Blaise Glendevon

So, some of us have basically kind of dialed it in on the conversation we've been having in other threads that people react more to facial features than Avatar height as an indication of age.

I don't doubt that there are people violating community norms to create third-party modifications for ferals. But those people are doing so without the authorizations of the body's manufacturers.

Serious answer to a light-hearted question, but all of the major manufacturers of feral avatars are pretty opposed to making them anatomically correct. No one's putting covers on kitty butts, but making third party mods to give your four legged avatar private parts is a good way to get yeeted out of developers groups and permissions for mod kits.

I don't understand how representatives of Linden Labs could answer a question about a manufacturer with any authority at all.

My bad. I made this comment before I saw the moderator's ruling.

We're against child labor 'round here, too.

I wouldn't expect to. If I saw those things on an otherwise mature looking avatar, I'd assume they were depicting women above the age of majority engaging in CG/L dynamics in a consensual kink relationship. You've gone all the wrong way around here. Bodies are a terrible way of determining whether a person (usually an AFAB person, in this conversation) is a legal adult under the standards of the laws LL is governed by. Which is why we're analyzing faces so intently and looking for other context clues.

The new season of Bridgerton drops in 7 days, and I'm generally being unbearable and playing the string covers of pop songs from the show's previous seasons.

Yes. In the language of the law of the United States, to which Linden Labs is beholden, everyone under the age of 18 is a child. Codex Alpha is trying to confuse the issue by making this conversation about avatars that very clearly depict the kinds of children we'd call child-like. Toddler through Middle School. But even teenagers who are under the age of 18, or fictionalized depictions thereof, apply under this policy.

From your first link:

Those overalls are super cute, tho.

Not children. Minors.

Clearly children. And one of them is clearly possessed.

Alwin's avatar is a real edge case for me, because either that's a young man under the age of majority or any number of the trans guys I've known before the vitamin T kicks in.

Sis, it is against terms of service to depict minors, real or imaginary, in sexual situations.

I do wonder if people would be tempted to uncharitably rate gender-nonconforming avatars as suspect, because of the weird cultural perception that gender non-conforming people are performing a fetish.

I think you've missed the point. The new policy forbids the sexualized depiction of minors. It doesn't matter who's doing the depiction.

I would disagree. There were only one or two clear "child" avatars, but several avatars that could read as either teenager under the age of majority OR teenager over the age of majority.

When I joined SL, I was a wee sprite of a girl. Now I wear insoles in my party shoes.

I think we're dialing in on the distinction here. Body type is probably not going to be the dividing line between whether an avatar is welcomed to Total Orgy Island or wherever. Faces are probably going to be the first line of scrutiny, and context going from there.

I feel like we can discuss our own preferred aesthetics and concerns without denigrating the way other people choose to style their pixel people, tho.

Part of what we were chopping up in that other thread. A lot of the big seller mesh heads for women have very youthful features - plump cheeks, big eyes - because that youth coding in our society is also sold as a benchmark of attractiveness in an age-obsessed culture. They're not supposed to look like children, but they are very much supposed to imply a girlishness. Teenagers, in specific, vary in height dramatically. My best guy friend in high school didn't crack 5'5" until junior year. In our class, there was a 6'7" kid in 9th grade. And in my case, I was fully "developed" at 13 but completely unprepared for the attentions of adult men not bothering to pay attention to my generally still-childish conversation and demeanor. Rave culture, Japanese street fashion, and certain vintage aesthetics would like to have a word. Avatar age is a highly subjective interpretation. Those of us who wish to be in compliance with a very vague set of rules have an interest in getting it right.

My opinions are not formed by that smear article. My opinions are formed by actual clinical literature, and testimony by mental health professionals who work with people who offend against children.

Calling it a "child avatar" confuses the issue. LL is cracking down on sexualized depictions of minors. And, as has been stated by other women in the thread, some adult people have very youthful figures and some minors are developed in body before their brain has a chance to catch up.

I was going to redirect my reply to Codex Alpha here, but I lost it. Phooey. So, I'll try and sum up. First: I think calling the avatars in question "child avatars" muddies the waters, because what LL is really targeting is any sexualised depiction of minors. Yes, clearly, the Zooby babies shouldn't be on Naked Spanking Island or whatever. The pic I posted was me in my everyday shape - petite in height and figure, but not 'childish'. I've never been mistaken for a minor with my daily driver heads - demonstrating a review copy of a head. In the before-times, I wouldn't hesitate to wear it out and about to a shopping sim or the like. Now, I'm scrutinizing things through a different lens to try and comply with what appears to be a very vague rubric.