Scylla Rhiadra

Is that a statement, or a question? Why are they not "children"?

Sure. But the problem with finding RL analogues for these things is that this isn't RL, it's SL. In RL, children generally bathe naked. Well, not anymore in SL. In RL, a child might well be asleep in the room next to that in which her parents are having sex. Definitely not in SL. It's not hard to come up with RL scenarios for nearly anything regarding children and nudity and/or sexuality that are quite innocent. "My infant daughter emerged from her bath and came into the hallway still wet and naked while I was talking to a neighbour at the front door!" Could happen!!! But not in SL.

Yes, thanks Keira!

Yep. Same. All of this is true. But consider context and use. In what sorts of context would a child avatar need to be wandering around in a training bra, with nothing on top? And if she is wearing something over it, why does it need to be a "training bra," with light shading to show some signs of developing breasts? This isn't about what happens to RL children. RL children don't have "baked on" underwear. It's about what will fly, and how it will be perceived here, in SL.

It is, to say the least, an overstatement. And I agree that this isn't really a slippery slope at all; on the contrary, by clarifying the rules, it's a good deal less treacherous to navigate than it once was. BUT I also understand, and empathize, with those who are upset about this. Unfortunately, we all knew something like this was coming: the consolation is that it could have been much much worse.

Well, this is very dramatic! Do you really think that rules restricting some aspects of kiddie RP and representation is quite in the same category as warnings about the rise of fascism, though?

Maddy?????

I do take your point. Personally (and there are those here who will disagree with this), I'm tired of the sexualization of adult breasts too. But we do live in a culture in which breasts are sexualized. And a training bra is very likely to be perceived as a sexualization of young girls, if only merely because it suggests that they are developing breasts. Now, if this were tagged as for "teens" rather than "child," there might not be the same issue? Understand, though, that I'm not speaking from a personal moral perspective here. I'm thinking about 1) how LL might perceive such items, and 2) how they are possibly likely to be perceived by those who do engage in a*eplay.

Thanks! And I am pretty sure I saw something about that a while back, but I don't think it's actually in the Community Guidelines. Maybe I'm wrong, and just paranoid?

Well, the guidelines clearly state "a modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies, is not transparent, does not match the skin tone, and may not be removed."

That's a really interesting point, and one that LL could do well to clarify. ETA: Oh frick, I forgot that we're not supposed to tag Lindens.

But a BOM tank top is not explicitly a "training bra." Which the second one is. And if you'll look closely, it has the AO shading to prove it. Kathlen's point, as I take it, was at least in part that these are being marketed for kiddie avatars.

. . . on a "child."

Yes, I agree. Also, yes. Which is my point about how uncomfortable I might feel about some Lolita looks I've seen in SL. Not at all in disagreement with you here, Orwar.

The second one, definitely. The first one is one of those ambiguous instances. It DOES "look" like a child, but you'll find plenty of similar instances in Manga and anime that are not representing children. The tell, of course, is the tag "child" that's obviously in there. I suspect if that were removed, and anything else that brought this item up in a search for children, it would be considered permissible. Which is not to say that I don't find it somewhat suspect.

Same applies, I think. You must be wearing visible underwear.

Moreover, one of the more important models for Lolita fashion is "Alice" from Lewis Carroll's novels. Alice's age is not specified, as I recall, but she's very clearly a pre-teen, or just entering puberty. I have very mixed feelings about Lolita fashion, and about some Japanese Manga and anime in general. I am willing to accept that someone wearing Lolita fashion is not "representing" as a minor, but there is absolutely no doubt that there is an element of infantilization involved: that's a very clear part of the culture. Were I running an Adult venue, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable with some of the Lolita-inspired avis I've seen in SL.

Yes, I think that's pretty clear. You must cover those regions, not merely alpha them out or "hide" the offending bits.

I'd have thought that LL is not going to bring the ban hammer down hard on violators until they are reasonably sure everyone is aware of the new rule changes. But you're right -- how long will it take for new skins with baked-on modesty layers to be generally available? Not overnight, for sure. If you wear BOM underwear, which cannot be simply derendered, I'd think you're pretty safe. Even if a griefer does derender your clothing, you'll not be naked, and so not AR-able.

The only way you'll know for certain that they are RPing as a teen is if they tell you they are. That's VERY different from someone wearing a purpose-created child, tween, or teen body, where your appearance makes that incontrovertibly obvious. So, let's say that I am wearing a Maitreya Petite. Am I likely to walk into a club, and announce to everyone that I'm RPing as a 16 year old? Suppose I am challenged? "You're RPing a minor, and shouldn't be here!" I just respond -- "No, I'm not, you can see I'm wearing an adult body." How are you going to enforce this????

Yes, this. On the other hand, because a*eplay involving teens is less obviously in violation of rules and statutes -- in other words, there's a kind of plausible deniability -- I suspect that LL is less concerned about it. And, recognizes too that it is much more difficult to enforce. Suppose someone is, to use the example I've given above, is engaged in having sex with their high school teacher. They are ARed, but protest that their profile clearly states that they are 18 or older -- and the reason that they are still in the 11th grade, apparently, is that they failed a lot. All part of the RP, right? 😏

Ok, thanks, this is what I thought you were getting at! So, you're suggesting that no one should be permitted to represent as an under-18 person wearing a body that is generally considered an "adult" body? I see the point of that, but have no idea how you police it. Most people doing "sexy high school" RP -- which, really, is a form of a*eplay, whatever the justification given -- also explicitly say in their profiles "AVATAR 18+" or something like that, so they have an "excuse" if they get ARed. Again, someone wearing an adult body (and it needn't even be flat chested or petite) can simply switch back and forth between representing as a teen or an adult by simply saying so. How do you enforce this?

Thank you. Good catch! Although this doesn't answer the question, which is what originally prompted this, of whether an animesh child or baby also needs baked-in undies.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I could be wearing a Maitreya Flat Chest or Petite (and most usually I am wearing the latter, or Legacy Perky), and simply role play as a teen even if I am most often representing myself as an adult. There's no official "underage designation" here. I'm not trying to be difficult, I am just not sure what your point is.

This is a good point, as from a legal viewpoint -- I imagine, anyway -- it doesn't make a lot of difference (assuming there is no actual RL minor involved, of course). A "cartoon" depiction of sexualized a*eplay is still illegal in some places, even if there is only one person involved in that depiction.