Where to draw the line between Adult vs Child avatars?

[Hayley Spore]

---

Penny Patton wrote:

 @ Heyley: Good to know! I always have to point it out tho because there are so many people who don't realize the official appearance editor is broken.

---

 

Absolutely! And I'm glad you did. I've always known that slider was broken, but it was your article on scale that really made me realize just how much.

It's wrong in Firestorm also, but perhaps not by as much? I can't use the official viewer to compare, it just refuses to log me in.

[Allen Kerensky]

Melody,

There's more to it than that.

RANT: ON

When I signed up to SL it was perfectly clear: 18+ only, always, end of story.

LL really confused things by allowing people in child avatars in the first place - which is the literal definition of "ageplayer" if there ever was one.

LL further confused things by allowing the child avatars unfettered access to "Mature" or "Adult-Only" rated areas.

When LL inflicted Zindra on us, they had the chance to fix that problem, and Jack Linden blew it under pressure from certain unnamed child-avatar activists who demanded to be kids on a continent plainly labeled ADULT ONLY.

Ultimately, kid avs who butted their way into Mature and Adult-Only areas through their "political activism" only muddied the waters for themselves and everyone else and now we all pay for it.

Rationally *applying* and *enforcing* LL's own rating system would have stopped, prevented, and clarified much of the "ageplay" nonsense right out of the gate.

But no - common sense policy has always taken a back-seat to hysterically-inflicted policy as a result of some RL legal case against LL.

Before the child players and their "parents" get in an uproar over tipping at their sacred cow - I stand behind it - kid avs should be restricted by LL Community Standards to G-rated areas, along with the people who want to play as parents of kids avs.

Want to be a kid or act line one, then why on earth does LL *or* your so-called parents take you to mature or adultonly areas... or worse... live in one, dragging their so-called kids with them.

Since LL can't or won't enforce their own maturity standards, it's fallen to the rest of us abuse report the kid for truancy or tresspass, and their so-called parents for negligence If you see a child avatar in mature or adult.

But who does that?

And let's call it what it is: anyone in a kid av is NOT roleplaying WELL if they demand to be a kid in a mature or adult-only area and then get upset with being kicked out.

Drag a kid to a topless bar or adult store in RL and tell me how it goes?

If you want to go to the nudie bar or topless dance club - become an adult first. DONE.

Since its all roleplaying, we should do what would you do in RL if you saw a young child wandering into a sex shop.

Holding the kids to actually acting like kids (rather than grown-ups in creepy avs) will end a lot of the nonsense right there by pushing the kid community to police themselves better.

Dragging their roleplaying parents into kids-court too will only provide more encouragement to RP correctly.

RANT: OFF

Many others have pointed out many "look-based" criteria, but every one of those has a fatal flaw: if you set a specific quantified value - someone will find a way to "game the system" in a way that causes problems when specific policies are literally applied.

Now, here's the super-tricky part - what about adult avies who want to be child-like?

For example - the Lolita fashion wiki link posted earlier showed adults dressing child-like for whatever reason.

Legally - they are still adults even in childlike clothes.

How many Halloween costumes in RL would qualify as "ageplay" in SL terms?

Or New Years costumes for that matter.

Someone else mentioned diapers - which should not even be part of the ageplay discussion without suddenly lumping everyone who is incontinent into an "ageplayer" category, which most would find insulting, as well as some in the BDSM community which has been known to use them for certain scenes having nothing at all to do with under-18 behavior.

So, here are some thoughts to make it unambiguous:

As far as criteria go, the *first* criteria for any "ageplay" investigation should be: sim rating.

Basing the "subjective" child-or-adult rating should include the location where the avatar is.

G-rated? bias to assuming, subjectively, that a child-looking av IS a child, since that's the only rating where children avs should be playing anyway.

Yes, this also means expecting kid avs and their families to keep their activities on G-rated sims. End. of. story.

The *second* criteria should be "are you roleplaying as someone under 18?", as an explicit setting right next to the "maturity rating" a user/Resident chooses to see.

LL could also add third unambiguous criteria of "age-rating" to shapes and clothing as a settable attribute.

You know how items say: ages 18+ or ages 3-6 - let designers set that explicitly on things they design.

For shapes you could add the age rating to the shape settings like gender.

You create a shape, and you set the avatar gender AND apparently age, while wearing that shape.

Otherwise, the apparent age defaults to "NONE" which has various effects depending on sim rating as described above.

Then, LL would have data to make much more consistent determinations of age violations than the "ad-hoc, at-whim, subjective" rating "system" they haphazardly apply now.

