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

[Codex Alpha]

1 hour ago, Starberry Passion said:

Not so sure, I've seen 50 year olds with the teen and adult body types.

True, because there are ALWAYS exceptions. Many men can probably nod knowingly of being fooled by what appeared to be a young female, until the lady turned around, and you see her wrinkled face and toothless grin - where she tried to disquise her age with bleached permed hair, clothing in a style that much younger women wear,etc.

If a reasonable person would look at the features of your avatar and consider it underage, we would recommend not engaging in adult activities on that account.

Child Avatar FAQ: Linden Lab

[Zalificent Corvinus]

23 minutes ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

Sorry, but you're wrong. That's not how this works. That's not how reality works. If LL wanted to make that the rule, they would have done so. No body has a baked in age, nor is there any agreement you have to sign that polices this. You don't get to decide what body people are allowed to use, nor do you get to decide how they use it. If they are doing inappropriate things, that's already covered in the TOS and had nothing to do with the body they are wearing, nor your virtue signaling.

New ToS.

Child Avatars have until 30th June 2024 to switch to a ToS compliant body with non removable no mod modesty panels.

Any child avatar wearing a non ToS compliant body after that date is a Walking ToS Violation and liable to be banned.

 

A Maitreya Lara has no modesty panels, so anyone using a Lara to make a child avatar after 30th June, is in violation of the ToS.

 

Edited May 8 by Zalificent Corvinus

[Scylla Rhiadra]

8 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

New ToS.

Child Avatars have until 30th June 2024 to switch to a ToS compliant body with non removable no mod modesty panels.

Any child avatar wearing a non ToS compliant body after that date is a Walking ToS Violation and liable to be banned.

 

A Maitreya Lara has no modesty panels, so anyone using a Lara to make a child avatar after 30th June, is in violation of the ToS.

 

I honestly don't remember what the original version said, and I don't care enough to look it up, but the current guidelines do not, in my understanding, imply that you must use a body that has modestly panels built in. In the case of Maitreya, there is of course an add-on that "smooths" the genital areas. I see nothing in the wording below that you can't use a Maitreya if the skin has a baked-in modesty layer. (And you'd want to wear the add-on as well, although that's still not explicitly stated.)

Quote

Child avatar content creators are required to add a modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies

 

[Dorientje Woller]

13 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

New ToS.

Child Avatars have until 30th June 2024 to switch to a ToS compliant body with non removable no mod modesty panels.

Any child avatar wearing a non ToS compliant body after that date is a Walking ToS Violation and liable to be banned.

 

A Maitreya Lara has no modesty panels, so anyone using a Lara to make a child avatar after 30th June, is in violation of the ToS.

 

Any adult body ... there, corrected it for you.

[Theresa Tennyson]

21 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

True, because there are ALWAYS exceptions. Many men can probably nod knowingly of being fooled by what appeared to be a young female, until the lady turned around, and you see her wrinkled face and toothless grin - where she tried to disquise her age with bleached permed hair, clothing in a style that much younger women wear,etc.

Because she walked backwards up to him and tried to fool him.

[Blush Bravin]

1 hour ago, Starberry Passion said:

Not so sure, I've seen 50 year olds with the teen and adult body types.

Yep, I agree. It's certainly possible, though I think by 50 no matter how small your chest might be you're gonna see more sag.

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

They're also the promotional photo for the Rebirth body.

Ah, I really didn't have any idea it was a promo photo. To me it looks very much like they took the same body shape, minus boob size, and just shortened the avatar to indicate age, which I think is completely erroneous. Just my opinion.

[Starberry Passion]

Just now, Blush Bravin said:

Yep, I agree. It's certainly possible, though I think by 50 no matter how small your chest might be you're gonna see more sag.

Ah, I really didn't have any idea it was a promo photo. To me it looks very much like they took the same body shape, minus boob size, and just shortened the avatar to indicate age, which I think is completely erroneous. Just my opinion.

Not true. There are many 50 year old,, even 60 that look good for their age. Genetics, working out, eating great can do a lot for the body.

[Blush Bravin]

1 minute ago, Starberry Passion said:

Not true. There are many 50 year old,, even 60 that look good for their age. Genetics, working out, eating great can do a lot for the body.

Sure there are. Never said there weren't, but gravity is gravity. It's inevitable. And when I say more sag, I don't mean like sag to the waist. I mean more sag than you have in your mid teens.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I see nothing in the wording below that you can't use a Maitreya if the skin has a baked-in modesty layer.

