Interview With Precursor Pooraka
by Pixeleen Mistral on 07/06/07 at 11:13 pm
If you are going to a region marked “BDSM Bondage” you don’t expect the Disney store
by humdog
humdog: Hi — i’m here today with Precursor Pooraka, one of the forces against the abolishment of BDSM protest….hi Precursor, how are you today?
Precursor Pooraka: I’m very well thank you humdog, thank you for seeing me
humdog: glad to be here…. tell me — how did this all start? and what are we talking about…smiles
Precursor Pooraka: The protest itself?
humdog: what provoked the protest — let’s start there
Precursor Pooraka 
k, well i have always kept a keen and close eye on the blog too see what is approaching and where things are heading… the post by the Lindens itself that i read, initially didn’t seem too bad at all it’s only upon closer examination that you can read between the lines
humdog: you are speaking about the “let’s make it safe and happy post”?
Precursor Pooraka: that’s correct, and inlight of the events that had preceded it, i can understand why it was posted, however…upon further discussion, examination and reading by others it appeared that whilst the initial intentions of the post were good and reasonable things could quickly get out of hand
humdog: you say events preceded the post — what were those events?
Precursor Pooraka: i’m talking there of the child pornography claims that were aired before the post, and obviously i’m sure that everyone is saddened and sickened by the very idea that it would happen
humdog: are you speaking about the ageplay groups in SL?
Precursor Pooraka: not specifically, i understood that some images were obtained by a television station in Europe and this was the cause of the uproar – and rightly so, these images should not be tolerated… that being the case, i can understand the intense reaction by LL, this is by no means a bad thing, and these images have no place here
humdog: i see…so what happened then?
Precursor Pooraka: well, the posting on the blog was discussed and examined… i myself read over a notecard with thoughts, views and comments that had been passed to me… at that stage there was no real “movement”, however it was clear that the BDSM community may be put under the microscope in account of the previous happenings, that being the case it seemed BDSM could be used as a scape goat
humdog: so….you began to feel that BDSM would be scapegoated
Precursor Pooraka: it certainly could be, reading between the lines of the blog – which was pretty “unspecific” and broad about what exactly it was saying, no doubt giving room to maneuver later if required
humdog: was that when you decided to create the group “BDSM IS SAFE”
Precursor Pooraka: well i don’t often stand up and shout about things, but i’m very attached to my SL and very attached to the lifestyle, BDSM i mean… and i value my SL a great deal as do many thousands of others, tens of thousands really. and to see it taken away, banned would be a bad thing for many people. i decided for once, rather than so sit by and hope it didn’t happen to stand up and shout and ask people to offer their support for something that is important and valuable to them
humdog: why do you think that people object to the lifestyle?
Precursor Pooraka: one word really… misunderstanding, i think the whole BDSM lifestyle is not understood from those looking in from outside. it seems alien, strange, brutal, harsh, evil, wicked and wrong… but with a little research, a few chats and a little understanding that view can be seen again through different eyes
humdog: there is the slogan “safe sane and consensual”
Precursor Pooraka: yes, that’s correct. and it’s something we all live by, but i don’t know how far that extends outside the BDSM community, and if people outside are aware of it
humdog: so is there a concern that perhaps some people not in the lifestyle are fooling around and exploring and well screwing it up for other people?
Precursor Pooraka: well i think that can be said of anything really, there will always be a minority that, if allowed will ruin it for the majority. but the people “enforcing the law” must recognize there are minorities in everything, and the majority should not be punished. it’s not fair to punish all people who drive a red car, because someone driving a red car ran over your cat… so i think between the misunderstanding of the lifestyle *and* literally “tarring everyone with the same brush” there is indeed concern there
humdog: how do you see the issue at present? how would you describe it?
Precursor Pooraka: at present i think there is a lot of posturing, no one is exactly sure where they stand… on one side there are the protest groups, on the other there is LL but we also have “external influences” at work, such as RL groups and activists who let alone understand BDSM, but not even SL or probably the internet itself
humdog: i agree with you that there is a lot of heat and light created by people who don’t know what they are talking about. how do you feel about the French family group?
Precursor Pooraka: i will be perfectly honest, i haven’t read a massive amount but what i have read seems to be almost a “mob mentality”… and we are concerned that such a group may have the sway, even though not having the knowledge, to uproot one of SL’s major lifestyles
humdog: yes… i see that…what would you like to see your group, and the other groups in the protest, accomplish?
