Scylla Rhiadra

Yes, agreed that LL seems to have dropped the ball on this one. I don't know why they haven't made more of it: it's potentially huge.

Oh, I have the default "T-pose" and camera swing turned off for Appearance mode, because I occasionally go into it when posing for a photo (usually to adjust my shape slightly).

This is what I'm not getting. Is the point to enable transfers of assets across grids? I.e., you can wear something from one grid in another, but with the proviso that it "disappears" from the first grid? Or is this to enable NFT-based commerce within SL? So that items that, for instance, no transfer can be "sold" to someone else within the platform?

And some serious therapy.

I'm pretty sure Bree is joking! (At least I hope so!)

Ok, there you are! Welcome back, and yay! Let's put this one to bed, maybe, then? And if you could give some advance notice of the religion thread, I'll make sure I clear my calendar for it. 😏

Or, why not a thread on "What Do You Think about Furries? (No Furries Please!)" Or . . . "White People, How Do You Feel about Blacks? (White People Only, Please!)"

So, by your own admission, the thread was really addressed just to those who DO have sex in SL? And the opinions of those who don't aren't really "valid" or don't "count" because they weren't being solicited in the first place? Nothing exclusionary about that at all, is there, Arielle?

I'm not sure why you should feel it necessary to remind us these are "opinions." These are self-evidently "our opinions." If they were someone else's, I'd have specified whose. It is equally self-evident that you are of a different opinion. And that is, of course, something to which you are entitled. But none of this means that all opinions are equally valid: that depends on the degree to which one backs it up with evidence and reasoning.

Very generous of you! So do I! And I very much hope, because I like her, that Bree pops in again to explain what those "good intentions" might be, and corrects her language to mitigate the insulting condescension that she is currently communicating. Because "good intent" is certainly not very evident in what she's communicated to this point.

My analysis has nothing to do with her own level of sexual activity. I was pointing out the tendency of the language she was using. It's rather odd language to use if she does identify with the "others" who don't have sex, but regardless of what she may or may not be doing in SL, her language excludes and stigmatizes.

Inara Pey gives a really good rundown of this. https://modemworld.me/2022/02/16/in-vogue-elsewhere-second-life-and-designer-fashion/ It's great to see Blueberry involved in this; she's a terrifically good creator. I only wish (*hint hint*) that her own offerings were a bit more exciting, and a bit more edgy, as some of the pieces she recreated for this show were.

Unless I misread this, "they" are not "tracking" anything: the cookies are from web sites you visit using the built-in viewer browser. I'd agree, though, that this option should be at least somewhat more accessible. I could be wrong about this, but I am pretty sure the SL viewer doesn't use "cookies" in the normal sense. It doesn't really need to: it's self-contained, unlike the web.

Yes, you're both right! Sorry, I'm not sure how I misread that!! Duh! My comments about Bree stand, though. ETA: Should I add this to the "most embarrassing moments" thread? 😏

Oh, and here's an embarrassing moment waiting to happen. I haven't actually done this yet, but it's inevitable that I will, eventually. About 40% of my outfits employ Maitreya's "Petite" add-on. The add-on is designed, of course, to hide the regular Maitreya chest when you add it. But, when you have the Petite add-on saved as part of an outfit, it doesn't always load after the body, but sometimes before, which means that the regular Maitreya chest doesn't get hidden, and is sticking out through the Petite, and whatever clothing (which is of course rigged for the smaller-chested Petite) you're wearing. Now, add to that the fact that my boob size slider is set to 43 for my regular Maitreya outfits, and 70 for when I'm wearing Petite . . . and the result it that I'll sometimes have these HUGE Zeppelin-like boobs poking out of my tops or dresses because the add-on didn't load in the proper order. Fortunately, I've always remembered to check before going out in public after putting on an outfit designed for Petite. But, of course, I generally can't tell from behind: I have to swing my camera around to be sure. And one day, I AM going to TP to a busy club or event, blissfully unaware that I'm flashing super-inflated whale-sized mammaries at all and sundry. I'll be sure to post pics when that happens. Or, if Maddy is with me when it happens, she will.

Oh, I was waiting for you to recount that one. /me sighs and submits to the inevitably public humiliation that results from this story . . .

