The new ToS and something I don't think was taken into consideration by LL.

[Dorientje Woller]

11 minutes ago, Starberry Passion said:

I'm not looking for a child's head and body, was merely saying that Lelutka are adult heads and the heads that AK sell, I've seen to be really good child heads that actually look like a child's head.

Did I suggested that you were looking for a child head? I merely stated that you or anyone else can't use the child heads of Akeruka on adult bodies and are made for 2 brands of child bodies.

[Aya Sweetheart]

3 hours ago, MissSweetViolet said:

LL did have it in their FAQ refencing the body maker being the one that needed to implement the changes. Can't find it now though, not sure if I'm just sleepy and looking in the wrong spot, or if they changed it. But should LL really be dictating what bodies we can and can't use? This would be less of an issue for younger kids, since they wouldn't be using an adult body likely anyway, but far more troublesome for teen avatars, they have far few options.

Yes this is LL dictating what you can and cannot use to make a child avatar.

A creator who makes child bodies will need to make a modesty layer... yes.  That doesn't mean that any creator that makes any item that could possibly be used in some way with a child looking avatar.  If Maitreya doesn't make any child avatar bodies, they have nothing to do.  It doesn't matter (for Maitreya) if someone misuses the body.  I don't get why this is still a question.  If I make an adult skin, and someone puts it on a child AV, thats them doing the wrong thing, not me.  If the item made does not have a modesty layer, it cannot be used for a child avatar.  Whoever is driving the child avatar will get in trouble for using a child avatar that doesn't follow the rules.

This is on the user who will get in trouble for trying to use it, not the creator, because some child avatar is wearing something they made that they never intended for children anyways. This is why a lot of child-avatar users are upset they are using items that the creators are gone, and they have to dump all their stuff and stop using any of it, because it'll never be updated.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 hours ago, animats said:

On that note, under the new rules, is this still legitimate?

This is at WelcomeHub's Community Exhibition. G-rated area.

Perhaps this should be moved to an adult area.

The real-world Boys Town is a Catholic institution for troubled boys.

Just to extend a little what Coffee has said, you can also be gay and celibate -- just as one can be a celibate heterosexual. Indeed, one of the "flavours" of LGBTQ+ is asexual.

There's no necessary relationship between sexual orientation and actual sex; there's no reason why a child can't be gay in SL.

In fact, I once did a pic of an underage lesbian. And I'll fight anyone who tells me this is inappropriate or in violation of the ToS.

 

[Codex Alpha]

10 hours ago, animats said:

On that note, under the new rules, is this still legitimate?

This is at WelcomeHub's Community Exhibition. G-rated area.

Perhaps this should be moved to an adult area.

The real-world Boys Town is a Catholic institution for troubled boys.

AND this could be interpreted as trying to recruit BOYS (Children) to joing this community.

Why isn't it called MENS TOWN?

[Codex Alpha]

...

Edited May 7 by Codex Alpha

[Codex Alpha]

...

Edited May 7 by Codex Alpha

[Alwin Alcott]

1 minute ago, Codex Alpha said:

Why isn't it called MENS TOWN?

i do think it should be moved to Adult, but because of the nature of that SL estate, not for any RL simular named institutes.

the name "boy" is in 'the scene" a normal name for more higher in age guys ... sometimes even to 40+ when they'r well 'conserved" by aging and bodytype

[Theresa Tennyson]

2 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

AND this could be interpreted as trying to recruit BOYS (Children) to joing this community.

Why isn't it called MENS TOWN?

And why was this pedobait TV show allowed on the air?

[Bree Giffen]

I think that LL will simply allow LaraX and other bodies to exist without restrictions and ignore the fact that they could be shaped into a youthful body. Maybe they will remove the ability to change avatar heights below a certain level. A minimum  of 7 feet tall might be the new normal.

[Rowan Amore]

These looks are all marketed under Children's shapes on the MP with the key word Lelutka.  Lelutka heads are quite often used for under 18.  