Precursor Pooraka: well my group, and the group “I am for a FREE Second Life” created by Jazhara Keon, along with the NCSF and various other groups have united under a banner called the “United Protest” and our aim is to ensure that our various groups, lifestyles and values are not stamped out here in SL…from my point of view, my group relates to BDSM — but there are many others who are also concerned and affected and are willing to speak up
humdog: i have a URL here that a friend gave me — this friend is VERY concerned that she and her lover will no longer be able to continue their life in SL . what is your opinion of the post in this URL http://unitedprotest.mine.nu/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8#8
Precursor Pooraka: i’m aware of the post, yes, is she specifically talking about the comments made by Robin in that post?
humdog: yes she is
Precursor Pooraka: well i think Robins comments were very interesting… she doesn’t brand us “a bunch of weirdoes” but keeps an open mind, and makes no suggestion of taking one side or another. I think she, as many of the Lindens are quite opened minded and whilst her comments certainly are not all negative, or all positive, there is a long way to go before we have any reassurances that we’re not the fly under the fly swatter
humdog: some friends tell me that, well, the Americans are more anal about ageplay, and that’s fine, but that in reality, the lindens are just trying to protect themselves from lawsuits. how do you feel about that?
Precursor Pooraka: i can totally understand LL’s perspective in all of this. they are a business. they have investors. they have lawsuits, and lets look at the bigger picture – they need to protect themselves, otherwise none of us will be “here”… that’s my take… if it appears I’ve shot myself in the foot, please allow me to continue…i think there needs to be a little more responsibility on the account of people using SL, for example if you are going to a region marked “BDSM Bondage” you don’t expect the Disney store when you arrive do you? as such, be responsible for your own actions – if you don’t want to see it, don’t go there… don’t search for it, don’t teleport there…. of course the BDSM community has *already* done a great deal and moved “offensive” things out of sight so as not to offend… but if you go *anywhere* looking for trouble on purpose, you *will* find it, anywhere, everywhere. I believe that speaking of responsibility, we at the University of Submission have done a great deal to ensure things are acceptable to visitors – there is nothing offensive upon arrival… land owners can only do so much, there are finite limits to what can and can’t be done… the real responsibility lies with the person looking at the monitor, and typing at the keyboard
humdog: well yes, it is interesting you know- first, there is almost a kind of American cultural imperialism in operation in that there appears to be an attempt to impose mainstream middle class American sexual mores on the large percentage of players who are not from the US or it looks that way and then of course there is the idea that self-responsibility never occurs to the people who are screaming.
Precursor Pooraka: the thing i love about SL is there are no countries, there are no nationalities, no borders, and that *really* appeals to me… i don’t know where you’re from, i don’t really need to know, but the fact is we’re sat here in this “place” on a “chair” and a “cushion” meeting each other having this “discussion” – that’s what i love… and i find it a great shame that external influences try and use SL as leverage for their own goals, it’s very sad indeed
humdog: smiles…yes…in SL you can meet all these friends that you would never have any other way
Precursor Pooraka: indeed, and i think that appeals to a great many people… some are just not good at talking, others are shy, some couldn’t possibly “do that”, others would love to “try it” but can’t… SL provides a way to gain a RL experience without really being here… you can still remember the places, how they are, the sounds, the looks and how people were dressed, what they did… all of it, but without actually leaving your own home – this is why SL appeals to so many, so wide, regardless of who and where they are… and as Robin said, this is a better world, a place created anew and i really wished it had stayed that way, but RL comes, RL always comes for you, without fail
humdog: yes. well i see i have gone over the time — is there anything else you’d like to say?
Precursor Pooraka: well it’s s shame time isn’t slower, as i have so much more to say and i’m sure you have many other questions to ask… but i would ask everyone for calm, in my group, the “United Protest” group, in Linden Labs, in RL… everywhere… take a step back, take a breath, think again, clarify and know your cause. in all areas though, i would hope that in world and out of world people discuss in a calm manner and continue to stand together United for what they believe in and working together for the benefit of us *all* here in SL
humdog: thank you so much for taking the time to talk with us today
Precursor Pooraka: once again, thank you for having me here, it was an absolute pleasure to speak with you and express myself
humdog: thank you…smiles…our pleasure always
Prokofy Neva
Jun 7th, 2007
1. So let’s get this straight — it’s the perception and pre-emptive fear that something *might* happen that prompted this protest, not any actual call from LL, or any actual abuse report from any resident. So it’s all pretty hallucinatory, and all about victimology.
