Ishtara Rothschild

Nacy Nightfire wrote: "I wouldn't kick out Sean Connery or Bea Arthur, both of which still have sex appeal in my opinion. " Bea Arthur died in 2009. As a result she's probably lost a bit of her sex appeal. Great Actress however and extremely funny gal. She'll be missed. Oops. I'm sorry to hear that. I was thinking of Bea Arthur in Golden Girls, I mean of the way she looked at that time. When was that? Yesterday? Last week? I have no sense of time. The 1990's were only a few months ago in my world Anyway, I agree with your assessment of Mrs. Arthur, with the addition that I think she would have made a great Domme. ETA: Next time I'm about to call someone attractive, I'll make sure to check their pulse first

SL is as clean and safe as the internet, which you already appear to be using.

amarock Amat wrote: yeps *sighs* Think someone could make a killing doing a money exchange for L's here in sl lol? There are some third party exchange sites who do just that. You can find links to the officially sanctioned non-scam sites in the SL Wiki: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Linden_Dollar_Marketplace I personally use Virwox, which also offers direct bank withdrawal. But if you live in the USA, the exchange rate might not be very appealing.

All the hair that I bought from her shop was modifiable. It might show up in your inventory as no-mod, but that's only because the hair contains no-mod scripts (color changing scripts for the hat, not laggy resize scripts). You can still mod it after rezzing it.

Carole Franizzi wrote: Write to your RL town council about that – I can’t think what else to suggest. ... Maybe a letter to the Pope….??? ... I think a staunch Catholic might disagree that he’s worshipping death and torture, but I’ll leave that to a staunch Catholic to debate with you. You are the one who brought up religious depictions of torture scenes as an example, probably because you thought that I could hardly disagree with you and call something offensive that is supposed to be "holy". I commented on your example. That's how forum discussions work. Carole Franizzi wrote: Carole: But….but…but...we’re discussing a very risque’ sex sim in SL, populated by very risque’ adults, not RL kiddies on their way to school! Gawd, when you digress, you really digress… Of course these avatars are controlled by legal adults. I'm not trying to protect anybody when I ban a child avatar (and I'm extremely lenient with my definition. I'd never complain about an adolescent, 14+ looking av). The only thing that I'm protecting is the sexualized atmosphere of my sim, as well as the mood and enjoyment of other visitors. Someone with the appearance of a pre-pubescent child tends to disturb people in an adult establishment (not to mention that this violates the ToS). Carole Franizzi wrote: You find avatars sexually attractive? Any avie, however pretty, looks like a cartoon to me. If I had a sim and I limited entrance to avies I found sexually attractive, it would be an empty place indeed. We’re on two different planets. For me – pretty or ugly, youthful or decrepit - no cartoon character ever will ever “do it for me”. Ok…so you find avies sexually attractive…let’s go with that concept then…so, only avatars deemed by you to be sexually attractive are allowed at your place? Are the ones which you feel to be unattractive allowed to shop at your store? Have you ever had to stop an unattractive client who’s just spent a load of money on your goods from going onto your beach? I bet that would be embarrassing… And another thing - do the males who come to your beach have to pass your attractiveness test too? How do you manage that, since you’re not a heterosexual woman? Do you chuck out the AO-less ones in freebie skins, with their freebie hair hovering several inches above their heads too? What about the pea-headed urban warriors with arms thicker than their waists and shorter than their feet? Cuz we gals really don’t like the look of them. And, what about an old man avie? Would he be shown the door too, or is it just the female of the species which offends your eyes when past a certain age? About that “certain age” thing…I’d be dead curious to know where your cut-off point for no longer being considered attractive because too old lies. Yes, I'm indeed able to find an avatar sexually attractive, or a cartoon figure for that matter. I might be gender-confused, but I'm still a guy. Which means that I'll find two stylized lines on a piece of paper sexually attractive if they happen to form a female hourglass shape. There is very little that doesn't excite a typical man on some level Nonetheless, I don't find all of my visitors appealing, and I can't deny the fact that I'm mainly attracted to female avatars despite my being bisexual. There are very few men that I find appealing beyond the contents of their underpants (such as Pierce Brosnan and Eric Bana, to name a few). Carrot-shaped, pinheaded Conans are a huge turn-off for me too. So are newbies in ugly freebie skins. But that is not what this is about. I have the feeling that you're deliberately misunderstanding my intent. I'm not trying to enforce my own subjective standard of beauty by banning everyone who I personally find unattractive. I'm not discriminating against older looking avatars. I wouldn't kick out Sean Connery or Bea Arthur, both of which still have sex appeal in my opinion. Let me remind you of the way in which you described your avatar (you're correct that I can't judge your av without having seen it inworld, but your description was very detailed): "She isn’t at all pretty. In fact, she’s rather ugly by anyone’s standards. [...] How would you feel if she wore one of her strappy latex numbers which lets everything (and I mean everything) hang out and with her varicose veins layer in full view? [...] if I voluntarily wear the most elderly skin I have (one which I made myself) which is covered in moles, ages-spots, broken veins, varicose veins, and painted-on saggy rolls of flesh [...] The mental image evoked by these lines tells me that you went out of your way to... well, probably not to make Carole controversial and disgusting, but you definitely are trying to make a point and evoke a certain reaction, which happens to be the goal of most artists. But the point that you are making with your av is at odds with the things that people have come to expect from sex locations, especially sex locations in a world where we can change our appearances at will. You are not trying to be physically attractive, nor are you trying to be accepted for who you are in RL (at least I don't think so). I'm not sure what it is exactly that you're trying to do, other than showing your artistic skills and looking to strike up conversations with people who share your sense of humor and can appreciate a very unique avatar. I'm fine with that, but a sex sim is not really the right place to reenact scenes from Little Britain. In a sex location, you would look as misplaced as a dinosaur avatar or the otherwise gorgeous Johnny Depp in his Mad Hatter or Edward Scissorhands getup. I wouldn't mind running into any of these avatars in a club or a shopping mall, but there are places where I don't expect them and have to assume that they are attempting to stir up quite the opposite of sensual or romantic feelings (unlike those pinheaded Conans, who seem to think of themselves as irresistable). That is my entire point in this thread. Your hurt feelings over my comments, after you yourself descrived how you deliberately rendered Carole anything but attractive, remind me of furries or child avatars who complain about being banned from themed clubs and RP sims. They haven't been discriminated against, they merely weren't dressed for the occasion.

