Jump to content

REALLY Sick of discrimination against child avatars


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3201 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

I have nothing against child avatars but I do have to wonder whats going on when I see child avvys wandering around adult rated sims... I wouldnt expect a reasonable adult to let kids wander around a porn bookshop or a brothel so why should child avatars be expected in adult areas of a 'sexual nature' especially when theres so much fuss about child pornography etc etc. In my opinion lindens dont allow 'under 18s' in to adult areas ( supposedly) and Im afraid that should go for under 18 looking avys too.

 

Me I dont even go into adult areas when Ive turned into my tiny polar bear form...in my book tinies are rascals but theyre not into naughty stuff :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't see how your payment arrangement has anything to do with any perceived rights you feel you have in SL. The people you mentioned are paying for the land you want to use. How does your membershi


Cully Andel wrote:

SOrry but if you choose to play as a child you should expect to be treated like one. Moderate is mature content so owners have the right to ask anyone under 18 to leave.

Moderate is Moderate content..there is no mature content anymore..

 sim owners have the right to ask anyone to leave..and being a child avatar has nothing to do with what someones age is to allow them on any part of the grid..

child avatars are allowed to go anywhere any avatar can go..they just cannot interact in sexual age play..

otherwise they are no different than anyone else playing any type of avatar that people are allowed to be..

they are allowed in Moderate sims and allowed in adult sims..

because moderate and adult does not mean there is sex and porn there..it just means that there is the capability to put it there because the rating allows it..

so someone could buy an adult  or moderate sim and put in nothing but general content and not allow adult  or moderate content in their sim..

just as you would not allow child avatars in yours..the rating of a sim has nothing to do with what is actually in that sim..it only has to do with what can be put there..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

 

Me I dont even go into adult areas when Ive turned into my tiny polar bear form...in my book tinies are rascals but theyre not into naughty stuff
:D

wanna bet?? hehehe

i've known some pretty horny tinies in my time on the grid...

horny can come in any form..

but it doesn't mean they all are hehehe

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally though I still find these arguments to be a smokescreen for what I consider to be the infinitely more important problems in sl...give lindens the chance and they'll start another mass of ludicrous rule making etc and forget about a failing tp system, boundary crashes and all those problems that seem to get worse not better....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

I know this is an old thread.

And there is no need to add more arguments over those already exposed here.

However, in my opinion a rule made to discriminate because of your appearance either in  RL or SL  is a pure and simple violation of a fundamental human right.

Nevertheless, I think if a sim´s owner dont like a type of avatar in particular, should have at least  the common sense to say so in the Second Life Search´s info note.

This way I will know in which places I am welcome or not. And save to me and  to the  affected group of people,  the humiliation of  being asked to leave.

But maybe common sense is much to ask to a person stupid enough to make such a stupid rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Still pretty relevant.

 

I roleplay as a kid, but haven't had as many issues. Mainly I just act my RL age(20's) and respect any land restrictions in place.

 

I prefer going as a street urchin just so it doesn't look too outlandish. Explains the lack of adult supervision and for the kid to be older then his years.

 

Mostly I either see people using them to play as a family or to express their inner child. You'll run into the other end of the spectrum on the marketplace, but wherever they have that going on they keep it to themselves.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...


Eileen Fellstein wrote:

I have found that largely this veiw of child avatars comes from people's unspoken belief that everyone here has a sexual agenda at all times, hidden or not. In short, most simply assume you are acting out on a perversion. They can't accept that someone having a child avatar is a way to express their inner child as you say, or that perhaps they are just a person that really finds children to be wonderful and something to celebrate.

They also have never seen a so-called "child avatar" that acts or behaves remotely like actual children do. 

I know I have yet to see one.  Hell, even Hollywood gets this wrong when attempting to portray children in film because the lines are written by adults who for whatever reason can't recall what being a child actually was like.  The portrayals, as such are freaking creepy- without even being sexual in any way.

Every child avatar I've ever ran into basically consists of beginning more than ten percent of your words with the letter W- because apparently all children have some sort of an in-born lisp.  You remember having a lisp at age nine, right?  We all had one, sure.  Why not?

So no, it's not my feeling that everyone has a sexual agenda.  It's my feeling that most child avatars are not, in fact, children in any way a sane person might recognize.  This in turn leads one to believe that the whole thing is less about "reliving one's childhood" and more about reinventing it in some distorted, maladaptive way.