2. The usual chimes are rung — we’re always told that if we criticize this lifestyle, if we find it harsh or evil, that there’s something wrong with *us*, the people experiencing revulsion. We’re to cancel out and suppress and step on our own natural and genuine feelings, and be told — under duress! under coercion! — that we are *wrong* (!)
We’re to be *humiliated* — and yet without any consent! And, we’re told we can never understand *enough*…never get educated *enough* — and all our natural, honest, sincere instincts and revulsion and violence, coercion, slavery, harshness, oppression — that this is all the result of “misunderstanding” and “lack of education” (we’re really get the cult treatment now) and that we must just have a “few little chats” (of those Orwellian or Soviet type “chats” no doubt) and we’ll “understand”.
See, that’s what so sinister and coercive. We must always be *brought round* — and if we *don’t* agree, we remain in the wrong, mired in error, and hopelessly “narrowminded”. Sorry, no sale.
3. And again, humdog, I have to REALLY call you on this utter bullshit: “well yes, it is interesting you know- first, there is almost a kind of American cultural imperialism in operation in that there appears to be an attempt to impose mainstream middle class American sexual mores on the large percentage of players who are not from the US or it looks that way and then of course there is the idea that self-responsibility never occurs to the people who are screaming.”
There aren’t any um “American cultural imperialists” harshing on any BDSMers in LL, in the media, in any broad vigilante movement — anywhere. There is nobody calling for the removal of BDSM or the oppression of BDSM — this is your hallucination. What we have are EUROPEANS — can you read my lips? EURO-PEANS!!! French, German, Belgium, Duth, who have been having frenzies in the press, media, police, etc., not the U.S.
So you’d have to reall talk about Euro-imperialism here, my dear, hate to rain on your hate parade.
And once the mainstream — which itself is varied enough — begins to grapple with this, sure, they’ll be revulsed — and what is wrong with that? Why is it cultural imperialism not to want a jackboot in your face? The jackboot in your face is the problem, humdog, not your natural revulsion. Let’s get it straight here.
SELF-RESPONSIBILITY is EXACTLY what the Lindens are calling for, and SELF-RESPONSIBILITY is EXACTLY what the BDSM and Gor and whatnot are shirking. They want LL to take the rap for them with RL police. They want LL to have their backs to the wall and justify the unjustifiable to the mainstream. They want LL to throw a giant prim canopy over their fantasy lives and protect them like babies while they do “what-the-fuck” they want — and they never want to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY themselves.
It’s supremely infantile. And I think LL is right in finally calling “time” on it.
They think this lifestyle is ok? Fine, *answer for it* with their local police, schools, media — and hey, families. Let them. Let them validate their second life — or try to — and not shirk that responsibility and try to make the mainstream validate or make LL fight their battles.
Reality
Jun 8th, 2007
And on cue we have the hypocritical ranting of one Prokofy Neva – the woman who states that no person should ever try to shove their values, ideals, ideas, kinks and the like down another person’s throat by force …. Not to mention the woman deluded enough to think she even begins to speak for everyone else in society.
Bryn Voight
Jun 8th, 2007
As a first comment regarding the article above, I think it is more than logical for people to preemptively defend themselves and their activities. I also think it’s foolish to assume that the BDSM community alone is responsible for the protest against the Daniel Linden Blog post, which was vaguely and ominously worded. When official policies include things like ‘broadly offensive to the community’ which exactly further classification, they end up inevitably being a policy of abuse for those in positions of authority and their friends. One need look no further to the selective enforcement of ‘obscenity’ or ‘violating public morality’ in the Peoples Republic of China for demonstration on how ambiguity in such policy is utilized.
Talk of community on the internet is profoundly interesting on a number of levels. Does SL itself, as a total entity, constitute a community? What about the subgroups within it. There are dozens of Gorean Sims, populated most likely by hundreds, if not thousands of Avatars, do they constitute a ‘community’. Should the Gorean community standards be applied to others? No of course not. I think one of the greatest things about SL is the capacity for each sim, each area, to govern it’s own community standard to a more or less greater extent. Thus we can have Sim’s where everybody has to be a Giant Robot and Sim’s were there are no Giant Robots allowed, or any other particular variation one wishes to examine. Community in RL is describes by particular geographic features. ‘community Standards’ tend to be the banner of the self-appointed moral guardians, whose goals are never to extend freedom of speech, expression or activity, but always to intrude on the private lives of others who they see leading lives of ‘degeneracy’.
