The Alphaville Herald

89 Responses to “Ageplay in Second Life: Interview with Jailbait Manager Emily Semaphore”

1. 

   Oh great King!
   

   Jan 29th, 2007
   

   Ok, King Frederick is right, he is so right I demmand all humanity to obey him from now.

   Oh, you don’t want to? Well, he stills being right, and you know that he knows what is best for you.

   You, silly pathetic digital deviants, obey the King.

   And you know, nobody is perfect, but he has showed us to be right until this point, so why to doubt he is right? Even if he fails just a little from time to time, this does not makes him less wise and glorious, and by default, superior to anyone who challenges his amazing intellectual and physical traits. And if he admits that he errs from time to time, it is because his enormous modesty, celestial beings are like that. If he says he is right, in all what he is, does and thinks, it is because he is right, got it?

   And If he does not want us to make him our ruler, well, this is paradoxical, since if we obey him in this, we will dissobey him later. This will not make him less right about what he things is right, so don’t discuss, please.

   Can’t you see he is not just making this for himself, he cares for others, you insentive clods! Leave this issues to experts, noobs, and obey.

   P.S. He will be right in the future, ressistence is futile, you deluded monkeys! He is the magnanimous monopolist of truth, infidels! you’ll be banned from all kinds of life sooner or later!
2. 

   King Frederick
   

   Jan 29th, 2007
   

   “I love these people who proudly claim: “THIS WOULDN’T WORK FOR ME–”

   Child pornography ‘works for me’

   “he is so right I demmand all humanity to obey him”

   i.e. ‘I am so much of an unethical, drooling retard that the idea that someone could speak authoritatively on something so obviously inane and disgusting as child pornography personally offends me. I am offended at that hubris!’

   ” I hate to be the one to break this to you, but your arguments have been over age play in a virtual environment and have been equating this to the real thing. It is not the real thing.”

   No they haven’t. Racist propaganda depicting people getting lynched isn’t “real” if its just caricatures, drawings, illustrations and such. So, hey, pubbies shouldn’t have a problem with the KKK and the White Supremacists pouring into Second Life by the thousands, right?

   “I would allow anyone that can tell the difference between fantasy and reality”

   The people we’re talking about fantasize about raping children. They pretend that it is real. And then they say “it’s okay because no real children are being raped.” Well, yes, no real children are being raped. But you’re resubscribing to your desire to do so (which you only don’t because you’re physically unable to or you don’t want to face real consequences).

   Why don’t you do this — post a picture of your preteen son or daughter. Or your little brother. We’ll make avatars of them and then we’ll depict them getting sexually assaulted by adults.

   We’ll create a sim with virtual replicas of your son, daughter, or sibling advertising so people can come use their images for their child-rape fantasies.

   It’s all virtual, you know, they won’t *really* be getting sexually assaulted. Just because hundreds or thousands of people will be satiating their appetite to sexually assault your child, that doesn’t mean they’re bad people — can’t you tell the difference between fiction and reality?

   You’re the other extreme from the Prokofy Nevas of the Internet. Prokofy Neva says if someone’s avatar gets animated in a certain way, they have been, in a sense “raped.” Which is obviously ridiculous.

   But you, on the other hand, think its perfectly acceptable to spend hours creating, participating in, and distributing child pornography. And this doesn’t make someone a ‘real’ pedophile. Again, buy a dictionary.

   I also find it amusing that some of the #chan people who make fun of furries also celebrate CP. Guys, you’re so far worse than the furries in the ‘pathetic’ department that it’s unintentionally satirical for you to ridicule anything.

   “don’t you people feel the tiniest bit of shame”

   Pot molesting kettle

   “Pedophile: A person who engages in sexual activity with a real child.”

   This is a stupid definition that no one uses. The only people who use it are the people who are dealing with severe cognitive dissonance. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to preteen children. Swallow hard, accept it.

   “By your own definition the fantasies some married couples conduct behind closed doors would be considered Pedophilia. After all, there are married couples that like to play the bad school girl/teacher type thing, or daddy’s little girl.”

   If someone rendered their spouse to appear as a preteen child and got aroused by that, then why wouldn’t I consider them pedophiles?

   “I would much rather have the real criminals restricted to some place on the internet where the only ‘action’ they get is the sort in a fantasy”

   Then you’re a fool – people who have pedophile feelings should be talking to psychiatrists and getting therapy so they can overcome their desires. Not inflaming them with a constant barrage of child pornography.

   “your obviously emotional responses ”

   The only emotion I’m experiencing is one of distanced confusion. I’m confused on how people can be lie to themselves so much that they’re swallowed by the miasma of orwellian doublespeak, shallow conflations, and cheap rationalizations that you seem to have subscribed to. Feel free to characterize this as “hysterics.” Any decent human being would feel the same way. I’m far from a decent human being. But even *I* haven’t sunk to those twisted, gollum-like depths.
3. 

   yet another anon
   

   Jan 29th, 2007
   

   Malthus’s analysis fails on the very first point, where he says that a person wants to replay the abuse.

   Replaying the abuse would mean going to some country where women have no rights, arranging to be in a situation to be raped, with absolutely no ability to stop it (no safewords, no one to hear it, no teleport button). And then not being able to go to the police, because in such countries women’s testimonies count for nil, and she’d wind up being convicted of slander.

   What this particular ageplay scenario does is to rewrite it, with different rules and different controls. Whether it actually has therapeutic value, I don’t know. I suspect it makes it easier for a person to suppress some horrible memories by coming up with an alternative that is easily substituted. But I do know that dismissing Emily Semaphore’s assertion that it helps her is absolutely the worst thing you can do. You certainly can’t know what is or isn’t helping a person if you don’t listen to what they say.

   As for the whole is it or isn’t debate, this is a standard debate tactic: You take a word that is loaded with strong connotation, and then try to force as much as possible into that heading so that the bad connotations rub off. You cannot decide whether something is right, wrong, good, or bad by what label it bears, but only by what it actually does. Moral decisions aren’t derived from labels.

   Finally, how does any of this differ from something like Sweeney Todd or Silence of the Lambs? (Sorry, I can’t think of a that deals with child abuse of the top of my head, so this was the best example I could come up with.) What precisely is the difference between someone acting as a victim or criminal in a movie or play, and acting as one in SL? (This has nothing to do with being professional actors, because there are plenty of amateur productions.) What precisely is going on in the heads of people who go to watch these? The best answer I can think of is that we just don’t know.
4. 

   Another Mind
   

   Jan 29th, 2007
   

   Frederick, it is apparent that you have a chip on your shoulder and that you cannot let a debate over a virtual world and the actions within it die out. It is also apparent that, like Prokofy, you are incapable of separating reality from the virtual world.

   When you are capable of doing so, without the sort of pitiful attempts to compare reality to fantasy as evidenced in your recent response … Then perhaps you will have a leg to stand on.

   Until such a time you can rationalize your nonexistent stance all you would like with seemingly logical arguments which rely on nothing more than your own perspective and moral code.