The real message should be that no one should have to guess.

Allow for specific settings and you have specific information to act on.

Plus, you could have some additional benefits/features such as auto-muting any under-18 avatar.

[Perrie Juran]

One other point I'd like to add here to the OP. 

You are asking for LL to set (clarify) the standards.  But look at how you are reacting to A SIM owner setting a standard for age play here.  I can't even begin to imagine the out cry should LL start doing what you are asking for, which is to set specific standards.

There is simply too much here that is dependent upon judgement calls which is why LL has asked us to err on the side of caution.

There are some anime (and I am using the term loosely) artists who like to draw pictures of naked prepubescent children with flotation devices the size of yours and in some places that could possibly be construed as pornography.  So it could be argued from that point of view that the height restriction that some SIM owners have set does make a lot of sense.  You see how subjective all this can be. 

I know it all gets crazy, but it is for better or for worse the way it is.

[Dresden Ceriano]

Tl,dr... that fact of the matter is, no matter what you think, ageplay is not against ToS.  Sexual ageplay, yes... ageplay, no.  Get over it, I'm sick of hearing about it.

...Dres (I can rant as well as you can, and much more succinctly.)

[WilhiamTestGrid]

yw & ty ...  ^.^

[Anaiya Arnold]

If you do not want to see an archtypical "spooky kid' at a well designed haunted/horror house, then maybe you should choose to stay away from such locations.  If you do not want to see a child warrior character fighting it out on a gritty but non-sexual combat sim, maybe you should stay away from such areas.  If you do not want to see a child avatar in a non-sexual store with zero sexual content, located on mature or adult rated land, maybe you should stay away from such places. 

 

Presumably you have the control over your own behaviour that you apparently would like to exert over other peoples'.  I suggest you make use of the control you do have rather than wishing for control over others that you do not have.

[Persephone Emerald]

 

   ^ This.

Too many people seek to control their own discomfort by controling other people's actions instead of their own.

[melody Swashbuckler]

@Perrie, my question isn't whither or not to allow SEXUAL ageplay. We all know ethically that an adult having sexual contact with a child is against the law in no matter what country you are in. It's a question of where does the line cross between a child and adult avatar. Is it height that determines whither or not your avatar is adult or not? Is it your physical body shape? Is it certain clothes? Is it avatar accessories? Is it certain animations? What about certain hairstyles? This is what i am looking for an answer on. 

@Penny, Exactly my point! The proportions in sl are so screwed up that we get so many different thoughts on what is considered a child avatar and adult avatar. It's hard to tell without a definitive answer from LL. i would like to see actual numbers of what numbers on the slider bars of what is a child avatar, such as height and body thickness.

@Allen, Yes LL has officially confused every single one of us.  "Since LL can't or won't enforce their own maturity standards, it's fallen to the rest of us abuse report the kid for truancy or tresspass, and their so-called parents for negligence If you see a child avatar in mature or adult." Which is why i am pleading for them to make a checklist or something along the line of a guide to what a child avatar looks and acts like.
"You are asking for LL to set (clarify) the standards.  But look at how you are reacting to A SIM owner setting a standard for age play here.  I can't even begin to imagine the out cry should LL start doing what you are asking for, which is to set specific standards." Reason i brought this entire thread up was because i am rather active in the adult baby and sweet lolita groups. i manage a hangout in an Adult sim that is for adult babies and at one point there was an orb there that kicked and banned anyone that wasnt a set 1.63m tall. But nameless people have cried saying that we are adult, just short. Take a lady with small breasts, thin and 1.5m naked and she would look like a petite adult. But add a sweet lolita style dress, an oversized pacifier, diaper, prim socks and a BDSM collar to her and then tell me if she is an adult or not?

For the record, i have a child alt and have nothing against child avatars. There are spots for them here in the grid that are totally PG. Anyone who chooses to be active in the BDSM and the child avatar world, should keep those two plays on different accounts that can not by any chance be crossed over. When LL was having their massive Zindra switchover, i decided to make an adult only account but yet many of my friends and myself have been called child avatars, even though our shape, skin and clothes are those of an adult.

[Perrie Juran]

---

melody Swashbuckler wrote:

@Perrie, my question isn't whither or not to allow SEXUAL ageplay. We all know ethically that an adult having sexual contact with a child is against the law in no matter what country you are in. It's a question of where does the line cross between a child and adult avatar. Is it height that determines whither or not your avatar is adult or not? Is it your physical body shape? Is it certain clothes? Is it avatar accessories? Is it certain animations? What about certain hairstyles? This is what i am looking for an answer on. 

