Scylla Rhiadra

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.

True! But doesn't really negate my main point. You still can't "split" a region.

Yeah, I definitely think that this is most problematic aspect of these new rules. Yes, new skins will be required -- but (and this is just a guess!) I think that the new rules are more focused upon obvious minors -- "pre-teens" -- than teens. That's not to say that there is anything in these rules that clearly does not apply to representations of teens, but because the line between how a teen might be represented, and how a 19 year old might look is so very fuzzy, I think LL will be paying much less attention to that.

I think that this is one of those common sense things, though. It's not going to be evident that a fully-clothed avatar is not wearing a modesty layer unless one derenders their clothing. So, in most cases, where the child is wearing clothes, this isn't going to matter. No one will even know (unless they are derendering the clothes, and Governance would be able to detect that. I suspect you'll get into more trouble derendering a child's clothing than by not wearing a modesty layer under mesh or BOM clothes.)

Yep. On the whole, I think LL has historically erred on the side of NOT jumping to conclusions about avatars that might look like children, or about activities that some might deem "inappropriate." It's possible that has changed now, however.

I'd like that too; as Orwar points out above, that's a piece of the puzzle missing here. It would be really difficult to do, however. ETA: And a good instance of that is that (I'm pretty sure) the most popular kind of a*eplay in SL doesn't involve kiddie avatars at all: it's the "sl*tty teen student" and the "daddy's babygirl / incest" play that is most easy to find.

I'm not sure I'd want to give myself that much credit! But it's certainly true places can give me a particular "vibe" that I can often visualize, and sometimes want to capture in a photo. With regard to your role in all of this, let me just say that I actually take very few landscapes. And the vast majority of my photos are taken on my own parcel, with backdrops I've made myself. It's an indication of the lovely work you've done that I was "inspired" (if that's right word!) to deviate from that practice and take photos of Canal City.

Not only useful, but maybe vital in this instance. LL has GOT to make a real effort to ensure that these new rules are well-publicized. Otherwise, there are going to be a lot of people running around in contravention of them without even knowing it. The most obvious instance is the "modesty layer": in theory, anyone who has agreed to this ToS and is wearing a child avatar without a modesty layer is AR-able.

No, this is true of mainland regions as well. The main difference is that we have less control of the ratings for a mainland region, even if one owns the entire thing. For instance, an Adult mainland region must be in Zindra.

This applies, unless I've missed something, only to avatars, not animesh or other representations of children.

I have zero interest in having a child avatar, personally -- but, yes, if I did, I'd actually feel safer under these new rules.

Indeed not. But as the FAQ notes, Governance can (and presumably will) determine if that is what happens during any investigation.