Scylla Rhiadra

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

1 Follower

About Scylla Rhiadra

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

217 profile views
  1. Withdrawal Methods

    I was sure that this was going to be a thread about virtual birth control methods. Sooooooo disappointed.
  2. How do I question an unexplained ban?

    Great advice, actually. But very uncomfortable. Actually, one of the interesting things about starting again with Laskya was having to find, and try to integrate myself into, new communities in-world. It proved more difficult than I'd thought, although I did find one club that wasn't too bad.
  3. How do I question an unexplained ban?

    Yep. Of course, it's not just this particular version of the forum that does that, or even just SL forums. It's a pretty common thing, I think. Communities are happy to absorb people who "they" judge not to represent a threat to an established social order, but not so good at accepting people who are obviously different, because such people can change the entire dynamic. And, too, one way to define a "community" is by exclusion. Being ultra-judgemental about someone is one way of drawing the line between who's in, and who's out. It's sad and unfortunate, because all communities need new blood, and new perspectives, or they become echo chambers. At various different times that I've been around, the forums have devolved into that: self-obsessed, cliquey, and unwelcoming.
  4. How do I question an unexplained ban?

    An interesting perspective, which seems to me to sort of straddle the augmentationist / immersionist line . . . or maybe complicate it, which is probably a good thing. I take your point about SL functioning as a mirror, but with this caveat: I don't think I possess a single identity. I think I am different -- sometimes very different -- in different contexts, and Second Life is no exception to that. Indeed, I'd say I have multiple Second Life identities, or even multiple forum identities, not just in the obvious "OMG SHE HAS ALTS" kind of way, but in the sense that I take on different voices here according to context. I've actually really noticed this about myself on occasion: sometimes, for instance, I'm really earnest and serious and . . . prolix and boring? And sometimes I'm playful and a bit idiotic. That's just two; there are variations. It's not, obviously, that those different identities are not all recognizably "me," because I think they are. But they constitute not just different ways of writing, but different ways of responding and, often, actually thinking about stuff. Sexuality in SL is a particularly intriguing subject because I think it's such an important part of why many people are here, and it often becomes a really important element of self-expression and identity-creation. A really large percentage of residents, I suspect, are sexually quite different here than they are in RL, sometimes subtly (as in your own case as you describe it), but, obviously, sometimes very radically. Gender-bending, experimentation, and so forth are the obvious things. I've known so many people who were "gay" only in Second Life. And a lot of it is about fantasy, obviously. But that all varies from person to person. In any case, I think it's more complicated than "I can do stuff here I wouldn't do in RL." I think, more fundamentally, "I can BE a different self here than I am in RL." So, if you are more open about sexuality, talking sex, and so on here, it's not so much because you are "hidden" here: you have become someone different, by the very process of acting differently. You are performing a new self. (The above is probably an example of me in full-flight "Earnest and Boring" mode, btw.)
  5. Just Ignore and let this one die

    Oh good Lord. I feel absolutely ancient. PS. IBTL
  6. How do I question an unexplained ban?

    I don't know what "it" is. I will never know what "it" is. I live in an unfathomable and indifferent universe. In other news, it rained lightly this morning, but we've even had a few periods of sunshine! I raked the bit of grass at the front of where I live, to get rid of some of the flotsam and jetsam that's accumulated there over the winter.
  7. How do I question an unexplained ban?

    /me blinks Why on earth would you want to do that? Do you have a small plumbing job that needs doing? Something you require from a shelf that's too high for you to reach?
  8. How do I question an unexplained ban?

    See? I can't even shock you competently. (I should, perhaps, note that the "quotation" from Germaine Greer is entirely fictitious: she's pretty potty-mouthed at times, but more elegant and articulate than I've suggested. I was going to remove the post before the mods took offense, and did it for me . . . but there seems to be no way to delete posts! Ack! I'm on record FOREVER!)
  9. How do I question an unexplained ban?

    [Redacted: A whole bunch of completely inappropriate stuff that not only misrepresents Germaine Greer, who is an absolute GODDESS,* but also would undoubtedly offend a great many of the Virtuous and Upstanding Residents of SL and here on the forums, as well as raise the eyebrows of the Mods here who are, I'm sure, wonderful custodians of civil discourse and in every way totally liberal enough to overlook a mere jeux d'esprit, a momentary lapse in judgement.] *[ETA: Except for the stuff she says about trans women, which is entirely and completely wrong, and also weirdly inconsistent, although I guess 2nd Wave Feminism . . . you know?]
  10. How do I question an unexplained ban?