   I on the other hand will be blissfully separated from the sort of psychosis that eventually befalls those with such a little grasp on what is real and what is not that you seem to be on a fast track to. You see, the sort of thing you place on age players is the same sort of thing that can, and sometimes does, befall anyone without a proper ability to distance the person behind the keyboard from the images on the screen.

   Such people have no business with an internet connection and deserve the same fate as all depraved lunatics: Permanent residence in the local asylum.

   Look at that, I’m rambling on and on – over what? someone that was probably a victim? someone that had a friend or relative that was a victim and is now on some holy crusade?

   Until you are capable of speaking from reason and not your own personal agenda … Oh why bother? You’re just going to respond to this with some more of your usual rhetoric. Ah well.
5. 

   Not wise enough
   

   Jan 29th, 2007
   

   What can i say about this whole thread? Once a wise man said:

   “Harming others by speech or acts, is harming oneself too.”

   And if you didn’t got that, maybe is because of your conditions:

   “Associate not with evil friends, associate not with mean men; associate with good friends, associate with noble men”.

   Because:

   “Though a fool, through all his life, associates with a wise man, he no more understands the truth than a spoon the flavour of soup.

   Though an intelligent person, associates with a wise man for only a moment, he quickly understands the truth as the tongue the flavour of soup.”

   And:

   “Irrigators lead the waters; fletchers bend the shafts; carpenters bend the wood; the wise control themselves.”

   Im not wise, not even smart, but I hope this will help you, this once was a gift I received from a dear friend, now I am giving it here as a freebie, take it as a gift, and leave it to others to take it or leave it too.
6. 

   Seola Sassoon
   

   Jan 29th, 2007
   

   You know what kills me?

   The people who who bash it probably have thoughts of thier own that are what others would call ‘immoral’. Hundreds of thousands of people admit to thinking about children, beastiality, death sex, etc. Does that automatically connect to ‘going out and doing it’? No. It’s not illegal to think about it. It’s in the actions.

   Are there some pedophiles out there, who DO take it to everyday? Yes. Are there some where it only exists in fantasy of the mind? Yes. Does that equate to if you do it online you will do it in the real world? Absolutely not.

   Does acting in ageplay sex satisfy the hunger and possibly ward off real life scenarios? Possibly. Does acting in it make one hunger more and take it to RL? Possibly. But you can’t lump all of them into either group. That’s stupid and frankly, that’s immoral and unethical judgement in itself.

   What kills me is that we have all these people on here who off one singlular experience, judge them all, yet, you’ll never hear a complaint off a school girl outfit being sold on a sex site. It’s still a form of ageplay as well. When a woman spanks a man or vice versa, that’s considered ageplay because the societal norm deems that adults don’t spank each other. Why aren’t you protesting these places that sell this stuff in SL? There are some very petite 20 year olds I know IRL who, if dressed right could pass at 12. If she does it in her bedroom, are we supposed to charge in and tell her it’s wrong? What about all the women who call thier men ‘daddy’? Isn’t that a form of ageplay as well? Why aren’t we busting down thier doors?

   Personally, I think it’s disgusting. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to do anything they want to do as long as they are adults.

   And no, Prok, you can’t apply absolutes to it if you haven’t been an active part in it for a period of time. It’s irresponsible and idiotic to make blanket statements as fact without ever experiencing it.

   “”"”4. After a certain amount of “therapeutic ageplay,” they heal up, they’re done, they are ready now to re-join the mainstream of healthy, normal sexual beings and they go back to equal-rights and equal-power, normal sexual relations, perhaps a little kinkier, but not doing awful ageplay stuff anymore.

   The problem is that step no. 4 never happens. They stay put on 1-3 and revolve endlessly. They may even still seek out abusive relationships in RL, and not be “healed” by their ageplay in Second Life. They in fact recreate the painful scenes over and over and over again, and indeed take pleasure in them. It’s not “about* healing — it is merely a kind of methadone maintenance, with dependency still very much part of the experience.”"”"

   Tell me, exactly HOW is it, that you just KNOW this never happens?

   Hey, if someone wants to get thier rocks off on it, go for it. There’s probably tons of things I do in my bedroom that others won’t agree with, but it’s my kink and who are they to judge me as long as I am an adult and so is the other person?

   (Ironically, if this were Roman/Greek emperor type of times, no one would flinch at a child in sexual viewing, amazing how society dictates what’s right and wrong… hell, even when my great grandmother was growing up, she was born in 1909, a girl became a woman when she got her period and in essence, was able to marry off as early as 10. Funny how far we’ve come to change societal views based on what politicians tell people, even in 80 years.)
7. 

   King Frederick
   

   Jan 29th, 2007
   

   “Frederick, it is apparent that you have a chip on your shoulder”

   Wah, wah, wah, shut up. In order to get off on child rape erotica you have to be a pedophile. You have to be sexually attracted to preteen children. Otherwise you wouldn’t be getting off. You’d have the normal reaction: Disgust.

   “I on the other hand will be blissfully separated from the sort of psychosis —”‘

   – BRB, masturbating to cartoon children getting raped by Heathcliff the cat. Heathcliff, Heathcliff, no one should terrify their neighborhood. Sorry, but I need a break from talking to these psychopaths on the Internet who think its wrong to masturbate to children having sex with adults.

   “The people who who bash it probably have thoughts of thier own that are what others would call ‘immoral’”

   Who gives a fuck? Some people think that eating meat is immoral. I eat meat. Therefore I don’t have the right to say that child rape pornography is bad? Christ preserve us.

   “Does acting in ageplay sex satisfy the hunger and possibly ward off real life scenarios? Possibly.”

   If doing it didn’t satisfy a desire to do it, it wouldn’t be done. By the Lion’s Mane, why do people stupefy themselves like this when faced with the cognitive dissonance of both condemning child pornography/pedophilia and approving of it?

   “you can’t lump all of them into either group”

   You don’t have to lump them together in one group. Both groups are fucked up.

   Okay, so I post a whole bunch of pictures of black people getting lynched. White people hanging black people, killing them, making fun of them. Caricatures of black people being inferior, etc.

   Someone complains: that’s racist!

   No it isn’t. It’s fictional. Geez, I would never lynch a black man for winking at a white woman. I just love fantasizing about doing it. That doesn’t make me “racist.” Grow up and stop judging people!

   “What kills me is –”

   Not a falling piano, and that’s a shame.

   “you’ll never hear a complaint off a school girl outfit being sold on a sex site”

   For starters not all “schoolgirls” are preteen children. It’s not pedophilia to be sexually attracted to someone with sexual characteristics. Even if they are “underage.” It’s sleezy, but it’s not pedophilia. What’s pedophilia is being sexually aroused by preteen, preadolescent children.

   And yes, if someone was having their girlfriend or their wife dress up like a small child, imitating the way a small child looks and acts, and acting out child-rape fantasies — they’d be a pedophile.

   “If this were Roman/Greek emperor type of times, no one would flinch at a child in sexual viewing, amazing how society dictates what’s right and wrong.”

   If this were a Roman/Greek emperor type of times (?), no one would flinch at children being exposed to the elements because they’re unwanted, at slavery, opression of the poor, or pederasty.

   Amazing how cultural/ethical relativism effects a society so bad it no longer has the power to say even _child pornography_ is necessarily bad.