It does state clearly that the modesty panels that MUST be on child "skins or bodies" cannot be removed.

You can easily remove a skin, by wearing a different one.

So the wording is probably wrong and claiming that child avis don't HAVE to have modesty panels is basically rules dodging.

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

It does state clearly that the modesty panels that MUST be on child "skins or bodies" cannot be removed.

You can easily remove a skin, by wearing a different one.

So the wording is probably wrong and claiming that child avis don't HAVE to have modesty panels is basically rules dodging.

 

That's possible, and still seems to be ambiguous I suppose. But given that a body can be easily removed as well, I'm not sure I see the difference. Either way, one is a click or two away from non-compliance.

[Coffee Pancake]

The rules also state no genitals. Which maitreya has out of the box. There is no way it can be compliant without maitreya releasing a special edition kids version 

this also sinks rebirth, that’s worse out the box. 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The rules also state no genitals. Which maitreya has out of the box. There is no way it can be compliant without maitreya releasing a special edition kids version 

this also sinks rebirth, that’s worse out the box. 

And the GenX bodies with the stunt crotches rigged to tail bones. And the Eve body.

 

 

Edited May 8 by Zalificent Corvinus

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The rules also state no genitals. Which maitreya has out of the box. There is no way it can be compliant without maitreya releasing a special edition kids version 

this also sinks rebirth, that’s worse out the box. 

Why would the Maitreya add-on not make it compliant?

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Why would the Maitreya add-on not make it compliant?

Camel toe is part of the base mesh. 

[Starberry Passion]

11 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

Sure there are. Never said there weren't, but gravity is gravity. It's inevitable. And when I say more sag, I don't mean like sag to the waist. I mean more sag than you have in your mid teens.

You'd be really surprised.

[Dorientje Woller]

Frankly, I am starting to get scared to log into SL, because I am using a Maitreya body.

[Leslie Trihey]

I just don't see how this rule is going to work. Time will tell I suppose.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Camel toe is part of the base mesh. 

Ok, I guess. This is very much angels dancing on the heads of pins territory, though: the add-on comes with the body even if it is separate from the mesh object itself.

And I'm still not seeing precise wording that says the body AND the skin need to have "modesty" elements.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Why would the Maitreya add-on not make it compliant?

Because it's REMOVEABLE

[Anna Salyx]

On 5/6/2024 at 1:57 AM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

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.

/pulls over a colorful soapbox.

Side note:  Please don't equate asexuality with basic celibacy. Yes, perceptually from the outside they are equitable in act (or, well, lack of act that is) but the underlying motivation is different.

Using a cake metaphor (as we Aces are so very fond of), the difference between being being a celibate Allosexual and being Asexual  is akin to seeing a cake, wanting the cake, but making a very conscious decision to not eat the cake vs seeing the cake and not being interested in the cake.  Not the same thing.

Also, some Asexual do like and enjoy cake, but it's got the be the right cake, one they've gotten to know better, maybe.  Okay, I'll stop there.

But seriously the reason Asexuality is part of the LGBTQIA+ cohort is  that Ace is a marginalized orientation, and not simply just a choice. Than you.

/steps down off my Ace soapbox.

[Sid Nagy]

So this is the rerun of that other thread?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Because it's REMOVEABLE

So is a compliant skin and mesh body.

This is all getting very lawyerly in a way that is increasingly divorced from how SL actually works.

[Leslie Trihey]

Until this is further clarified I'm just going to take it as "thou shall not be without layer covering" because my interpretation is something that can't be removed by derendering it.

Edited May 8 by Leslie Trihey

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

This is all getting very lawyerly in a way that is increasingly divorced from how SL actually works.

THAT is because the new section was written by a lawyer not a SecondLifer.

Duh!

They said child bodies HAVE to have NON removable modesty panels that cannot be made skin coloured, so any body that doesn't have them built in is either NOT a child bod or not ToS compliant.

The Bom addon for a Lara is BoM, so you could wear it, and wear your usual skin and have your painted genital details on the smooth cover, and that's why it will NOT comply ass a "Child Avatar" body.

 

[Coffee Pancake]

None of this takes how SL works into account. And it’s unlikely anyone at Gov will sign off on any body as being ok, not even senra. 
 

If maitreya don’t release a dedicated version that s with the letter of the rules, everyone on that body is now out. It’s pretty cut and dry.