Recent Comments:
Acting your age - or some other age.
Second Life Insider
May 17th 2007 10:15PM By the way
"Lewd" behavior also includes not wearing clothes...
No, I mean it, just being naked is enough to be considered lewd. So all the child AVs out there? better put on the new outfit BEFORE taking off the old one, or you might get banned for sexual ageplay.
Transcript of the german piece about age play
Second Life Insider
May 12th 2007 2:02PM "I believe that the cause and affect of normalizing pedophilia is more unknown."
It certainly is, and what more, it probably will remain that way as research is so taboo that no one ever does any.
What little research that has been done is usually written off as inaccurate and biased. IE: Kinsey Report
Transcript of the german piece about age play
Second Life Insider
May 11th 2007 11:50PM "RH: I hope that whoever found these images gives us more information about them. We will find out who is behind this and then inform the police."
I think Eloise Pasteur has a hell of a point about the images of real children. As per the quote above, and blog posts on the official Second Life Blog, LL hasn't been able to track down these images.
And why not? All they need is a UUID to track down what account uploaded them, and then through that the IP address of the uploader, etc. So why haven't these German reporters so much as told Linden Labs the name of the avatar they received these images from? Wouldn't that be enough to track them down?
Something's not right here
Just Killin': Avatar Murder
Second Life Insider
Mar 22nd 2007 3:13PM >>And funny, too, as it comes from someone who's interested in sexual ageplay.
The funny thing here is your accusation. I can assure you, I'm not interested in sexual ageplay or ageplay at all for that matter. Further, I wasn't arguing Aimee's point.
>>Yes, overall sexuality is woven into our cultural and historical heritage. Pedophilia is not. By definition, pedophilia is sexual attraction by an adult to prepubescent children, wanting to have sex with kids who haven't reached puberty, which in our day and age happens at 11-13. Trying to shoehorn pedophilia into an analysis of cultural and evolutionary history is stretching it, especially if we are to see cultural and evolutionary constructs as adaptive - throughout our history, both as hunter-gatherers and afterward with the rise of settled peoples, the point of sexual reproduction was to, you know, make babies, and so it makes complete sense that any historical, cross-cultural survey would demonstrate an aversion to sex with prepubescent children (pedophilia) and post-menopausal women. What do you know? Most cultures don't just disapprove of sex with kids and grannies, most cultures in fact specifically sanction and look down upon such acts. Such acts, if we're talking about our cultural and historical legacy, are comparable to incest, which is similarly frowned upon, similarly rare in human history, and similarly useless in terms of adaptation as it rarely produces viable lines.
And yet, sexual attraction to anything that is not a "Legal Adult" is condemned. By your own words, it's natural and normal for someone to be attracted to someone as young as the age of 11, so long as they've started having a period? There's no shoehorning going on, as you put it. Any study of human sexuality must include all aspects of it, not just a cross section of what you feel are the acceptable parts of human sexuality. You go on to claim that throughout our history, the point of sexual reproduction was to make babies. Sure, that IS the point of "Sexual Reproduction." It's not as if humans only recently started deriving pleasure from the act of intercourse however. Do you honestly believe that until recently, humans only had sex for procreation and never for pleasure? Do you have any sources to back that belief up, or just conjecture and saying, "That's just the way it is." On top of that, you lump post menopausal women in with prepubescent girls as a group that is socially unnacceptable, to preform intercourse with? Even going so far as to claiming that many cultures even sanction such things as intercourse with post menopausal women?
"In our day and age"
Sex has never been, for the human race, a purely procreational activity.
>>As far as I know, there isn't a problem if simulated child murder, but I'm fairly certain if it did exist and got into public attention, LL would, for sake of self-preservation, act on it. You can start the ball rolling by writing an article for SLI on the underground child killing murder ring.
Wether simulated child killings was rampant or not, the difference here is that society at large wouldn't get riled up over it anyways.
>>For the record, Ryoza thinks "having sex with children" (quoted in original) is "part of the human experience." Lol!
For the record, Vincent thinks "putting words in peoples mouths" (quoted in original) is "part of a logical debate." Lol!
Your comments from this point on borderline on slander. Good job, you totally manage to discredit yourself and your argument in one go.
>>Instead, you just stated the opposite as fact. Schoolyard rhetoric! Lol.
I often times forget that people such as you are too busy loathing the thought of something to bother actually learning the facts.
You're right, I am attempting to justify pedophilia in so far as the fact that it exists, it is not "cureable" and "inflicts" a person wether they choose to be that way or not. What I don't justify is acting on it or abusing a child, which this whole thing has nothing to do with in the first place.
