How ugly is too ugly?

[Void Singer]

there is a difference between a painting and and, for instance, someone walking around with a head on a platter... or even for that matter simply carrying around around said picture and putting it in the face of every passerby. yes, the intent is the same whether it's on a wall or a live performance, but the context is different. and the difference changes the effect (and sometimes the magnitude).

As humans we expect certain standards (not always rightly) in general uncontrolled settings, and prefer to keep those thing which shock or disturb us in more controlled settings. violating those principles always some sort of repercussion for the violator, and anyone that doesn't expect such is a fool of the highest magnitude.

that said, aged appearance is hardly on the scale of discomfort as open sores.... both in RL and SL. both are natural occurrences, but one can have something done about it (namely cleaning and bandaging).

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

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.

---

 

First off, kudos for a great post I can certainly see where you're coming from, but I happen to disagree on a few points.

I think it's a matter of expectations. When I'm watching a horror movie, I expect to see something horrible and unsavory (you mentioned horror movies, that's why I run with this example. It's not a snide against your avatar). On the other hand, when I dine at an exclusive restaurant, I expect everything on my dish to look appetizing and delicious. I also expect the waiter to not look like the wolf man or Dr. Frankenstein's loyal servant Igor, and not to sport a bad rash or dandruff like a snow storm. I can be shallow like that, but it depends on the time and place.

In an art gallery, I fully expect to find something challenging, thought-provoking, perhaps even shocking and disgusting. I wouldn't be too surprised to see, for example, a photo of a 90 year old, pole dancing granny who seductively strips out of a skin-tight leotard. That's provocative, that's art. But when I visit a brothel, I only expect to see eye-pleasing shapes and firm skin without too many wrinkles. After all, that's the kind of service they're advertising. If I were to run into the same pole dancing granny in such a place, I'd turn around and walk back out. Probably in a hurry

As for your avatar, I think Carole looks interesting, unique and humorously delightful. When she's sufficiently dressed, that is. If she was real, I wouldn't mind seeing her in a Dominatrix outfit at a costume party, or on a photo in an art gallery for that matter, but in a BDSM club... well, I don't know. It would be a very unexpected sight, somewhat out of place, and -- considering your description of her varicose veins -- also a mood killer. But of course it would be very impolite and, yes, also discriminating if she was asked to leave. I mean, why shouldn't a senior citizen visit a BDSM club? In RL, this would be a matter of equal rights and acceptance. We can't help who we are in RL (not that you are Carole, I'm talking about a hypothetical RL version of Carole), and nobody should be discriminated against.

Which brings me to SL, where appearance is not a matter of age and gene expression but entirely based on choice. An avatar is essentially an outfit. Just like in RL, I expect to find different visual stimuli in different places in SL. I wasn't talking about SL in its entirety in my OP, but about a very particular location, namely my nude beach. It is a place where people come to flirt, hook up, dance in the nude, and occasionally retreat into one of the many huts and caves for some private time and relaxation. I could certainly imagine your Carole avatar hanging out in such an environment, but... in the nude?

The way you've described Carole in all her glory -- varices, moles, age spots, saggy skin -- well, to be honest, I would indeed assume that you were trying to provocate, or to be a buzzkill. My beach is not just a social hangout, it's much more akin to a sex club than an actual beach. It's not an art gallery. While there are no face checks at the metaphorical door, I would ask people to change into something more apt if they looked entirely misplaced and threatened to ruin the enjoyment of other visitors with their presence. I mean, I would do the same if I saw a child avi or a five meter tall Godzilla avatar. Think of it as a very loose dress code. This doesn't mean that I can't appreciate a well-designed Godzilla avatar, but... those pesky expectations. The right time and place.

 

 

Now, as for the much-overused term "art" and religious torture scenes... oh boy. Where to begin? I happen to have some strong opinions in this area. There are many talented people in SL, no doubt. I admire a great many content creators, and I also admire what you've done with your Carole avatar. But... art? Really? That's a bit like saying that our machinima "artists" are the next Spielbergs and Scorceses. The claim that people produce art in SL always reminds me of the myth that SL will some day become the glorified 3D internet. 

Of course there is a lot of artwork in SL, but there is a difference between artwork and art. What we see in SL is pretty much the virtual 3D equivalent of macrame owls and tie-dyed clothing, imho. Things that creative hobbyists proudly wear and display on their walls, and perhaps even sell on eBay. Some are exceptionally good at it, and yet we don't see their work in museums. That is what I base my judgement on, seeing that I'm not an expert in this area myself. I'm in no position to decide what is art and what is not. I'll leave that to the market, to the professionals and galleristas. 

The galleristas in RL, that is, not in SL. SL is an MMO. The gallery owners and art critics on this platform are merely role players, just like myself (I don't really own an island. It's just as virtual and pretend-play as a virtual art gallery). Perhaps one of the experts and deciders in the real world will eventually discover a gifted SL artist who really deserves this title that so many SL players claim for themselves. Who knows, one of our machinimators and machinimatrices might really be discovered as the next Spielberg. Stranger things have happened. But until then, let's not get carried away with the art label.

 

 

But let's get back to things that are deemed offensive when presented in the wrong place. I remember an incident from my childhood days, when Iron Maiden was beginning to become popular in Germany and their concert posters hung everywhere. I don't know if you've ever seen the cover of their "Killers" album? Apparently, the city council of my home town found it too offensive and had the placards taken down.

While I can see their point in hindsight -- the motif wasn't something that a three-year-old should be exposed to -- I can't help but wonder inhowfar a tortured, bleeding man nailed to a cross is any different. In some Southern parts of Germany (it's always the South it seems, probably something to do with the heat), you can see a wooden crucifix with a detailed, painted Jesus statue nailed to it at every street corner, and even in school classrooms. It is no wonder that people have become desensitized to this horrible image. Of course I wouldn't mind seeing a crucified person in a horror movie or in an art gallery / museum, but at a street corner?

