Carole Franizzi

Ishtara: I'm not sure if I have the time to reply to all your points in great detail. Carole: That’s a shame. Especially since all my points emerged from answering all your points. It’s particularly disappointing that you didn’t have time to answer so many of my questions. Ishtara: I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on a few things. Carole: If you say so. Ishtara: 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. Carole: I thought we were going to agree to disagree about stuff? If Nature is “sexist”, how do you explain this? Maybe because evolutionary biology, unlike socio-politics, is truly free from male-chauvinist attitudes? “It has been known for the past 10 years, or so, that the male determining chromosome, the Y chromosome, is shrinking. Making many male scientists nervous, the Y chromosome has been steadily decreasing in gene numbers, as well. The female and dominate chromosome, X, has almost 1,000 genes, while the shrinking Y chromosome is holding onto a mere 80 genes. It has brought the question to many scientists minds, will the Y chromosome eventually disappear, ending the male gender? It had been looking as though the male chromosome was slowing shrinking into oblivion, as the genetically inferior of the two chromosomes…” (Examiner.com and in a gazillion articles all over the web) Despite that, I’m convinced there were neither sexists nor feminists back in Bedrock (no pseudo-moral double standards either), just two genders, with pretty hard existences, happy just to have a modus vivendi. The sexism thingy comes into play when men try to use their own interpretations of caveman-style attitudes to justify claims to extra rights and innate superiority, using evolutionary history as an excuse. Nobody has to go out and tussle with sabre-tooth tigers to bring home the dinner, so its maybe time to set aside that justification for certain behaviours. We all have basic urges – evolved man and woman try to filter those urges through their brain. Ishtara: 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. Carole: Want them to be equal??? You see, non-sexists believe they are equal. You starting to get the proper definition of “sexist” now? What you describe above is both genders chasing healthy mates. Sounded pretty equalising to me… The bit about the tail having to be young and pretty reminded me of a point I’d already made – you can chase all you like, but if the gal you’re into isn’t into you, she just ain’t going to stop running. Ishtara: 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: Humans instinctively look for signs of health and fertility in potential mates. These signs are what we translate into what we now commonly refer to as human “attractiveness”. Both these things you know. Why is it so hard for you to accept that for the benefit of the species, both genders would have been “programmed” to choose the best available? Don’t you think that the cave-gals will have selected sturdy young males with which to start a family rather than the lecherous older dude, showing signs of aging, ill health and lessening strength, winking at them from the far side of the fire? In other words, I remain convinced that the natural reproductive urge (biological conditioning?) prompts us to select mates from the group of the opposite sex which most closely matches our own health and fertility signals and hence of similar age and “attractiveness”. I know I always have. Anyway, I have just discovered that we shouldn’t have been speaking of Neolithic at all (though I’m off the hook, cuz I called it “Bedrock”). If we want to examine how the earliest social organisations of Man might have influenced gender behaviour, it seems we should be looking at the beginning of the Palaeolithic era, since that appears to be the first one the human time-line, before the Neolithic age, and which according to Mr Google, was a period of social equality and had no gender divisions of duties: men and women were both committed to searching for food. Interesting, huh? Seems that as far as providing for the family is concerned, we’ve come full circle and are back to our natural state of equal rights and responsibilities. Ishtara: 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. Carole: The exploitation of women is ugly to my mind, no matter whether accompanied or not by collateral criminal activities. The fact that you make a parallel between women, alcohol and drugs as “goods” of some sort is precisely what I find disquieting. You need to read up on your statistics, though. The Netherlands, with its massive numbers of “imported” sex workers is now having huge issues with organised crime and has been attempting to reduce the red light district in Amsterdam to bring the situation under control again. The Netherlands appears as one of the top destinations for human trafficking, by the way. It has also seen an increase in child prostitution over the last few years. Ya gotta love Google! Ishtara: 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. Carole: Well, you mentioned that you were interested in certain aspects of psychology. You might find one of the many studies available of the psychological profiles of prostitutes fascinating reading. There has been found to be an extraordinary high incidence of disturbances such as schizophrenia, histories of “disorganised” childhoods and adolescence and a background which includes being victims of sexual abuse. It gets very hard to discuss free will and choice if you include such factors in the discussion. Of course, you can also just ignore them. I put it to you that neither you nor I would ever be able to know for certain who was there of their own free-will and who was being forced by present or past events. Also, Ishtara, it’s naïve to talk about social security benefits as an option when the people most likely to be forced wouldn’t be legal immigrants.