 

 

---

I hope nothing I said indicated that I believed you felt sexual age play was ok.  I did not take anything in your posts as stating such.

Linden Lab has acknowledged in one sense how difficult this may be to define by asking us to err on the side of caution.  Regarding your question, certain SIM owners have chose to institute rules that they feel complies with this request.  Their SIM, their choice.  Even if LL were to step in, look at your avatar, and sprinkle holy water on it, this would not compel the SIM owners to do different. 

Every country, every jurisdiction, every locality has its own standards.  If Linden Lab were to state official standards it would have to be by the strictest in existence else the service risks being banned from that location.

SIM owners make their decisions based on a subjective judgenent, and it will never be anything other than subjective, what they need to do to comply not only with the TOS but the laws where they live.

I just don't believe it is possible for LL to define it any further.  When in Rome, do as the Romans.

[Penny Patton]

---

melody Swashbuckler wrote:

@Penny, Exactly my point! The proportions in sl are so screwed up that we get so many different thoughts on what is considered a child avatar and adult avatar. It's hard to tell without a definitive answer from LL. i would like to see actual numbers of what numbers on the slider bars of what is a child avatar, such as height and body thickness.

---

 That's actually quite impossible tho it takes a decent understanding of the appearance editor to relaize why.

 Let me use height as an example because it's the easiest to explain. The number of the height slider does not represent a static measurement of height. It is possible to have a height of 0 and be over 6' tall, it's possible to have a height of 15 and be 5'5".

 You see? The shape you wind up with is the end result of a multitude of sliders working together and affecting each other in various different ways.

 One shape may have a head size of 63 and look like an adult. Anither may have a head size of 30 and look like a child. Therefore it is impossible to nail down a specific number or range of numbers that are considered "childlike". You'd have better luck trying to define the shape of fire.

[Penny Patton]

Not to mention the various ways in which the appearance editor is outright broken (as in women cannot be properly proportioned over about 6' tall, the torso muscle slider for women is broken, the height displayed in the appearance editor is broken, etcetera).

If you want a run down of the problems and quirks of the appearance editor I think I covered most of them in this article about creating proportional avatars.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

melody Swashbuckler wrote:

 

So what say you? Where does the line draw between child and adult avatars?

---

 

It's quite simple: Child avatars are prepubescent in appearance, behavior, and clothing. Sexually mature avatars are no child avatars, no matter how many immature features they might have (juvenile "babyface", short stature etc.). If there is any doubt, it's not a child.

All other definitions are bullsh!t. Avatars don't have an age and, with the exception of PG lala land, are controlled by legal adults. The only reason that we need to distinguish between child avatars and sexually mature avatars at all are legal limitations, and these laws are only concerned with artistic renditions of prepubescent children.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

melody Swashbuckler wrote:

We all know ethically that an adult having sexual contact with a child is against the law in no matter what country you are in. It's a question of where does the line cross between a child and adult avatar.

---

One has nothing to do with the other. Sexual ageplay involving child avatars (and not "she kinda looks like 16" avatars) is forbidden because the artistic rendition of children in sexual situations is a criminal offense in some countries, which includes 3D renditions. This has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual child abuse.

That might not seem like an important distinction to you, but there are worlds between an act of violence or abuse on one hand and 3D-rendered polygon objects or lines on a piece of paper on the other, the most important difference being the absence of a victim in the latter case. One activity is illegal because it does actual harm to an actual person, whereas the other is merely outlawed because people feel disturbed by it (which is not the case when it comes to things like virtual murder).

[Aili Panthar]

You can tell child avatars by the way they type in stupid baby talk. They all sound like they are 3-year-olds no matter what age their character is supposed to be. Being short, skinny or having a flat chest does not mean you're a kid. PS: Children including fake ones should be banned from the internet.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Aili Panthar wrote:

PS: Children including fake ones should be banned from the internet.

---

I hope you will never get your way... to stop real kids from accessing the net would be dampening their ability to learn.  And stopping adults that wish to relive their lives as children, would serve no purpose what-so-ever.  Go ahead and continue being a judgmental simpleton... freedom will overcome.

...Dres

[Loren Twine]

---

Aili Panthar wrote:

You can tell child avatars by the way they type in stupid baby talk. They all sound like they are 3-year-olds no matter what age their character is supposed to be. Being short, skinny or having a flat chest does not mean you're a kid. PS: Children including fake ones should be banned from the internet.

---

Oh shoot, I thought I was an SL kid all this time, but apparently I was wrong! 

