How ugly is too ugly?

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

Given that beauty confers such huge advantage in RL and none in SL (since if we are talking about the typist, he is invisible and if we are talking about the avi, anyone can be beautiful), what conclusions do you think might be drawn about people most likely to be attracted to SL?

---

Oh, you mean people that don't realize how beautiful they are for real... right?

...Dres

[Pamela Galli]

There ya go! :smileyvery-happy:

[Dresden Ceriano]

[Void Singer]

I dunno, I think beauty still has a huge impact in SL, especially subconsciously...gender does too, it's just not the end all be all that it is in RL... well crafted surpasses in in SL, as well as "interesting" (the value of which changes with the viewer).

 

@Dres
yup that's what I was getting at

@Ishy
Not so much a named social group, but a common category from the viewers perspective... if that category's definition is well defined enough that a majority of people can recognize the traits, then it's a social grouping whether named or not.

@Missing Daria:
eh, I'm 50/50 there... she was bright enough to grasp difficult things quickly when presented with them, but while I respected her honesty, I found her utterly narrow and self centered world view to be insulting for someone that obviously had brains to see past superficial labels.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Void Singer wrote:

@Missing Daria:

eh, I'm 50/50 there... she was bright enough to grasp difficult things quickly when presented with them, but while I respected her honesty, I found her utterly narrow and self centered world view to be insulting for someone that obviously had brains to see past superficial labels.

---

Understood, but I believe part of her "fun" was purposely grouping things, and people, into labels and then mocking them as such... not saying it was preferable, but it was certainly entertaining.

...Dres

[Carole Franizzi]

Gawd, Mailily, I’m obviously doing a rotten job of explaining myself. You keep supplying further examples of your own personal interpretation of the word "prejudice", but it continues to be the one which is the direct opposite of what’s being discussed here – the victimisation of categories of human beings because of negative judgements formed about them before knowing them as individuals.

The example of the year-book is just a repetition of the inferiority complex meaning you used in your last post to me. Your RL boyfriend didn’t feel he was good-looking enough to hit on his pretty class-mates. That’s exactly the same example as you feeling your avatar is not attractive enough to approach the super-hunk avies. It has to with your feelings about yourself, and the fact you don’t feel good enough. “Pre” means “before” therefore, since you always knew yourself, you can’t have formed an opinion about yourself prior to knowing yourself. Because before you knew yourself, erm, you didn’t exist. Self-perception and feelings of inadequacy, inferiority and so on, have more to do with the realm of psychology and not semantics. Although I’m betting there’s a scientific research out there somewhere which demonstrates that we instinctively recognise potential mates who are “in our league” looks-wise. By that I mean that we all know when we’re seeing someone much more attractive than ourselves and we’re all aware that the risk of being rejected is high…so we back off. Not sure that counts as distorted self-perception though but is one of Nature’s little tricks to ensure like mates with like. It’s what stops me stalking Brad Pitt, for example, as I’m aware he just might prefer to stick with Angelina rather than run away with me.

Your “alternative” use of the word – verb and not noun –  is not an illustration of someone being a “victim” of prejudice which is what you meant when you claimed that pretty avatars were unfairly (not favourably) pre-judged. If you are now saying that the example given at the end of your last post to me is the meaning you meant all along, then what you were claiming was that everybody in SL judges pretty avatars in an overly favourable way, simply based on how they look.

[Venus Petrov]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Gawd, Mailily, I’m obviously doing a rotten job of explaining myself.

---

No, that is not it.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Yeah, but, let's focus on the important stuff - can you or can't you change a tyre?

---

I can!

A tire change will appear in a sexual miscapade story I'll send you.

[Venus Petrov]

/me wonders if 'tire or tyre change' is euphemism for some other type of 'change'

[Mayalily]

I posted another post you neglected to read in this thread regarding the use of the word prejudice.  If you are going for definition No. 3 here, then I can't help you understand all the meanings of the word prejudice, Carole and Venus.  You both have a dictionary you can go too if you need help understanding a word and it's useages. 

 

   [prej-uh-dis] **Only uploaded images may be used in postings**://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif" border="0" /> Show IPA noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.

noun

1.

an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

2.

any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

3.

unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

4.

such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.

5.

damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

verb (used with object)

6.

to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.



