Discrimination rules to be added to TOS?

[EliseAnne85]

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

If you're saying that the higher degree of violence we see in men is the product of socialization, and of course feminism addresses  and attempts to change these dynamics, shouldn't we also address the greater preponderance of violence we see directed toward women from men in BDSM?   Isn't this something to challenge, or attempt to correct, since it is the product of their inept social conditioning as a male in our society?

I didn't mean men exhibit a higher degree of violence.  I had been pondering two of my past relationships, perhaps the ones that meant the most to me, and I feel I lost those relationships due to a man's desire to prey and to conquer,  such as a need to make a sexual conquest to which he then doesn't even desire it anymore once it's been conquered, and that this desire comes from an ancient, animalistic part in us but I was struggling to put it into words.  For example, at one time I may have asked a friend where her brother is and she might say "oh, he's out prowling for some new prey to conquer".  

I was thinking it was something more base; man the hunter, man the highest on the food chain.  

I was simply wondering if it's something deep in the psyche and it's animal in it's nature.

If I lost those two relationships due to a man's need to conquer, if there is that need, it was a shame for that to happen to what was essentially really love.

[Luna Bliss]

6 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

26 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

If you're saying that the higher degree of violence we see in men is the product of socialization, and of course feminism addresses  and attempts to change these dynamics, shouldn't we also address the greater preponderance of violence we see directed toward women from men in BDSM?   Isn't this something to challenge, or attempt to correct, since it is the product of their inept social conditioning as a male in our society?

Expand  

I didn't mean men exhibit a higher degree of violence.  I had been pondering two of my past relationships, perhaps the ones that meant the most to me, and I feel I lost those relationships due to a man's desire to prey and to conquer,  such as a need to make a sexual conquest to which he then doesn't even desire it anymore once it's been conquered, and that this desire comes from an ancient, animalistic part in us but I was struggling to put it into words.  For example, at one time I may have asked a friend where her brother is and she might say "oh, he's out prowling for some new prey to conquer".  

I was thinking it was something more base; man the hunter, man the highest on the food chain.  

I was simply wondering if it's something deep in the psyche and it's animal in it's nature.

If I lost those two relationships due to a man's need to conquer, if there is that need, it was a shame for that to happen to what was essentially really love.

I think conquering others is a form of violence when it goes against another person's will, or when we lie to others in order to conquer.  Granted, the violence is not as severe as the gore stuff Scylla posted.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Rowan Amore]

The question is not what they can be SUED for but what they can be held criminally accountable for, IMO.  All the sex, violence, etc. is RP and graphic representations of RP such as that is not, AFAIK, illegal.  They took steps to stop the AP because graphic representations of that IS illegal.

The rest of what you're not allowed to do, which they rarely take steps to prevent or stop,  isn't something they would probably be held accountable for in a criminal way.  

So, while I agree with most of what @Paul Hexemsaid, the reason is not 'being sued' but being prosecuted/investigated for a crime.  That whole FBI joke about kid avatars in SL?  Was it or is it really a joke?

[Luna Bliss]

13 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I have personal objections to BDSM, but they don't relate to gender relations (or consent) for this reason.

What are they, if you don't mind sharing?  Or if you would be so kind to state them in DM?

[kali Wylder]

Just looking at their posting history, I think the OP might have been a troll.  But at this point we don't really need the OP to continue our discussion of whether or not there should be more rules or less rules about what avatars can look like. 

I think we can all agree that child abuse is wrong.  But it happens in RL.  It doesn't happen in SL unless a child has managed to break the rules and get into SL.  I don't think that is what we are seeing when we see child avatars.  A child who is breaking the rules will not be interested in depicting themselves as a child.

So who is interested in depicting themselves as a child?  Maybe it's someone who is working out some issues from when they were a child.  If that's the case, then I think the rest of us should mind our own business and let them do what they need to do.

Is it disturbing?  Sure it is.  Don't like it?  Don't look.  I think the rules are just fine the way they are. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

10 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

What are they, if you don't mind sharing?  Or if you would be so kind to state them in DM?