    Yeah, but I only do that because I want people to think that I'm edgy and cool. But tell me, who else puts my "innocence" in scare quotes? Does that mean it's working????
  11. How do I question an unexplained ban?

    How does a Martian blush? (That seems a much safer question than the other obvious one involving Martian physiology.) Well, the fact that you've discovered a place (SL) where it is relatively easy to talk about that sex thing suggests you've employed the "social barometer" well? You, and a great many other people I've known, have discovered in SL a place to interact and engage with more comfort, in part I suppose because of the "anonymity," but also because the social codes and conventions here are different. Although, actually, I'd question the importance of the anonymity. You aren't anonymous, and neither am I. You are Perrie, and you are known to and recognized by, I'd hazard a guess, a pretty broad and extensive range of people. Here, I'm "Scylla": I've developed a (somewhat tattered) reputation and history. I've embarrassed myself here countless times, and I can assure you that I've felt it deeply every time it has happened.
  12. How do I question an unexplained ban?

    This "Scylla" character sounds thoroughly dodgy. I think I like her. Thank god she's fictional! It's odd that you, Maddy, thoroughly embedded in the STEM disciplines, should so often speak (so well) through parables, whereas I, trained in literature and poetry, rely instead upon prolix and turgid explication. I tried to come up with a cute little narrative sequel to respond, but I couldn't get past the part where "Scylla" is elected President of the United States on the strength of her ability to sell speciously attractive fantasies to people who desperately want easy answers. The view of John Milton -- and he was admittedly talking explicitly about print -- was that all ideas, whether good or bad (except Catholic ones) should be permitted to public view, because from the dialogue and debate that they engendered the Truth would inevitably emerge (unless it was a Catholic truth). That always used to seem to me a pretty sensible and liberal approach to the circulation of ideas (after all, I'm not Catholic), but I'll confess that recent events in the US and Europe have shaken my faith. So too has my unacknowledged faith that we are all slowly but inevitably moving towards a more liberal and generous culture. Sometimes, it turns out, the Truth is unpalatable, and the Fiction too seductively "reasonable." Sometime people aren't well enough trained to distinguish in a reliable way between the two. I guess that I still believe that even the snake oil salesmen need to be permitted to peddle their wares, because I don't know of anyone (with the possible exception of Maddy, of course) whom I'd trust to determine what is permissible, and what is purely malicious fraud. The answer, I think, maybe, is to teach people to "read" what they hear, or are told, or witness, well enough that they can make that determination for themselves. That's difficult -- very difficult, in fact, particularly in today's political climate. But at least it distributes the knowledge, and the skill, and the power. And maybe the "Scyllas" of the world will be just that much less successful in selling their 14 lbs of nonsense to the vulnerable, ignorant, and desperate? PS. I was never a Girl Guide (as we call them here); I never made it past one year of being a "Brownie." I'd have been lousy at selling cookies.
  13. Very distinguished, if a bit severe-looking. Do you have to buff the top a lot?
  14. How do I question an unexplained ban?

    Well, if the stakes were higher, I'd argue with you about the wisdom, justice, etc., of this kind of system. It reminds me of the "good old days" in Britain and the US when the franchise to vote was limited to those (men) who possessed a minimum amount of wealth or property. As I said above, that's not actually very surprising: American libertarianism is mostly founded on principles from that historical era. However, as I say, there is not a lot really at stake here, so I'm not about to die on this particular hill. Ban me to your heart's content! I'll weep silently and copiously, of course . . . but somehow I'll pull through. (And hi Lindal!)
  15. How do I question an unexplained ban?

    Well, I still think that you're filling in a lot of blanks here with an unnecessarily negative reading of his actions. You move from a few scant facts to motivations and intentions, which are always a bit slippery, no? And, as you yourself point out somewhere above, there is no real "harm" being inflicted here. On the whole, I think (as Maddy says above) the benefit of the doubt is the best approach. I'd rather be overly-generous in my judgements, than walk through life believing the worst of people. I guess that's a personal choice. In any case, I don't think this is worth pursuing further, although I will just note, in passing, that an approach that subjects new posters to this kind of sceptical scrutiny and speculative criticism isn't going to help attract new people to the community.