1. The victims of murder are as much friends and family of the deceased as the person who was murdered.

And what's more, though LL may have banned sexual activity involving virtual minors, it is still possible to engage in murder of virtual minors, and is that any less disturbing?

Honestly I don't know what to think, beyond that there is inconsistency here.

Posted at 2:28PM on Mar 8th 2007 by Amanda Levitsky

2. Hm. My comment didn't seem to get added, so... try it this way.

I think the difference is, we don't generally shoot each other in SL as a way to subliminate an urge to shoot someone in the flesh; it's a game from the get-go, with as much bearing on the real world as a kid playing with toy soldiers.

Sexual ageplay seems to be a way to indulge pedophiliac urges without breaking the law. I can at least see a little twisted nobility in that, but the point remains that some part of that person's psyche thinks having sex with kids is really, really cool. And that's kinda sick.

Posted at 4:02PM on Mar 8th 2007 by aliasi.stonebender

3. I think you hit the nail on the head with why this isn't really an inconsistent motivation. With murder by gunfire and explosions, etc., the victim is only a victim while he or she is still alive. Death brings release from victimhood. Whereas with torture, rape, and child abuse the victim lives on with the consequences of those acts. As a result, while real murder is proscribed as unacceptable by any society as a matter of protecting the citizens in general, no one actually experiences the emotional consequences to themselves in having died.

What this means is that people are able to detach themselves from depictions of murder and death and discuss them rationally. Whereas with child abuse the experience is burned so deeply into the victims it becomes almost impossible to separate themselves entirely from a mere simulation of the act.

Just my opinion on why random simulated death doesn't stir up the same furor, whether in our American culture or elsewhere.

Posted at 4:03PM on Mar 8th 2007 by Ananda

4. The thing is, that in most places, depictions of underage people in sexual situations are illegal -- even if no actual underage people are involved. I could make a drawing up out of my own imagination, put it on paper, and it would be illegal.

So I think LL has decided/realized/been convinced that sexual age play (and really, we should use the whole phrase, so that we know we're not talking about adults pretending to be kids and go to high school) is like a drawing of underage sex, even if no actual minors are involved.

In a similar way, SL violence is like a drawing of real violence -- but drawings of real violence are not illegal.

Posted at 10:01PM on Mar 8th 2007 by Cyn Vandeverre

5. I'm not sure I follow you Vincent.

I'm not comparing the two directly, rather, I'm weighing both on a scale of undesirability. We can put anything we like on this scale really. For example, which would you consider the greatest tragedy ... an old lady getting mugged, a newborn going hungry for two days, or a dog abused for years and eventually killed?

It's true, these examples involve different ages and even different species. But I think it *IS* possible to ponder them all, and decide which is the worst and which is the least tragedy. Yes, we're dealing with apples and oranges here, but that doesn't mean you can't decide which you dislike more, an apple or an orange.

So the crux of my question is, which is worse, the RL sexual abuse of a minor, or the RL murder of an adult? After you answer that, the next question would be: Which is worse, the SL simulation of sexual abuse of a minor, or the SL simulation of murder of an adult?

Posted at 1:37AM on Mar 9th 2007 by Aimee Weber

6. I don't think this argument adds up. If you're going to make an analogy, then make it between sex at large and killing at large. If nobody gags at killing, then nobody gags at sex, either. No inconsistency. But to compare killing at large with ageplay is working at two different levels of analysis. If you want the argument to be consistent and more persuasive, you should be pointing out an alleged hypocrisy between NOT tolerating simulated sex with minors on one hand but tolearting simulated murder OF minors.

I would wager ultimately there is no hypocrisy here, which is what I think you're trying to unveil, because if there were some sort of noticeable phenomenon where people were simulating killing kids and minors (Tatum's Tot-stabbing Parlor, anyone), there would probably be an analogous outrage.

Posted at 2:16AM on Mar 9th 2007 by Vincent Doctorow

7. Certainly everyone has the right to hypothesize certain unhappy situations, and then run these imagined circumstances through their personal philosophy and hash a rough order of "badness," but I'm not too sure what the purpose of such an exercise would be other than to clarify one's personal philosophical stances.

Granted, these philosophical exercises gain real ramifications when a company is determining policy, and I understand that you're trying to force a full evaluation of "relative demerit" between the simulated "murder" (and I believe this word is being strategically chosen) versus simulated child abuse. Which is worse? Provided both are simulated,the child abuse is (if we were evaluating this in "the real world," my answer would be different because I think I forgivably would use a different value set in examining real world situations). As I sort of implied before, it's not an issue of qualitatively comparing apples and oranges at this point, but quantitatively comparing how many apples and how many oranges.

I understand your critique of mainstream attitudes towards violence in our culture, and I agree. We are jaded to violence. But the fact of the matter is violence is intimately woven into our cultural and historical heritage. Survival and competition have been facets of human existence since we straightened our backs, and culture aptly incorporated a strange familiarity with death and violence into the human psyche. We like it. It's in our movies. It's in Second Life. And as much a vestige of ancient times as our love of violence is, it's still there, and we may outgrow it one day, but for now it has become incorporated into our societal and cultural regulations.

