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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.