Scylla Rhiadra

Good question. My guess is that they aren't going to touch that question. And they may not need to: I suspect that depictions of furries in "adult" contexts are not covered by the laws that LL is most worried about.

Isn't nudity also a "choice" though?

Yeah, indeed. The complications are . . . complicated.

Those are both options, although of course an A rated beach would not just permit nudity. I can imagine myself going to a nude beach; I'd avoid one where I was tripping over couples going at it on my way to pick up a Coke.

Maybe! That's sort of what we're trying to determine -- or whether this can be managed in such a was as to allow M rated nude beaches while not excluding child avatars from all Moderate regions. It seems to me that's a worthwhile effort to make?

I have no idea! But this isn't just about beaches: M rated clubs, for instance, can also feature occasional nudity, burlesque, etc. They are already changing whole rules. It's no longer a "why," it's "how."

Well, on Saturdays, my sky platform is frequently a kind of "strip club," as I demo weekend sales items! (Just not a very interesting strip club!) As I suggested above somewhere (God this moves fast!), they carve out exemptions for such places, with the additional understanding that child avatars not be permitted in such places, even when they are located in "M." The danger, of course, is that a list of exemptions could get very long and unwieldy.

/me snorts (attractively) at the idea that people who live on "G" rated regions go to a moderate or adult sandbox to change or demo clothing.

Yes, sorry, I think I misunderstood you. Yes, it could. Any exceptions -- such as burlesque shows, skin stores, etc. -- that were carved out as exceptions would be, I guess, understood as being off limits to child avatars. Unless perhaps they explicitly stated in the parcel profile that they didn't permit nudity?

Please!!

Can I use mesh nipple pasties?

I take your point about disruption, I guess, but I'd underline your own question: how important in practice is the provision for public nudity in Moderate regions? The language you suggest isn't just clunky, but also dangerously ambiguous. Would a child avatar at a club where there was no nudity be expected to leave if one of the dancers decided to go topless, because they were "engaging or participating in a common activity," i.e., dancing? Not trying to be critical, but this leaves as many questions unanswered as it addresses. I don't see a particular difficulty in carving out exemptions for a no-nudity clause in Moderate ratings, as these already exist (as, most obviously, the example of burlesque so long as it is not advertised using adult terms). Another option: compel landowners to specify whether their Moderate regions allowed nudity, and add language that excludes child avatars from such regions. The "default" where it is not specified is "nudity permitted." (Or not!) There is no good or easy answer to any of this.

I think the argument could be made that those are not instances of public nudity, in the sense that they are generally indoors on privately owned parcels. I see no problems with simply naming such things as exceptions. They already are named explicitly in the guidelines.

Top womanly bits, and rear end.

Exactly. This would be logical and consistent, and would simultaneously mean that child avis were safe in public areas of M rated regions.

Moderate differs from General in plenty of ways beyond the provision for public nudity. For instance, one can have sex in an M-rated zone in "private," and not in a G-rated one, anywhere. Similarly, one can have sex in public in an Adult region, but not in a Moderate one. "Moderate" is still a useful and meaningful category, even if we remove public nudity.

This demographic stuff, and questions about race, are all very interesting, but a tad off-topic surely? It seems to me that there are two main issues that need to be discussed and resolved. 1) What "modesty layers" actually are, and how they will work. 2) The ambiguity surrounding public nudity is M rated areas. It seems to me, with regard to the last, that removing the option of public nudity from Moderate regions may be the best and fairest way to go. I say that very reluctantly, because I don't like restricting freedoms any more than is absolutely necessary, and I personally find nudity pretty non-problematic, but this might be the best option in the interest of safeguarding the child avatar community while still ensuring them as much freedom of movement as possible.

It's a possible argument, but it is premised on the idea that sexual orientation is nothing more than a way to describe whom we partner with. Being gay doesn't just mean (for instance) being in a same sex relationship or having sex with people of the same sex as yourself: it's an identity that relates to a great many things such as attraction, affinities for things that have been culturally marked in a gendered way, and a host of other things -- and those needn't be manifested sexually. A young girl who finds boys "cute" and attractive is (likely) heterosexual even if it takes another 10 years for her to actually have sex with one. Or indeed, even if she becomes a nun and never has sex. Again, you can be gay without ever actually having sex at all. You can be bisexual even if you've never actually put it into "practice" by having sex with partners who are both male and female biologically. And you can be trans without ever in any sense "transitioning." If the default assumption is that children are heterosexual (and culturally, it certainly is) we don't need "proof" of that from the fact that they've had sex with someone of the opposite sex. The same is true of children who may, from a quite early age, discover that they are LGBTQ+.

If we must have modesty layers (and I am still highly doubtful they are a good or workable idea), then they should be the same for everyone, regardless of gender (binary or otherwise). Free the nipple, says I! Or, um . . . hide them all!!! EVERY NIPPLE!

Absolutely. I would hope so! But that's not "looking for justifications for why they can ban an account aside for the reported offence."

Well, to the degree that they are both built upon premises that may or may not be valid, yes!

How do you know this? You don't know this, in fact.

Well, sure, if you like? It's just an analogy. My simple point was that, however culpable the person accepting the TP might be for foolishly accepting a TP, and a failure to properly check the nature of the place to which they were being TPed, the person who sent the TP remains just as much to blame. Their guilt isn't diminished by the fact that they managed to find an idiot who'd accept it. (This does assume that the person sending the TP is aware that they are sending it to a child avatar, however.) EVEN if the person accepting the TP knowingly and willingly accepts a TP to a place where they know, or should know, they will be breaking the ToS, the person sending the TP is not merely an active participant, but actually the instigator in this violation and merits the full force of any disciplinary action taken by Governance. That may, or may not, also be true of the person accepting the TP, depending on circumstances, but someone knowingly luring / inviting a child avatar to a place where their presence would represent a violation of the ToS is not merely "scummy": they are guilty of breaking the rules regarding a*eplay and can (and should) be ARed. Blame or guilt isn't a zero-sum game, in other words: the guilt of one party doesn't diminish the culpability of the other.

Just to elaborate and maybe complicate what Kathlen said a bit. She's absolutely correct that it's not at all a smart thing to accept a TP blindly from someone you don't know and trust -- I won't do it, and I'm not a child RPer: there's much less chance of me being lured into a dangerous situation. I'm less worried about Experiences because they can't be made by just anyone: throwaway alts can't make Experiences. But I am still leery about accepting them unless, again, I have a reason to trust the maker. That said, if someone "lures" you with a TP into a trap, and you accept it, that doesn't make it "less" of a lure, or less of an ARable offense. You may be in some sense culpable because you were incautious or gullible, but their violation of the ToS, and their guilt as a griefer, is no less. Consider an analogy: if I leave my door unlocked and get robbed, I am in some sense partly responsible for the robbery, but it doesn't reduce the guilt of the robber at all. It's still a robbery. You don't get to claim that an unlocked door is an "invitation" to enter and take what you want. My point is that it's only good sense to avoid potential traps, but that the main burden of liability for what occurs is STILL on the person who lured you. They can and should be ARed, and I'm reasonably confident that they won't get a free pass because you were silly enough to accept the TP.

Just to extend a little what Coffee has said, you can also be gay and celibate -- just as one can be a celibate heterosexual. Indeed, one of the "flavours" of LGBTQ+ is asexual. There's no necessary relationship between sexual orientation and actual sex; there's no reason why a child can't be gay in SL. In fact, I once did a pic of an underage lesbian. And I'll fight anyone who tells me this is inappropriate or in violation of the ToS.