Analogously, the same could be said of sex. Sex is just as important to the "human condition" as survival (implied here at the occasional cost of violence) is. Like violence, sex, too, is incorporated into our psyche. It's on TV. It's in Second Life. The role sex occupies in the human experience is acknowledged, as violence is, by the reverence we give it in the social conscious.

That's why I insist if simulated violence is going to be compared to anything, it should be simulated sex, not ageplay - and as I said, there is no glaring contradiction in the attitudes LL is applying towards sex and towards violence. It is easy to see the parallels, the analogies, the common history between violence and sex, however, I think it's a stretch to question a tolerance of violence versus rigidity against sexual ageplay. Having sex with children, simulated or otherwise, is not a part of the human experience, nor does it offer a valuable contribution in either the continuation of our species or the maintenance of our society (sadly enough, before modern times, war did serve a preserving purpose for any individual society. Sex, of course, is self-explanatory). I will grant historical and global incidences of sexual activity with children - pederasty in ancient Greece, the revered relationship between the boy kabuki actor and the landed, privileged samurai, and rites of passage among indigenous New Guinean people. Still, these get attention precisely because they are exceptional; two instances have been phased out of existence, the remaining one is less about extracting sexual pleasure from a minor (which is what LL is fighting against) and more about adequately socializing an adolescent through rituals that have been handed down across the centuries.

Again, if there was some sort of phenomenon where groups of people were simulating the torture and/or murder of avatars who look like children,and Linden Labs was turning the other cheek while cracking down on ageplay sex, and you wrote an article about it questioning the inconsistency, I would totally agree with you.

So yes, I think simulated child abuse is worse than simulated murder. I do fear what I just said implies that LL should tolerate only those things which have been "woven" into our cultural history, but what I'm doing here is specifically addressing your points, which are well framed but I still think incomplete. My larger philosophy as to what should and should not be done in Second Life is quite libertarian - BDSM, virtual total war, as long as it's between consenting adults, I'm all for it. However, I think there are some boundaries as to what should be allowed; would we tolerate a recreation of a concentration camp by a Nazi sympathizer in Second Life? Even if it was his own island? Having purely libertarian values technically should allow this, but there is a human sensibility that is offended by this. As harsh as it may be, this scenario I think would elicit the same kind of aversion most would feel should they stumble upon sex between an adult and a child, virtual or otherwise.

Posted at 2:18AM on Mar 9th 2007 by Vincent Doctorow

8. SL "murder," even assault, is prohibited. That's one of the ways to grief another: Shooting or otherwise attacking a non-consenting participant in a no-damage sim can and will get you banned.

Getting shot in a damage sim isn't murder, because you willingly participated by going to the sim in the first place.

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.

Posted at 3:43PM on Mar 9th 2007 by srim Pinion

9. 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.

Posted at 3:45PM on Mar 9th 2007 by Ryozu Kojima

10. >>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.

Posted at 3:45PM on Mar 9th 2007 by Ryozu Kojima

11. I'm sorry, Ryzou, are you seriously suggesting that without your daily dose of Counterstrike you would run out and shoot someone with a gun, causing a chain of organ failures that ends with the victim dying and puking blood?

I used the melodramatic language to make a point; there's a very wide gap between even the most gory video game violence and the real thing. Also - as mentioned - let's not confuse 'violence' and 'murder'. The violence in most games, movies, and television shows is generally given a context that makes it acceptable. Even an ardent pacifist may concede that should you be on Phobos Base when demons break out of Hell, grabbing a shotgun is entirely called for. Counterstrike is nominally about counter-terrorists versus terrorists. Even the most 'pointlessly violent' game that gets touted in the media, Grand Theft Auto, has a certain amount of context. I've only played Vice City, but there Vice City is portrayed as a corrupt town through and through, and while your character is a nasty sort, the story does not REQUIRE you to involve 'civilians' - it's always gang members, other Mafia guys, or the (corrupt) police department.

To make a parallel with sex, we're looking at other legal or consensual-crime situations.

Posted at 10:52PM on Mar 9th 2007 by aliasi.stonebender

12. 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.

Posted at 12:42PM on Mar 10th 2007 by Ryozu Kojima

13. "To point out contradictions in other's personal philosphies."

I find it quite amusing that you think you can make self-contained judgments of contradictions on other people's personal philosophies by asking them

"Which would you consider the greatest tragedy ... an old lady getting mugged, a newborn going hungry for two days, or a dog abused for years and eventually killed?"

which was Aimee and I were discussing and the "exercise" being referenced in the quote. If you're that agile with ethics and logic and can point out "contradictions" on such scant information - show us! Aimee was just trying to prove a point, but since you've come to clarify things, I'll give you my opinion: 1. the starving newborn is worst, followed by 2. the granny being mugged and 3. the abused dog. Ready, set, go! Whatever convoluted, apples-and-oranges evaluation you cobble together on this one piece of datum will be airy speculation and totally useless. And funny, too, as it comes from someone who's interested in sexual ageplay.

"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."

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.