[Storm Clarence]

[Mayalily]

To address some things in your post here Carole, no he was a very, very good looking guy.  Just because someone is good looking does not mean their life is a bed of roses and perfect, nor do all their insecurities go poof. 

And, I brought up the fact that there is some prejudice in relation to beautiful people whether it is realized by posters in this thread or not as it was an interesting realization on my part when my rl bf and I started a discussion about it. 

I know some of the prejudice I have received simply for being pretty when I have had to deal with responses such as "Oh, you're so pretty, you will get over it."....or "You're so pretty, you don't have much to worry about".  These are silly things to say to a human being and without a reasonable thought behind them.  However, I've heard those kinds of responses most of my adult life.  What does pretty have to do with being hurt, abused, etc?  How would feelings and consequences of abuse change simply because a person is beautiful or not? 

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Your right though, I should not "chastise" you for your reply to Ish or your interpretation of what she said... I didn't think I was.   

---

I didn't think so either...you silly!  I was merely mirroring back to you.  *laughing*   (showing you how what you wrote *could* be construed as chastising since you choose words like "injustice", etc.   

 

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

 I thought I was merely telling you what my own interpretation was, perhaps I didn't express that well enough or perhaps you just took it the wrong way.

 

---

Yup.  I know it was your interpretation, and I was pointing out that it was a wrong one from my point of view.  (using the example of how your words could be "interpreted" the same way.     

"took it the wrong way"?   Hmm, you mean like how you took my mirroring example (complete with ; ) the winking thing wrong?  

 

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

We may never know.

...Dres

 

---

Acck!  Don't give up now!  We must get to the bottom of this....this....Oh wait.  I have it all figured out.  Whew.  Thank good ness for my perceptiveness...which never steers me wrong.    *smiles*  

*wonders off to read more forum comments...beaming with sheer perceptive understanding and enlightenment* 

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Gawd, Mailily, I’m obviously doing a rotten job of explaining myself.

---

No, that is not it.

---

What Venus said. 

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Yeah, but, let's focus on the important stuff - can you or can't you change a tyre?

---

I can!

A tire change will appear in a sexual miscapade story I'll send you.

---

And is it too much to hope that a big, hairy, muscular mechanic will also be part of the plot?

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Mayalily wrote:

I posted another post you neglected to read in this thread regarding the use of the word prejudice.  If you are going for definition No. 3 here, then I can't help you understand all the meanings of the word prejudice, Carole and Venus.  You both have a dictionary you can go too if you need help understanding a word and it's useages. 

 

 

 

[

prej

-

uh

-dis

]

**Only uploaded images may be used in postings**://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif" border="0" />

Show IPA

noun,

verb,

-diced,

-dic·ing.

noun

1.

an

unfavorable

opinion

or

feeling

formed

beforehand

or

without

knowledge,

thought,

or

reason.

2.

any

preconceived

opinion

or

feeling,

either

favorable

or

unfavorable.

3.

unreasonable

feelings,

opinions,

or

attitudes,

especially

of

a

hostile

nature,

regarding

a

racial,

religious,

or

national

group.

4.

such

attitudes

considered

collectively:

The

war

against

prejudice

is

never-ending.

5.

damage

or

injury;

detriment:

a

law

that

operated

to

the

prejudice

of

the

majority.

verb

(used

with

object)

6.

to

affect

with

a

prejudice,

either

favorable

or

unfavorable:

His

honesty

and

sincerity

prejudiced

us

in

his

favor.



---

 

I “neglected” to read one of your posts in this thread? How can I have been so remiss?? Oh yes, I know – unfortunately I have to work for a living and they refused point blank to let me take the day off to read all the posts you have made even though I explained to them that reading all the posts in a thread authored by you is the prerequisite for directing a post to you. They’re just big stinkers though, and stuck to their guns and made me work all ruddy day!

You know what, Mayalily, when it comes to the point where you yourself copy and paste a dictionary entry and it’s there – in your post – at position number one – the exact definition which I’ve been trying to explain to you and you STILL don’t get it, it's time to give up.

You want to refer to your feeling too shy to go up to hunky avies as “prejudice”, you go right ahead. You want to call your boyfriend’s feeling of intimidation in front of the hawties of his class “prejudice” – be my guest.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Yeah, but, let's focus on the important stuff - can you or can't you change a tyre?

---

I can!

A tire change will appear in a sexual miscapade story I'll send you.