   “a girl became a woman when she got her period and in essence, was able to marry off as early as 10. ”

   Yes, in history, people often died in their 40s or even in childbirth. So it was essential to marry them off as soon as they could reproduce. It was not, however, an ideal situation. In modern times we give young people the opportunity to get an education and mature more before they enter marital relationships.

   But all that’s beside the point since that’s not pedophilia. Pedophilia is being sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Not young people with sexual characteristics.
8. 

   Another Mind
   

   Jan 29th, 2007
   

   About what I expected. More meaningless banter from someone that must resort to insults, childish humor, anything really to get the focus off of the rather valid, salient point and at the same time making a rather pitiful attempt to discredit the poster of said point.

   You’d make a wonderful politician.
9. 

   Anon
   

   Jan 29th, 2007
   

   Holy cow… these people jamming fingers in their ears, closing their eyes, and chanting: “the real version of this is bad so we must ban it la la la la la…”

   Hey… I played this game where I didn’t just molest people, I actually KILLED THEM. AND I LIKED IT. I’M DERANGED! BAN ME!!!!
10. 

    Artemis Fate
    

    Jan 29th, 2007
    

    Weird thing: everytime the word “age-play” is mentioned, I hear the sound of a fuse being lit and a guy laughing maniacally.
11. 

    Seola Sassoon
    

    Jan 29th, 2007
    

    “”"”Who gives a fuck? Some people think that eating meat is immoral. I eat meat. Therefore I don’t have the right to say that child rape pornography is bad? Christ preserve us. “”"”

    Hey, you have the right, but you’d be a hypocrite. And you ARE. You’re also self righteous and just like the others that bash things that they don’t agree with, yet know little about. You decry those with opinions and state yours as fact. Wrong, darlin. You know, some also think it’s immoral to cuss, yet here you are doing it… good thing you don’t live by others standards eh?

    “”"”If doing it didn’t satisfy a desire to do it, it wouldn’t be done. By the Lion’s Mane, why do people stupefy themselves like this when faced with the cognitive dissonance of both condemning child pornography/pedophilia and approving of it?”"”"

    A desire to do it and act it out in pixels between adults is different than kidnapping a child and raping them. Or are you dense enough not to be able to defer the difference between the two?

    “”"”You don’t have to lump them together in one group. Both groups are fucked up. “”"”

    By… what? YOUR standards? Society’s? Whose to say who does what is wrong?

    “”"”Okay, so I post a whole bunch of pictures of black people getting lynched. White people hanging black people, killing them, making fun of them. Caricatures of black people being inferior, etc.

    Someone complains: that’s racist!

    No it isn’t. It’s fictional. Geez, I would never lynch a black man for winking at a white woman. I just love fantasizing about doing it. That doesn’t make me “racist.” Grow up and stop judging people!”"”"

    So it’s racist, and wanting to be with children is pedophilia. Big deal. It DOES make you a racist for singling out a race to destroy for your own pleasure. I don’t agree with it, but you have the right to say it. In fact, thousands of people get rich off promoting racism but they are not prosecuted until they act on it. Guess you don’t know the difference there either.

    “”"Not a falling piano, and that’s a shame. “”"”

    Witty… for a child. Maybe you ARE one. (Yes that was a childish response, which is what it deserves.

    “”"”For starters not all “schoolgirls” are preteen children. It’s not pedophilia to be sexually attracted to someone with sexual characteristics. Even if they are “underage.” It’s sleezy, but it’s not pedophilia. What’s pedophilia is being sexually aroused by preteen, preadolescent children. “”"”

    That’s BS and you know it. Hey, let’s use your logic. Not all people who play children engage in sex, so what’s your beef? What can’t stand a dose of your own? Hypocrisy at it’s best. You say that someone dressing up as a childlike person in a school uniform and to act the part in bed is okay, but aren’t okay with someone who portrays a pixel childlike person?

    “”"”And yes, if someone was having their girlfriend or their wife dress up like a small child, imitating the way a small child looks and acts, and acting out child-rape fantasies — they’d be a pedophile. “”"”

    And there’s a problem with that? Both are adults… I could slap labels on all sorts of sexual desires, doesn’t make them good OR bad. Only by MY standard of what I think is wrong is what I portray. Fuck society (and you) in thier quest to be holier than thou. I do what I like and it isn’t hurting anybody and it isn’t illegal.

    “”"”If this were a Roman/Greek emperor type of times (?), no one would flinch at children being exposed to the elements because they’re unwanted, at slavery, opression of the poor, or pederasty.”"”

    And no one would flinch as incest either. Big deal. Everything you mentioned STILL happens. Children over the world are sold for pennies into slavery and sex industries. The poor are still oppressed. What HAS changed? The view of sex. NOTHING else has. Why is that? Because some politician told you what to think. The only changing thing in time is sex and sexual acceptance and who’s right and wrong.

    “”"”Amazing how cultural/ethical relativism effects a society so bad it no longer has the power to say even _child pornography_ is necessarily bad. “”"”

    Amazing how your surroundings tells you that child portrayals in pixels is wrong.

    “”"”Yes, in history, people often died in their 40s or even in childbirth. So it was essential to marry them off as soon as they could reproduce. It was not, however, an ideal situation. In modern times we give young people the opportunity to get an education and mature more before they enter marital relationships. “”"”

    So because of medical advances into living longer that makes a person mature later? What? That makes no sense. And also, ‘in history’, my great grandmother is STILL alive and this happened in her time, so don’t go high and mighty and make a point by not making one. It WAS an ideal situation actually because people were taught by sexual maturity and not what society told them was good or bad, right or wrong.

    “”"”But all that’s beside the point since that’s not pedophilia. Pedophilia is being sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Not young people with sexual characteristics. “”"”

    Interesting, it’s exactly the point. What was NOT pedophilia then (marrying and having children at 14) IS pedophilia now, because some idiot somewhere said ‘this is how it should be’ and you listened.

    Don’t lay the chip of mainstream media and politicians on your shoulder onto me.
12. 

    King Frederick
    

    Jan 29th, 2007
    

    “”"”Who gives a fuck? Some people think that eating meat is immoral. I eat meat. Therefore I don’t have the right to say that child rape pornography is bad? Christ preserve us. “”"”

    Hey, you have the right, but you’d be a hypocrite.”

    Hahahahahahaha

    So, you think its wrong that I like the idea of raping kids? Oh yeah… well you eat MEAT, hypocrite!

    “You’re also self righteous”

    It’s easy to be perceived as self-righteous when you’re talking to people who are self-disgusting.

    “You decry those with opinions and state yours as fact.”

    Yeah, and? Of course I think my opinions are facts, otherwise I wouldn’t hold them. And by accusing me of being “self-righteous” you’re doing the same thing.

    “You know, some also think it’s immoral to cuss, yet here you are doing it..”

    You shouldn’t stop me from doing X because people think innocuous behavior Y is bad, too, and you still do it. :V

    Yeah, it’s something called ‘scale’ and ‘context’. People used to realize that cussing and producing child pornogrpahy were different things. Then they stuck their heads up their asses and let a wishy-washy moral relativism wash over them. Now they don’t know anything. You have decried “self-righteousness” more than *child rape* in this ‘thread,’ for example.