This would be complicated, and off-topic, but a good starting place is an interview given by black lesbian feminist poet and author Audre Lorde in the early 80s. She specifically references Samois in it. There is an interesting collection of essays by radical feminists, including Alice Walker and a young Judith Butler (and including also this interview by Lorde) entitled Against Sadomasochism (1982). The conversation, and the ethos of BDSM itself, have both moved on a bit since then, but, as I say, a good starting place.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra
Forgot to mention Alice Walker! Duh!

[Madelaine McMasters]

27 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

I didn't mean men exhibit a higher degree of violence.  I had been pondering two of my past relationships, perhaps the ones that meant the most to me, and I feel I lost those relationships due to a man's desire to prey and to conquer,  such as a need to make a sexual conquest to which he then doesn't even desire it anymore once it's been conquered, and that this desire comes from an ancient, animalistic part in us but I was struggling to put it into words.  For example, at one time I may have asked a friend where her brother is and she might say "oh, he's out prowling for some new prey to conquer".  

I was thinking it was something more base; man the hunter, man the highest on the food chain.  

I was simply wondering if it's something deep in the psyche and it's animal in it's nature.

If I lost those two relationships due to a man's need to conquer, if there is that need, it was a shame for that to happen to what was essentially really love.

When I was a kid, and watching old cartoons of cave men dragging women around by their hair (and the women generally getting the last laugh), I was taught that these stories were modern, and being painted on ancient people we knew almost nothing about. Well, we know more now...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/11/16/dont-blame-gender-inequity-on-our-ancestors-ancient-women-were-big-game-hunters-too/?sh=710f4f956b4e

Raised in a gender indifferent household, I've been fairly unable to discern much difference between men and women that can't be chalked up to their particular environment/situation. Given equal landscapes to conquer, I can see only physical size as a potential discriminator, and that's not much of a factor in mechanized societies. That men are seen as the conquerors is essential to patriarchy. Patriarchy is not essential to conquest.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Madelaine McMasters

[Dyna Mole]

I see that several people have noticed that the conversation has been drifting well away from the OP's original comments, which had nothing to do with BDSM or some of the other issues that have come up in the last few pages. Let's see if it's possible to return to the topic.  

[Madelaine McMasters]

22 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

The question is not what they can be SUED for but what they can be held criminally accountable for, IMO.  All the sex, violence, etc. is RP and graphic representations of RP such as that is not, AFAIK, illegal.  They took steps to stop the AP because graphic representations of that IS illegal.

The rest of what you're not allowed to do, which they rarely take steps to prevent or stop,  isn't something they would probably be held accountable for in a criminal way.  

So, while I agree with most of what @Paul Hexemsaid, the reason is not 'being sued' but being prosecuted/investigated for a crime.  That whole FBI joke about kid avatars in SL?  Was it or is it really a joke?

I wonder if the court of public opinion worries LL more than actual courts. Taking much of the forums out of the public eye while simultaneously opening an adult wing suggests that to me.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

12 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I wonder if the court of public opinion worries LL more than actual courts. Taking much of the forums out of the public eye while simultaneously opening an adult wing suggests that to me.

That's my read on this. They have actually enabled more of the content that one would tend to think "objectionable" here, but also hidden away more.

And SL surely falls under Section 230, which protects social media platforms for liability for content posted by users?

[Kalegthepsionicist]

ok I want back yo topic about discrimination,

I know there are some rule fir sim and I always follow it but I think there are some place that are not roleplay sim , put  too much restriction

for example there are place I am not allowed to smoke and  must deattach my spiritual sword.

why ?? the sim is not PG. it discriminate from my point of view

 

peace

[Kathlen Onyx]

21 minutes ago, Kalegthepsionicist said:

ok I want back yo topic about discrimination,

I know there are some rule fir sim and I always follow it but I think there are some place that are not roleplay sim , put  too much restriction

for example there are place I am not allowed to smoke and  must deattach my spiritual sword.

why ?? the sim is not PG. it discriminate from my point of view

 

peace

Their sim, their rules. Asking you not to smoke or carry weapons (yes, it's a weapon, spiritual or not) is their right to do so. They pay the tier on the sim. If they only allowed avatars on the sim with red hair then you must have red hair to go there. Nothing discriminatory about it at all.  If you don't like the rules don't go there. It's really very simple.

