brodiac90

That's interesting, what gender (if any) do you think the middle avatar is? Or could you not tell?

LL would know what modesty layer you were wearing and the non binary issue / gender issues was broguht up a lot at the Governance meeting.

Tweenster would be a good option. You can make avatars between say 8 -14 fairly easily and the body has no genatalia f/m anatomy out of the box. Furthermore, the creator of Tweenster has already stated that they're going to be releasing new skins for the body with modesty layers.

Bringing the topic back to gender and non binary avatars, what modesty layers do you think the following three avatars would need under the policy, particularly the middle one? Also If you disagree with the current policy then state what you think they should be as well.

I think I had more younger kids in mind with my list. I suppose there could be one made for teen avatars.

It's just my personal feeling. Probably doesn't help that I watched the The Black Phone recently and the adbudction scene in that movie is horrendous. I suppose if you had a kid tied up with rope (arms behind back like movies) and nothing else happened, that may be acceptable. It just the whole why it's being done and where it could lead to that has me very uneasy. The Black Phone Abuduction scene - contains spoilers

I would clarify that to as LL is not going to sanction any child avatar for using an alpha while wearing their modesty layer. At some point, they will start to sanction those who only use alphas and no modesty layer at all, although they did stress they want to use education as much as possible at first.

We were discussing the back of the female chest modesty layer. Surely that was obvious?

My personal stance is in regards to 'combat' / violence and child avatars (not teens) is this: Roleplaying a sibling squabble with fighting - okay Playing games like cops and robbers with toys - okay Playing knights with wooden swords / sticks - okay Laser tag /paintballing - okay RPing childhood accidents (broken bones etc) - okay Taking part in sports which use weapons (think fencing / martial arts / clay pigeon shooting - RL kids do these so - okay Taking part in sports like wrestling and boxing etc or other contact games - okay. Actively participating in battlers or wars as a combatant - I can see how in some RP situations it could enhance the RP if the adults were fighting to protect the children who were hiding somewhere. RPing being abducted / kidnapped - no Any form of violence directed at a child by an adult, even spanking - no. I know someone will say that spanking is just corporal punishment, but in SL it really does leave too much open to interpreation and it can easily be misconstrued as something more sinister. Not even worth going there. Torture, graphic violence, cannibalism etc - no no no.

As I said earlier with @Kathlen Onyx, there is no way LL is going to change the moderate rating so it can incude extreme forms of graphic violence. The fact they think child avatars shouldn't be on adult rated sims tells you all you need to know.

Poorly written or not, no one on goveranance or any resident for that matter, is going to look at a fully clothed child avatar and think .... oh they must have alpha'd their modesty layers. How awful!

It's a good point actually, Robin Hood Prince of Theives was given a PG rating in the UK and it has a scene where a young boy (Wulf) is nearly hung among other things. You'd never get away with that these days.

What sort of sim was it though? What sort of violence?

They might be pixels, but the same could be said for movies or photographs. Whether real or not, people feel child avatars are real enough and I persoanlly would not want to see child avatars being shot, stabbed, ran through or worse. I may be wrong, but I'd argue a lot of adult avatars would feel the same. I imagine to a lot of them, it would be very disturning to have child avatars involved in that sort of combat RP. They might want it but I'm not sure it is a reasonable request - I understand you are not personally advocating for them, merely explaining.

In regards to combat RP / violence and child avatars I would think: Most people don't want to see children being hurt in anyway. However, there are some forms of 'combat' that I think would be acceptable, for example, think of the laser tag game that is out at the Welcome Hub or things like paintballing. You know, things that would be acceptable for kids to partake in real life.

I respectfully disagree. The whole discussion around removing the back part of the female chest modesty layer was because of how much content it broke in regards to dresses/low back leotards and swimsuits with circuluar openings at the back. We want to break the least amount of content as possible, not break more. If you require boys to wear a chest modesty layer as well then that will mean boys will not be able to be topless. We discussed this last time, and someone pointed out whether it would be okay for adult males to be topless, and we all agreed yes, it would be fine. Then we all realised you would be requiring boys to cover up more than men, when typically, in RL, it is the other way around. This is from someone btw, who fully expected boys to have to wear a chest modesty layer because of how child avatars work, and who was pleasntly surprised when I found out we didn't. Your idea is basically, let's treat everyone equally by disadvantaging everyone equally, where if you disagree about the modesty layer for female toddlers, you should argue for its removal.

Perhaps LL could use more inclusive language? If it makes people feel better then I'm all for that. I don't think you can ignore biology though. If your avatar has breasts and you're a child then you should definitely have a chest modesty layer regardless of your identify.

It's not currently a requirement. The TOS references genatalia, not breasts or nipples. It would be an additon, not a removal. A stupid one really considering what @Kathlen Onyx said. You won't see them anyway on females and boys would look stupid without them. I do hear what you're saying about toddlers though, I've not made my mind up yet to be honest.

My thoughts exactly. You summed it up better than I could.

While I broadly agree with the majority of your post, I'm not sure there is a need to remove nipples from prepubscent avatars. By removing them, you're essentially saying that there is something sexual and wrong about them, which could not be further from the truth since there is nothing remotely sexual about nipples on a young child. It's redundant anyway since the modesty layer would cover them. By adding that requirement, you may actually be breaking more content.

Both Keira and Tommy Linden referenced skins when discussing the modesty layers at the Governance meeting on 9/5/24. I pointed out that skins could be removed (replaced is more accurate) and therefore it would be possible to remove a modesty layer in practice. Tommy then confirmed that yes, this was possible, but would be a massive breach of TOS. You can find his and Keria's statements in my thread.

Keira also said she saw no issue with avatars opting not to wear the back part of the female chest modesty layer and that she would also feed that back.

I don't think there would be any issues with someone opting to wear the chest modesty layers when they're not required to. I do think the reverse would be problematic though in some cases. For example., if your avatar has a developed chest then you should be required to wear the bra modesty layer. Doesn't necessarily have to look like a bra, it could be anything designers choose to create, but it should be covered.

That's the current position anyway. I'm not entirely sure LL has dropped the 'cannot be removed by any means,' element, just merely shelved for the time being.

Keira did say she would feed that back. It'll soon be the weekend so maybe we will hear more next week?