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

It's quite simple: Child avatars are prepubescent in appearance, behavior, and clothing. Sexually mature avatars are no child avatars, no matter how many immature features they might have (juvenile "babyface", short stature etc.). If there is any doubt, it's not a child.

All other definitions are bullsh!t. Avatars don't have an age and, with the exception of PG lala land, are controlled by legal adults. The only reason that we need to distinguish between child avatars and sexually mature avatars at all are legal limitations, and these laws are only concerned with artistic renditions of prepubescent children.

---

 

Apparently, it’s anything but simple. You, for example, seem to believe that the sexual age-play ban is limited to pre-pubescent children, when in actual fact, according to LL’s own definition:

"Under our Community Standards policy, real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of sexual or lewd acts involving or appearing to involve children

or minors

are not allowed within Second Life. When detected, individuals and groups promoting or providing such content and activities will be subject to sanctions, which may include termination of accounts, closure of groups, removal of content, and loss of land or access to land."

Isn’t 18 the age when in the USA one ceases to be considered a minor? I’d got the impression that it was US (and specifically California?) legal definitions which were binding in SL. Have I been getting the wrong end of the stick? LL also add:

"Participation by Residents in lewd or sexual acts in which one or more of the avatars

appears to represent minors

(or the depiction of such acts in images, video, textures, or text) is a violation of the Community Standards."

Again, not just children, but minors – and even “

appear

to represent”. I always took that to mean that if you want to go to sex joints and do sex stuff, to be within the ToS, you need an unequivocally adult-looking (18+) avatar, which might be a jolly good reason to ask oneself if the cutsie-pie pig-tails, ankle socks, braces and lil girl dress are really such wise fashion choices for a naughty night on the town.

 

"Promoting or catering to such behavior or representations violates our Community Standards. For instance,

the placement of avatars appearing to represent minors in proximity to "sex beds" or other sexualized graphics, objects, or scripts would violate our Community Standards

, as would the placement of sexualized "pose balls" or other content in areas depicting playgrounds or children's spaces"

The above seemed to me pretty clear instructions regarding the mere presence of minor avatars (-18) in sex joints. Just being there, or being allowed by the sim owner to be there, seems to me, on reading that passage, a violation of the ToS.

But then, maybe it’s me having some sort of reading comprehension crisis. If not, then this whole question is not about residents witch-hunting, but about LL forbidding and some people wanting to push boundaries.

[Carole Franizzi]

Lots of stuff in your ranty and post-ranty thingies was spot on.

[Carole Franizzi]

I agree with all your posts in this thread. Yep. Totally. What you said.

[Carole Franizzi]

Well, since Lolita was the teen character in a book who was the provocative focus of sexual attention of an adult man, maybe Lolita style on an unequivocally adult body (boobs and stuff) is the only way to get away with that fashion choice in a part of cyberspace where minor-looking avatars are not permitted to engage in sexual activities or be in sex-themed sims. Otherwise, you’re asking people to get their heads round the mind-boggling concept of an adult who just happens to look like a minor, dressed in a style reminiscent of a minor, who behaved in an inappropriately sexual way with adults, because you think the style is pretty but has absolutely nothing to do with you wanting to do inappropriate sex stuff with an avatar who just happens to look like as a teeny dressed as an underage literary sex legend but, of course, isn’t.

Want a copy of my shape? You can stick all the Lolita style clothes on it that you want – I promise, nobody will ever accuse you of being an underage avatar.

[Lonewolf Lightworker]

being pregnet dose not mean you are an adult, i have heard that 13-17 year old's has been known to gte pregnet and in USA the liggle age for "any sex at all" is 18+ so there for being pregnet dose "NOT" mean you are 18+ lol it can mean your a 15 year old girl who is iliggley having sex with some old man!

 

Hell, even a 9 year old.. yes 9 YEAR OLD has been known to gte pregnet!!!



[Jesica Dragovar]

sorry to rez this thread but some people just do NOT get the point

 

just had someone IM me evidently based on a post I made in this thread and say they filed a TOS repoirt against me simply because "the way you described your avatar sounds like a 12 year old avatar I saw once so you are really doing age play":

 

let me restate what should be obvious

ADULTS can be short, they can have small frames, there is no law against adults wearing pigtails or mary jane shoes, or t-shirts with cartoon characters on them! Adults do sometimes need to wear braces, and adults can havve freckles

 

NONE of those things are ONLY seen on child avatars, I am an adult, and my avatar is an adult, I am in no way violating the TOS