Just imagine a different torture method, in order to overcome your cultural bias and desensitization to the crucifixion scene. What about a statue of an impaled body? Or a beheaded Jesus? Or hanging from a gallow, with a swollen blackened tongue sticking out of his mouth? Please don't tell me that this is far more horrifying and shocking than a crucifixion. I mean, good old J has nails hammered through his limbs, a painfully distorted expression, an open wound in his side, not to mention the crown of thorns and the blood on his face (some of those Bavarian wooden Jesuses have a frighteningly detailed paint job).

And now imagine that some people look at this display of cruelty, torture and death with feelings of reverence and near-sexual excitation. Imagine people who watch a brutal horror movie like Gibson's Passion of the Christ (it's not only a horror movie because of the violence and gore, but also due to the mythological elements, such as the appearance of Satan) and feel something like bliss and ecstasy. I happen to find this a bit troubling. To think that people get worked up about SSC BDSM and consensual rape RP, but are not the least bit concerned about this outright worship of death and torture :matte-motes-frown:

But I digress. Everything should be allowed in art. Censorship is evil. But everything has a place. Don't install a torture scene at a street corner where kids have to walk past it on their way to school. And please, for the love of that poor, tortured guy, don't tell them that such a morbid display is something good and celebratory. Death and torture should never be celebrated, imho. Apply the same standards of judgement to everything. No form of artistic expression is wrong, but nothing is holy either. (Sorry about the derail, it just happens to be one of my pet peeves).

 

 

---

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…

---

 

Perhaps "sexually attractive" is more apt than "pretty". Like I pointed out above, when I'm visiting a brothel (or a virtual sex location such as my nude beach in SL), I do not expect to run into an old lady, a child, or a guy in a Godzilla costume. Of course I can appreciate the beauty of a child or an old person, but it is a very different kind of beauty. There is no sexual attraction.

I have a male brain, for the most part, and males happen to feel attracted to physical beauty. Women too, but it's not the only selection criterion for women. You mentioned scars and chipped teeth, which are signs of physical conflict and -- even more important -- a good immune system that enables a male to recover from wounds that are severe enough to leave scars. I understand why this is very attractive from a female point of view.

After all, neolithic women wouldn't have wanted to fall in love, loose their virginity and become pregnant (and thus turn into spoiled goods in the eyes of other potential partners), only to watch their provider and protector die from an infected little scratch. That's why scars are sexy, but only on men, and only in the eyes of women. Our male ancestors didn't depend on female providers and could afford to select for physical perfection. Mother nature is a sexist female dog. 

It is also no surprise that you, as a woman, are quick to negatively judge and downrate what you instinctively perceive as female competition It's only natural. I don't mean to patronize you, I merely happen to know the mechanisms behind this kind of competitive behavior. I mean, what do you think is the purpose of gossip? What makes gossiping about other women a rewarding experience? Just like male banter ("look at him, he's gay, he can't get it up, he's such a loser/dork/tool etc."), it serves to increase one's own reproductive chances by chipping away at the reputation and self-image of others.

Both genders do this, and of course we all rationalize it somehow. You happen to rationalize your criticism of pretty Barbie dolls as superior taste and an eye for character. Sorry for being blunt, but I can't suppress my hobbyist knowledge in the area of anthropology and evolutionary psychology, and confine myself to the elusive intellectual abstraction of the human nature that sociologists and artists feel at home in. Once you know a thing or two about how the human heart works, you can no longer regard it as the seat of emotions. This is similar.

Anyway, sex and art are different matters. My public beach is mainly about sex. Art (read: artwork and creativity) does have its place there, but it's the second or third place. When art becomes too graphic and visceral, it gets in the way of sex, and I have to act in the best interest of my patrons by maintaining the overall theme that they've come to expect from my place. I certainly don't want to censor all of SL I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.

[Madelaine McMasters]

I'm glad both Istara and Carole went into such depth. Now I don't have to. In this disagreement, I come down almost entirely on Ishtara's side. However flawed my ability to determine it might be, I go to intent.

Carole? Are you naughty because your intent is to provoke? Quite possibly yes. There are places people go with the expectation of some provocation, like art galleries, political rallies and perhaps downtown streets. There are places people go to avoid provocation, like their own back yards or venues specifically designed to cater to their interests (such as a quilting bee). To inflict oneself in such places with the intent of provoking discomfort is, to me, improper and quite possibly self defeating, unless reducing oneself to a caricature is the intent. Just as you remind us not to confuse our avatars with ourselves, I'd suggest we not confuse SL with society at large. In a world filled with anonymous griefing and the often easy ability to escape it, provocation may well be lost in the noise.

I quite enjoyed roasting your hide in my fireplace and I'm irreverent enough to think I'd have fun hanging with you in a great many places in SL. But I would not swing you on my arm in the Titanic's ballroom on April 15, dressed as a tiny mouse with attitude. I'd wait for satire night.

Ishy, I don't know if I entirely agree with your assessment of "art". I think that the famous artists of history represent only a small fraction of the latent talent in the general population. Circumstances elevate some above the rest and the result is history. Once opportunities start to fall on you like raindrops, it's easy to grow flowers.

I'm happy that some art, particularly provocative art, rises to prominence, as it gives us a topic for a larger, public conversation. But I think smaller conversations take place all over the world, provoked by the works of many talented people we'll never know about. Some of them are here. You know them when you see them.

As for the difference between sex and art, knowing how they work enhances my enjoyment of both, but seems to do little to my immunity. I can hope that knowledge keeps me from making big mistakes, but it's only a hope.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Void Singer wrote:

there is a difference between a painting and and, for instance, someone walking around with a head on a platter... or even for that matter simply carrying around around said picture and putting it in the face of every passerby. yes, the intent is the same whether it's on a wall or a live performance, but the context is different. and the difference changes the effect (and sometimes the magnitude).

---

Void, let me edit this a little to aid my understanding (or mis, as the case may be ;-)

"there is a difference between a painting and carrying around around said picture and putting it in the face of every passerby.  the intent is the same whether it's on a wall or a live performance"

This almost seemed like a contradiction to me, but maybe this is the definition of art? Where the intent is clear, regardless of context? Does knowing one's audience diminish the art? It's an interesting thought.