    How dare you insinuate that there’s something wrong with getting off to child pornography. After all, you *smoke*.

    “A desire to do it and act it out in pixels between adults is different than kidnapping a child and raping them.”

    Didn’t answer my statement: If doing it didn’t satisfy a desire to do it, it wouldn’t be done.

    If we had “holodeck” technology (nerdy star trek shit, but bear with me) would it be acceptable to act out child rape fantasies on a holodeck? Would it be okay to act out fantasies of raping real life children on the holodeck?

    “By… what? YOUR standards? Society’s? Whose to say who does what is wrong?”

    Hey, I know that most people on the Internet have a moral compasses that posts Southwest. I am simply trying to point out the huge double standard of “outrage.” When you look at what “outrages” a Second Lifer, what causes the most drama, what causes the most angst — very rarely do we see Second Lifers going on protests, launching forum campaigns, etc. about the child pornography that they’re surrounded with on a daily basis. When W-Hat makes a build that makes fun of furries in a cartoony way, a flood of tears sweeps the mainland away. Tears of fury, grief, and outrage that evil, wicked people dared to act “self-righteous” about an ‘innocent’ group. Many of these people are pedoplayers themselves.

    “wanting to be with children is pedophilia. Big deal. ”

    Lahl.

    When I come back to SL in a few months, I’m posting this line on _everything._

    “Witty… for a child. Maybe you ARE one.”

    Thanks, you gave erections to half the people reading this.

    “”"”"And yes, if someone was having their girlfriend or their wife dress up like a small child, imitating the way a small child looks and acts, and acting out child-rape fantasies — they’d be a pedophile. “”"”

    And there’s a problem with that? ”

    A problem with an adult getting off on child-rape? GOODNESS GRACIOUS, NO!

    “I could slap labels on all sorts of sexual desires, doesn’t make them good OR bad.”

    Me no understand difference between sexual acts between consenting adults and sexual acts performed by predators on children.

    “”"”"For starters not all “schoolgirls” are preteen children. It’s not pedophilia to be sexually attracted to someone with sexual characteristics. Even if they are “underage.” It’s sleezy, but it’s not pedophilia. What’s pedophilia is being sexually aroused by preteen, preadolescent children. “”"”

    That’s BS and you know it. Hey, let’s use your logic. Not all people who play children engage in sex, so what’s your beef? What can’t stand a dose of your own?”

    WTF are you talking about? I don’t have issues with anyone who “ageplays” that doesn’t produce child pornography. What is this, non-sequitors Monday?

    “Only by MY standard of what I think is wrong is what I portray. ”

    *Blows your head off because only my standard of right and wrong is what I .. uh.. ‘portray.’*

    Although I notice a lot of condemnations of “self-righteousness” in your post. Funny how that objective morality (I ought not be self-righteous) seems to arise from a purely subjective moral universe.

    “Everything you mentioned STILL happens. Children over the world are sold for pennies into slavery and sex industries. ”

    Who are YOU to judge them, you self-righteous beast?

    “What HAS changed? The view of sex. NOTHING else has. Why is that? Because some politician told you what to think.”

    Uh, if by “politician” you mean “two thousand years of moral/ethical philosophy” then okay.

    Do you think raping children is wrong because “some politician told you what to think”?

    “So because of medical advances into living longer that makes a person mature later? What? ”

    As someone who never completed middle school, this will probably be news to you: People tend to get educations and not learn about the world works until they’re out of high school. Or sometimes even college. 13-year-olds no longer have to work in the fields, raise children, or work hard labor in a mill for 12 hours a day. Yes, because of societal advances people reach what we call ‘maturity’ much later. They have the luxury and opportunity to live their youth to its fullest, generally.

    “What was NOT pedophilia then”

    I already explained it to you. What was not pedophilia is the same thing that is not pedophilia today: Not being sexually attracted by prepubescent children.

    “(marrying and having children at 14) IS pedophilia now, ”

    Unless someone is developing really late and hasn’t developed secondary sexual characteristics at 14, being sexually attracted to a 14 year old is not pedophilia. Sleezy, given our societal context, but not pedophilia. I already explained this. Settle down, put down the Heathcliff porn, and re-read it.

    ” because some idiot somewhere said ‘this is how it should be’ and you listened”

    Me no understand ethical tradition, societal development, and cultural contexts. ME WANT-UM BABY BUTTS
13. 

    Seola Sassoon
    

    Jan 29th, 2007
    

    That post is full of hypocrisy and blatantly idiotic.

    So you can tag levels of what you think is right and wrong and say yes you know it’s your opinion and that makes it fact?

    I’m not gonna justify any more of your comments, because frankly, (and I don’t insult hardly ever) but you really are an idiot.

    I think Prok’s been beaten.

    Anyone else laughing at this? Even if you don’t agree, it’s quite a hilarious read.
14. 

    King Frederick
    

    Jan 29th, 2007
    

    “So you can tag levels of what you think is right and wrong”

    Yeah, you know, people don’t scream with the same intensity when you insult a child at the same level as if you had blown its head off with a rifle. Golly, you really need to be told that some things are worse than other things?

    “you know it’s your opinion and that makes it fact”

    It’s my opinion because I think it’s a fact. I think it’s true. Otherwise it wouldn’t be my opinion. You’re conflating “opinion” with “personal taste.”

    “I’m not gonna justify any more of your comments, because —”

    You couldn’t possibly say anything. All you have is “Nothing is really wrong, its all personal” — if that’s the case then stop bitching about my “self-righteous” behavior. It’s all relative! Stop trying to force your moral code on me!

    “Anyone else laughing at this?”

    Dragon Ball Z is on CARTOON NETWORK right now, so they are probably off rubbing one out. You’ll have to wait until TOONAMI is over before you rally your pedophile troops.
15. 

    Anonymous
    

    Jan 30th, 2007
    

    BAN SIMULATED RAPE BETWEEN ADULTS TOO! IT ENCOURAGES RAPISTS!

    AND GAYS!
16. 

    save the pixel children
    

    Jan 30th, 2007
    

    BAN ALL VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES!! ONE TIME IN A VIDEOGAME I RIPPED SOMEONE’S HEAD AND SPINE RIGHT OUT OF THEIR BODY – LOOK OUT I MIGHT DO IT IN REAL LIFE TOO!!!!1 AND YOU BETTER BAN THOSE DOLCETT PEOPLE WHO PRETEND TO KILL AND EAT EACH OTHER TOO – THEY MUST BE SERIAL KILLING SNUFF-FREAK CANNIBALS IN REAL LIFE BECAUSE THEY SEXUALIZE KILLING AND EATING PEOPLE!!!!!!@!11 ZOMG SAVE THE PIXEL CHILDRENZ!!!!!!!!
17. 

    Anomy
    

    Jan 30th, 2007
    

    @Everyone who wants to wine bitch and complain about this.

    What can you do… nothing… absolutely nothing. Your arguments are so pointless.

    At the end of the day what have you accomplished here? Do you think anyone, who could possibly do anything about what you’re arguing about, cares about your two cents?