There's no point in debating any of this with someone who's tactics rely on slander, rhetoric and statement of opinion as fact. The point of this reply is primarily to voice my dissaproval of said slander. Next time, try not to assume you know anything about the person you're debating with, it only goes to show how little you actually know.
Just Killin': Avatar Murder
Second Life Insider
Mar 10th 2007 11:36AM You can use melodramatic language all you want to try and further your point by proposing extremes, but it doesn't change the fact that if I did not have a stress outlet that is safe and practical, I could very well take that stress out on others. Perhaps not to the extent of viciously killing someone, but instead simply be easily irritable and confrontational.
I, personally, DO have self control and the ability to establish the difference between reality and fantasy. It's obvious that there are people however who are lacking in one or both of those abilities. Hence the prolificness of spousal abuse, assault, murder, rape, etc.
While you may downplay the violence in video games as having a justifiable reason, it is no less what it is. What does make it justifiable is that it is a video game and not real.
I did not mean to state that taking away a safe outlet from these people would cause mass child molestations, only that the "problem" here is not the virtual "child" sex (where no real children are supposed to be involved) but the ignorance and lack of understanding of the true problem.
Just Killin': Avatar Murder
Second Life Insider
Mar 9th 2007 1:28PM >>Ageplay was (in my opinion, rightly and intelligently) banned in part because there is no way to regulate it - you can't make a "no child-av" sim the same way you can turn damage on and off.
Just for reference, despite what you may say, it IS possible to have a no child AV sim, just say so. Just in the same way it's possible to have a no griefing allowed sim.. You can still orbit, grief and push people, there's a million different ways to do it.
Just Killin': Avatar Murder
Second Life Insider
Mar 9th 2007 8:45AM aliasi.stonebender:
I'm of a different opinion. In fact, I play CounterStrike quite often, to relieve stress and anger. That's right, I have my temper tantrums online with a gun. That is to me "a way to subliminate an urge to shoot someone in the flesh."
"to indulge pedophiliac urges without breaking the law."
Sexual urges do not go away just because you ignore them. IE: Saying they can't won't make them stop being pedophiles. They'll just have to find some other (maybe even less legal) way to sublet their sexual tension.
As best I can tell, I think Ananda has it right. It's all about the suffering, and the fear. I think another large part of that is that we've been desensitized to death. Either as a survival trait (Species would die out if everyone simply grieved themselves to the point of death each time a relative died.) Or just because in ancient man, longevity was much lower, death rate higher, etc.
Probably also because of the stylized depictions everyone is exposed to on a regular basis. If they knew someone was -really- being killed in each death scene in a movie, things might be a lot different. As it is now, we've all been exposed to enough obviously fake death, that we can just write it off as "Acting."
Cyn:
Not most places, only a handful. None of which has a LL server actually residing in it. Netherlands, and UK, or so I hear, currently have laws forbidding any and all representations of minors involved in sexual acts.
Vincent:
>>But to compare killing at large with ageplay is working at two different levels of analysis.
Especially since Ageplay is NOT child molestation.
>>(Tatum's Tot-stabbing Parlor, anyone)
Ooooh, I gotta start that place up.. thank you Vince =P
>>what the purpose of such an exercise would be
To point out contradictions in other's personal philosphies.
>>But the fact of the matter is violence is intimately woven into our cultural and historical heritage.
Actually, believe it or not, so is pedophilia and overall sexuality. It's only been in recent history that what is considered to be an acceptable age has risen more and more. That is to say, it's just as much human nature as is killing and competition.
>>there is no glaring contradiction in the attitudes LL is applying towards sex and towards violence.
There's not? Did they ban simulated kiddy killings too?
>>is not a part of the human experience,
Yes, actually, it is.
>>Still, these get attention precisely because they are exceptional;
Except in all honest, they're not that exceptional. Just that some one decided to make a big deal out of it at some point. There's more incidents than just that, and while society has been made to believe it's not part of the human psych, it's actually just a matter of repression.
>>However, I think there are some boundaries as to what should be allowed;
Even between consenting adults?
>>would we tolerate a recreation of a concentration camp by a Nazi sympathizer in Second Life? Even if it was his own island?
Would I tolerate it? Yes. Would I be his friend? No. Would I have anything to do with this at all? No, but I have that choice. So does everyone.
There are no restraints in Second Life, there are no victims in Second Life. What everyone fails to see in all of this is that no matter what you restrict, be it nazi concentration camps, racism, or ageplay, these things do not go away. They may become hidden from your sensibilities, from view, but banning these things does not change the people who do them.
