is talking about and I know I know what it is, I just have forgotten in our land of acronym soup.

[Ceka Cianci]

1 minute ago, Seicher Rae said:

Same! I had to be jolted to remember "AP" and then went "oh. right. that!"

But the one I'm stuck on is @Scylla Rhiadra's CARP. I tried googling it, got pages of fish. Tried variations and... who knew the acronym CARP stood for so many things and yet I know I haven't found the one Scylla is talking about and I know I know what it is, I just have forgotten in our land of acronym soup.

I think it's like Capture Role play stuff.. 

[Seicher Rae]

1 minute ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I think it's like Capture Role play stuff.. 

laughing. I"m over here parsing... C. capture? consent? creepy? cold? ...

[Ceka Cianci]

12 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

laughing. I"m over here parsing... C. capture? consent? creepy? cold? ...

You  know how sometimes they'll use two letters from one word and sometimes leave words out?

I think it means this..

CApture. to the mutha f'ing. Role Play

hehehehe

Edited August 22, 2022 by Ceka Cianci

[Wulfie Reanimator]

24 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

Same! I had to be jolted to remember "AP" and then went "oh. right. that!"

But the one I'm stuck on is @Scylla Rhiadra's CARP. I tried googling it, got pages of fish. Tried variations and... who knew the acronym CARP stood for so many things and yet I know I haven't found the one Scylla is talking about and I know I know what it is, I just have forgotten in our land of acronym soup.

Child Abuse.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Child Abuse.

Not something to roleplay, no thanks, nupe.

[Rowan Amore]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Because no actual RL children are involved in AP in SL (again, presumably), the rational for banning or allowing should be identical to the rational for permitting or banning any other form of representation of illegal activity.

The actual justification for banning the representation of AP is identical to that which could be deployed for banning the representation of r*pe here, because in neither case is there an actual "victim."

The ToS bans the depiction of AP in SL just as it's illegal in RL.  We're all supposed to be over 18 so of course, we assume no actual child is being harmed.  This is the excuse many will use if caught in AP.  

In RL, there is no law against having sexual relations with a woman over 18 who looks like a child.  Even if, to everyone around, she looks 12.  This is where the rule concerning avatars who appear underage comes into play.  You can not do that.  You can not appear to be 12 and be involved with or even around anything sexual in nature.  There ARE r*pe places in SL.  Why are those allowed?  Because there is no RL law against the depiction of r*pe.  Plenty of porn out there to prove that.  

That swimsuit is in bad taste but unless that avatar shows up in a sex area, LL will let it slide.  I've also seen the swimsuits for boys showing more than one should show on a child.  

What's in bad taste is different than what is actually not allowed.

[Love Zhaoying]

Y'all enjoying this thread way too much, I'm out.

[Ceka Cianci]

32 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

laughing. I"m over here parsing... C. capture? consent? creepy? cold? ...

Ok I had to go back to around the time I first heard it.. It may not mean the same thing today, but  it started out as CApture Role Play.

I remember mazes being involved and wanted to try out the mazes.

Mah ebidence from the archives.

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/317/48/128981/1.html

Edited August 22, 2022 by Ceka Cianci

[Seicher Rae]

27 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Child Abuse.

I don't think CARP stands for that, but @Scylla Rhiadra needs to come in here and re-educate us acronym impaired. I don't think you're right, but I won't swear to it.

[Seicher Rae]

17 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Ok I had to go back to around the time I first heard it.. It may not mean the same thing today, but  it started out as CApture Role Play.

I remember mazes being involved and wanted to try out the mazes.

Mah ebidence from the archives.

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/317/48/128981/1.html

That does seem to fit: CApture RP.

[Cate Foulsbane]

On 8/20/2022 at 6:57 PM, Arielle Popstar said:

Strikes me it has become more dangerous since the advent of cancel culture and political correctness wherein one needs to be appearing to toe the line of the new culture. There are those who cannot abide with someone on the internet not having a socially acceptable opinion.

I agree. I, for one, cannot abide someone on the internet advocating segregation of "races", subjugation of women, incarceration of homosexuals, and similar acts that I consider to be dangerous and abusive and downright wrong.