I'm not sure if I have the time to reply to all your points in great detail. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on a few things. Such as the simple fact that nature is sexist, that one cannot talk about evolutionary biology and psychological gender differences without being politically incorrect -- which says more about political correctness than about the natural sciences, imho -- and that the way in which we like to rationalize and intellectualize our basic urges does nothing at all to help explain them. The subconscious instincts and urges of anatomically modern humans have evolved over the course of 200,000 years, and the mere 10-12,000 years that we've lived in halfway civilized (read: sedentary agricultural) societies has done very little to change our human nature. The genders are nothing alike, no matter how much we want them to be equal. Women are still subconsciously selecting for high-status providers (and, at the same time, for hunky macho types as the perfect sires, often behind the providers' back). Men simply chase tail at every opportunity (those pigs), and that tail had better look young and pretty. That's not a derogative view, it's not judgemental, it just is. PS: When I speak of a selection for certain traits, I'm referring to sexual selection in a strictly biological sense. This doesn't mean that any gender gets to select their perfect mates while the other gender has no say in the matter, although it can play out in this way depending on the socio-cultural environment. People will evaluate their chances and settle for less if need be, and those at the bottom of the desirability barrel don't get to select at all. I just wanted to clarify this point because you seemed to have problems with this term. As I said, biology and related sciences are inevitably sexist and politically incorrect, because that's what nature is. Carole Franizzi wrote in part: Re: the divine creatures in your hypothetical brothel…now, I’m truly no expert (really and truly) but I rather suspect that not all the ladies who take up such a career are awe-inspiring beauties. Many, but not all, may have wrinkle-free skins. Some will be very pretty, but not all will. If I ever get the chance to see inside a brothel with my own eyes, I suspect that, hyper-sensitive as I am, I’d be affected by a strong sense of depression and sadness over women having to sell themselves to make a living. I’d be wondering how many had been victims of abuse when still young girls, how many had a drug habit to support and how many were affected by disease, if any were being forced to “perform”… You talk about a brothel as a place where you expect to see beauty. My expectation is that it would be unspeakably ugly. How do we rank one person’s perception of ugliness over the other? I find the mere concept of a brothel painfully unbeautiful and you find the pole-dancing granny horrific – but since both are subjective perceptions, who’s to say which is valid? I say this because you mentioned the brothel as a place which for you automatically conjures up a sense of pleasing aesthetics – but we have to be aware that not all will share the same vision of what constitutes beauty. At the risk of lowering myself even further in your opinion, I wasn't speaking of a hypothetical brothel. Prostitution is legal in Germany, and I know from experience that it has nothing in common with the ugly preconceptions of people who live in countries where this ancient trade has been needlessly criminalized. Everything turns ugly when prohibited and driven into back alleys. Think of the historical alcohol prohibition in the USA, or Dutch coffee shops versus illegal drug trade and drug-related gang wars. No woman (or man, for that matter; there are many callboys in Germany, so there is no need to make this about gender) is forced to prostitute herself in a country where people can easily apply for welfare or unemployment benefits. Both procuration and human trafficking are, of course, highly illegal around here. Brothels are merely places that rent rooms to working women (and men) and provide a meeting area as well as security (bouncers) for a small fee. Nobody is forced to work there against their will. The women who work in these establishments, or run their own business from home, are typically women who choose to earn considerable amounts of money and retire at age 40 rather than slave away in a badly paid office job until they hit 65. There are also many students, similar to college-age strippers in the USA. Student loans are easily available and nobody needs a job in order to finance their academic studies, but a job as a sex worker gives students a chance to live in a nice apartment and drive a decent car long before they start to pursue their real career. Unlike a minimum wage hairdresser or pedicurist, sex workers can pick and choose their customers (no, I haven't been turned down as of yet ), and it's self-understood that there are regular health checks and that safe sex is a must. I can imagine much worse jobs, such as cleaning toilets, and the payment for those jobs are peanuts in comparison. In the end, it's a job like any other occupation in the service industry, only that it pays exceptionally well for comparatively little time and effort. And is it really so hard to imagine that some women work in this area because they simply enjoy sex? There are even sex workers who have chosen to work with physically or mentally disabled people, such as Nina de Vries. She thinks that this is her calling, and how could anyone argue with that? Ms. de Vries undoubtedly does more good than Catholic missionaries. I find it quite unfair to push these people into the same corner as drug-addicted hookers in countries that criminalize prostitution. Prostitution in Germany is a matter of choice, and it's all but ugly and filthy. It is also worth noting in this context that Germany has a very low number of sex crimes. According to UN statistics, there were 29 cases of rape per 100,000 in the USA in 2009, 23 cases in the UK, and only 9 cases in Germany. I haven't looked into depression and suicide statistics yet, but I bet that there are also less people (especially less men) who commit suicide in Germany. Sex and physical intimacy are important human needs that have all kinds of health benefits. Denying physically unattractive or badly socialized people an active sex life could be deemed a form of discrimination, which perfectly fits the topic.