[Gypsy Quixote]

I guess I don't really care what you look like or represent, it's all about your actions. If it's allowed within the maturity rating then it's allowed by me. The only way that an appearance would be considered griefing to me is if the avatar camped out or constantly made a presence on the property in a way that showed obvious intent of harm upon the property owner. I mean, you can't expect a sim owner to allow you to be a sandwich board proclaiming "This sim is full of crap". 

But there are just so many freaks here. And I think everyone has a right to literally dress like feces and have one big poopuva night out on the town. Seems like there's always somebody dressed to the wack in every crowd, but as long as they don't act or speak like griefers, they're just freaks .. and we're all freaks. *cough* .. well, at least in the places I hang

Shortly after display names hit I had a griefing at a show. I wouldn't have cared that the av was an enormously disgusting old man in a diaper, which it was. And although my suspicions were raised, I would have let him stay even with the display name of TrollLOLol. It wasn't until he bounced around the room knocking artist and audience asunder while typing "Trollololololol" in open chat that he got the boot. And honestly, I would have let him keep going, it was good game for a minute, but the venue owner took action.

Just my $.02. But I've never owned a sim or venue and I can't say that I wouldn't feel differently if I did. Maintaining a quality theme and atmosphere is important for survival, it's certainly something I appreciate in a sim. I can understand why one would raise the question.

 

tl;dr?

Nice to see some of you speaking at length here, I just popped in to say my  "blah, blah, blah ..

[Void Singer]

the intent of all art (to my thinking) is to provoke a specific reaction... athough I agree that sometimes that also requires knowing the context of the art to accurately judge the intent, there is also interesting possibilities in seeing the types of reactions and whether they differ from the expectation, it's still always about generating some response.

 

however if the response that one is trying to generate is one which causes discomfort then the appropriate venue is one of more controlled context.... the more discomforting, the more controlled the context for presentation should be, at least if one expects to get a thoughtful response as opposed to summary dismissal...

but art being what it is, those lines are a bit fuzzy, and often stretched to their limits... and some seek to make the reaction stronger, by placing it completely outside of it's normal context... shock and awe as it were. among those artists that do so it's understood that the reaction can have serious consequences though, and is accepted even if the artist tries to minimize the impact.

[Madelaine McMasters]

Speaking of provoking a specific reaction, you're not yet in my "art" gallery of Warm Welcomes, an inflammatory performance piece intended to provoke indifference.

;-)

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

---

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.

---

I've personally been a part of one or more of those groups many, many times and still found it hilarious.  I can't help it if some people are too sensitive to be able to laugh at themselves from time to time.

...Dres

[Venus Petrov]

@Dres:  I agree totally.  And, I think Daria would agree, too.  No doubt she, too, is/was a member of one or more of those groups.

[Void Singer]

I haven't forgotten, check my login date.

[Eloise Baily]

@ Gypsy. I quite agree. Be who you want to be. There's room enough for all of us.

@ Ishtara, I disagree with you entirely and I still can't see why you wouldn't be able to just turn your back.

@ Void, so what is someone turns up with a face made of cheese. Who are you to be designated as their art critic? Art is a subjective thing and theirs may not be yours. I get that you have been around a long time but I don't see that that is relevant to most discussions here.

 

[Eloise Baily]

You are however, a script god!

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Eloise Baily wrote:

@ Void, so what is someone turns up with a face made of cheese.

---

It'd be time to call Suella.

...Dres

[Eloise Baily]

But what if Pussycat had put the cheese there as bait and had turned up first huh?

[Dresden Ceriano]

There'd be a fight for sure... cheese wrestling anyone?

...Dres

[Void Singer]

---

Eloise Baily wrote:

@ Void, so what is someone turns up with a face made of cheese. Who are you to be designated as their art critic? Art is a subjective thing and theirs may not be yours. I get that you have been around a long time but I don't see that that is relevant to most discussions here.

---

I'll answer that, cause I think it's a fair question, and goes to the heart of what art is about (again, to my thinking)... following off of my previus post, assuming art is supposed to generate a reaction, it's the art viewers job to react...

the phrase "everybody is a critic" is literally true; if you are presented with it, you get to judge it's merits and worth. You also get to disagree with other critics about it too.... I'm no more special than the next person in that regard, although some might value my particular experience or insights more or less. At that level I completely agree with the subjectiveness of it all. It's releveant because it being discussed, but that doesn't mean my opinion or even my assumptions are the end all be all. disagreement is more than fine =)

[Eloise Baily]

Fair point Void. I always like reading your answers even if I don't always agree

[Carole Franizzi]

Ishtara: First off, kudos for a great post

Carole: Why, thank you. Here’s a smilie right back at you - :matte-motes-big-grin-wink:

Ishtara: I can certainly see where you're coming from, but I happen to disagree on a few points.

Carole: I’m not overly surprised at that, I have to say.

Ishtara: I think it's a matter of expectations. When I'm watching a horror movie, I expect to see something horrible and unsavory (you mentioned horror movies, that's why I run with this example. It's not a snide against your avatar). On the other hand, when I dine at an exclusive restaurant, I expect everything on my dish to look appetizing and delicious. I also expect the waiter to not look like the wolf man or Dr. Frankenstein's loyal servant Igor, and not to sport a bad rash or dandruff like a snow storm. I can be shallow like that, but it depends on the time and place.

Carole: When I am in adult areas in SL I expect to see everything and anything. That’s why it’s a blast. SL is not a posh RL restaurant, nor is it a cinema showing a horror film. It’s a container of just about everything human imaginations can dream up. Yes, you can decide to filter what comes into your sim – I’m not debating that – I’m just very perplexed by your eagerness to set standards of good taste and conformation.

Ishtara: In an art gallery, I fully expect to find something challenging, thought-provoking, perhaps even shocking and disgusting. I wouldn't be too surprised to see, for example, a photo of a 90 year old, pole dancing granny who seductively strips out of a skin-tight leotard. That's provocative, that's art. But when I visit a brothel, I only expect to see eye-pleasing shapes and firm skin without too many wrinkles. After all, that's the kind of service they're advertising. If I were to run into the same pole dancing granny in such a place, I'd turn around and walk back out. Probably in a hurry

Carole: It would be your prerogative to turn tail and walk out if the pole-dancing granny disturbs you – as it is your prerogative to chuck a wannabe pole-dancing granny out of your sim.  I’d challenge your provocation = art formula too – but not here. This wall-of-text is rapidly spinning out of control!