I wish also to comment on Prok’s statement. Number 2 seems to me to be a little bizarre it both it’s phrasing and conclusion. Of course BDSMers assume your ignorance regarding their lifestyle when you invest into their actions your own judgments which have nothing to do with their actual lifestyle AS THEY LIVE IT. Your use of various words like coercion, Slavery and your natural revulsion for them further lends to the distinction that is required to be made. You can make judgments regarding BDSM all you want. That’s your freedom. You cannot however expect the BDSM community accept your judgements, especially when those judgments do not equal with their actual experiences.
It is hardly coercive for them to believe you are wrong, which is what you seem to be suggesting. That some-hoe, their believe that you remain ignorant and out of touch with the realities of BDSM is ‘coercive’ is ridiculous. It is especially ridiculous when than compared to your later statements about ‘answering for it’ to various figures in authority, which is most certainly an expression of coercion.
I also think it’s hard infantile for one to want their freedom of expression protected. It’s most certainly not infantile for people to want to defend the communities and interests they have built in SL. SL has been presented from the beginning precisely as a place to generate a fantasy life seperate from one’s RL. To deny that this has been both the thrust of marketing and the general portrayel of SL is ludicrous. To than go on and suggest that people should now be thought infantile for their desire to continue to defend the product and it’s use in the way it was described to them is also ludicrous.
The idea that the general public(whatever they are) will be ‘revulsed’ when they ‘get a look at what the freaks are doing in SL’ is interesting. I think it more likely a minority of the population will be ‘revulsed’ by a minority of the activity. BDSM encompasses a wide variety of activities and to consider many of the things that fall under it’s purview to be non-mainstream is to kid ourself(A quick look at Mainstream pornography or even just mainstream media, Romance Novels, etc. will demonstrate that most people want a little more spice than missionary in the Dark). But what’s more, Prok than engages in Ad Hominem attacks and what amounts to a Straw Man Argument. Where is the ‘Jack-Boot’ from the BDSM Community in SL? Where is the coercive attempt to force you to make choices in a particular way or to deprive you of the freedom to govern your own activities? Because I can’t see it. I can see how the ‘revulsion’ people might feel leading to censure and attempts to eliminate the ‘perverts’ is equatable to coercion, because it’s pretty much the definition of coercion. SL is a forum of expression, of creation, and has been presented as such for quite some time. There are a host of behaviors and ‘expression’ people engage in on SL that I find revolting or reprehensible, but in SL, as far as I know, there are no methods of Coercion available save public censure and the ban powers of the Lindens. Everyone in SL has the free-will to choose the expression they want to engage in. There is no ‘real’ slavery in SL. There are people playing games in with a presentation of ‘slavery’ is a component, but all it takes for an SL slave to no longer be a Slave is to log off, or more simply to just stop playing.
What the ‘BDSM Community’ in SL is rightly afraid of it that the ‘Jack-boot’ as you put it, will come down on their face. What they most broadly want is to be left alone to do their little games in this nice fantasy venue provided for people to live out their fantasies. That they expect LL to live up to certain commitment to freedom of expression is hardly childish.
Jessica Holyoke
Jun 8th, 2007
Prok, can you provide an instance where a SL resident was pursued by the RL police and they requested the Lindens to hide them? You make that statement over and over again in your posts, and it may be because I’m still relatively new to SL so I missed that fight, but when did that situation occur?
Trinity Dejavu
Jun 8th, 2007
Someone needs to buy Prokofy a huge chunk of toffee cake and stuff the whole thing in the broadly offensive hole she has in her face.
Lewis Nerd
Jun 8th, 2007
Prok, shut up.
I’m not a great fan of much of the ‘adult stuff’ that goes on in SL, but if it’s properly labelled, with responsible owners marking it as adult stuff, then unless any real laws are being broken – and as far as I know, BDSM isn’t illegal in the US, then there’s no reason why it can’t peacefully coexist in its own areas without infringing on the rights of others who choose not to partake. Add in the ‘verification’ to the procedure so that those who aren’t prepared to confirm they are over 18 are excluded, and everyone wins. If someone partakes in sexual behaviour outside of ‘adult marked’ land then they can be AR’d for it – nothing has changed.
Many people find you offensive but you’re still here.
Lewis
Lewis Nerd
Jun 8th, 2007
Oh, and Prok… BDSM’ers having “online fantasy lives” is wrong? So… um… being female in real life and having a male avatar isn’t somehow a fantasy?
Lewis
cickmy lunt
Jun 8th, 2007
prok, why do you always allude that there is something criminal or taboo about bdsm? there are clubs in every city and they’re perfectly legal. just because you are personally offended by it doesn’t mean that it is somehow invalid. oh wait… forgot who i was addressing; there’s only ever one way with you.