Second Life Marketplace - lelutka Children's Avatar Shapes

Edited May 7 by Rowan Amore

[Ceka Cianci]

I would think that the body maker would have to be making for and marketing to  those avatars, to end up having to revamp things.

[Alwin Alcott]

55 minutes ago, Bree Giffen said:

I think that LL will simply allow LaraX and other bodies to exist without restrictions and ignore the fact that they could be shaped into a youthful body. Maybe they will remove the ability to change avatar heights below a certain level. A minimum  of 7 feet tall might be the new normal.

when they are used for children they'll most likely have to comply to the "patch" rule, we can think things could slip through, but it's upon LL.
The creator might have to come with a second option for that purpose.

[VanVox]

The majority of people who roleplay as children in SL are already compliant and on board with making sure they follow the TOS to the letter. The small percentage that engage in activities that are against the TOS will unfortunately always find a loophole. Even if there was a way to create an unremovable modesty layer on child avatar bodies, a person could just purchase an adult body with a flat or petite chest addon to get around that restriction.

I also think that it will be imperative to address the sims that cater to these types of activities. If you do a search inworld for the term "family" and sort by traffic, the first sim that comes up in the results is a "Family Safe Nude Beach" where no clothing is allowed. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

A possible argument is that it is relating to sexual behaviour and therefore is sexualized? This is certainly a case of 'where do we draw the line'.
It's the same argument made by some in schools to exclude such topics, as school is about reading, writing and arithmetic, and sexual topics should be excluded (until an appropriate age and with consent from the parents)

It's a possible argument, but it is premised on the idea that sexual orientation is nothing more than a way to describe whom we partner with.

Being gay doesn't just mean (for instance) being in a same sex relationship or having sex with people of the same sex as yourself: it's an identity that relates to a great many things such as attraction, affinities for things that have been culturally marked in a gendered way, and a host of other things -- and those needn't be manifested sexually. A young girl who finds boys "cute" and attractive is (likely) heterosexual even if it takes another 10 years for her to actually have sex with one. Or indeed, even if she becomes a nun and never has sex.

Again, you can be gay without ever actually having sex at all. You can be bisexual even if you've never actually put it into "practice" by having sex with partners who are both male and female biologically. And you can be trans without ever in any sense "transitioning."

If the default assumption is that children are heterosexual (and culturally, it certainly is) we don't need "proof" of that from the fact that they've had sex with someone of the opposite sex. The same is true of children who may, from a quite early age, discover that they are LGBTQ+.

[Dorientje Woller]

2 hours ago, Bree Giffen said:

I think that LL will simply allow LaraX and other bodies to exist without restrictions and ignore the fact that they could be shaped into a youthful body. Maybe they will remove the ability to change avatar heights below a certain level. A minimum  of 7 feet tall might be the new normal.

Over my dead pixelated body.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

18 hours ago, animats said:

On that note, under the new rules, is this still legitimate?

This is at WelcomeHub's Community Exhibition. G-rated area.

Perhaps this should be moved to an adult area.

The real-world Boys Town is a Catholic institution for troubled boys.

I always thought it was kinda sketchy 😁

[Coffee Pancake]

29 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I always thought it was kinda sketchy 😁

My own child came out to me at 14.

It was not a surprise, or sketchy, or adult in anyway.

Being LGBTQ+ is not inherently sexual or adult in nature. There is nothing to be gained by forcing LGBTQ+ teens into the closet and the presumption that a declaration of identity automatically leads to anything adult in nature is incorrect and harmful. The LGBTQ+ community have been fighting and winning this argument for decades.

Providing safe spaces where those coming to grips with their identity is vitally important and saves lives.

[Ceka Cianci]

16 hours ago, Aya Sweetheart said:

Yes this is LL dictating what you can and cannot use to make a child avatar.