    No, they don’t.

    You’ve done nothing, your words mean nothing. You have as much power over this debate, this issue, as I do sticking two electrodes in a can of peanut butter.

    So sit back in your litte chair, and stroke your teddy bear. Tell yourself what a good a righteous person you are, and how you saved the world from the big bad people by the power of your holy text.

    Shut up, go home, GTFO my internet
18. 

    King Frederick
    

    Jan 30th, 2007
    

    “So sit back in your litte chair, and stroke your teddy bear”

    does that get you hot

    P.S. 99% of humanity thinks people who do this are sick, greasy creeps, that’s why you have to keep your tastes _in secret_ or you’ll be ostracized and you’ll probably lose your job. That’s why you have to remain anonymous on the internet.

    Hooray, we win! *slinks back into the Internet darkness*

    “Your arguments are so pointless”

    Except that they’re completely right. Feel free to copy/paste them ironically the next time that little part of you that’s still human twinges in pain. You’ll have to smother it before your next night of posting yaoi on img.9chan.com/s/i/c/k/f/u/c/k/s.
19. 

    King Frederick
    

    Jan 30th, 2007
    

    “So sit back in your litte chair, and stroke your teddy bear”

    does that get you hot

    99% of humanity thinks people who do this are sick, greasy creeps, that’s why you have to keep your tastes _in secret_ or you’ll be ostracized and you’ll probably lose your job. That’s why you have to remain anonymous on the internet.

    Hooray, we win! *slinks back into the Internet darkness*

    “Your arguments are so pointless”

    Except that they’re completely right. Feel free to copy/paste them ironically the next time that little part of you that’s still human twinges in pain. You’ll have to smother it before your next night of posting yaoi on img.9chan.com/s/i/c/k/f/u/c/k/s.
20. 

    King Frederick
    

    Jan 30th, 2007
    

    “BAN SIMULATED RAPE BETWEEN ADULTS TOO”

    From Second Life? Wouldn’t mind at all. And I–

    WAIT A SECOND, WHAT THE FUCK. I just found out that a store is making similar hair designs from another store. SORRY, but I can’t continue this conversation.

    This is a pressing issue. I will NOT STAND for people stealing hair designs from other people to use on their virtual dolls. The proliferation of child pornography will have to sit on the backburner for this pressing moral issue. Intellectual property theft is wrong and always will be wrong!
21. 

    Anomy
    

    Jan 30th, 2007
    

    “Wahh wahhh, I am still opening my mouth like any but me still cares what you think or have to say.”

    Good job boy, pat yourself on your back, and yes teddy bears make me so hot and honry.

    Oh snap.. report me to the internet police I am molesting teddy bears.
22. 

    Alex Fitzsimmons
    

    Jan 30th, 2007
    

    “What this particular ageplay scenario does is to rewrite it, with different rules and different controls. Whether it actually has therapeutic value, I don’t know. I suspect it makes it easier for a person to suppress some horrible memories by coming up with an alternative that is easily substituted. But I do know that dismissing Emily Semaphore’s assertion that it helps her is absolutely the worst thing you can do. You certainly can’t know what is or isn’t helping a person if you don’t listen to what they say.”

    Yeah, that.

    “(Ironically, if this were Roman/Greek emperor type of times, no one would flinch at a child in sexual viewing, amazing how society dictates what’s right and wrong… hell, even when my great grandmother was growing up, she was born in 1909, a girl became a woman when she got her period and in essence, was able to marry off as early as 10. Funny how far we’ve come to change societal views based on what politicians tell people, even in 80 years.)”

    That, too.

    “And no one would flinch as incest either. Big deal. Everything you mentioned STILL happens. Children over the world are sold for pennies into slavery and sex industries. The poor are still oppressed. What HAS changed? The view of sex. NOTHING else has. Why is that? Because some politician told you what to think. The only changing thing in time is sex and sexual acceptance and who’s right and wrong.”

    And that.

    I don’t particularly care about this “issue,” such as it is, but I do find a little irony in the fact that Prokofy, who so vehemently rails against “BDSM mind control,” is actually in a very real way quite the obedient servant of society’s whims of the moment.

    That is to say, whose mind is REALLY controlled, you goofy little lunatic puppet?
23. 

    csven
    

    Jan 31st, 2007
    

    Having once been involved in this discussion, I don’t have any interest in repeating myself here; however, I found it interesting that a kind of reverse-discimination was happening in Virtual Laguna Beach, where anyone who’s RL age makes them an “adult” might be labeled a pedophile. The forums there include some accounts.
24. 

    Prokofy Neva
    

    Jan 31st, 2007
    

    >I don’t particularly care about this “issue,” such as it is, but I do find a little irony in the fact that Prokofy, who so vehemently rails against “BDSM mind control,” is actually in a very real way quite the obedient servant of society’s whims of the moment

    Rolls eyes. Historical precedents of attitudes about sex or between the sexes or about anything at all, for that matter, simply don’t count for me as some kind of argumentation. People used to use firing squads, guillotines, and witch-dunkings and drownings — are we supposed to refer to those as precedents? People used to use leeches in medicine; should we go back to that technique? People in ancient Greece may have tolerated pederasty, so we’re supposed to tolerate it even though it is not intellectually or morally justified, given that we have *evolved since then*?

    SL is actively putting everyone back to the Dark Ages.
25. 

    pavig lok
    

    Jan 31st, 2007
    

    After pages and pages and pages of this discussion my view on ageplay is unchanged. It seems that the HYSTERIA that pops up every time anything like this is mentioned completely obfuscates any rational discussion.

    Perhaps if everyone didn’t rant so loudly whenever age play or pedophilia was mentioned then we’d be able to differentiate between sexual predators and consenting adults. That at least would put us in a position of sobriety to look out for the kids we’re trying to protect, rather than screaming about the imaginary pedos behind every lamp post.

    The thing that struck me as off the ball with the above arguments is that the entire article was about the fantasies and play of consenting adults – not the reality non consenting children. I hate to advocate ageplay, but that’s what it is.
26. 

    Anonymous
    

    Jan 31st, 2007
    

    I think they should ban anything that I wouldn’t like if it happened to me. After all, everybody thinks exactly the way I do and reacts to things exactly the way I do. I am the template. As a result, if by my reasoning and my logic reason it out to be harmful, it is. Period. Don’t even argue, there is no other valid point of view.

    As a result, I expect you all to check in with me next time you’re going to have sex. I’ll let you know if it’s ok.
27. 

    Alex Fitzsimmons
    

    Jan 31st, 2007
    

    “People in ancient Greece may have tolerated homosexuality, so we’re supposed to tolerate it even though it is not intellectually or morally justified, given that we have *evolved into good, God-fearing, homo-hating Christians since then*?”

    Fixed.
28. 

    Alex Fitzsimmons
    

    Jan 31st, 2007
    

    Oh, by the way, I do not think “evolved” means what you think it means, Prokofy. Pardon my stealing a movie line there.
29. 