United Protest
Jun 8th, 2007
On the record….
I was recently interview by the SL Hearld regarding our cause. As you know whilst Jaz and I both co-founded the “United Protest”, we were initally were working seperatley. Our common goals and targets are the same, hence uniting together. The interview
csven
Jun 8th, 2007
Okay, I gotta ask: Is that the same Lewis Nerd who protested the Suicide Girls coming into SL? Correction: the *largely ignored* Suicide Girls.
Certainly doesn’t sound like the old Lewis I remember, cause the comments I’ve been reading the last week or so (including those during Robin’s “Office Hours”) have impressed me with their tolerance, intelligence and ability to remain objective.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 8th, 2007
Lewis Nerd got raped and then bludgeoned to death at Second Citizen. In order to make a liberal out of Lewis Nerd, SC had to have at him — so now, merely to be contrary to me, he’s even ready to embrace BDSM — this former shadow of the formerly robust Lewis Nerd, now a creature of the tribe of SC.
Infliction of bodily harm, torture, coercion, confinement — these are all criminal acts. They remain criminal acts in RL law in penal codes, and “consent” is never a justification for them. Zealots who tried to overturn this concept in trying to get a BDSM case decriminalized through appeals to the European Court of Human Rights *failed*. Consent is not condonement or exception to international and national laws on torture and confinement.
These are standards worth upholding, precisely because “consent” is a subjective matter that is often lied about in these cases or difficult for governments to determine, and would involve excessive intrusion by government.
The idea that “BDSM isn’t illegal” in the US is one of those concepts that the zealous proponents of this lifestyle constantly affirm, but if they were to attempt to mainstream and legalize their practices by overturning criminalization of torture with some kind of “consent escape clause,” they’d find an uphill struggle. So they don’t push it that hard, being in a minority, and prefer merely to stay out of the public eye or even underground — in most democratic socieites, they know they would face a considerable challenge — and that’s a good thing.
Most urban centers ignore BDSM clubs or regulate them by focusing on other ordances on liquor, noise, people per square foot, etc.
BDSMers are free to go on imagining that everyone needs a special indoctrination to their cult to “understand it”. Normal, rational people outside this cult are also free to go on saying that they refuse to be indoctrinated. Lewis has drunk the Kool-Aid and now in true BDSM fashion is telling me to shut up. Typical.
I don’t see any jackboot coming down on the face of BDSM in SL. Rather, I see BDSM jackboots everywhere in the public domain trying to legitimize themselves — right here in this thread, two people have called for forcible silencing of me, for example. They are not legitimate. A jackboot coming down on a face is a illegitimate and criminal act. It is not sanitized or purified by add-ons like specious “consent” invocations that we have no way of checking — unless we’re indoctrinated into the cult.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 8th, 2007
A good example of how BDSMers first purvey a claim that they have things like “safe, sane, consensual” and then turn around later and completely disqualify what they said before:
http://www.daedaluspublishing.com/davoltinterview.htm
Tenshi Vielle
Jun 8th, 2007
I have to agree with Lewis on the male/female av comment.
Anywho, I must somehow missing the point where BDSM is somehow horrible, in comparison to something like sexual ageplay. At least BDSM has a safe word, and doesn’t blatantly market anything illegal.
Ananda
Jun 8th, 2007
I’d like to note that while this interview was with Precursor Pooraka, leader of “BDSM is Safe”, the United Protest banner includes a huge number of people from all sorts of communities in SL. The common concern, in my opinion, is that we maintain the greatest possible freedom of creativity and self-expression. And that we don’t open the door to persecution of minority or fringe groups within SL. Once Linden Lab heads down the path of exercising editorial control, they will be liable for continuing that and will be under increasing pressure to censor us from a whole variety of moral crusaders.
This even applies to those of us, like me, whose activities inworld probably wouldn’t cross most people’s “broadly offensive” radars. While things haven’t gotten totally out of hand, isn’t it better to make your moral principles clear before they do?
Prokofy Neva
Jun 8th, 2007
Ananda, I agree that you should make your principles known before they do, and there’s reasons to be had for making pre-emptive fights when there is a threat to freedom of expression.
But…um…where’s the witch-hunt against BDSM? I’m not seeing it. Can you point to any concrete examples of any removal of content, banning — anything! — related to BDSM? I don’t think there is any such thing. So while you may wish to cry “wolf” at this point, don’t expect to rally the troops when there’s really a wolf.