I know I've told this one before here, but there was the time when I put on a new outfit -- boots, trench coat, and applier (I think) jeans and top to go shopping at an event. What I didn't realize, because I didn't stop to look at myself from the front, is that for some reason the body layers with the jeans and top were hidden. The result was that I spent about a half hour wandering around an event wearing an open trench coat and knee-high boots . . . and nothing else. At least it was a trench coat. How appropriate was that?

For as long as I've known Bree, which is as long as I've been on the forums, including the old RA, I've really rather liked her. She's oddball, and comes at things from a weird perspective that is sometimes interesting, and often really amusing. But I'm with Maddy on this one. I'm not sure why, but the past month or so has seen her become a bit trollish and a little mean-spirited in the threads she's started. And it's upsetting, actually. Like Maddy, I want the Old Bree back, please. ETA: I've removed the original quoted post, which I misread, and was not intended to apply to Bree. Oops!

My issue isn't so much with the subject as with the particular perspective and tone employed. I think a broader question about participation in expressions of sexuality in SL could be interesting, although probably also pointless, as there are likely to be as many different answers as there are people responding. But Bree starts out by stigmatizing those who do not engage in sex here by excluding them. She doesn't ask why someone like myself doesn't have sex -- she asks everyone else who does what they think of "me" and others like me: The perspective here is clear: "normal" people who have sex ("you") are being asked to describe their attitude towards those ("others") who do not. And those others are all grouped together into a miscellaneous and slightly "odd" grab bag of perspectives, most of which carry somewhat negative connotations. And why would Bree deliberately and ostentatiously strike out "choose"? To suggest that it is not a "choice," but rather that we're all too sad and pathetic to "get any"? The overall perspective is clear: "Hey, normal people like me! Whaddya think about those slightly weird and/or pathetic people who don't enjoy sex here?" Add to that her suggestion that we would be "better suited" to Horizons, because of course we must all be ANTI-sex, and don't want to engage in a virtual world where others are enjoying it, and you have an instance of pretty obnoxious judgments being levelled against those who are "different" because they don't do sex: When you are stigmatizing and generalizing about the behaviour that you are asking about from the outset, you are also excluding and being condescending. Ask the broader question if you want. But don't commence from the position that "we" should judge "others" who are not like "us."

No, Bree, that is not what your OP asks. You ask what "we" think of people who don't have sex in SL. You actually display zero interest in why some prefer not to engage in this activity, and instead focus directly upon judging them. And here, you do it again: What an utterly dismissive and insulting thing to say. Again, you clearly don't give a damn about knowing the complex reasons behind the decisions some of us make here. This is about judging, not about understanding.

I wonder how much of this is a generational thing? In RL clubs now you can grind with a guy on the dance floor and it's really seen at most as a form of flirtation -- not as an invitation to sex. At least, that seems to be true among experienced club goers, although there will always be that guy who sees any form of physical contact on the dance floor as an invitation for more, and will push and push. Whereas with some older men, sometimes just touching their arm as you're talking can interpreted as a sexual come-on. At least, that's been my experience.

See? SEE? What did I say? That's a lovely pic! And, I'm sure, a very nice tea. (So long as it's green tea. Or Earl Grey, with a slice of lemon.)

I can't even . . . No. Just no.

Wow, Bree. What you been smoking lately? I've been called a "prude" on occasion for objecting to certain kinds of pornographic representations of women -- as though "sex" were the issue, rather than "sexism" -- but, honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would ask this kind of question, other than in the sort of quasi-trolling hope that it will cause a ruckus? In any case, I'm delighted to identify myself with the overwhelming consensus here: I don't care, and I don't judge people for ether having lots of sex, or none at all. I also want to echo Coffee's point: you've thrown a lot of terms together as though there was an equivalency. Someone, for instance, who is Ace couldn't be more unlike an Incel. And it's actually kind of obnoxious to associate them. What I REALLY want to talk about is people who don't dance. I mean, seriously . . . what kind of a loser doesn't dance? 'Cause if they don't dance, well . . . they're no friends of mine.

Thank you! You're very sweet! Now, stop griping and post more photos please.