    Seola Sassoon
    

    Jan 31st, 2007
    

    “”"Rolls eyes. Historical precedents of attitudes about sex or between the sexes or about anything at all, for that matter, simply don’t count for me as some kind of argumentation. People used to use firing squads, guillotines, and witch-dunkings and drownings — are we supposed to refer to those as precedents? People used to use leeches in medicine; should we go back to that technique? People in ancient Greece may have tolerated pederasty, so we’re supposed to tolerate it even though it is not intellectually or morally justified, given that we have *evolved since then*?

    SL is actively putting everyone back to the Dark Ages.”"”

    People still use firing squads. In Utah, you can still choose death by firing squad (though no one has in some 50 years or so I believe). People still use guillotines (at the behest of Amnesty International). People still drown others (btw, there’s a symbolic reason to do so), doctors STILL use leeches in medicine and in fact have discovered way more about it and that it’s coming back, along with maggots. What’s changed? How we view sex.

    I certainly believe that history DOES reflect us today. What exactly dictates ‘evolution’ through thought? Since caveman, people have been bossing others around and telling them how to think. The powerful overcame the weak, and it’s still survival, but it’s no longer of the fittest but the most intelligent. All these advances in ‘society’ do is allow the weak to survive. (Such as Terri Schiavo, who would have died within days, yet managed to live some 15 years as a vegetable thanks to our ‘advances’, and the argument was STILL was it right or wrong to pull the plug.) Can you sit there and honestly tell me that martyrs aren’t right? I’m not all about bombing whomever you want (or having sex with, or eating, smoking, drugs, etc.), BUT who exactly came up with the idea that it was a bad idea? Someone somewhere said ‘This is not humane’ and rallied through politics to put a stop to it. Same thing happened with sexual evolution.

    Holy rollers of yore (tongue in cheek) rallied in many states some 50 years ago to ban certain sexual lifestyles, actions, etc. As a result, some states actually passed laws banning oral sex (because they deemed it immoral), positions other than the missionary, and sex between races in some cases. Porn was banned en masse. At the time it was considered ‘forward thinking’ and that it was the most advanced of humane positions on sex, HOWEVER, a man could take a bride at any age (case and point Loretta Lynn was married at and had 3 children before 18 and this was only about 40 years ago and no one thought twice about it) without even so much as consent of parents. Hell even drinking was prohibited at one time because it was ‘immoral’.

    Today, we reverted and basically said, as long as you don’t mess with someone under 18, you can do what you want in bed. Stances changed to fit the masses. Because one doesn’t think like the masses they are labeled stupid and wrong… ironically the same labels the people who thought the masses should think X = Y were labeled stupid in thier time, yet that’s what we progressed to now.

    The name slips me now, but the guy that said the world was round, was condemned, deemed a heretic and hunted for ‘going against God’. Now, we know the world is round.
30. 

    Seola Sassoon
    

    Jan 31st, 2007
    

    My IE goofed, so I’m finishing my argument, posted before IE crashed, here’s the rest:

    There is more evidence and proof that a girl is ready to be a woman upon getting a period as opposed to what the government deems an adult (18 or 21 depending on the country). Just because people live longer, does that mean that biologically a person isn’t ready to grow up? When we come to an era that people live to be 200 years old, does that mean we should raise the age limit of what deems an adult? Medical advances change the biology of humans makeup? No.

    Right now, the US has troops who are fighting for their life, and the government has deemed them not old enough to drink. They can pick up a rifle and shoot other men and make the decision to do so and live with the consequences, but ‘society’ tells them it’s not okay to drink. These kind of ironic statements are what really kills the forward thinking. The government has told us what exactly is adult and old enough. A bunch of old politicians set our laws.

    Do I think ageplay is right? No. But I’m not gonna tell someone else their kink is wrong when two adults are involved.
31. 

    Linda Zhao
    

    Feb 5th, 2007
    

    I am a sexual ageplayer. Infact, I’m an ageplay escort and have roleplayed ages from 5 to 18 for clients. Young girls having sex with older men and women is a fetish of mine since I started having sex (concentually) at a fairly young age with an older man. I am bisexual and do find myself attracted to girls below the age of 18. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, after all, I remember Elle MacPhereson at the age of 16 being on the cover of my brother’s Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Calander wearing almost nothing. Its natural for men to be attracted to teen girls, as proved by that calander that was aimed at the mainstream men.

    Now, I do think attraction to toddlers and preteens in abnormal but as long as people don’t act on that attraction its not a crime. I do think that some people are born with or develope abnormal sexual urges that are not of their choosing. A healthy outlet to satisfy those urges through roleplaying can allow them to cope with those urges without acting on them in the real world.

    Now you can pass moral judgement on my client that wants to rape me as a child, or deflower me as his daughter, but what about the client that wants to beat me and rape me as an adult? How is his desire any better or more moral? He doesn’t rape and beat women in RL but obviously has a kink about violence toward women. He, like the other clients, is playing out his fantasy online in a safe place. There is no difference. Raping, beating and killing are all bad and illegal, so is molesting children. If you ban ageplay, you must also ban rape, dolcette, Gor etc.
32. 

    Zayanya Nakamura
    

    Feb 26th, 2007
    

    The problem is that in SL absolutely every sick fetish is easily accessible and on display. There is one standard for child molestation. If it was YOUR kid would it be ok.

    If your kid was being touched, is it ok? NO
    If some furry thing you loved was being messed with is it ok? NO
    If it was somebody you love would it be cool to serve them up hot? NO
    If you were of any hue, is it cool to degrade and torture your group just for the hell of it? NO

    For some freaks the answer may be yes to one or all those questions and there is no way around it, they live in the shadows, always will. When I see people in SL with avies as kids i think 1 of two things is afoot.

    This person is a sick freak who probably got felt up by a nasty uncle and has never come to terms with the fact that your body responds to stimulation even when you are asleep.

    Or

    This is a person who like everybody else in SL is exploring this pixelated world in the form that expresses their inner self best.

    I made a kid avie for myself once, and it was cute and fun to see yourself as a kid but the sexual part ruined it for me, the nasty people are a turn off.

    as far as the “daddy” thing, ewwwww, its just sick there is no grey area here, there is sick, and ewwwwwww sick. she can dress that pig up all she wants but if you need more than one alt in sl to be yourself you are sick. profky is many things but he is not an alt, he says what ever the hell he wants to say [at length] as who he is, that takes balls, not pre-puberty balls either but big brass sex gen ballz. everybody on this board speaking their mind as the person they are inworld has balls but the one set of missing balls are those that belong to the person being interviewed. the little girl who wants to be molested part time.

    You want some respect sweetheart, grow up and be a pedophile in the daylight, you wont because you know its wrong, you know its not cool. thats why she is an alt and why probably 90% of the people who play at her little place are alts.
33. 

    Reality
    

    Feb 26th, 2007
    

    Hmm, don’t know how I missed this gem showcasing people that do not know the difference between Reality and Fantasy. Thank you Zaynaya for posting your infantile blathering showing off your inability to tell what is Real and what is not.

    Second Life Avatars are not alive, they cannot exist anywhere except on the Grid itself. The inability of the bulk of those using Second Life to differentiate between the Real World and the World of Fantasy (second Life) sickens me far more than the use of computer data to fulfill some little kink a person may have.

