Scylla Rhiadra

Every thread is the better for the addition of legumes.

There's a scene in The Who's Tommy, featuring both Ann Margret and baked beans prominently. I saw it when I was . . . well, really young. It gave me literal nightmares.

Yeah, mud, jello, baked beans . . . weird, eh? Oh well, arguably better to be wrestling in it, than pelted with it? Many years ago, I actually tried mud wrestling in-world. As I remember it, you sat on the pose balls, and then hit the down key as quickly and often as possible. I was awful at that too. And, given the fact that you didn't actually get covered in mud, even if you ended up (as I did) pinned down, it also seemed rather pointless. As for the snow, yeesh. We got somewhere between 20-25 cms. of it, I think, and every millimetre of it was registering in the pain in my arms this morning.

I can think of a few merchants who post here regularly under the same account as holds their business, and who are, I know for a fact, still logging in quite regularly. But this still doesn't actually address my main point, which is that many merchants likely prefer to spend their personal time in SL on other accounts precisely so that they aren't being bothered with IMs about their stores. Given that you have regularly demonstrated little but contempt for the official forums and the people here in the nearly11 years that I've been here, anyway, I am completely mystified as to why you keep coming back. I'm not really complaining about that, personally: the forums are big enough for you and everybody else, and I sometimes find what you have to say interesting. But why on earth do you continue to do it, when you seem to dislike it here so much?

Well, it certainly would not be against the TOS to do so. But I do find the idea of taking the time and effort to "investigate" someone's in-world presence merely because they've pissed you off on the forums a wee bit over-the-top, if not actually stalkerish. However, whatevs. You know full well that many creators and merchants use alts to separate their business identities from their personal life in-world. Discovering that Mycoolstore.Resident isn't logging in much tells you nothing about how often the RL operator is in-world. And many people on the forums are actually using a third account, connected to neither.

Well, it would make for a pretty dull show: I'd be down and swathed in mud in seconds. As my recent sad endeavours at snow clearing have reminded me, I was not designed for upper body strength. Still, anything for a good cause. right? Behave yourself, TDD, or we'll hide the lubricating oil or whatever it is that keeps you running.

This is commendable. This, on the other hand, is merely stalkerish: And I'd be curious to learn how you "know" this: (Fortunately, I can take solace in the fact that you clearly are not speaking of me, as I have no opinions.)

Yes, absolutely. Just the names of the some of the groups people will have listed on their profiles alone represent a literal violation of the TOS in this regard. This particular one is a bit over-the-top, however. My sense is that LL tends to be more censorious about RL porn than the in-world stuff: I'd imagine they'd act on this one pretty quickly.

What's "SL"????

I think we can contextualize emotional blackmail better by placing it within the larger category of coercion. In that broader category are all sorts of mechanisms, ranging from peer pressure and passive aggressive behaviours, to things that are very like threats. We tend, generally, to work under the assumption that free choice is always in operation in Second Life; the absence of physical threat is part of that notion, most obviously. But physical compulsion and threat are not the only ways to illegitimately compel someone to do something. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a variety of forms of coercion are in operation in some relationships in SL. One of the things that makes coercion, through emotional blackmail or whatever, so insidious is that it operates most effectively on the vulnerable. Those with low self-esteem, or who are particularly lonely, or have been conditioned through abuse to depend too much on the emotional support of others, are the ones upon whom this is most likely to work. That said, we are all to some degree vulnerable to coercion. If one is in a social group where voice is a really common mode of communication, one is more likely to feel excluded by not using it: such social exclusion is really a form of coercion and peer pressure, even where it is not deliberate. A partner saying something like "It would mean so much to me if I could hear your voice say you love me" may be intending nothing more than to articulate a real need -- but it too is a form of emotional blackmail, deliberate or not. I think -- and Amina can correct me if I'm wrong -- that this is what she's getting at. And it's a real problem, and why a discussion about gender verification, or even just the use of voice without the implication that verification is the goal of that, needs to be handled so carefully.