---

And is it too much to hope that a big, hairy, muscular mechanic will also be part of the plot?

---

Yes it is.

I shaved my legs before the date.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

/me wonders if 'tire or tyre change' is euphemism for some other type of 'change'

---

Is this an oblique request for a copy of the miscapade note I'm writing?

[Venus Petrov]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

/me wonders if 'tire or tyre change' is euphemism for some other type of 'change'

---

Is this an oblique request for a copy of the miscapade note I'm writing?

---

Is this a not-so-oblique offer of one?

[Ima Rang]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Elle Benusconi wrote:

Upon consideration of the article I was left with two conclusions.    First, soon we will see the formation of the "Ugly Lobby"   And second, lawyers will latch on to this, and a new group of lawyers specializing in "Ugly Discrimination" cases will flood our over burdened court with this sort of case.

---

Seems, in order for that to happen, a person would have to be legally declared "ugly"... can you imagine?... lol.

...Dres

---

Haha!  Imagine all of the citizens arrests that would go on.  So if you are declared legally ugly and you try to date...will you be found guilty of felony attempt to traffic ugly? 

[Void Singer]

---

Ima Rang wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Elle Benusconi wrote:

Upon consideration of the article I was left with two conclusions.    First, soon we will see the formation of the "Ugly Lobby"   And second, lawyers will latch on to this, and a new group of lawyers specializing in "Ugly Discrimination" cases will flood our over burdened court with this sort of case.

---

Seems, in order for that to happen, a person would have to be legally declared "ugly"... can you imagine?... lol.

...Dres

---

Haha!  Imagine all of the citizens arrests that would go on.  So if you are declared legally ugly and you try to date...will you be found guilty of felony attempt to traffic ugly? 

---

I would be soooo screwed....

[Melita Magic]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Void Singer wrote:

@Missing Daria:

eh, I'm 50/50 there... she was bright enough to grasp difficult things quickly when presented with them, but while I respected her honesty, I found her utterly narrow and self centered world view to be insulting for someone that obviously had brains to see past superficial labels.

---

Understood, but I believe part of her "fun" was purposely grouping things, and people, into labels and then mocking them as such... not saying it was preferable, but it was certainly entertaining.

...Dres

---

Or hurtful if  you fell into one of those groups.

Not really what some come to a game forum to feel.

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Anyway, your point is noted and in future I’ll stay away from your shop, lest I offend your eyes with my fat, old avatar.

---

That is definitely not what I was trying to say. I really like your unique and delightful avatar.

My point was basically this: If you were to cover your avatar in open bedsores and ulcers and crawl around naked on bleeding stumps, in an area where people come to relax, socialize and flirt -- knowing full well that it causes others anguish and almost physical pain to look at something that they perceive as a severely scarred and hurt person --  would you have a right to feel discriminated against if the owner of the place asked you to change into something less graphic or banned you?

I mean, it is a matter of degree. I know full well that my wheelchair example was very controversial in this context, and yet even that is essentially a form of virtual self-mutilation in a world where nobody is handicapped or disabled without making a conscious decision. Still, I take that as a form of self-expression, a virtual manifestation of self-image and RL identity, a creative statement about diversity, or perhaps a social experiment.

But there are some (very few) avatars that I feel differently about, where I can't help but feel that I'm dealing with a griefer. Wheelchair: identity / self expression. Colostomy bag: griefing. Why is that? Where is the line between griefing and self-realization / artistic expression? What prompts me to make this distinction? How do other people feel about this? That's what I'm trying to find out. 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But why do you like my avie? She isn’t at all pretty. In fact, she’s rather ugly by anyone’s standards. You maybe associate her with my “voice” here in the forums and make a bit of an exception, cut me some slack, but if you didn’t know me and one day you saw me walking round your shop how would you feel? How would you feel if she wore one of her strappy latex numbers which lets everything (and I mean everything) hang out and with her varicose veins layer in full view?  Would you assume I was griefing? Being deliberately provocative, well knowing that I look ludicrous, gross, pretty darn disgusting? Because you’d be right – she’s meant to look gross (at times). And if hurting people’s eyes with an avie you know they won’t find pretty is called griefing, then I’m a griefer. But then, I have to look at loads of avies with arms half the length they ought to be and heads four times too small for their bodies. Fair’s fair. Ah, but they don’t intend to look bad…that’s just an accident, right? Lack of knowledge about anatomy and proportions are to blame for that, whereas, if I voluntarily wear the most elderly skin I have (one which I made myself) which is covered in moles, ages-spots, broken veins, varicose veins, and painted-on saggy rolls of flesh – I’m being naughty because my intent is to be provocative, right?