Re: “Prok, can you provide an instance where a SL resident was pursued by the RL police and they requested the Lindens to hide them? You make that statement over and over again in your posts, and it may be because I’m still relatively new to SL so I missed that fight, but when did that situation occur?”
Gosh, you and you’re obstinate and dense literalisms again. Let’s try again, shall we? When people ask the *Lindens* to be responsible to any RL media or RL authorities who come calling with complaints about extremism and crimes like simulated pedophilia (which are crimes in the EU), the hedonists expect LL to take the rap. They expect LL to play dumb. They expect LL not to give out information. They expect LL to do double-talking to cover their asses.
What LL is saying is that they won’t be doing this anymore. You will be doing it. Bill accordingly.
Jessica Holyoke
Jun 8th, 2007
I noticed that Prok did not answer my previous question. Also, how is confinement with consent a crime? Isn’t that just staying in one place? Unless you meant being tied up or restrained, but again, that isn’t against the law with the bindee’s consent.
I’m going to leave torture well enough alone in this climate. But turning to bodily harm, I can play sports with a high probability of injury and its not illegal. (Wost injured US high school sports participants: cheerleaders). Parents can give legal valid consent for their children to take part in activities that include bodily harm without them being carted away to jail.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 8th, 2007
Oh, and Prok… BDSM’ers having “online fantasy lives” is wrong? So… um… being female in real life and having a male avatar isn’t somehow a fantasy?
BDSM isn’t about having “a fantasy”; it’s about enacing the crimes of violence, coercion, slavery, torture, cruel and unusual punishment in a simulated virtual world. As we know, this is tolerated. The EU doesn’t criminalize simulated BDSM, while it criminalizes simulated pedophilia (this may change).
Having a male avatar if you are a female in SL isn’t a “fantasy” — it’s a choice of an avatar, which is an extension of yourself. It does not involve some sort of “contrived roleplay”. And it doesn’t simulate any crime — there is no violence, slavery, or torture involved in transgenderism. Furthermore, it is not even necessarily related to sex, as gender and sex are not coterminous.
BDSM isn’t really about sex; it’s about power, and lording it over other human beings. It’s a contrived and forced form of obtaining intimacy and dependence in human relationships that other people achieve through respect of the dignity of the individual.
Lorelei Mission
Jun 8th, 2007
Re: “These are standards worth upholding, precisely because ‘consent’ is a subjective matter that is often lied about in these cases or difficult for governments to determine, and would involve excessive intrusion by government.” …
If a government decides to outlaw certain physical acts just because it’s too hard to discern which acts were consented to and which werent, then there are many other physical acts that should become crimes, according to that logic.
For example, intercourse. It’s too hard to determine whether consent occurred, and sometimes people lie, so we need to outlaw all intercourse because some of it might be rape.
Or, if you’d like to abandon the first argument, and switch to the other popular argument — that BDSM should be criminalized because of possibility of injury (and consent of risk is for government to decide, not a mature adult, har) — well then, let’s discuss criminalizing the sport of boxing. Injuries there are far more common than during an adult spanking session.
Lewis Nerd
Jun 8th, 2007
Sounds like you’re telling me what to do here, Prok.
Who made you my Master … or should that be Mistress?
Lewis
Mistoffeleees66 Fimicoloud
Jun 8th, 2007
It should be noted that just because one is not for BDSM, or any of the other major groups that are connected with this movement, that it is still a good cause.
The first group is never the last group to be treaded on and destroyed. If you belong to any kind of group, there is a good change you will eventually feel the pressures of those united under the banner “United Protest” are now. Destroy one enemy and the victor has the taste of blood and searches for the next in line to conquer. There can either many or there can be only one. Do you know that you will be “the only one”?
Support the cause, not the individual groups. I implore you.
csven
Jun 8th, 2007
Does it matter, Lewis? Real or virtual she’s wearing a strap-on and obviously trying to be what she believes men to be: Evil.
Remember: “It’s when good men and women do nothing, and equivocate like this, that evil becomes possible.” – Prokofy Neva
http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2007/06/the_state_of_se.html#c72084654
Guess this is the real reason she didn’t bother to report the *real* child porn she witnessed in Second Life; about which she just “forgot” and did “nothing”.
It certainly makes her seem more evil in my eyes. You?
And she probably figures men are hypocrites too, which explains how she can condemn people who are involved in the BDSM lifestyle while taking their business… which amounts to providing them a place to enact a fantasy.
Oops.
Sorry. It’s *not* a fantasy, “it’s about enacting the crimes of violence, coercion, slavery, torture, cruel and unusual punishment in a simulated virtual world.”