Re: the divine creatures in your hypothetical brothel…now, I’m truly no expert (really and truly) but I rather suspect that not all the ladies who take up such a career are awe-inspiring beauties. Many, but not all, may have wrinkle-free skins. Some will be very pretty, but not all will. If I ever get the chance to see inside a brothel with my own eyes, I suspect that, hyper-sensitive as I am, I’d be affected by a strong sense of depression and sadness over women having to sell themselves to make a living. I’d be wondering how many had been victims of abuse when still young girls, how many had a drug habit to support and how many were affected by disease, if any were being forced to “perform”…

You talk about a brothel as a place where you expect to see beauty. My expectation is that it would be unspeakably ugly. How do we rank one person’s perception of ugliness over the other? I find the mere concept of a brothel painfully unbeautiful and you find the pole-dancing granny horrific – but since both are subjective perceptions, who’s to say which is valid? I say this because you mentioned the brothel as a place which for you automatically conjures up a sense of pleasing aesthetics – but we have to be aware that not all will share the same vision of what constitutes beauty. 

 Ishtara: As for your avatar, I think Carole looks interesting, unique and humorously delightful. When she's sufficiently dressed, that is. If she was real, I wouldn't mind seeing her in a Dominatrix outfit at a costume party, or on a photo in an art gallery for that matter, but in a BDSM club... well, I don't know. It would be a very unexpected sight, somewhat out of place, and -- considering your description of her varicose veins -- also a mood killer. But of course it would be very impolite and, yes, also discriminating if she was asked to leave. I mean, why shouldn't a senior citizen visit a BDSM club? In RL, this would be a matter of equal rights and acceptance. We can't help who we are in RL, and nobody should be discriminated against.

Carole: I think Carole is a hoot. Dressed as a “lady” or in gear of dubious taste or stark naked. I’m not insisting that you or anyone else find her attractive (you’ll be shocked to hear that many do though), but then, I don’t feel obliged to offer myself up, either here or in RL, as a mood-stimulator for all and sundry. I’ve never been to a BDSM club in RL and in all honesty it’s not on my 100 Things To Do Before I Die list, but I’ve seen the odd documentary about “the scene” and I have to say…the club-goers were not the prettiest creatures I’ve ever seen. The latex masks hid a lot of faces (though sadly not all) but there were a lot of big bellies, rolls of fat, droopy bits and most of them seemed decidedly middle-aged, to say the least. As my experience is limited to a couple of TV programmes, I’m not going to insist, but – are you really sure real-life BDSM clubs are consistently full of only beautiful young things?

Ishtara: Which brings me to SL, where appearance is not a matter of age and gene expression but entirely based on choice. An avatar is essentially an outfit. Just like in RL, I expect to find different visual stimuli in different places in SL. I wasn't talking about SL in its entirety in my OP, but about a very particular location, namely my nude beach. It is a place where people come to flirt, hook up, dance in the nude, and occasionally retreat into one of the many huts and caves for some private time and relaxation. I could certainly imagine your Carole avatar hanging out in such an environment, but... in the nude?

Carole: Oh, but she has appeared in many, many, many SL locations in various stages of undress. Truth be told, she’s been invited to many a club because the owners found her to be an amusing tongue-in-cheek element which would have amused and attracted clients.  Now, be clear – I’m not writing these words in order to convince you to allow me to sun-bathe nude at your place – I’m more than clear on the fact she would not be welcome because I didn’t choose to make her fit into your ideal of feminine beauty and because she’s the “living” embodiment of that one expression of sexuality you can’t deal with – being sexual past the age of…what?  70? 60? 50?? 40???? But the truth is – not everyone finds her as revolting as you do and you seem to be challenging the principle of letting Carole roam where she (I) wants and where she has always been permitted to go by sim-owners. If you don’t want her on your sim, all you have to do is say so. Actually, you already have. But you seem to want to justify your personal choice by questioning her presence anywhere but “appropriate” (by your standards) places.

Ishatara: The way you've described Carole in all her glory -- varices, moles, age spots, saggy skin -- well, to be honest, I would indeed assume that you were trying to provocate, or to be a buzzkill. My beach is not just a social hangout, it's much more akin to a sex club than an actual beach. It's not an art gallery.

Carole: Oh, but Carole adored sex joints! She met most of her best buddies in such places. She’s really not that intellectual, Ishatara. She doesn’t really “do” art galleries. You’re aware that many people would find a female-looking elf operated by a bloke a distinct buzz-kill?

Ishtara: While there are no face checks at the metaphorical door, I would ask people to change into something more apt if they looked entirely misplaced and threatened to ruin the enjoyment of other visitors with their presence. I mean, I would do the same if I saw a child avi or a five meter tall Godzilla avatar. Think of it as a very loose dress code. This doesn't mean that I can't appreciate a well-designed Godzilla avatar, but... those pesky expectations. The right time and place.

Carole: As I keep repeating – it’s your prerogative to impose a “dress code”. Many sims apply such “codes” to keep the theme consistent. I’ve been told off for having my slippers on in elegant places. Like I said several posts ago – your disapproval of my avatar is noted and I’ll stay away.

[Carole Franizzi]

Ishtara: Now, as for the much-overused term "art" and religious torture scenes... oh boy. Where to begin? I happen to have some strong opinions in this area. There are many talented people in SL, no doubt. I admire a great many content creators, and I also admire what you've done with your Carole avatar. But... art? Really? That's a bit like saying that our machinima "artists" are the next Spielbergs and Scorceses. The claim that people produce art in SL always reminds me of the myth that SL will some day become the glorified 3D internet. 

Carole: No offence, Ishtara, but you can’t judge what you haven’t seen. I wasn’t talking about my Carole avatar but of a skin which I made and which was fundamentally a portrait, painted free-hand using a graphics tablet. I paint in RL and have even made money out of my stuff, so I can’t be that bad. Simply because the portrait was destined to be wrapped round a 3D digital object does not make it any less a “painting”. I also said it was a minor piece of art – we could discuss its exact artistic value at great length, but that isn’t the point here, unless we want to propose setting up a committee to decide what may and may not be termed “art” within SL.