A creator who makes child bodies will need to make a modesty layer... yes.  That doesn't mean that any creator that makes any item that could possibly be used in some way with a child looking avatar.  If Maitreya doesn't make any child avatar bodies, they have nothing to do.  It doesn't matter (for Maitreya) if someone misuses the body.  I don't get why this is still a question.  If I make an adult skin, and someone puts it on a child AV, thats them doing the wrong thing, not me.  If the item made does not have a modesty layer, it cannot be used for a child avatar.  Whoever is driving the child avatar will get in trouble for using a child avatar that doesn't follow the rules.

This is on the user who will get in trouble for trying to use it, not the creator, because some child avatar is wearing something they made that they never intended for children anyways. This is why a lot of child-avatar users are upset they are using items that the creators are gone, and they have to dump all their stuff and stop using any of it, because it'll never be updated.

I totally agree. It's up to the body maker if they decide to cater to those avatars, it's not up to the users of those avatars to pick and choose who has to cater to them.

Edited May 6 by Ceka Cianci

[Persephone Emerald]

26 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I totally agree. It's up to the body maker if they decide to cater to those avatars, it's not up to the users of those avatars to pick and choose who has to cater to them.

So, does the "modesty layer" rule only apply to creators of bodies and skins marketed for child avatars? And if so, is this restriction really just for PR optics? 

I don't think genitalia should be marketed for child avatars. If someone with a child avatar goes and shrinks one to fit, then I think we can rightfully assume they might be up to no good. 

On the other hand, normal BOM underwear, bathing suits, alpha layers, alpha cuts, or modesty patches in the same tone as one's skin (on a smooth body) seem perfectly reasonable measures for ensuring modesty for a child avatar.

[Ceka Cianci]

16 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

So, does the "modesty layer" rule only apply to creators of bodies and skins marketed for child avatars? And if so, is this restriction really just for PR optics? 

I don't think genitalia should be marketed for child avatars. If someone with a child avatar goes and shrinks one to fit, then I think we can rightfully assume they might be up to no good. 

On the other hand, normal BOM underwear, bathing suits, alpha layers, alpha cuts, or modesty patches in the same tone as one's skin (on a smooth body) seem perfectly reasonable measures for ensuring modesty for a child avatar.

I would think so.. If they are making adult skins and not child skins, there is no reason that a seller, not  aiming for that crowd or market, have to all of a sudden  have those products in their store and be in that market. That's like forcing them into a market that they were never in ,in the first place.

If a seller chooses to be in that certain market, then they need to make sure their products are compliant.

ETA, To add also, Some of the adult bodies are set up for genitals. Maitreya has a few of them that are rigged for the lara 5.3 and  the Lara X ones are starting to come out..  If Maitreya had to make changes to their mesh in that area, it's gonna impact more than just Maitreya..

Edited May 7 by Ceka Cianci

[MissSweetViolet]

11 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

Although I don't see a need for myself (Should I have a 12-year old boy avatar) to have any genitals or under-the-pants detailed included, I would hope that 'being clothed' would suffice as a 'modesty layer'. I believe they are trying to add an extra layer if possible, so that on account that a child avatar is naked for whatever reason (even loading in clothing, or changing clothing) noone is going to come around and be shocked, or AR or report.

It might break some people's outfits for sure, but nothing stays the same, and it just opens up a new market for those creators to make new mesh body components (with some undies included) and everyone would be happy. Past that, again, why do child avatars need genitals anyway that would ever put them at risk of banning anyway? Child (sexual) play is disallowed.

They don't have genital by default, in fact someone came into Toddleedoo's Discord once asking for them, and the creator said she did not, and would not ever make them. No mainstream kid avatar to my knowledge includes them [none of the ones I've used or demo'ed do], there isn't even mesh definition, it would literally be like looking at a Barbie doll.

I don't even know where someone would find some for a kid avatar unless some are just using regular ones, which I can't imaging working. I've been a part time kid avatar for nearly 3 years of my 5 years in SL, I've never seen a shop selling them.