Believe me, the over-all effect of the really old skin is probably on the same level as a standard hottie skin with some bedsores, but – and this bit is important – that skin (never used on the forums) was painted by me, by hand, and is something I’m rather proud of. Let’s really go out on a limb – let’s say it’s a very minor piece of digital art. Let’s go to the other end of the spectrum. According to your reasoning then all the true great masters who depicted Christ dying on the cross, Samson’s head on a platter, St. Sebastian tortured by arrows were griefers because the subject matter isn’t a pretty bunch of flowers or a puppy playing with a kitten? I don’t dare enquire what you think of more recent artworks which saw dummies of children hanging from trees (or light-posts?? Can’t remember now), a pile of bricks, the artist’s own poo exhibited in prestigious galleries and with enormous price-tags stuck on them. You might want to quibble that such things aren’t really art. Well, good luck to you on that one – they’ve been trying to define that one for centuries. It’s up there with “does God exist?”.

And yet, people go to art galleries to relax, socialise and flirt. Ever been to a gallery opening? Most people are too busy eyeing one another up to pay much attention to the paintings and even if the paintings depict war, death, torture and misery, it doesn’t stop the fun. And that’s because nobody real is bleeding, oozing pus or dying in front of them. The paintings are representations of real-life, not real-life itself. Just like SL. Any “bedsore” you might see in SL is just a graphic representation of one. And graphic representations of such stuff (even when it’s real – like the poo – but is totally decontextualised by being placed on a platform in an art gallery) do not usually bother people that much – reason why millions of folk go to the cinema to watch fellow humans “appear” to get carved up and why you continue to eat your dinner while the news shows you images of kids starving in Africa – the detachment allowed by it being a film and not occurring in your dining-room makes it unreal enough for you to keep tucking into your fish and chips.

In other words, for some people “ugly” is more interesting than “pretty”, provocative is more emotionally charged than playing it safe, sticking out like a sore thumb is preferable to blending in, but you’d rather they didn’t do that because it chases away your customers. So freedom of expression – whether artistic or just to stand out - against commercial interests? That’s hardly a new dilemma - might I suggest that you probably base your judgement on whether it’s artistic expression or good ole-fashioned griefing depending on whether you perceive other clients as being perturbed by it, whatever the true intention of the avatar-operator. Tell me something – how should a person who doesn’t know you judge the intent behind your avatar and its life-style? And more to the point – how would they do that?

Can there ever be any genuine reason to discuss discrimination in a place where you choose who and what you are and where a land-owner writes the law of his land and has the right to allow or disallow anyone he sees fit? I’m not entirely convinced there is, though I’d have to ponder the question a bit longer. Whether it counts as actual discrimination or not, for sure I can say that if anybody chucks me off his land because of my avie, he’s acting within his rights, just as I am within my rights to pick and choose where I spend my money.

You know the real difference between you and me? It’s not so much the contrast between the pretty elf avie and the ugly old bag. It’s that you truly find the “pretty” avatars “pretty”. You seem to see them as attempts to achieve perfection. I see them as much, much more imperfect, uninteresting and unattractive in their expressionless, characterless blandness than any real human being. An avatar stimulates the same response in me as a Barbie doll in its box on a shop shelf. Do I gaze at Ken and think lustful thoughts? I most certainly do not. Could I look at the face of another flesh and blood human being and see lines which tell a story, a crooked smile and a chipped tooth which produce a heart-wrenchingly sweet smile, a scar which bears witness to having survived some terrible trauma, and fall in love? You bet I could…

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Eloise Baily wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

OMG! OMG! Eloise!!!!!!

Too tickled to see your name to say anything else!

---

/me salutes. Ay oop chuck.

---

Awfy guid tae see ya, ya bampot, ya!

[Angelique LaFollette]

I think it comes down to your description of the person in question, you chose the word "Ugly" to describe someone who was using appearance to be knowingly offensive, not someone who was merely subjectively unattractive.

should you ban someone for wearing a deliberately offensive avatar?

I would say yes, and i think most would agree.

This person was obviously trolling for precisely the response they received.

 

Angel.