Ishtara: Of course there is a lot of artwork in SL, but there is a difference between artwork and art. What we see in SL is pretty much the virtual 3D equivalent of macrame owls and tie-dyed clothing, imho.

Carole: And here I would agree whole-heartedly with you, however there are a few sims, which, in my modest opinion, do rank as works of art. Maybe not up there with “Guernica” but certainly as valid as many pieces hanging in my city’s private art galleries.

Ishtara: The galleristas in RL, that is, not in SL. SL is an MMO. The gallery owners and art critics on this platform are merely role players, just like myself (I don't really own an island. It's just as virtual and pretend-play as a virtual art gallery). Perhaps one of the experts and deciders in the real world will eventually discover a gifted SL artist who really deserves this title that so many SL players claim for themselves. Who knows, one of our machinimators and machinimatrices might really be discovered as the next Spielberg. Stranger things have happened. But until then, let's not get carried away with the art label.

Carole: Let’s not tar everyone with the same brush either. Though rarer than SL “artists” would care to admit, there are a few people out there with genuine artistic talent and who are using this medium to explore new frontiers.  

 Ishtara: But let's get back to things that are deemed offensive when presented in the wrong place. I remember an incident from my childhood days, when Iron Maiden was beginning to become popular in Germany and their concert posters hung everywhere. I don't know if you've ever seen the cover of their "Killers" album? Apparently, the city council of my home town found it too offensive and had the placards taken down.

While I can see their point in hindsight -- the motif wasn't something that a three-year-old should be exposed to -- I can't help but wonder inhowfar a tortured, bleeding man nailed to a cross is any different. In some Southern parts of Germany, you can see a wooden crucifix with a detailed, painted Jesus statue nailed to it at every street corner, and even in school classrooms. It is no wonder that people have become desensitized to this horrible image. Of course I wouldn't mind seeing a crucified person in a horror movie or in an art gallery / museum, but at a street corner?

Carole: Write to your RL town council about that – I can’t think what else to suggest.

Ishtara: Just imagine a different torture method, in order to overcome your cultural bias and desensitization to the crucifixion scene. What about a statue of an impaled body? Or a beheaded Jesus? Or hanging from a gallow, with a swollen blackened tongue sticking out of his mouth? Please don't tell me that this is far more horrifying and shocking than a crucifixion. I mean, good old J has nails hammered through his limbs, a painfully distorted expression, an open wound in his side, not to mention the crown of thorns and the blood on his face (some of those Bavarian wooden Jesuses have a frighteningly detailed paint job).

Carole: Maybe a letter to the Pope….???

Ishtara: And now imagine that some people look at this display of cruelty, torture and death with feelings of reverence and near-sexual excitation. Imagine people who watch a brutal horror movie like Gibson's Passion of the Christ (it's not only a horror movie because of the violence and gore, but also due to the mythological elements, such as the appearance of Satan) and feel something like bliss and ecstasy. I happen to find this a bit troubling. To think that people get worked up about SSC BDSM and consensual rape RP, but are not the least bit concerned about this outright worship of death and torture 

Carole: I think a staunch Catholic might disagree that he’s worshipping death and torture, but I’ll leave that to a staunch Catholic to debate with you.

Ishtara: But I digress.

Carole: You do.

Ishtara: Everything should be allowed in art. Censorship is evil. But everything has a place. Don't install a torture scene at a street corner where kids have to walk past it on their way to school. And please, for the love of that poor, tortured guy, don't tell them that such a morbid display is something good and celebratory. Death and torture should never be celebrated, imho. Apply the same standards of judgement to everything. No form of artistic expression is wrong, but nothing is holy either. (Sorry about the derail, it just happens to be one of my pet peeves).

Carole: But….but…but...we’re discussing a very risque’ sex sim in SL, populated by very risque’ adults, not RL kiddies on their way to school! Gawd, when you digress, you really digress…

Ishtara: Perhaps "sexually attractive" is more apt than "pretty". Like I pointed out above, when I'm visiting a brothel (or a virtual sex location such as my nude beach in SL), I do not expect to run into an old lady, a child, or a guy in a Godzilla costume. Of course I can appreciate the beauty of a child or an old person, but it is a very different kind of beauty. There is no sexual attraction.

Carole: You find avatars sexually attractive? Any avie, however pretty, looks like a cartoon to me. If I had a sim and I limited entrance to avies I found sexually attractive, it would be an empty place indeed. We’re on two different planets. For me – pretty or ugly, youthful or decrepit - no cartoon character ever will ever “do it for me”. Ok…so you find avies sexually attractive…let’s go with that concept then…so, only avatars deemed by you to be sexually attractive are allowed at your place?

Are the ones which you feel to be unattractive allowed to shop at your store?

Have you ever had to stop an unattractive client who’s just spent a load of money on your goods from going onto your beach? I bet that would be embarrassing…

And another thing - do the males who come to your beach have to pass your attractiveness test too? How do you manage that, since you’re not a heterosexual woman?

Do you chuck out the AO-less ones in freebie skins, with their freebie hair hovering several inches above their heads too?

What about the pea-headed urban warriors with arms thicker than their waists and shorter than their feet? Cuz we gals really don’t like the look of them.

And, what about an old man avie? Would he be shown the door too, or is it just the female of the species which offends your eyes when past a certain age?

About that “certain age” thing…I’d be dead curious to know where your cut-off point for no longer being considered attractive because too old lies.

Ishtara: I have a male brain, for the most part, and males happen to feel attracted to physical beauty. Women too, but it's not the only selection criterion for women. You mentioned scars and chipped teeth, which are signs of physical conflict and -- even more important -- a good immune system that enables a male to recover from wounds that are severe enough to leave scars. I understand why this is very attractive from a female point of view.