Edited May 7 by MissSweetViolet
Spelling corrections.

[MissSweetViolet]

18 hours ago, Aya Sweetheart said:

Yes this is LL dictating what you can and cannot use to make a child avatar.

A creator who makes child bodies will need to make a modesty layer... yes.  That doesn't mean that any creator that makes any item that could possibly be used in some way with a child looking avatar.  If Maitreya doesn't make any child avatar bodies, they have nothing to do.  It doesn't matter (for Maitreya) if someone misuses the body.  I don't get why this is still a question.  If I make an adult skin, and someone puts it on a child AV, thats them doing the wrong thing, not me.  If the item made does not have a modesty layer, it cannot be used for a child avatar.  Whoever is driving the child avatar will get in trouble for using a child avatar that doesn't follow the rules.

This is on the user who will get in trouble for trying to use it, not the creator, because some child avatar is wearing something they made that they never intended for children anyways. This is why a lot of child-avatar users are upset they are using items that the creators are gone, and they have to dump all their stuff and stop using any of it, because it'll never be updated.

I agree with you, but the point is, if SL is trying to get any avatar that could used for a child, well many teens [both innocent and the ones who skirt the line and cause most of this anyway] use adult bodies, there really are no bodies out there for 15+ Tweenster and Tweeneedoo are mainly just that tweens, you might be able to stretch and get to age 15, depending on the look your going for with one of those, but most to my knowledge above age 14 are using an adult body. 

The reason I brought the thread up was to show how absurd the "welded on underpants" are when a layer baked in to the skin would do just fine. Again this is if my assumption that they must be built into the body mesh is correct. If they really do mean a layer on a skin will work, as many others have interpreted it [and I really hope that is the case], then it's not so much an issue. Although I do still worry for teen avatars who aren't engaging in skirting the rules, since they do use adult bodies too.

Edited May 7 by MissSweetViolet
Spelling corrections.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

6 hours ago, MissSweetViolet said:

The reason I brought the thread up was to show how absurd

The calls to censor Adult mesh bodies in revenge for the changes demanded to child mesh bodies are? 

[Randy Pole]

On 5/6/2024 at 4:09 AM, animats said:

On that note, under the new rules, is this still legitimate?

This is at WelcomeHub's Community Exhibition. G-rated area.

Perhaps this should be moved to an adult area.

The real-world Boys Town is a Catholic institution for troubled boys.

Boystown in SL is actually based upon an area of Chicago which adopted that name in the 1970s.

https://www.choosechicago.com/neighborhoods/boystown/

 

[Codex Alpha]

On 5/6/2024 at 11:08 AM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

It's a possible argument, but it is premised on the idea that sexual orientation is nothing more than a way to describe whom we partner with.

Being gay doesn't just mean (for instance) being in a same sex relationship or having sex with people of the same sex as yourself: it's an identity that relates to a great many things such as attraction, affinities for things that have been culturally marked in a gendered way, and a host of other things -- and those needn't be manifested sexually. A young girl who finds boys "cute" and attractive is (likely) heterosexual even if it takes another 10 years for her to actually have sex with one. Or indeed, even if she becomes a nun and never has sex.

Again, you can be gay without ever actually having sex at all. You can be bisexual even if you've never actually put it into "practice" by having sex with partners who are both male and female biologically. And you can be trans without ever in any sense "transitioning."

If the default assumption is that children are heterosexual (and culturally, it certainly is) we don't need "proof" of that from the fact that they've had sex with someone of the opposite sex. The same is true of children who may, from a quite early age, discover that they are LGBTQ+.

The fact that you had to use the word 'sex' automatically takes things into that realm. This is why someone might think it would be quite weird to promote 'adult' issues in a G rated area. But I guess it's okay if it's LGBTQ topics.

Edited May 7 by Codex Alpha