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: 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.

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.

Oh, you big stinky trouble-maker, you! You and your politicised, off-topic, off-SL, off-limits, off.....erm...off.....off-something else big stinky thread! PS In answer to your OP - me. I make a rotten troll. I end up sounding like a demented 5 year old...

Eloise Baily wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: OMG! OMG! Eloise!!!!!! Too tickled to see your name to say anything else! /me salutes. Ay oop chuck. Awfy guid tae see ya, ya bampot, ya!

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: Anyway, your point is noted and in future I’ll stay away from your shop, lest I offend your eyes with my fat, old avatar. That is definitely not what I was trying to say. I really like your unique and delightful avatar. My point was basically this: If you were to cover your avatar in open bedsores and ulcers and crawl around naked on bleeding stumps, in an area where people come to relax, socialize and flirt -- knowing full well that it causes others anguish and almost physical pain to look at something that they perceive as a severely scarred and hurt person -- would you have a right to feel discriminated against if the owner of the place asked you to change into something less graphic or banned you? I mean, it is a matter of degree. I know full well that my wheelchair example was very controversial in this context, and yet even that is essentially a form of virtual self-mutilation in a world where nobody is handicapped or disabled without making a conscious decision. Still, I take that as a form of self-expression, a virtual manifestation of self-image and RL identity, a creative statement about diversity, or perhaps a social experiment. But there are some (very few) avatars that I feel differently about, where I can't help but feel that I'm dealing with a griefer. Wheelchair: identity / self expression. Colostomy bag: griefing. Why is that? Where is the line between griefing and self-realization / artistic expression? What prompts me to make this distinction? How do other people feel about this? That's what I'm trying to find out.  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But why do you like my avie? She isn’t at all pretty. In fact, she’s rather ugly by anyone’s standards. You maybe associate her with my “voice” here in the forums and make a bit of an exception, cut me some slack, but if you didn’t know me and one day you saw me walking round your shop how would you feel? How would you feel if she wore one of her strappy latex numbers which lets everything (and I mean everything) hang out and with her varicose veins layer in full view? Would you assume I was griefing? Being deliberately provocative, well knowing that I look ludicrous, gross, pretty darn disgusting? Because you’d be right – she’s meant to look gross (at times). And if hurting people’s eyes with an avie you know they won’t find pretty is called griefing, then I’m a griefer. But then, I have to look at loads of avies with arms half the length they ought to be and heads four times too small for their bodies. Fair’s fair. Ah, but they don’t intend to look bad…that’s just an accident, right? Lack of knowledge about anatomy and proportions are to blame for that, whereas, if I voluntarily wear the most elderly skin I have (one which I made myself) which is covered in moles, ages-spots, broken veins, varicose veins, and painted-on saggy rolls of flesh – I’m being naughty because my intent is to be provocative, right? Believe me, the over-all effect of the really old skin is probably on the same level as a standard hottie skin with some bedsores, but – and this bit is important – that skin (never used on the forums) was painted by me, by hand, and is something I’m rather proud of. Let’s really go out on a limb – let’s say it’s a very minor piece of digital art. Let’s go to the other end of the spectrum. According to your reasoning then all the true great masters who depicted Christ dying on the cross, Samson’s head on a platter, St. Sebastian tortured by arrows were griefers because the subject matter isn’t a pretty bunch of flowers or a puppy playing with a kitten? I don’t dare enquire what you think of more recent artworks which saw dummies of children hanging from trees (or light-posts?? Can’t remember now), a pile of bricks, the artist’s own poo exhibited in prestigious galleries and with enormous price-tags stuck on them. You might want to quibble that such things aren’t really art. Well, good luck to you on that one – they’ve been trying to define that one for centuries. It’s up there with “does God exist?”. And yet, people go to art galleries to relax, socialise and flirt. Ever been to a gallery opening? Most people are too busy eyeing one another up to pay much attention to the paintings and even if the paintings depict war, death, torture and misery, it doesn’t stop the fun. And that’s because nobody real is bleeding, oozing pus or dying in front of them. The paintings are representations of real-life, not real-life itself. Just like SL. Any “bedsore” you might see in SL is just a graphic representation of one. And graphic representations of such stuff (even when it’s real – like the poo – but is totally decontextualised by being placed on a platform in an art gallery) do not usually bother people that much – reason why millions of folk go to the cinema to watch fellow humans “appear” to get carved up and why you continue to eat your dinner while the news shows you images of kids starving in Africa – the detachment allowed by it being a film and not occurring in your dining-room makes it unreal enough for you to keep tucking into your fish and chips. In other words, for some people “ugly” is more interesting than “pretty”, provocative is more emotionally charged than playing it safe, sticking out like a sore thumb is preferable to blending in, but you’d rather they didn’t do that because it chases away your customers. So freedom of expression – whether artistic or just to stand out - against commercial interests? That’s hardly a new dilemma - might I suggest that you probably base your judgement on whether it’s artistic expression or good ole-fashioned griefing depending on whether you perceive other clients as being perturbed by it, whatever the true intention of the avatar-operator. Tell me something – how should a person who doesn’t know you judge the intent behind your avatar and its life-style? And more to the point – how would they do that? Can there ever be any genuine reason to discuss discrimination in a place where you choose who and what you are and where a land-owner writes the law of his land and has the right to allow or disallow anyone he sees fit? I’m not entirely convinced there is, though I’d have to ponder the question a bit longer. Whether it counts as actual discrimination or not, for sure I can say that if anybody chucks me off his land because of my avie, he’s acting within his rights, just as I am within my rights to pick and choose where I spend my money. You know the real difference between you and me? It’s not so much the contrast between the pretty elf avie and the ugly old bag. It’s that you truly find the “pretty” avatars “pretty”. You seem to see them as attempts to achieve perfection. I see them as much, much more imperfect, uninteresting and unattractive in their expressionless, characterless blandness than any real human being. An avatar stimulates the same response in me as a Barbie doll in its box on a shop shelf. Do I gaze at Ken and think lustful thoughts? I most certainly do not. Could I look at the face of another flesh and blood human being and see lines which tell a story, a crooked smile and a chipped tooth which produce a heart-wrenchingly sweet smile, a scar which bears witness to having survived some terrible trauma, and fall in love? You bet I could…

