Jump to content

Scylla Rhiadra

Resident
  • Posts

    19,693
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    178

Everything posted by Scylla Rhiadra

  1. Seicher! It was a great pic, actually! She's a really good photographer: I miss her. But yeah, not the kind of pic I'd do . . .
  2. "Are you a bank account? Because you've got my interest!" (C'mon Love, you can do better! She's heard all these before!) 😏
  3. Thank you! I don't know though. Rowan rolls her eyes when I walk into the room, Arielle won't acknowledge me when I bump into her at the supermarket, and Love has been using my posts as doorstops and coffee coasters! /me sniffs
  4. Indeed. I HOPE they are complicated, and I hope they do take time over this. What I really don't want to see is something fast, easy, and facile, as a few are advocating here.
  5. I think this is the problem: we just don't know enough about what LL perceives as "the problem," or the ways they might be considering for dealing with it -- whatever "it" is. So we're all busy here defining what we think the problem(s) might be, and proposing solutions to issues that we ourselves have decided are "important," without any possible reference to what might actually be coming down the pipe. Given the paucity of information, this was probably inevitable.
  6. I agree. I'd like to see us moving away from a discussion of how we define child avatars (and deal with them once they've been defined), because I don't actually think it's very relevant or helpful. It's why posted about the problems associated with identifying and policing bodies -- this becomes nothing more than a means for people to start policing others.
  7. Well, yes, possibly. There's a fine line between what we might call "community policing," which is the basis for governance in SL (i.e., LL doesn't look for infractions, but relies upon us to report them), and the kind of paranoia that you are describing. At its worst, the latter can become vigilantism.
  8. I think, personally, that the bolded part is key. Don't pre-emptively decide that someone who "looks young" is a risk. Rather, judge them by what they do. And engaging in sex, or hanging out in sex clubs, are activities and choices, rather than a way of representing.
  9. In some ways, I agree, Alwin. I've butted in here because of the way in which I saw the conversation turning. At the same time, Oberwager's post does focus upon a*e play. So the discussion here can be seen as an extension of his promise to address that problem: what exactly does that look like?
  10. Yes, very much so. But it's not going to be easy to determine what "sexualizes a younger avatar." An example: what about a student's school desk with adult animations? Is that enabling a*e play? Arguably, it's designed for it. Or is it?
  11. Yes, exactly. Enforcement of existing restrictions.
  12. Yeah. And that's exactly why the focus should NOT be upon establishing "rules" for how people represent. You know, I'm sure, that I agree with you about those who represent as "childish" women at clubs and such: whether or not they are engaging in actual a*e play or not, they are appealing to a cultural tendency to infantilize women, and find such infantilization "sexy" and appealing. But flagging people on the basis of what they wear, how large their breasts are, etc., is a terribly blunt instrument, and it will, in practice, inevitably end up hurting women more than it hurts men. My avatar is short by SL standards, at 180cm (my RL height). And I have small breasts -- again, by SL standards. Do I need someone telling me that I need to be taller and have larger boobs?
  13. I think we're definitely moving in that direction, based upon what I'm seeing here, and on social media. Oberwager's post is (unintentionally) going to exacerbate that, as people cast about for an "easy" solution to a perplexing problem. One such easy solution is banning child avatars. That will change nothing. Yes. This.
  14. And yet . . . I do NOT have statistical evidence for this, but based on the size and popularity of such groups and places, I'd lay money that the vast majority of a*e play in Second Life is centred on women who represent as "teens" in sexy school RP, incest RP, etc. And they tend to use very adult bodies, sporting large breasts and hourglass shapes. But it's ok, because they also insist (despite RPing someone in Grade 10) that they are 18+ . . . (The educational system in SL clearly sucks. Women keep getting held back!)
  15. Too much work. Unless it involves nothing more than reclining on a couch being hand-fed peeled grapes, of course.
  16. I think that's true, but I do think it's also true that we tend to fall back on a very old way of thinking about this sort of thing: if women are somehow associated, even as victims, with an activity we've come to deem unacceptable, then clearly it is somehow the woman's fault. We're not very far off here from resorting to the old-think approach to this: "Well, what did you expect, if you dressed like that?"
  17. What's rather interesting about this conversation -- and the reason I yelled "Bingo" -- is that it has come to focus nearly exclusively on how women represent in SL. Body shape, height, breast size, what we're wearing -- it's not just kiddie avatars we are talking about policing here, but all women. What is a "permissible" look if you represent as female? What will get you "banned"? Which is especially interesting given that, as I recall, nearly all of the instances of s*xual a*e play discussed in the Medium article were about male children. Weird, huh? It's almost as though the urge to police women's bodies has this sort of irresistible appeal . . .
  18. Well, this kind of discussion has been happening for a while, and the current clime has certainly amplified it. I sincerely hope that the tenor of those discussions does not mirror the ones LL must now be having. The analogy, I'll admit, is not an exact one one, but it's a little as though someone had decided that the best way to deal with the prevalence of Dolcett, snuff p*rn, and r*pe play was to start banning or policing female avatars.
  19. No, and when they do make changes -- to the ToS, to policy, or whatever -- they are going to be very careful to ensure that those responses do not seem to verify or legitimate some of the allegations. They will, of necessity, be "general" and "broad" rather than specific.
×
×
  • Create New...