Good thing they have Ravenglass Rentals to provide them a place to enact “crimes of violence, coercion, slavery, torture, cruel and unusual punishment”. Good thing they have Prokofy Neva fighting for their right to do all these things.
Greed over principles. Nice.
As men, I suppose she believes we should admire her. Do you admire her, Lewis?
Mistoffeleees66 Fimicoloud
Jun 8th, 2007
“BDSM isn’t about having “a fantasy”; it’s about enacing the crimes of violence, coercion, slavery, torture, cruel and unusual punishment in a simulated virtual world. As we know, this is tolerated. The EU doesn’t criminalize simulated BDSM, while it criminalizes simulated pedophilia (this may change).”
To the best of my knowledge it does not criminalize it at all, not just simulated. Prove me wrong. Show me a link to government documents that say otherwise.
“Having a male avatar if you are a female in SL isn’t a “fantasy” — it’s a choice of an avatar, which is an extension of yourself. It does not involve some sort of “contrived roleplay”. And it doesn’t simulate any crime — there is no violence, slavery, or torture involved in transgenderism. Furthermore, it is not even necessarily related to sex, as gender and sex are not coterminous.”
But it is a fantasy. You’re acting as a male when you put on that avatar. You’re being what you are not, that is fantasy.
BTW, since you are so knowledgeable, I guess you also know that true slaves give themselves willingly to their masters. No coercion. Nothing is forced. A bad master will lose his slave, because the slave can leave anytime if the master has gone too far. And a bad slave will be dismissed by the master for not abiding the agreement made at the begining. A slave is a willing person, someone who needs a master’s guidence. I’m not a slave, I’m a switch. I’ve understanding of both sides.
“BDSM isn’t really about sex; it’s about power, and lording it over other human beings. It’s a contrived and forced form of obtaining intimacy and dependence in human relationships that other people achieve through respect of the dignity of the individual.”
Who ever said that BDSM was about sex, and only sex? Anyone into the BDSM scene knows this is not true. Sure, a lot of it does involve sex in some way, but not all. There is nothing contrived here but your own silliness. The only force I see here is YOUR trying to make the rest of us cookie cutter copies of you. Sorry, that’s not going to happen. And you should be very glad of that.
The intimacy that comes with BDSM is unavoidable. And it is proper. The master must know the slave, must be able to read the eyes and body language, be able to know when the slave is at its limit and stop, inspite of what the slave may say. Just because you think your way is best does not make it so. Just because you think an alternate lifestyle is wrong, does not make it so.
Live your life and allow the rest of us to live ours, so long as we ALL do so within the boundries of law.
Jessica Holyoke
Jun 8th, 2007
Prok, I’m not being dense. In your reply, you stated “when people ask the Lindens not to give out personal details,” when did this occur, who asked? You seem to be confusing an expectation of privacy, which is negated when a real life law is violated, and begging the Lindens to be apologists. The later is not being argued here, but perhaps see below, and its something I haven’t seen and is not being reported as occurring. You also seem to be talking about anyone and everyone that is hedonistic to you, not solely ageplayers, not solely BDSM’ers, but everyone that is not PG in SL.
At the same time, why would the Linden’s funnel a media or legal request through a resident that might make a statement affecting their business? In other words, lets say, hypothetically, I hold myself out as a spokesperson for the horrid perversions of SL, and I would take on anyone, anywhere, in a court of law to defend a resident’s right to produce that content. Why would the Lindens, who seek to have some control over their product and business, allow that? It feels like you are arguing an impossibility, that the Lindens would allow resident spokespeople that are not FIC to speak to law enforcement and the media.
What residents are concerned about are the Lindens removing content that is legal in a resident’s home jurisdiction but is found objectionable in another jurisdiction for which the resident has no control or contacts. At that point, because the Lindens are at the center of Second Life, then yes they should be representing their residents who are doing nothing illegal because the Linden’s are the ones entering the new jurisdiction. Notice, I am not referring to ageplay. I’m talking about the new catch-all phrase “broadly offensive” that covers content that is objectionable in future jurisdictions, not present ones.
Artemis Fate
Jun 8th, 2007
I kinda doubt BDSM is at risk. Only reason Ageplay got nabbed was because it was so borderline illegal in most places. People think BDSM is weird, but it’s not near illegal as far as I know.
Certainly you’re not going to be getting any investigative reports from Germany there, Bondage is practically the national sport there XD
Ananda
Jun 8th, 2007
On the contrary, threats have been made, right in Daniel’s blog post, not to mention right here in this thread. A climate of fear has been created and lots of people want clarification of Linden Lab’s policy.