    I have said similar things while commenting to other topics as I am about to say here – and quite frankly I do grow sick and tired of having to bash people over the head with the truth of these things.

    Zayanya, Your second Life Avatar, Prokofy’s second Life Avatar, Seola’s Second Life Avatar, everyone’s Second Life Avatars …. Not a one of them is alive. Not a one of them can possibly exist anywhere that would not require a computer, a copy of Second Life and an internet connection. The names attached to those Avatars mean nothing whatsoever, they do not belong to real people, posting with a Second Life name takes no balls at all.

    Now, I’m not going to bother typing everything I’d normally type in response to a twit like you – instead I’ll close here with this:

    Anyone that cannot tell the difference between Fantasy and Reality deserves to be rounded up, put in a cell and shot. The world doesn’t need people who, at the end of the day, actually think they ‘live’ inside a computer program.
34. 

    S.V.W.6.
    

    Mar 1st, 2007
    

    Well…

    As I see it you are trying to remove peoples responsibilities for their actions by connecting fictions with act.
    It is illegal for X to do Y
    It is not illegal for X to pretend doing Y.
    The reason for this is: X is the subject of free will. Which means, X can differentiate between pretending and doing. And X can choose to do Y – which incriminates him in the eyes of the law (thus society).
    The laws are to regulate X relations to society not his relations to fiction.
    Every person have had fantasies about killing someone, only the few who actually does so are criminals.
    We roleplay (or fantasize, or think through) stuff for several purposes: one of the purposes is to determine the consequences of acting out these fantasies. If I hadn’t fantasized about killing, and imagined the effects (both on the victim, the direct relatives, my relatives, society and myself) I would only refrain from killing in fear of punishment. Because I am able to reflect and pretend I can gauge the consequences of my actions..

    What you against free thought and data exchange are advocating is that mind control is better than free will.. Dictation is better than reflection.

    The world really sucks…

    ta ta.
35. 

    S.V.W.6.
    

    Mar 1st, 2007
    

    Well…

    As I see it you are trying to remove peoples responsibilities for their actions by connecting fictions with act.
    It is illegal for X to do Y
    It is not illegal for X to pretend doing Y.
    The reason for this is: X is the subject of free will. Which means, X can differentiate between pretending and doing. And X can choose to do Y – which incriminates him in the eyes of the law (thus society).
    The laws are to regulate X relations to society not his relations to fiction.
    Every person have had fantasies about killing someone, only the few who actually does so are criminals.
    We roleplay (or fantasize, or think through) stuff for several purposes: one of the purposes is to determine the consequences of acting out these fantasies. If I hadn’t fantasized about killing, and imagined the effects (both on the victim, the direct relatives, my relatives, society and myself) I would only refrain from killing in fear of punishment. Because I am able to reflect and pretend I can gauge the consequences of my actions..

    What you against free thought and data exchange are advocating is that mind control is better than free will.. Dictation is better than reflection.

    The world really sucks…

    ta ta.
36. 

    s.v.w.6.
    

    Mar 1st, 2007
    

    sorry bout the double post..
37. 

    Erik
    

    Mar 21st, 2007
    

    I apologize in advance for the longish detour into the last 1500 years of moral societal history I inadvertently made in the following. I promise I do get back to the topic eventually…

    Evil in the world can be divided two ways — it can 1) be divided into the evil that arises from selfish practical concerns (i.e., killing an unwanted newborn, or killing a witness to a crime), and evil that arises from lusts (evil desires), such as rape, pedophilia, or killing out of rage or hatred; and it can 2) be divided into the evil that exists only in the mind, and the evil that is manifested from the mind into action.

    As for the second division, one person posted that “hundreds of thousands of people admit to thinking about children, beastiality, death sex, etc.” and went on to ask “Does that automatically connect to ‘going out and doing it’?” Well, it obviously has some connection. No one goes out and does something without first thinking about it. I would submit that everyone living deals with thoughts of evil, to greater or lessor extend. If they didn’t, there would be no moral struggle in life. Evil thoughts come to our mind, and in becoming moral human beings, through our reason, and through whatever moral education we have available to us, we strengthen our revulsion to those kinds of thoughts. By doing so we distance ourselves from the very capacity to do those kinds of evils. But we have the free will to break down any revulsion we have towards evils as well. There is no evil so grotesque that we cannot, by our free will, and bolstered by our own reasonings, condition ourselves to accept and make a part of us, until we feel no barriers from acting upon it.

    However we live in an age where there are strongly competing doctrines of “moral education”. The baseline moral standards of the world can be traced back to the 8th century, when the Roman Empire became Christian. At that time the practical evil of infanticide and the lust-based evil of pedophilia, which were common and not considered evil or even disreputable in most places in the world, were made illegal in the empire. Before that happened, there was no moral education outside the isolated sects of Christianity, Judaism, certain Germanic religions, and other scattered religions around the world, to give people the power to identify those things as the evils they are and build up the intellectual aversion to them that is required to resist them in one’s self. Over the next thousand years the Christian missionaries who went to every corner of the world, and in most places they visited this teaching had great and more permanent effect on the moral education in those societies. Even though in most places Christianity, as a religion, didn’t replace existing religions in a widespread manner, the moral education they brought did spread and replace the ignorance such evils as infanticide and pedophilia. In the latter part of that 1000 years, European imperialism spread across the world with a legal system based upon this same morality. These legal ideas also stuck, now that the empires are all gone. The result of these things is that now infanticide and pedophilia is now nowhere in the world not recognized as evils.

    As powerful an illustration of Divine Providence as that may be, at the end of those 1000 years, by the 18th century, the elite in Europe, (the clergy, the intellectuals) had rejected Christianity in favor of atheism, though they mostly weren’t free to admit it yet. Atheism since then has trickled down to the masses. America has been a slightly different story. But in the 21st century we have a Western culture that is struggling between basing itself upon Christianity and Atheism. Atheism has the clear upper hand in Europe, where France was officially atheist during many of its revolutionary political periods, the Soviet Union was officially atheist, and this even spread to China and Cambodia. However, none of these places any longer enforce atheism. In America the contest is only recent, having been a clearly Christian nation until the 1940′s. I mentioned infanticide and pedophilia in connection with this, because those two evils have not yet been challenged intellectually by the atheist movement. But they will be, and on the fringes they already are. In much of America an infant can be killed with impunity for any reason, as long as some portion of it, even just a foot, is still inside the birth canal.