Carole: You do have a male brain. One of those which keeps trying to reassure you that men are all about looks and women are all about personality. Bad news for you, Ishatara, women like good-looking men as much as you boys love the pretty girls. I know, it would be comforting for men to think that the belly and the bald patch aren’t a big deal because women look past that kind of thing. As you said – men are attracted to physical beauty…but so are women. Then you claim men select for physical beauty? Yeah, they wish… If the beauty they “selected” finds them attractive too, I suppose the game’s on, otherwise you can “select” all you like – she’ll be going home with the hunk, and you’ll be left sitting on your ownsome.

I almost always see couples formed of individuals of similar levels of attractiveness. If we discount the ladies who choose men for their wallet-size (no, that isn’t a euphemism), most couples I know are pretty equally matched. Sure, we like them more rugged, with bigger bulk and in my case, hairier than what you gents like, but make no mistake – we like all that stuff because it looks good to our womanly eyes. Your penchant for …erm…big round bits up front is matched by our penchant for broad shoulders and a manly chest…it’s the exact same deal.

[Carole Franizzi]

Ishtara: After all, neolithic women wouldn't have wanted to fall in love, loose their virginity and become pregnant (and thus turn into spoiled goods in the eyes of other potential partners), only to watch their provider and protector die from an infected little scratch. That's why scars are sexy, but only on men, and only in the eyes of women. Our male ancestors didn't depend on female providers and could afford to select for physical perfection. Mother nature is a sexist female dog. 

Carole: No, you are a sexist dog. No offence. You are seemingly unable to understand that we have as clear a vision of what constitutes physical perfection in males as men have regarding women. Your confusion, I assume, is caused by the fact that our vision doesn’t entail boobs, round full bums and the other stuff you personally, as a man, are attracted to. Are our idols ugly little rats with wonderful personalities? Johnny Depp? Brad? George? No, they are not. They are extremely good-looking - the male version of whoever it is you drool over. And maybe their personalities stink – BUT WE DON’T CARE! They’re hawt hunks!!!

Your understanding of Neolithic society seems more to be based on “Debbie Does Bedrock” than an academic text. Spoiled goods??? The idea that Neolithic women were concerned about not appearing to be loose women is so contaminated by modern-day social conditioning that it’s actually rather amusing. You’ll be telling me next that when they got jumped and impregnated by Neolithic man their mothers lectured them on “asking for it” by wearing overly short furs…. And what on earth is the relevance with your sex beach??? Are you telling me you and your clients are on the look-out for pure, unspoiled virgins because of some primal urge? You might want to set up a all-girls convent school and wait for them to graduate, if that’s your thing…

Our female ancestors DID depend on the males to provide for them and the cave-kids, so I’m guessing it was the gals who were doing the choosing and who were extremely fussy - the survival and that of their kids depended on it. And nothing much has changed, as far as I can see. It’s still mostly the men who try to hit on the women who then accept or turn down. In the words of a RL man friend – it’s the women who decide.

I understand that the idea of a long-ago Shangri La where men, however unattractive, however stunted, however old, got to pick and choose from among the young hotties (Hell! They will all have been young in those days – you’d have been lucky to survive past the age of 25!) is immensely appealing, but I get the sneaking feeling men even then had a hard time getting any action (you want to bet once the gals connected the fun-and-games with having to squat on the cave-floor 9 months later and squeeze another human being out through their genitals with nothing to relieve the pain and no medical assistance for when it went awry, like when it got stuck – in which case you just died an agonising death – were less than keen on being “up for it” because “it feels nice”? ), and in those days, I’m guessing there were no sex workers to go to when you got fed up being rejected!

Ishtara: It is also no surprise that you, as a woman, are quick to negatively judge and downrate what you instinctively perceive as female competition It's only natural. I don't mean to patronize you, I merely happen to know the mechanisms behind this kind of competitive behavior.

Carole: Jeez. That is soooo condescending. My nose is as put out of joint by someone better-looking than me hitting on my man to the exact same degree that you would feel threatened by the appearance of a better-looking-than-you male beside the gal you’re trying to hook up with. No more, no less. Men are every bit as competitive as women – much more so I’d say. I’ve heard that old chestnut so many times before – always pronounced by a man and, to this day, I’ve yet to witness it occur. You’d just love to imagine the gals fighting over you. The sad truth is that the gorgeous 20-somethings are usually interested in gorgeous male 20-somethings.

Ishtara: I mean, what do you think is the purpose of gossip? What makes gossiping about other women a rewarding experience?

Carole: You are kidding me, right?

Ishtara: Just like male banter ("look at him, he's gay, he can't get it up, he's such a loser/dork/tool etc."), it serves to increase one's own reproductive chances by chipping away at the reputation and self-image of others.

Carole: Ah! So you’re admitting that both genders can fall into the same bad-mouthing trap? Good. Saves me some typing. It didn’t make any sense anyway –if gossiping were an “instinctive” female tool for destroying the competition it would only work if they gossiped to men and not among themselves, surely?

Ishtara: Both genders do this, and of course we all rationalize it somehow. You happen to rationalize your criticism of pretty Barbie dolls as superior taste and an eye for character.

Carole: Barbie dolls are dolls. D.o.l.l.s. They are not interesting. Neither are Kens. Dolls of either gender do not interest me. Are you going to suggest that I’m jealous of male “babes” too? Could it not just be that I like a wee bit of a personality and some blank-faced doll type, obsessed by his new highlights or the coverage of his fake-tan doesn’t ring my bell? The rationalising going on in my head is of the most basic sort. Me likes human beings with a bit of a personality. Gerrit?

Ishtara: Sorry for being blunt, but I can't suppress my hobbyist knowledge in the area of anthropology and evolutionary psychology, and confine myself to the elusive intellectual abstraction of the human nature that sociologists and artists feel at home in. Once you know a thing or two about how the human heart works, you can no longer regard it as the seat of emotions. This is similar.

Carole: Bravo for trying to come to grips with anthropology and evolutionary psychology but I feel you ought to try to read those texts with a less sexist eye. Try to identify where you’re applying personalised and biased interpretations to issues you have a certain invested interest in wanting to believe are in a certain way. You’ve made assumptions about me based on my Carole avatar. You’ve made assumptions about my RL appearance and you believe that Carole has been made to represent the RL me in age and appearance. You are assuming, I suspect, that it’s in my own best interests to promote (a lot) older women as sex objects. I’m not going to disabuse you of your ideas – it’s my business who and what I am – but I have to point out if you attempt to apply notions of psychology to analysing my particular stance, you’d be wise to ensure you have a clear idea of the person (and her psyche) in question, otherwise you risk going way off course.

