Scylla Rhiadra

They DO????

Yeah . . . no. This isn't funny. What it is, is enormously offensive. Not because it employs explicit sexual language -- I couldn't care less about that. And not because it violates some imaginary standard of "normative" sexuality. No, it's offensive because it's deeply sexist and homophobic, tendencies it barely even tries to conceal by lampshading all the way through ("Of course we don't watch rape porn because here we respect women!" *wink wink chortle chortle guffaw*). I'm not going to report this post, because I only do that for things that are either obvious spam, or abuse targeted at an individual. But I strongly encourage you to remove the video: it's insulting and really really stupid.

That's frequently how I do it too, although less commonly now than in the past. But yes, it does work really well with that kind of dress! Cool and fun video, Catrie, and great pics!

Awww! You really did it! 🙂 Wow. Talk about complicated! It sort of ranges from gentle wafting to small explosions, depending on how you move! I'm all the more full of admiration for your two pics of it, Catrie: it must have been a real challenge to capture such a dynamic garment well!

I love this picture.

I wondered if that might not be the case. I've seen a few newish mesh hairs that incorporate flexi quite well, but not dresses. Until we get better mesh swishiness (that's the technical term, right?) that's probably the best way to go. I think we need a video or GIF of you moving!!!!

This, and your pic of this dress on the other thread, are both great! How does the gown move??? Does it swish? I've never seen a mesh dress of this kind of complexity!

Unless you're Mark Zuckerberg, I guess, in which case they are gold? It's hard to know what to make of this kind of information, beyond perhaps the sense that this thread is becoming more popular. I don't really do social media, so I'm always amused by the artificiality of the way in which likes and mentions and so forth are assumed to be meaningful. On Flickr, for instance, I think it's probably true that the best photographers are the recipients of thousands of followers and "faves" (I myself have a legion of 46 followers - go me!), but it's also true that I look at some of the pics that cross my feed with, sometimes, hundreds of "faves" and think "WTF?". My sense is that you can game the system there (and probably on other social media venues too) by simply connecting with lots of people, and creating a large network of followed/followers. I have no idea why one would want to do this, but I suppose it's harmless enough? In most parts of this forum, I think the likes are pretty meaningless. A really successful post -- like, an outstandingly popular one -- gets 10-12 likes in General Discussion. Here, that's the low end of standard for pretty much any pic you post. And I'm completely good with that, because the one meaningful function that likes have here is providing at least a pseudo-concrete way for us to support each other. I really like that a brand new poster can put up a pic and, almost regardless of how "good" it is, can get 15 or more likes on their first try. As a way of gauging the quality of pics, the likes are pretty meaningless. But as an index of how welcoming and supportive this little community is, they are actually kind of ok.

I get the sense that everyone who did FLF yesterday probably picked up the Pixicat yellow belted tee that was going. I certainly did, and even got one for Laskya: it's a really nice garment. But I sort of surprised myself by buying, and sort of loving, the Blueberry tank that was also available. It's really not my usual deal, but it's beautifully made. It crept in under the radar, and caught me unawares.

OMG Skell. You are an absolute saint. Whatever we're paying you isn't enough.

I totally did.

Well, I just tried to get there, and SL maps said it couldn't find the region. IT'S A SIGN! FROM THE SL GODS! /me falls to the ground, trembling and weeping in fear and awe

Yeah, it was. I got the top and the hair. Decided I didn't like the shoes enough, and that I didn't need another set of leggings. Except that now I'm thinking maybe I do. Aaaaarrrrrrrggggghhhhhh . . .

We've noted this about you, and are appropriately appreciative. It's rare to find such public spiritedness in one so utterly obsessed.

Don't you always? You need to ask?

Yeah, agreed on all counts. I think that the people who post here, everyone, should be a little proud of themselves that they've contributed making this a kind of forum destination. Again, yes. I'm even a little puzzled about why one of mine is on the list, as I don't think it's very good. I think a lot of factors, of which "quality" (whatever that means) go into the number of likes. So yes, it's nice that I have two pics on the list (*preen preen*), but, as Sara herself says, it'd be a mistake to read too much into it. I'd especially say that that is true for people who aren't getting 30+ likes: a lot of this is probably also about rewarding regular posters. The other thing that worries me just a teeny bit: with the exception of Skell, most of the "top" posts are of fairly conventional women avatars. I don't think that the men who post here get enough attention, and, equally, those who post as furries or other less traditional avatars. Maybe that's because some of us have a harder time judging them? Or maybe it's just because we tend to be most interested in people who are like us. Completely. And actually, I have seen a lot of newer people posting here recently, which is really great. One of the things I really like about this thread, apart from the lovely pics and the opportunity to be narcissistic, is the sense that this is a really welcoming, non-judgmental place to post. I hope that more people will see that they can put themselves forward here and be welcomed. Yessss. And that includes people who post here knowing that they don't have the technical skills, or the high-end computer, or whatever, to produce really polished pictures. I just like seeing people here, however "good" (again, whatever that means) their pics may or may not be.

Oh, ok. This was going to be my next question: to what degree does the prevalence of more recent 30+ posts represent an overall rise in participation and/or engagement with the thread? If this thread is more popular now, I wonder why?

I'm a bit unclear on why this is awful?

Did you respond: "I'm not interested in someone who only needs a minute"?

This is completely adorable, and absolutely perfect. (As is your name!)

Very much so. I read a really interesting paper a while ago that used Kuhn precisely in this way, to contextualize the development of the social sciences in American universities at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. The way in which paradigms are constructed across the disciplines is fascinating. Unfortunately, too many people seem to be imprisoned within their own. Occasionally one runs across a third variant: someone who wants to sound like an egghead, but really shouldn't try. I was hit up by a guy (at the same blues club, coincidentally) a few months ago who, I swear, must have had a thesaurus open in front of him while he tried to chat me up. He clearly believed that the key to sounding erudite was using a five syllable word where a monosyllabic one would have sufficed. It was a painful experience enlivened only a little by his occasional misuse of words.

So, how come pick-up lines never cite C.P. Snow, or Huxley, or interesting stuff? That might actually work! As opposed to evoking icky-icky images of a sexualized house elf.

Yeah. A classic!

Yeah . . . it can unintentionally have the same effect in the social sciences and humanities too. The embarrassment of the so-called Sokal Affair is one example of what can happen when those fields try a little too hard to sound "scientific." It's silly and counterproductive, because the social sciences and humanities have their own procedures and orders of knowledge, with a legitimacy derived logically and internally from their own modes of thinking, rather than imported in a mindless way from entirely different disciplines. I'm all for interdisciplinarity, and I think that the STEM fields have much to offer to the others -- and vice versa -- but interdisciplinary work should involve actually, you know, working with people in other fields, rather than merely appropriating their language. But hey, no listens to me . . .

Yeah. I use the term (the gentleman in question got it from my in-world profile) mostly as a way of showing support for trans identities. But I'm also acutely aware that 1) the trans-cis dichotomy sets up exactly the kind of reductive binary that is problematic in relation to other elements of gender, sexuality, and identity, and 2) the appropriation of a term from chemistry is a rhetorical strategy designed to validate the distinction that it makes by implying that it is "objective" and, most importantly, "scientific." By the time I'd finished explaining some of the the complexities of the term to the guy, he'd pretty much moved along. You can tell I'm pretty good at this, right? And if I'd been in a Harry Potter RP sim when the offer was made, I'd have been unfazed by it! But at a blues club? I mean, sexy or what????