Suki Hirano wrote: And first post already mentions I checked Maitreya's ymre hair, the hairstyle is not what I'm looking for. Maitreya's hair products are modifiable, which allows you to unlink the hat and wear it with any hairstyle you like You only need to position it yourself and maybe resize it a little.

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Ishy, you proabably only get your views of what goes on in America from reading online stuff right? Well here's a site you can read from for a while: http://hillbuzz.org/ I followed the link, scrolled down a little, read something about "gaystapo" bullies and labor unions being Obama's thug army, and closed the site again. Sorry, but... I really do get my views from websites and a few U.S. TV shows, but I'm a bit selective there. PS: I also googled the name of the blog author and was surprised to find out that he's not a gay-hating conservative, but instead a self-loathing gay Christian conservative with a penchant for Hillary Clinton (who, according to him, is disadvantaged by not being black). He claims that the religious right doesn't hate gays as much as the Democrats do :matte-motes-bored:, completely ignoring the fact that his fellow conservatives are publishing things about him like "Let’s not be fooled by so-called 'conservative' gay activists like DuJan…they are in line with the marxists". I can't even begin to understand all these mental balancing acts.

Well, she is pretty attractive, I'll give her that. There is something about women with guns who make it a hobby to shoot endangered species from a helicopter :matte-motes-inlove:

Thanks for the heads-up. That is tricky inded. People who are outraged over supposedly having their work stolen are probably less likely to stop and check the URL. And why would anybody distrust a person who has been so helpful? It seems one can't be paranoid enough.

He really does have a great voice Alas, looks are everything in the music business. If you don't look like a model, you can only be successful in genres such as heavy metal. And even there people like Axl Rose and Jon Bon Jovi become vastly more popular than insanely talented but visually unspectacular singers like Ronnie James Dio.

Don't be petty. We've had our fair share of political discussions in GD in the past, some of which you have participated in if I remember correctly. I don't recall any complaints about political debates prior to Randall blowing a fuse and thoroughly derailing this thread with inane tea party BS.