Ishtara: Anyway, sex and art are different matters. My public beach is mainly about sex. Art (read: artwork and creativity) does have its place there, but it's the second or third place. When art becomes too graphic and visceral, it gets in the way of sex, and I have to act in the best interest of my patrons by maintaining the overall theme that they've come to expect from my place. I certainly don't want to censor all of SL I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.

Carole: I never said Carole was art. She’s just a funny avie that I’m very fond of. The fact that you feel she’d get in the way of the successful running of your business has been duly noted and I can guarantee that I will ensure that she will never darken your doorstep and put off your clients ever again. 

PS Pheeeewww!!!!!!!!

[Ishtara Rothschild]

I'm not sure if I have the time to reply to all your points in great detail. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on a few things. Such as the simple fact that nature is sexist, that one cannot talk about evolutionary biology and psychological gender differences without being politically incorrect -- which says more about political correctness than about the natural sciences, imho -- and that the way in which we like to rationalize and intellectualize our basic urges does nothing at all to help explain them.

The subconscious instincts and urges of anatomically modern humans have evolved over the course of 200,000 years, and the mere 10-12,000 years that we've lived in halfway civilized (read: sedentary agricultural) societies has done very little to change our human nature. The genders are nothing alike, no matter how much we want them to be equal. Women are still subconsciously selecting for high-status providers (and, at the same time, for hunky macho types as the perfect sires, often behind the providers' back). Men simply chase tail at every opportunity (those pigs), and that tail had better look young and pretty. That's not a derogative view, it's not judgemental, it just is.

PS: When I speak of a selection for certain traits, I'm referring to sexual selection in a strictly biological sense. This doesn't mean that any gender gets to select their perfect mates while the other gender has no say in the matter, although it can play out in this way depending on the socio-cultural environment. People will evaluate their chances and settle for less if need be, and those at the bottom of the desirability barrel don't get to select at all. I just wanted to clarify this point because you seemed to have problems with this term. As I said, biology and related sciences are inevitably sexist and politically incorrect, because that's what nature is. 

 

---

Carole Franizzi wrote in part:

Re: the divine creatures in your hypothetical brothel…now, I’m truly no expert (really and truly) but I rather suspect that not all the ladies who take up such a career are awe-inspiring beauties. Many, but not all, may have wrinkle-free skins. Some will be very pretty, but not all will. If I ever get the chance to see inside a brothel with my own eyes, I suspect that, hyper-sensitive as I am, I’d be affected by a strong sense of depression and sadness over women having to sell themselves to make a living. I’d be wondering how many had been victims of abuse when still young girls, how many had a drug habit to support and how many were affected by disease, if any were being forced to “perform”…

You talk about a brothel as a place where you expect to see beauty. My expectation is that it would be unspeakably ugly. How do we rank one person’s perception of ugliness over the other? I find the mere concept of a brothel painfully unbeautiful and you find the pole-dancing granny horrific – but since both are subjective perceptions, who’s to say which is valid? I say this because you mentioned the brothel as a place which for you automatically conjures up a sense of pleasing aesthetics – but we have to be aware that not all will share the same vision of what constitutes beauty. 

---

At the risk of lowering myself even further in your opinion, I wasn't speaking of a hypothetical brothel. Prostitution is legal in Germany, and I know from experience that it has nothing in common with the ugly preconceptions of people who live in countries where this ancient trade has been needlessly criminalized. Everything turns ugly when prohibited and driven into back alleys. Think of the historical alcohol prohibition in the USA, or Dutch coffee shops versus illegal drug trade and drug-related gang wars.

No woman (or man, for that matter; there are many callboys in Germany, so there is no need to make this about gender) is forced to prostitute herself in a country where people can easily apply for welfare or unemployment benefits. Both procuration and human trafficking are, of course, highly illegal around here. Brothels are merely places that rent rooms to working women (and men) and provide a meeting area as well as security (bouncers) for a small fee. Nobody is forced to work there against their will.

The women who work in these establishments, or run their own business from home, are typically women who choose to earn considerable amounts of money and retire at age 40 rather than slave away in a badly paid office job until they hit 65. There are also many students, similar to college-age strippers in the USA. Student loans are easily available and nobody needs a job in order to finance their academic studies, but a job as a sex worker gives students a chance to live in a nice apartment and drive a decent car long before they start to pursue their real career.

Unlike a minimum wage hairdresser or pedicurist, sex workers can pick and choose their customers (no, I haven't been turned down as of yet ), and it's self-understood that there are regular health checks and that safe sex is a must. I can imagine much worse jobs, such as cleaning toilets, and the payment for those jobs are peanuts in comparison. In the end, it's a job like any other occupation in the service industry, only that it pays exceptionally well for comparatively little time and effort.

And is it really so hard to imagine that some women work in this area because they simply enjoy sex? There are even sex workers who have chosen to work with physically or mentally disabled people, such as Nina de Vries. She thinks that this is her calling, and how could anyone argue with that? Ms. de Vries undoubtedly does more good than Catholic missionaries. I find it quite unfair to push these people into the same corner as drug-addicted hookers in countries that criminalize prostitution. Prostitution in Germany is a matter of choice, and it's all but ugly and filthy.

It is also worth noting in this context that Germany has a very low number of sex crimes. According to UN statistics, there were 29 cases of rape per 100,000 in the USA in 2009, 23 cases in the UK, and only 9 cases in Germany. I haven't looked into depression and suicide statistics yet, but I bet that there are also less people (especially less men) who commit suicide in Germany. Sex and physical intimacy are important human needs that have all kinds of health benefits. Denying physically unattractive or badly socialized people an active sex life could be deemed a form of discrimination, which perfectly fits the topic. 

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Write to your RL town council about that – I can’t think what else to suggest.

...

Maybe a letter to the Pope….???

...

I think a staunch Catholic might disagree that he’s worshipping death and torture, but I’ll leave that to a staunch Catholic to debate with you.