    Western societal awareness and disgust for these evils came through Christianity, and the rejection of Christianity necessarily means the rejection of these moral standards. The path by which they would be rejected can be illustrated by how the moral standards regarding abortion and homophilia have been rejected. The legal and moral judgements regarding these things go hand-in-hand, and the legal justifications become the moral justifications and vise versa. The legal/moral justification for homophilia is that “anything between two consenting adults must be okay.” But that leads directly to pedophilia, because there is no rational basis for the use of “adults” in that standard. Legally (and so also moral) people have adopted the concept of an age of consent, so that “anything between two consenting people is okay, but minor is incapable of giving consent”. But of course, this is completely divorced from reality. Children are capable of consenting to things from the time they are one or two years old. They are even capable of reason by age 12 or 13. To say that an adult can’t have sex with a 13-year-old because the 13-year-old is not capable of consenting to it, is simply to justify with dishonest reasoning, the valid disgust that still permeates Western society regarding pedophilia. Another dishonest reasoning for the rejection of the evil of homophilia is the fact that some people have homophilic desires that they cannot suppress. Yet, other people have pedophilic desires they cannot suppress. Others have rape fantasies they cannot suppress, and others have murder fantasies they cannot suppress. But the dishonest reasoning says that unlike the rest of these desires, the homophilic desires must inevitably express themselves in action, and doing so is healthy. But the other desires require medical treatment. The difference in reasoning comes clearly from the arbitrary rejection of one moral standard without the rejection of the rest. If they admitted that these distinctions were made from a priori moral standards they had adopted, this wouldn’t be dishonest.

    All this to set the stage for the moral climate one finds oneself in. In a culture struggling between the validity of Christian morality versus atheistic rejection of morality, someone with strong tendencies towards immoral desires is very likely to accept the version of reality that will not require him to struggle against those desires. They will give him the reasoning he needs to destroy what disgust he has towards those desires instead of building it up. Apart from the complete rejection of moral standards regarding homophilia, it is obvious that ALL moral standards are being challenged, and that no moral standard retains the taboo it once had. And this is where we find ourselves, that society is empowering people to justify and rationalize fantasies of things such as rape and pedophilia, things which society still condemns when acted out, and to call them harmless, safe outlets, and even “healing”.

    However the progression of these things is well known. A desire starts as one that a person wouldn’t dare act upon, and has aversion to, understanding that there is something of evil in it. Through fantasy, pornography, and/or role-playing, one, over time, beats down their aversion to it. They crush any inner conflict over the thing within themselves. Through reasonings, they convince themselves that, either there is no evil in the thing, or through atheism, that there is no such thing as evil, or if they are averse to atheism, they may convince themselves that they are themselves inherently evil, and nothing can be done about it. Since atheism is more and more a norm, the latter option is less and less common. Thus by fantasy, pornography, and/or role-playing, they make that desire, that evil, their own. In the end, there is no barrier to acting out that desire in the real world, unless there is a legal one. This is the connection, and the harm in these things.

    So to the woman who said, “I was molested for years by a family member. For me, role-playing in a sexual manner is healing because it allows me to RECLAIM my sexuality. Everything I am involved in is consensual, even if it appears not to be (i.e. consensual non-consensuality),” I reply that your family inflicted an evil thing on you, and you are responded by destroying your aversion to that evil. By doing this you are making his evil your own. And you are also infecting your husband with it. That is not healing. You cannot be healthy without being disgusted and repulsed by what was done to you. It is unfair, but there is a burden that is forced on you, that for the rest of your life you have to be disgusted and repulsed by an evil that was done to you, but ultimately that is a much lighter burden that to adopt the evil itself, in exchange for your repulsion of it. Western society tends to tells us we can “heal” and then everything is better and easy. This is not true. Some things we must struggle with for our whole lives. There are no shortcuts to happiness.

    To the woman who said “Now you can pass moral judgement on my client that wants to rape me as a child, or deflower me as his daughter, but what about the client that wants to beat me and rape me as an adult? How is his desire any better or more moral?” I respond that for one thing, raping a child is a more grievous evil than raping an adult, but both are terrible evils, and you do great harm to yourself, your clients, and society by participating in either one. I also believe that if society recognizes rape as the evil that it is, they should ban rape pornography just as they ban pedophilia pornography. Online role-playing of these things is, I think, one of the more harmful versions of pornography, because of the interactivity that it allows, which is that much more effective at beating down of inhibitions toward acting it out in reality. An enlightened society would ban both. America bans only pedophilia pornography, and most European countries ban neither. There is no benefit to society or to any individual from these kinds of pornography, and great harm. There is no valid free-speech argument for not banning them.

    (For reasons I don’t understand, someone always feels it necessary to ask “who gets to decide what is pornography.” The answer, which I would think should be obvious, is our representatives in the legislature. )

    Regardless of the legality of this pornography, I think LL has a moral responsibility to ban it in SL, given that they recognize these things (rape and pedophilia) as absolute evils, which most of the world does… for now.
38. 

    F**KING JEW
    

    Apr 25th, 2007
    

    Statutory Rape – What is it???
    Depends on law and circumstance
    if an Adult has sex with anyone under the legal Adult age of consent
    the parents can press charges (of varying degrees depending on circumstance etc)

    What do Jews think??? – (Judaisam is 5000 years old)
    Talmud states “man can have (proteted?)sex with a girl and it is nothing”

    “man must not have sex with a girl under the age of 9″

    an 8yo girl (absolutely) cannot consent to sex with a -MAN- (but she an with a boy???maybe?!)IDK

    Also ‘The Talmud’ defines a MAN as *only* a JEW
    if you aren’t cirumcised and had your BARMITZVEH
    you don’t have a license to child molest *TOO BAD*

    Now that I have offended Jews and 9yo girls lets move on
    if 9yo girl is bare minimum age of consent then 17/18 seems reasonable for most of us not worthy to be called men *gentiles* or hebrew for Dumbasses*

    In canada the AOC is/was 14 at technical standpoint
    not facoring in alcohol/drugs

    Factoring in substances she better be atleast 16+

    Referencing Talmud Quote again it says “sex with a girl”
    Not *marriage* with a girl.

    16yo is in most cases still a girl (doing grade 11 math or math 10 if she failed a grade)

    if a 30yo man marries a 16yo girl she better be able to do some pretty impressive farm work like milking cows or something

    or the 30yo man should be fairly rich and handsome

    There are girls(11 years to 15 years old) out there that do want sex experiences with men, but those better be some pretty careful men

    1) no full on interourse *she is not a woman*
    2) no unproteted sex *ditto*
    3) her dad finds out or any guy on the planet
    who doesn’t GIVE A SHIT WHAT Levitius let alone the talmud says – better have somewhere to run/hide like mexico
    4) no long term relationship plans – don’t give her a $500 dollar ring and propose, or say ur gonna marry her
    5) don’t give her diseases in the mouth, vagina or Anus
    use a condom at every point even on your finger
    6) Emergency contraceptive – if you have to use it
    you aren’t being careful enough – nevertheless have on hand
    and spermicide too

    That’s only pregnancy and diseases covered

    7) she is young and sensitive with feelings of her own
    likes and dislikes of her own, a different generation and culture
    -don’t get involved-
    she is not pregnant by you – you didn’t force anything on her – no psychological damage – she has her life you have yours – and you didn’t share diseases -

    9) all you shared was an orgasm (not fluids)

    therefore “a man can have sex with a girl and it is nothing”
    the talmud is correct (if a few simple things a observed)

    STAMP
    “JEW” AROSS YOUR FOREHEAD NOW

39. SexCrimeDefender
    

    May 5th, 2007
    

    Virtual Rape Online?

    I haven’t been to Second Life myself but this article from Wired (via Sex Crimes) brings to mind something I read recently about online sex clubs in Second Life including a virtual child brothel called Jailbait that cater to persons

Leave a Reply