That suggests to me that you are going about this in a respectful and ethical way. I have absolutely no reason to think otherwise. I don't think that's particularly controversial, at least not at its root. I've already noted that, while I was not particularly upset to discover that my ex-lover was a woman, I would likely (well, probably definitely) not have entered into a relationship with him (as he then was) had I known that he was a she. I'm going to neither defend nor apologize for that: it's (I suspect) part of how I've been conditioned. In practice, however, it didn't matter at all, when I was in the relationship, because her real life genitalia didn't figure into the process. I should also say that both of the relationships in which I've been involved in SL have involved a fair amount of spill-over into RL, especially the first; in practice, again, my own approach to these has probably been closer to yours than to what Amina suggests. The issue, as I see it, is not what one's preferences are, but rather how one goes about pursuing those. And, as I've said, I have no reason to believe that you, personally, are doing so in an unethical way. I'm more interested in the general issues that arise. I will agree: Innula's approach is a good one. It's actually pretty close to the approach I suggested myself earlier in this thread. Who has actually said this in this thread? Suggesting that SL is primarily about virtual identity isn't quite the same thing, even if it seems to exclude your own preference. I do think that there are some really fundamental differences between the approach you've taken, and what Amina is talking about. And, where two people are in a relationship, or even just a sexual encounter, and they are each approaching this from a different perspective, then there has to be a negotiation of some sort, some way of ensuring that both understandings of the correspondence between SL and RL are accounted for. And that may very well mean, probably does mean, in fact, that it's not going to work out. What is ultimately important, again, though, is that each be respectful of the other's approach, however it plays out. I don't see anything in what you've said above to suggest to me that you haven't been. On the other hand, I can personally attest, as I'm sure can many others here, to instances in which there has been untoward and unfair pressure placed upon one of the partners by the other to disclose RL details. But that's not an issue with you, personally: it's a problem with a broader inability to understand that there can be other legitimate ways to approach relationships.

Luna, I didn't address my comment to either Amina or Beth, nor did I mention either of them. I addressed it to you, and it was solely in response to what you said. I am utterly uninterested in "taking sides" here -- the bickering is counterproductive and frankly boring. Both Amina and Beth are "right," in that SL, in its function as an open platform, enables both approaches to the relationship between SL and RL And both are wrong, because neither so far has substantively addressed the real issue, which is how to reconcile in actual practice two such apparently incompatible understandings of what SL is about. I like and respect both of them, and both have made good points here. I have some faith that they will be able to move beyond the shouting, and talk about the big picture. But setting this thread up as some sort of Battle Royale between them isn't helping anyone. As for me, while I will make comment on such points raised by anyone here as I find suggestive or interesting, I really have neither the time nor the inclination for mud wrestling at the moment.

Luna, this is a lovely sentiment and all, and I think it is genuinely meant . . . . . . but maybe in the context of this discussion, it is actually more than a bit gas-lighty? It's almost literally as though you are responding to someone talking about the importance of maintaining their RL privacy by saying "And how long have you been desperately insecure and unable to form real connections with people?" I feel somehow that we would do better to avoid speculation about people's motivations, and focus more on the dynamic by which we actually reconcile different approaches to interpersonal relationships here.

We take a break from our regularly scheduled programming to introduce this song, the theme and lyrics of which are very relevant:

Agreed, it would have been fair for me to ask. It didn't seem important to me, though, so I didn't. Honestly, it still doesn't seem important to me, in the sense that knowing wouldn't actually change a thing. But I of course recognize that others might feel differently. Oh, there were a great many conversations, and a lot of exchange of RL information. I was "friends" with his RL Facebook account. He knew where I lived, what I was doing, and a great deal beside. When my furnace broke down (I was a student at the time), he offered to send me money to fix it. Did we discuss the possibility that one or the other of us might not be representing as our RL gender? No, I don't think so; it seemed unnecessary. He certainly knew I was straight. I agree with all of this 100%. He too was operating under certain assumptions about the platform. His understanding was one that remains pretty common: that SL is a place where one can experiment with representation and identity, and that keeping at least parts of one's RL private and separate is part of that (and is protected by the CS and TOS). That too is a valid way to think about, and function within, SL -- experimenting with identity really only works if it is not generally known that one is doing so. To be known to be a woman representing as a man entails, in effect, being treated by others as a woman representing as a man, a woman wearing a "costume." We need, I think, to recognize that there is a kind of irreconcilable clash of cultures here. To be "honest" about one's RL identity represents, in practice, the privileging of one approach at the expense of the other. Yet, both are valid. I don't have an answer to this, other than to suggest (as you've also suggested above) the necessity of communication about one's expectations, and being generous, understanding, and most of all, kind, in our dealings with others. In other words, this: But I think I'd argue that someone who is in practice "unkind" is indeed evidently an unkind person -- but not necessarily "wrong." Because, again, both approaches are valid, even if the exercise of them can sometimes lead to an ungenerous or unkind behaviour. This is interesting. I am reminded that Draxtor recently did a video series on SL couples who transitioned into RL relationships, so you may have a point. If so, then LL is undercutting a culture that it has itself nurtured and even encouraged. But that, of course, is on them -- unless they plan to change the TOS and turning SL into a VW version of Facebook.