Mayalily wrote: I posted another post you neglected to read in this thread regarding the use of the word prejudice. If you are going for definition No. 3 here, then I can't help you understand all the meanings of the word prejudice, Carole and Venus. You both have a dictionary you can go too if you need help understanding a word and it's useages.     [prej- uh-dis] **Only uploaded images may be used in postings**://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif" border="0" /> Show IPA noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing. noun 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. 3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group. 4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending. 5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority. verb (used with object) 6. to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.  I “neglected” to read one of your posts in this thread? How can I have been so remiss?? Oh yes, I know – unfortunately I have to work for a living and they refused point blank to let me take the day off to read all the posts you have made even though I explained to them that reading all the posts in a thread authored by you is the prerequisite for directing a post to you. They’re just big stinkers though, and stuck to their guns and made me work all ruddy day! You know what, Mayalily, when it comes to the point where you yourself copy and paste a dictionary entry and it’s there – in your post – at position number one – the exact definition which I’ve been trying to explain to you and you STILL don’t get it, it's time to give up. You want to refer to your feeling too shy to go up to hunky avies as “prejudice”, you go right ahead. You want to call your boyfriend’s feeling of intimidation in front of the hawties of his class “prejudice” – be my guest.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: Yeah, but, let's focus on the important stuff - can you or can't you change a tyre? I can! A tire change will appear in a sexual miscapade story I'll send you. And is it too much to hope that a big, hairy, muscular mechanic will also be part of the plot?