Who says it has to be sexual to be creepy?  Cause it really doesn't.  Pedophiles and pederasts at least have clear motivations.  I'd say the most unsettling pseudo-children I see are the people who don't seem to have any rational motivation for the creepy, uncanny valley-type stuff leaking out of their keyboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Abigail Merlin wrote:

holly necropost batman..

 

Did you dig this up just to troll?

No.  You?

And does doing a google search for SL policy on this sort of thing and turning this up at the top of the search incidentally constitute some form of "digging" I was previously unaware of?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Vere Messerchmitt wrote:


Abigail Merlin wrote:

holly necropost batman..

 

Did you dig this up just to troll?

No.  You?

And does doing a google search for SL policy on this sort of thing and turning this up at the top of the search incidentally constitute some form of "digging" I was previously unaware of?

I have no idea what you're aware of, but in answer to your second question... yes, most definitely.

So you were looking for answers to LL's policy, but, instead of going to where the pertinent information would be or even asking about it here, you decide it would be more advantageous to come here and post about how horrible you think child avatars are?

And you honestly thought no one would see that as a trolling attempt?

...Dres *shakes his head*

Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


Vere Messerchmitt wrote:


Abigail Merlin wrote:

holly necropost batman..

 

Did you dig this up just to troll?

No.  You?

And does doing a google search for SL policy on this sort of thing and turning this up at the top of the search incidentally constitute some form of "digging" I was previously unaware of?

...but in answer to your second question... yes, most definitely.

Then you have a bizarrely under-represented concept of "effort" I suspect.  The reality is I didn't need to "dig" for anything.  I searched and this rose right to the top immediately.  I'll give you a hint: the fault here is in assuming there's only one way to find a forum post, and it is necessarily laborious.

 

Advantageous?  No.  Seeing as I was already here, I saw a topic on a forum I felt I had cause to respond to, and did.  Can you think of any other convoluted lines of reasoning for why i should not use a resource as it's intended to be used?

Because I am intrigued.

 

You also seem to be saying there's no pertinent information here.  This is just a long thread about... nothing in particular, I am asked to believe.  Again, these are some very keen insights you have here.

 

 As for what other people percieve to be "trolling" I can't say I'd have any idea, nor would I care much.  From my perspective "trolling" hasn't been a thing that has existed outside of Bassmasters and the underside of bridges in childrens' fairy tales since the last decade or more.

It is however an excellent refuge for those who wish to find fault with something without being able to articulate any truly substantive reason for doing so.  I have noticed that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in the first google result pointing to this forum, not even the top result in google I found this posting from 2011 that I think says it all:

Really? Do we need yet another child avatar thread? Isn't this particular amaretto horse already a flattened sculpt?

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Child_avatar


also in another treat in this forum a bit more recent this one also hits the mark:

I'll see your child avatar and raise you an 8 foot tall woman with bling heels and breasts that defy gravity as they giggle like jello despite being 38KKK (or more) cupped.

/shudders

Link to post
Share on other sites

youre right, there may be many reasons why people dislike child avatars besides the sexual angle, poor representation is one of them, some people dont seem to pay much attention at how children of the age they are trying to portray actually behaves, or they are not very good expressing it, some dislike them too because Second Life is mostly for adults and teens, and they dont want to see a child in a place intended for adults, with the false assumption that a real child is controlling a child avatar, they find strange that an adult would have a reason to roleplay a child, they see it as abnormal behaviour.

discrimination against the different subcultures will always exist, for X or Y reason, Linden Lab doesnt care much about many types of discrimination, only if it affects the real lives of the users.

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

Second Life Community Standards


1. Intolerance

Combating intolerance is a cornerstone of Second Life's Community Standards. Actions that marginalize, belittle, or defame individuals or groups inhibit the satisfying exchange of ideas and diminish the Second Life community as a whole. The use of derogatory or demeaning language or images in reference to another Resident's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is never allowed in Second Life.


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

Link to post
Share on other sites

"...with the false assumption that a real child is controlling a child avatar..."

I don't think anyone's assuming this.  For one thing I think it pretty much breaks the logic behind the proposed stigma that "people only dislike child avatars because they assume there is a sexual agenda behind them- always".  Children (who actually are children) don't fetishize the lives they're living 24/7, it takes an adult mind to do that.