Randall Ahren wrote: How stupid do you have to be to let the economy get this bad? You should ask George W. Bush that question. When Obama took over, unemployment was 5.6%, the debt was 500 billion, and the US had an AAA rating. Unemployment is now more than 9%, the debt is two trillion, and the US has lost its AAA rating. Sure. Obama is also a muslim terrorist with a fake birth certificate. Seriously though, when Obama took over, the deficit was 1.4 trillion, not 500 billion. It was Bush who ran up this debt, after Clinton left office with a surplus of 128 billion. That's why you need to ask Bush how this could have happened, not Obama, or people who make fun of somebody who has time and time again proven to be a complete and utter airhead. I've found these numbers on the website of the United States Government Printing Office (GPO). Where did you get yours from, I wonder? The GPO has also released some very interesting charts that you might find enlightening (edited to add: One chart is actually from the Bureau of Labor, the other are taken from the GPO website): This shows the effect of Bush's maladministration and Obama's stimulus package, which has helped create 1.8 million jobs in the private sector. And how much did this cost, in comparison with Bush's little "God told me to invade Iraq because Saddam tried to kill mah daddy" adventure? See below: This also shows that not all government spending is evil. It entirely depends on how and where the money is spent. And keep in mind that a lot of Obama's budget is wasted on the two pointless wars that he inherited, both courtesy of Bush. Of course you can and should hold it against Obama that he failed to end these wars. Discredit where discredit is due. I'm not exactly an Obama fan, but he is obviously doing something right as far as the economy is concerned, and I won't let you get away with pulling fake numbers out of thin air (or with citing tea party numbers, which are just as fake). Here's another chart, which illustrates the enormous debt that Obama inherited and shows where the budget is headed: PS: Palin managed to increase the long-term debt of the city of Wasilla from 1.12 million in 1996 to a whopping 24.8 million in 2002. Do you really think she'd do a better job than Obama?

There have been a number of Playboy-style SL publications and also a few hardcore magazines. They come and go. (I've advertised in one of them, and another one featured an interview with me back when my items were more popular). Anyway, Immy is right that you don't need to worry about legalities as long as you sell your magazine on adult land or mark it as adult on the Marketplace. Peggy's point is moot because it applies to all adult items in SL, some of which are a lot more controversial than a polygon porn mag People might as well rez BDSM furniture or wear prim genitals in PG areas, there is nothing we can do about that. It's LL's job to make sure that only adults get into adult areas and have access to adult Marketplace listings, and that these adults don't rez naughty content in places with a G or M rating.

It's aluminium in German too And I sure hope nobody wants to dispute that our spelling is correct. We Germans have started wars over lesser disagreements. Besides, there are a lot more questionable and disagreeable names in chemistry. Such as Fucitol, a sugar alcohol made from a fermented seaweed of the Fucus family (although that's kind of aptly named for an alcohol, imho). Or Cummingtonite, a mineral named after the town of Cummington, Massachusetts. No kidding!

Innula Zenovka wrote: For what it's worth, using animated textures is far kinder to the sim than repeatedly changing stuff on a timer. That's true. Several objects on a 1 second timer or faster can lag the hell out of a sim. That's why I wouldn't advise to go below 3 seconds if anybody uses the above script. Perhaps better make it 5-10 seconds, that'll still look realistic. I mainly used a time for the freebie neon sign (made it for the freebie section in a friend's shop) because glow makes it more realistic, and the timer allows to add things like sound effects.

I'd use glow on a timer: integer toggle;default{ state_entry() { llSetTimerEvent(3); } timer() { toggle=!toggle; if(toggle) llSetPrimitiveParams([PRIM_GLOW, 0, 0.15]); // the first zero after PRIM_GLOW indicates the top side. Change it // to 1 - 5 to light up the other sides, or use ALL_SIDES instead. else llSetPrimitiveParams([PRIM_GLOW, 0, 0.0]); }} In case you need a texture to try it out:

Charolotte Caxton wrote: This one is cute https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Maitreya-Ymre-II-Demo/1616847 I second that Maitreya has several hairstyles with fedoras and beanies. My forum avatar is wearing one of them.

It's part of the welcome package for new residents.

I misread the thread title and was about to agree I sometimes have days where all posts confuse me, including my own.

Only Major Tom knows.

PeterCanessa Oh wrote: ... In cases where people have MANY sales the best system uses a bot (scripted avatar) as the owner of the vendors. This, as an avatar, is paid immediately on each transaction. Once it exceeds a 'float' account-balance to cover genuine refunds it transfers the rest of its money to your real avatar. That way you are protected from having all your money stolen (hacks, etc. can only take the bot's float) while still getting all the vendor automation features you can use. You were faster Anyway, remember the times when LL had daily statistics on the SL homepage, including the amount of money spent inworld? They simply added all inworld payments, including the money that circulated between alts. I guess vendor systems like that greatly boosted the SL economy, at least on the paper

The reason that most vendor scripts ask for debit permission is that the customer needs to be refunded if s/he pays the wrong amount. Let's say your item is priced at L$400, but the customer only pays L$200. Of course every decent vendor script will check the received amount against the sales price, but at that point the money is already in your account. This is a major design flaw of SL, the funds should be held in escrow. So in order to refund the L$200, the script needs the permission to rob you blind It's only sensible to be suspicious. As a rule of thumb, I wouldn't trust any free vendor system unless the scripts were modifiable and I had checked them. And wherever possible, I'd use a Linden vendor (i.e. a simple prim configured to sell its contents) instead of a scripted system, for sim performance reasons.

You're a lot safer without it Shared media is quite a security risk.

The regular price is $125 in tier and a setup fee of $375, according to http://secondlife.com/land/privatepricing.php