*I* want Wasted back! I loved little Wasted! @ Storm - too, too kind. Thank you.

Gawd, Mailily, I’m obviously doing a rotten job of explaining myself. You keep supplying further examples of your own personal interpretation of the word "prejudice", but it continues to be the one which is the direct opposite of what’s being discussed here – the victimisation of categories of human beings because of negative judgements formed about them before knowing them as individuals. The example of the year-book is just a repetition of the inferiority complex meaning you used in your last post to me. Your RL boyfriend didn’t feel he was good-looking enough to hit on his pretty class-mates. That’s exactly the same example as you feeling your avatar is not attractive enough to approach the super-hunk avies. It has to with your feelings about yourself, and the fact you don’t feel good enough. “Pre” means “before” therefore, since you always knew yourself, you can’t have formed an opinion about yourself prior to knowing yourself. Because before you knew yourself, erm, you didn’t exist. Self-perception and feelings of inadequacy, inferiority and so on, have more to do with the realm of psychology and not semantics. Although I’m betting there’s a scientific research out there somewhere which demonstrates that we instinctively recognise potential mates who are “in our league” looks-wise. By that I mean that we all know when we’re seeing someone much more attractive than ourselves and we’re all aware that the risk of being rejected is high…so we back off. Not sure that counts as distorted self-perception though but is one of Nature’s little tricks to ensure like mates with like. It’s what stops me stalking Brad Pitt, for example, as I’m aware he just might prefer to stick with Angelina rather than run away with me. Your “alternative” use of the word – verb and not noun – is not an illustration of someone being a “victim” of prejudice which is what you meant when you claimed that pretty avatars were unfairly (not favourably) pre-judged. If you are now saying that the example given at the end of your last post to me is the meaning you meant all along, then what you were claiming was that everybody in SL judges pretty avatars in an overly favourable way, simply based on how they look.

OMG! OMG! Eloise!!!!!! Too tickled to see your name to say anything else!

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: Missy, I'll have you know I do a luuuuuuuuverly job in RL - one which I enjoy so much that whatever problems I might have, are instantly forgotten the moment I start working Engineering? That's to do with engines, innit? Nooooo, engineering is an endeavor in which whatever problems I might have are instantly created the moment I start working! Yeah, but, let's focus on the important stuff - can you or can't you change a tyre?

Mayalily wrote: No, not absurd. Prejudice in this example of the word: any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.  When I see a tall dark and handsome and super rich looking male avatar I have preconceived notions of "I'm not good enough"... "He'll never give me the time of day"... "I'll never measure up"...that sort of thing. It's a preconceived feeling that comes from insecurity, but I do definately notice I feel much more comfortable just talking to a regular every day looking avatar or even one that is a little odd. . How can you have a preconceived notion about yourself? The fact that you know yourself means that formulating preconceptions (“pre” as in “before” - in this case, “before knowing yourself”) about yourself is impossible. What you are referring to is an inferiority complex.