---

You are the one who brought up religious depictions of torture scenes as an example, probably because you thought that I could hardly disagree with you and call something offensive that is supposed to be "holy". I commented on your example. That's how forum discussions work.

 

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Carole: But….but…but...we’re discussing a very risque’ sex sim in SL, populated by very risque’ adults, not RL kiddies on their way to school! Gawd, when you digress, you really digress…

---

Of course these avatars are controlled by legal adults. I'm not trying to protect anybody when I ban a child avatar (and I'm extremely lenient with my definition. I'd never complain about an adolescent, 14+ looking av). The only thing that I'm protecting is the sexualized atmosphere of my sim, as well as the mood and enjoyment of other visitors. Someone with the appearance of a pre-pubescent child tends to disturb people in an adult establishment (not to mention that this violates the ToS).

 

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

You find avatars sexually attractive? Any avie, however pretty, looks like a cartoon to me. If I had a sim and I limited entrance to avies I found sexually attractive, it would be an empty place indeed. We’re on two different planets. For me – pretty or ugly, youthful or decrepit - no cartoon character ever will ever “do it for me”. Ok…so you find avies sexually attractive…let’s go with that concept then…so, only avatars deemed by you to be sexually attractive are allowed at your place?

Are the ones which you feel to be unattractive allowed to shop at your store?

Have you ever had to stop an unattractive client who’s just spent a load of money on your goods from going onto your beach? I bet that would be embarrassing…

And another thing - do the males who come to your beach have to pass your attractiveness test too? How do you manage that, since you’re not a heterosexual woman?

Do you chuck out the AO-less ones in freebie skins, with their freebie hair hovering several inches above their heads too?

What about the pea-headed urban warriors with arms thicker than their waists and shorter than their feet? Cuz we gals

really

don’t like the look of them.

And, what about an old man avie? Would he be shown the door too, or is it just the female of the species which offends your eyes when past a certain age?

About that “certain age” thing…I’d be dead curious to know where your cut-off point for no longer being considered attractive because too old lies.

---

Yes, I'm indeed able to find an avatar sexually attractive, or a cartoon figure for that matter. I might be gender-confused, but I'm still a guy. Which means that I'll find two stylized lines on a piece of paper sexually attractive if they happen to form a female hourglass shape. There is very little that doesn't excite a typical man on some level

Nonetheless, I don't find all of my visitors appealing, and I can't deny the fact that I'm mainly attracted to female avatars despite my being bisexual. There are very few men that I find appealing beyond the contents of their underpants (such as Pierce Brosnan and Eric Bana, to name a few). Carrot-shaped, pinheaded Conans are a huge turn-off for me too. So are newbies in ugly freebie skins.

But that is not what this is about. I have the feeling that you're deliberately misunderstanding my intent. I'm not trying to enforce my own subjective standard of beauty by banning everyone who I personally find unattractive. I'm not discriminating against older looking avatars. I wouldn't kick out Sean Connery or Bea Arthur, both of which still have sex appeal in my opinion. 

Let me remind you of the way in which you described your avatar (you're correct that I can't judge your av without having seen it inworld, but your description was very detailed):

"She isn’t at all pretty. In fact, she’s rather ugly by anyone’s standards.  [...]  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?  [...]  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  [...]

The mental image evoked by these lines tells me that you went out of your way to... well, probably not to make Carole controversial and disgusting, but you definitely are trying to make a point and evoke a certain reaction, which happens to be the goal of most artists. But the point that you are making with your av is at odds with the things that people have come to expect from sex locations, especially sex locations in a world where we can change our appearances at will.

You are not trying to be physically attractive, nor are you trying to be accepted for who you are in RL (at least I don't think so). I'm not sure what it is exactly that you're trying to do, other than showing your artistic skills and looking to strike up conversations with people who share your sense of humor and can appreciate a very unique avatar. I'm fine with that, but a sex sim is not really the right place to reenact scenes from Little Britain.

In a sex location, you would look as misplaced as a dinosaur avatar or the otherwise gorgeous Johnny Depp in his Mad Hatter or Edward Scissorhands getup. I wouldn't mind running into any of these avatars in a club or a shopping mall, but there are places where I don't expect them and have to assume that they are attempting to stir up quite the opposite of sensual or romantic feelings (unlike those pinheaded Conans, who seem to think of themselves as irresistable). 

That is my entire point in this thread. Your hurt feelings over my comments, after you yourself descrived how you deliberately rendered Carole anything but attractive, remind me of furries or child avatars who complain about being banned from themed clubs and RP sims. They haven't been discriminated against, they merely weren't dressed for the occasion.

[Deltango Vale]

Arriving very late to this party (and therefore stone-cold sober), I will say that there is much about SL I find ugly, but I ignore it. I am amused when someone seeks to shock me, but I admit I AR griefers who launch spam attacks. The closest I got to being surprised was a spam attack depicting a woman, bent over, pulling aside her knickers to display a large amount of feces, which she had obviously produced and sat on. This, I will suggest, qualifies as ugly, but, hey, some people are into scat. I included a screenshot in the AR. Not sure what the G-team thought of it, but the spam was removed rather quickly. Is there any champagne left in the kitchen? Perhaps some cashews?

[Nacy Nightfire]

"I wouldn't kick out Sean Connery or Bea Arthur, both of which still have sex appeal in my opinion. "

Bea Arthur died in 2009. As a result she's probably lost a bit of her sex appeal. Great Actress however and extremely funny gal.  She'll be missed.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Nacy Nightfire wrote:

"I wouldn't kick out Sean Connery or Bea Arthur, both of which still have sex appeal in my opinion. "

Bea Arthur died in 2009. As a result she's probably lost a bit of her sex appeal. Great Actress however and extremely funny gal.  She'll be missed.

---

Oops. I'm sorry to hear that. I was thinking of Bea Arthur in Golden Girls, I mean of the way she looked at that time. When was that? Yesterday? Last week? I have no sense of time. The 1990's were only a few months ago in my world  Anyway, I agree with your assessment of Mrs. Arthur, with the addition that I think she would have made a great Domme.

 

ETA: Next time I'm about to call someone attractive, I'll make sure to check their pulse first