[Luna Bliss]

26 minutes ago, Kalegthepsionicist said:

for example there are place I am not allowed to smoke

Second hand smoke is bad for those around you too -- it can also cause cancer.

[Kalegthepsionicist]

2 hours ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

Their sim, their rules. Asking you not to smoke or carry weapons (yes, it's a weapon, spiritual or not) is their right to do so. They pay the tier on the sim. If they only allowed avatars on the sim with red hair then you must have red hair to go there. Nothing discriminatory about it at all.  If you don't like the rules don't go there. It's really very simple.

spiritual sword is to heal people, and blessing  not a weapon to cause harm.. 😢

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Second hand smoke is bad for those around you too -- it can also cause cancer.

omgsh.. thats is herbal smoke, help my lung to keep alive

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17030480/

Edited August 24, 2022 by Kalegthepsionicist

[Wulfie Reanimator]

Well, this was an interesting backflip of events.

[Coffee Pancake]

Somehow I think this is even further off topic 😐

[belindacarson]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Somehow I think this is even further off topic 😐

Absolutely!!!!

[Scylla Rhiadra]

On 8/22/2022 at 11:05 PM, Paul Hexem said:

if they come back as a busty blonde avatar and tell me I'm amazing, I have no (TOS allowed) way of knowing the difference, unless they tell me

Ok, so now I'm curious. Does she have to be a busty blonde?

(Just asking for a blonde friend who uses Maitreya "Petite.")

😏

[Jordyn McGregor]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Ok, so now I'm curious. Does she have to be a busty blonde?

(Just asking for a blonde friend who uses Maitreya "Petite.")

😏

Butting in with my two cents....yes.  I tested that exact theory.

My busty blonde alt gets all the IMs when hanging out in clubs, whereas petite, non-busty me hears crickets.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

Butting in with my two cents....yes.  I tested that exact theory.

My busty blonde alt gets all the IMs when hanging out in clubs, whereas petite, non-busty me hears crickets.

/me searches her purse for tissues.

[Paul Hexem]

9 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Ok, so now I'm curious. Does she have to be a busty blonde?

(Just asking for a blonde friend who uses Maitreya "Petite.")

😏

Well.

Currently my script can only detect gender. I haven't made it detect mesh body types. And even then I can't get slider sizes.

But if there's nothing to bounce, then I can still manually eject per my rule! LL gives me that right!

[Madelaine McMasters]

10 hours ago, Jordan Whitt said:

Butting in with my two cents....yes.  I tested that exact theory.

My busty blonde alt gets all the IMs when hanging out in clubs, whereas petite, non-busty me hears crickets.

Dress as a cricket.

[EliseAnne85]

1 hour ago, Paul Hexem said:

Well.

Currently my script can only detect gender. I haven't made it detect mesh body types. And even then I can't get slider sizes.

But if there's nothing to bounce, then I can still manually eject per my rule! LL gives me that right!

What about bouncy flexi hair?  Or will that one be banned.    

But, to get to the person who started this thread and their title, do they want discrimination rules added to the TOS?  Such as, Please be advised that SL sims are privately owned and therefore some sims may be subject to a specific dress code.  Rules differ from sim to sim and LL has no control over our patrons choice of which dress code they allow or do not allow.  

I'm not really sure what the person starting the thread wants.

Perhaps they are asking this because purchasing certain avatars on MP just may not be a good purchase once you find out all the restrictions.  I would not invest in a child avatar for this reason.  Although, I do wear a Dinkie for building as it is far less lag to use when building.  Raglan Shire may accept child avatars, the thread starter would need to ask.  

Edited August 24, 2022 by EliseAnne85

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

I'm not really sure what the person starting the thread wants.

They wanted LL to enforce the non-discrimination declarations in the ToS and CS very literally and stringently, and apply them to all regions and parcels.

So, in other words, private region or parcel owners should not have the right to ban furries or child avatars, because that constitutes a form of "discrimination."

For obvious reasons, that's a non-starter.

[Lindal Kidd]

45 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Dress as a cricket.

A busty, blonde cricket.