Are we going to play Sematicopoly then? Okay, my turn to roll the dice. Prejudice – to pre-judge, to make assumptions, to form negative opinions about someone without having adequate information about them. Hardly the same thing as not liking something. I don’t like oysters. I don’t like the colour pink. I don’t like overly hot climates. I don’t particularly like blue eyes. I am happy I don’t have blue eyes. I am not usually attracted to people with blue eyes. That does not mean I think all people with blue eyes are stupid, ugly, uncultured, bad at sports. Pretty avies are not everybody’s cup of tea. Some people prefer having a funny avie. An old avie. A fat avie. A poo-avie. That is personal preference. Some people are homophobic. Such people assume they know the characteristics (this is where the pre-judging bit comes in) of the person just because they are homosexual. People with a homophobic prejudice might think that all homosexuals have annoying lisps, wear pink cashmere sweaters and will jump on them even if they themselves are wholly unattractive. This is prejudice. See the difference? I have my old, ugly, fat avie named Carole. I think she’s great. I prefer her to the hawt babe type. However, I do have a couple of super-hawt babe avies. Does my preference for Carole over my other ones mean I’m prejudiced against hawt babe avies? If it does, it means I’m prejudiced against myself. Which, frankly, I can’t even begin to get my head round (I am making pre-conceptions about myself, despite not knowing me, the person, as an individual. ????!!!!!?????) The phenomenon of prejudice IS serious business. Where it does exist, it’s a dreadful thing. You think it silly to associate the term “prejudice” with only serious matters? Well…since term includes the plight of women through the ages, of blacks, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, of the disabled, I find it slightly offensive to correlate the term with something as banal as an on-line game avatar. It’s doubly ridiculous in the context of SL since, in my three years here, I’ve heard it claimed by every single avatar category which exists that they are victims of discrimination. What does it mean, oh wise one, when every single category of being claims to be victim of prejudice? Might I suggest that it simply means that there is not one single type of avatar which is liked by everyone else?

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: Seriously? I've heard claims that there are prejudices against short avies, tall avies, child avies, furries, vampires, subs, doms, nekos, etc., and this thread is about "prejudices" against the ugly ones....so tell me - if the pretty ones are also victims of prejudice, exactly what avatars are not subjected to discrimination, because, at this point, no other type comes to mind? Don't you think that it's truer to say that some people prefer certain avatars over others? In which case, we're discussing personal preferences and not instances of discrimination. "Prejudice" is a serious matter - I think we'd need to talk to a victim of RL racial (for example) discrimination to hear exactly what that entails and if it compares to these SL "cases". Your right, there's a huge difference between not liking someone because of the way they look and liking the way someone looks so much that it makes you feel too inferior to them to strike up a simple conversation. Equating that to some sort of prejudice is just absurd. ...Dres I'm well aware that some people dislike and are perplexed by my choice in avatar. I know because they've taken the trouble to IM me to inform me of their dislike/perplexity. But, claim that I'm a victim of prejudice???? Noooo! I reckon that people who (seriously) talk about being discrimnated against in SL need to get a grip and brush up on their history. You said it - absurd. Utterly absurb. Usburb. Udsburb. What you said. PS excuse the bolding but the formatting thing ain't working

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: I would not enjoy a conversation with a nuclear physicist nor a plumber about their field of knowledge as neither interest me (nor could be understood by me). What?! Aren't you at all curious to know why plumbers make more money than nuclear physicists? Sit with me a while and we'll disuss engineering and whatever it is you think you do for a living. The first one to get bored wins? Or loses? Missy, I'll have you know I do a luuuuuuuuverly job in RL - one which I enjoy so much that whatever problems I might have, are instantly forgotten the moment I start working, Having said that...it's notoriously badly-paid so your point about plumbers is taken.... I'd be a plumber in my next the life, were it not for fact it would ruin my nails. Engineering? That's to do with engines, innit? Hell babes, I can't even change the tyre on my car, let alone understand how the engine works!

Mayalily wrote: For me it doesn't have to be an extremely intelligent conversation, as intelligence and knowledge are two separate things. Some times people are judged as unintelligent simply because they are not knowledgeable in a particular area, or because they are just learning English and/or perhaps even just learning how to type. Frankly I have to say that I prefer conversations with intelligent people (wih whom you can discuss all manner of topics as the process of their brain working is delightful to observe) rather than a person who is knowledgeable about a limited number of subjects. I would not enjoy a conversation with a nuclear physicist nor a plumber about their field of knowledge as neither interest me (nor could be understood by me). Mayalily wrote: There is prejudice against beautiful avatars on SL I've noticed, too. Seriously? I've heard claims that there are prejudices against short avies, tall avies, child avies, furries, vampires, subs, doms, nekos, etc., and this thread is about "prejudices" against the ugly ones....so tell me - if the pretty ones are also victims of prejudice, exactly what avatars are not subjected to discrimination, because, at this point, no other type comes to mind? Don't you think that it's truer to say that some people prefer certain avatars over others? In which case, we're discussing personal preferences and not instances of discrimination. "Prejudice" is a serious matter - I think we'd need to talk to a victim of RL racial (for example) discrimination to hear exactly what that entails and if it compares to these SL "cases".