In our day and age, our understanding of sex has, of course, changed. Sex just for fun? Sure! Sadomasochistic sex? Go for it. Sex with an older person? Totally cool. Because the justifications have become ethical rather than cultural or biological. An old person can consent. A young person isn't developed yet, and that's a human universal. However, the point I was putting forward in my response was that the reason sex and violence in general are tolerated today is because both are a part of the human experience. Trying to pass off "pedophilia" as "natural" and woven into our cultural fabric would require a similar argument. It doesn't work.

"There's not? Did they ban simulated kiddy killings too?"

Mm, last time I checked, Linden Labs was running cutting edge technology and managing a virtual world that places cultural, social, political, and economic demands on them ON TOP of the already difficult technical demands. Naturally, Linden Labs has to deal with issues on a case-by-case basis, like they're doing with this sexual ageplay deal, becuse hey, it's tough running a world. 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.


"Yes, actually, it is."

For the record, Ryoza thinks "having sex with children" (quoted in original) is "part of the human experience." Lol!

The argument Ryoza is referencing in my post goes like this: everyone dies and gets involved, directly or indirectly, with the violence in our world, ergo violence and death are part of the human experience; (almost) everyone wants to have sex and deals with sexual desire, therefore, sex is part of the human experience. Ryoza elegantly adds "having sex with children (again, quoted straight from the original!" to this lineup, so... everyone wants to have sex with children. Yes. Quite so. Actually, no.

"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."

Ah "repression." Freudian psychology. Classic? Yes. Obsolete. Likely.

Interesting. So, here, you countermand my argument by... well... by saying nothing. They ARE exceptional, and, unlike you, I gave examples. Three, to be exact. And granted, there are more, but 3/(the number of cultures in the world) IS exceptional, and two of the cases I put forward aren't even pedophilia in most cases, because the relationships were between older men and younger men who were not necessarily prepubescent. To counter said argument, it would be helpful, you know, to prove it? Maybe by saying, "It's not exceptional! We Americans have sex with kids all the time. It's often called "The old American past time." It's a regular practice here, here, here, here, and here too. In place x, having sex with an 11 year old girl is just as common as having morning toast!" But you didn't. Instead, you just stated the opposite as fact. Schoolyard rhetoric! Lol.

A: They are exceptional. Here are a few examples. See how rare it is?
B: No they're not! (Insert Freudian buzzword here for bonus points).

"Even between consenting adults?"

Yup, even between consenting adults. I recall reading a new story a few years back about to cannibal fetishists in Germany who met on the Internet. Eventually, they arranged a real-world meeting, and after sampling a few tasty tidbits of each other, one told the other to kill him, butcher his body, freeze the parts, and eat him over an extended period of time. The other man did just that. And now he's in jail. It was "consensual," but maybe the ethic and moral reality of the REAL world is a little more complex and nuanced to be crammed into one single standard of "was it consensual? OK!" I'd rather Hans Maneater be in jail rather than Germany have one single ethical standard for everything and let dude go around and eat people.

"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."

No, not quite. Second Life is owned and operated by a private company, therefore, Linden Labs has the choice, and if a Nazi holocaust recreation threatens the company's well being (and by association, the wellbeing of Second Life itself), then I expect them to take action against it. What do you know? They did! I read in Wired magazine that a Nazi sympathizer was banned for making tactless builds. Same goes for sexual ageplay. If word of such a phenomenon may become a threat to Linden Labs (and press announcements regarding the recent decision strongly imply this is so), then Linden Labs will act against it. Linden Labs owns Second Life. They run it. It's they're choice. As long as LL owns SL, then the policy regarding what is acceptable in-world will be founded on LL's self-interest.

Let us imagine, for a moment, that the server-side junk of Second Life goes open-source, and Second Life eventually adopts a model like the Internet itself, run on privately owned servers distributed across the world. When that happens, what is allowed in the virtual realm no longer is LL's prerogative, because Second Life will belong to nobody, just as the Internet belongs to no one. Instead, that prerogative will belong to the laws of the user's country, and what do you know? In America, the laws DO allow tasteless Nazi recreations AND simulated child sex provided the actors are all over 18. What do you know, the Internet DOES have Nazi web pages and sex with kiddies webpages with cartoon depictions of kids having sex or actors over 18 pretending to be under. And I don't give a damn, because that's how the Internet works, and if Second Life went that route, you can make all the child sex or concentration camp islands and worlds you want, and I won't make a peep, because that's how it works. UNTIL that happens, however, Second Life is run by a company with its self-interest as its golden standard (hey, this is capitalism) and if it wants to say no to sexual ageplay, I totally can agree. It is offensive to societal sensibilities, it is NOT apart of the human experience, and hackles raised over it can threaten Linden Labs with an external force, which by proxy will threaten all of our Second Life experiences. So get over it, what you really should be doing if you want your special role play islands is figuring out how to free virtual worlds from the domain of one company, rather trying to justify pedophilia (wanting to have sex with prepubescent kids) as "part of the human experience." Lolz.

Posted at 2:39PM on Mar 10th 2007 by Vincent Doctorow

14. >>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.

Posted at 3:39PM on Mar 22nd 2007 by Ryozu Kojima