If we're talking about Linden's motivations for placing restrictions on child avatars, I think the only assumption here is: the observing 3rd party has NO way of knowing for certain what the agenda behind the avatar is.  In which case, it's best not to risk it- don't allow them in places where such misunderstandings/deceptions seem likely to occur.

 

"...they find strange that an adult would have a reason to roleplay a child, they see it as abnormal behaviour."

Name me the top five insults you might potentially level against a fully-grown adult when they are not acting particularly... normal.  I'm betting one of the top five is "you're acting like a child".

No, this isn't viewed as normal behavior- or even as favorable behavior, for that matter- by society at large.  It carries a longstanding stigma with it that extends well-past creepers with sexual agendas.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Syo Emerald wrote:

You are a lame troll. Get some better topic. Ranting about child avatars is so 2009. Can't you come up with something entertaining? Your false arguments are boring. Come on, you can do better.

Why would anyone be bothered about someone discussing something on a discussion forum? What does it matter who old the thread is? If the people complaining about the age of the thread have nothing to add to the topic - they can just not answer, no?

I find child avatars annoying also. And no - it does not violate anyone's human rights to ban child avatar's on a sim. Sim owners have the right to invite or ban whoever they want for any reason they want. They pay, they make their own rules. Not everyone is allowed in my rl house - it is my decision who visits me and who not - does not mean I violate anyone's rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Efurou wrote:


Syo Emerald wrote:

You are a lame troll. Get some better topic. Ranting about child avatars is so 2009. Can't you come up with something entertaining? Your false arguments are boring. Come on, you can do better.

Why would anyone be bothered about someone discussing something on a discussion forum? What does it matter who old the thread is? If the people complaining about the age of the thread have nothing to add to the topic - they can just not answer, no?

I find child avatars annoying also. And no - it does not violate anyone's human rights to ban child avatar's on a sim. Sim owners have the right to invite or ban whoever they want for any reason they want. They pay, they make their own rules. Not everyone is allowed in my rl house - it is my decision who visits me and who not - does not mean I violate anyone's rights.

Truthfully, I really did pick this up on a Google search on the topic, it was as I recall the second result in the search, I came into the thread and I admit that I did not, in fact, check the date before posting.  I just did.

 

This is partly because I was looking for other things and distracted, and partly because I think the stigma of "necroposting" is utterly ludicrous and I give it no credence.  Let's assume for a moment the worst-case scenario: I deliberately resurrected this months-old thread for the purposes of...

 

What, exactly?

Wasting five minutes of your time?  Well don't I have lofty goals in life?  Probably wasted double the amount of my time getting you to waste yours.

 

Let's assume you actually fell for it- another worst-case scenario.  What precisely did you lose here (apart from the aforementioned 5 minutes)?

"Oh noes, I posted in a thread that was old, and totally doesn't have 50 other more recent topics also started about the very same subject that I totally would never have posted in if not for being tricked into responding to this particular one!  Curses!"

I sure got you!  Truly this is the worst of internet crimes right here.  I am a wily genius.

 

So, I guess you can choose to believe the more elaborate, Rube Goldbergian theory that this was all a protracted plot to achieve... not much of anything, really.  Or you can simply accept that I saw a post while looking for something related to it and responded to it because I felt I had something to say about the matter (and I happened to not bother to look at the date- "oops").

If you're in the former camp, all I can say is you must be in the habit of falling for 'Nigerian Prince' bank account scams too- since that also requires the ability to utterly suspend disbelief and believe in an elaborate, needlessly convoluted story instead of the simpler, more likely one.

What I guess I'm trying to say here is: you're getting scammed either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Efurou wrote:


Syo Emerald wrote:

You are a lame troll. Get some better topic. Ranting about child avatars is so 2009. Can't you come up with something entertaining? Your false arguments are boring. Come on, you can do better.

Why would anyone be bothered about someone discussing something on a discussion forum? What does it matter who old the thread is? If the people complaining about the age of the thread have nothing to add to the topic - they can just not answer, no?

For the same reason that you can come here and question their behavior.  In fact, anyone can write anything here that they want to, as long as the moderators don't consider it to be against the Community Guidelines; calling a troll a troll is definitely allowed, no matter how much that person wishes to claim that trolls no longer exist.

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3201 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...