Three separate points touched in your OP I think. The feces avie. Well, with very few exceptions I think it’s fair to say that universally the sight of such stuff doesn’t provoke feelings of delight. Unless you’ve been bunged up for a few days in which case the reaction on unbunging will be one of immense relief. Otherwise, it’s possible – more than possible – that such an avie is meant to provoke a reaction. Perhaps childishly comic rather than pure horror though. I can’t honestly say that if I passed such an avatar it would raise much more than a weak smile in me though. Avatars with disabilities and signs of disease, illness, conditions. Erm…well, I’m perplexed by you linking such things to the afore-mentioned category at all. Why would it perturb if a person wants to portray themselves as they really are in RL? What if it just means they accept themselves as they are, colostomy bag included? I’m not at all sure that people with disabilities even want empathy and sympathy. I reckon most want to be accepted as they are and perhaps importing the extra, the missing, the non-functioning or the differently-functioning bits into SL is just a way of making sure everyone knows they are totally accepting of those “bits” and would really prefer if everyone else did the same. As for able-bodied people trying out life in a wheelchair – why not? Carole is my only Caucasian avatar – all my others have an ethnic origin different from my RL one. I found that “being black”, for example, was initially “educational” (there are still racists around) and in a second phase…how to put it?…just “me” – the skin colour was such a minor part of my avie representing me that I forgot all about it. I’d have thought just such experiences – living in another’s reality – represents one of the most valuable experiences SL has to offer. No? Ugliness in general. Well, as one who has perhaps the ugliest avie in the forums, I think I may be qualified to respond. Carole, as she is, has different meanings and functions. First of all, I think she’s a blast. It’s a fun avie to have – it gets conversations started and it ensures that usually the people who approach her have a sense of humour and are beyond looking for a hawt babe avie to jump on a poseball with. I have met some great people thanks to Carole. Second of all, as a feminist and a more generic humanist, she represents my stance that people, whatever they look like, however old or ugly they are, are valuable human beings. Thirdly, I’ve never had issues with what I look like in RL so having one avie which isn’t a hawt babe doesn’t create dents in my self-esteem. Lastly, I think people (adults) should be able to do and be pretty much what they want in SL. Personally, I adhere to the general philosophy of the place – be what you want to be (sexual age-players excepted) - which means though I might find some avatars objectionable, silly, offensive, banal, boring or whatever, I understand that others shouldn’t have to model their digital selves to my standards. These standards are highly subjective. I could be really snooty and say that so many of the Barbie avies which many would consider attractive look icky to me. I could point out that I find the long-haired, uber-muscular urban warrior types singularly unattractive. But does it matter what I like and dislike? It shouldn’t. Sure, you have private property. You can chase those who don’t appeal to your vision of what’s SLovely away. But why??? SL, avatars aside, is as full of “ugliness” as RL – from hellish malls to tacky products, from pseudo-art to garish gardens. Would it not be fair to say that the vast majority of avatars will offend somebody's aesthetic sense, for some reason or another? That makes 95% of all SL residents griefers according to your view-point. Anyway, your point is noted and in future I’ll stay away from your shop, lest I offend your eyes with my fat, old avatar.

Chronometria wrote: Solar Legion speaks a lot of wisdom there and he says it better than I did. Being a newbie comes with certain responsibilities... Says who? People join to SL to play a game - not to take on "responsibilities" invented by other players.

Solar Legion wrote: If you didn't like his/her response then you really won't like mine. After a single day within Second Life, a new user should not be in one of the public welcome areas. If they had any neural capacity for cognitive thought they would have remained on whatever passes for the starter islands these days until such a time as they are able to at least move around and communicate without much trouble. As a former Mentor/Helper .... I have very little patience for such individuals who feel they are OH so advanced and can skip right past the orientation process. I have even less patience for those who took an offered teleport by a "friend", dragging them off of the starter zones. "Welcome to Second Life: Learn how to operate on a basic level or leave." - The mantra of every burnt out helper. I cannot express strongly enough how much I agree with the sentiments in your post. Noobs either get with it pronto, or they get out. I mean, it's not like we NEED new residents, do we? I mean, even if just a handful of us super-expert old-timers are left in SL, it'll continue to be a successful and solid business anyway, won't it? I mean - who says you NEED new residents at all? I bet SL would be just fine and continue to survive even if numbers of residents continued to drop, don't you think? And anyway, probably the newbies still stuck at the welcome points are maybe elderly, with limited pc skills or - who knows - visually impaired, with some sort of disability which limits hand-eye co-ordination or lord knows what! sarcasm off/ PS Why on earth BE a helper at all if you have no patience, no tolerance and only feel burnt-out by the experience? I think this isn't a unreasonable question to ask - just how many new residents have you chased off the grid because they didn't grasp the basics quickly enough for your taste?

Josie Velvetleaf wrote: I agree completely! I've never had an issue with shorter avis. That being said, when they dress as you mentioned and carry around a teddybear, I see a child regardless of what your profile says. In my experience, most 18 year olds in rl tend to want to look older not younger than their years. I agree - I'd add that most 15 year olds want and manage to look at least 18, if not older, if they put their minds to it. Come to think of it - your average RL 15 year old is probably the best person to ask for tips if you don't want to accidently appear under-age... I know you'll find this hard to believe, but I have never been mistaken for a child avie!

I reckon that even a very short adult, with a body-shape, proportions, clothes and speech appropriate to an adult shouldn't have so many problems, I think you just have to be honest with yourself about what messages your avie is sending out. If it's got ankle socks, mary janes and a lollipop PLUS is truly tiny in stature, you can hardly get miffed when adult avies in adult sims don't want you around. The "discrimination" against small avies which is hinted at is often caused simply by - to put it in the words of another poster - so many avies looking exactly like ducks (and splashing about in adult ponds!).

I for one don't need to go and Google Georg Brandes. That's Russell's dad, innit?

Your world. Your imagination. It’s a simple but snazzy catch-phrase. Very enticing, I suppose, but not very accurate. It is most certainly the users’ world, in that they create the content. However, the control of the platform remains firmly in the hands of the company which owns it. It represents a most brilliant business idea – where the costs and the manufacture of the product are covered by the consumers themselves, but, like in all businesses, it’s no democracy. Brilliant for the owners, not so great for the consumers. It’s a bit of a bind – when people have bought into the YOUR world shtick, and have fallen in lurve, partnered and set up home and produced prim off-spring or adopted…or set up businesses…or have come to depend on SL for romance, friendship, freedom to be/do as they please…and they come a cropper for one reason or another and find themselves ejected from “their” world without a bye or leave. Just as hard to digest could be one of the infinite scenarios which in real-life would have you running to a lawyer or the police – theft, harassment, bigamy, disappearance of loved-ones, slander, libel, etc., etc., etc….and here you are utterly powerless to defend yourself. Not forgetting that YOUR imagination (true love and genuine friendship) might not be compatible with the imagination of others (fun, fun, fun!!!). For me it’s always been a case of – yes, I can be imaginative here, but I’ve always been very aware that it is most certainly NOT my world and that I would be foolish beyond words if I allowed myself to perceive it as anything more than a source of entertainment which could dry up at any time. Add to that a reluctant but sincere admiration for the brain which invented this clever business idea in the first place.