Personally, I would love for this to just blow over. I think Linden Lab would be wise to simply retract the blog post, restate that the TOS and Community Standards remain in force as previously written – and further, that Linden Lab does not maintain editorial control, and that both Linden Lab and individual residents are responsible for following the laws of their own jurisdictions.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 8th, 2007
Jessica, you’re making absolutely no sense. None. It’s a total garble. And if you think German law-enforcement can come and compel the Lindens to remove content from a non-German’s house, well, you’re smoking the same weed they are.
Nonymouse
Jun 8th, 2007
Spank me! I’ve been bad.
Anonymous
Jun 8th, 2007
“Jessica, you’re making absolutely no sense.”
Now, now. Your demonstrated lack of comprehension does not indicate that the other person is making no sense.
Chris Senior
Jun 8th, 2007
Certainly you’re not going to be getting any investigative reports from Germany there, Bondage is practically the national sport there XD
-Artemis Fate
lol! Yep, the Germans hate ageplay(I really can’t blame them for that) but otherwise? They’re mostly a bunch of freaks. *nods*
Bryn Voight
Jun 8th, 2007
Well A Few Comments;
So fundamentally Prok you are constructed a Straw Man of the BDSM community in SL here? Do you think the statements made by Daniel in the Blog aren’t overly broad and open to interpretation that could lead people to conclude the Lindens might ‘crack-down’ on BDSM play within SL? Your initial position seemed to be that they were over-reacting, when it seems clear to me that the Blog post itself was badly worded, and if I were of a conspiratorial mindset I would say specifically so, for the same reason such ‘weasal words’ are used in real-life laws of authoritarian states. So that that authority can be used with arbitrary jurisprudence whenever ‘needed’ by the ‘state’ or in this case, Linden Labs.
The issues regarding BDSM and it’s ‘portrayal of crimes’ is an interesting one to consider, since your portrayal of it disconnects the reasons those things are ‘crimes’ from their actuality. TV shows hundreds, if not thousands of simulated rapes a year, lord knows how many murders, thefts, assaults, and countless other crimes. We would rightly consider it ridiculous to prosecute people who produce films, movies or books that portray such situations. In fact in the US it would violate the first Amendment to do so, expression being nominally ‘protected’. BDSM behavior in general, and in Second Life in particular, is exactly analogous. It is simulated behavior that has neither the same motive, nor the same context as the ‘crimes’ you state it ‘replicates’.
The BDSM community, like others in SL, has a reasonable expectation of LL protecting the product as advertised by the company and utilized by consumers as long as it doesn’t contravene the law. It also has a reasonable expectation that policy which may appear to allow for the random prosecution of their actions, or the actions of others, be clarified. We all benefit from the nailing down of the specific of Linden Labs Policy, since the more specific statements that can be made in public, the less arbitrary use of power can be directed, or at least directed ‘under the radar’ hidden beneath obscure references like ‘broadly offensive’ and ‘community standards’.
Jessica Holyoke
Jun 8th, 2007
to ____, prok’s right, I could have laid out my previous comment better.
I had asked Prokofy for a specific incidence of a Second Life resident asking for protection from any authorities investigating a resident’s illegal activities in Second Life. Prokofy accused me of being dense and too literal in my question. I rebutted by stating that first, I have not seen reported a resident asking for help from the Lindens regarding their privacy in Second Life so that their illegal activity is protected, even though I have seen Prokofy make that charge multiple times as a basis for his arguments. If it is not to be taken literally, stop using it as an argument.
It is part of the Big Six Community Standards that a resident’s privacy should be protected. However, there is a tacit understanding that illegal activity on behalf of a resident would allow the Lindens to reveal that resident’s private details.
My second rebuttal was that no resident is asking the Lindens to be apologists for any behavior. In my previous post, I wrote that statement then went on to another point. That might be where there was confusion. Later in the same comment, I stated that if the Lindens expanded Second Life into a jurisdiction that might find certain existing Second Life content objectionable, possibly “broadly offensive” under the Daniel Linden blog post, then the Lindens should act as the agent of the community in regards to speaking with the new jurisdiction and defend the current resident’s own legal content. The reason why is based on equity. The resident is not the one venturing into the new jurisdiction, the Lindens are. They should be the ones who ensure that the existing community standards established for existing residents are not upset in favor of a new jurisdiction.
Hypothetically, a fictional Asian country has a law that defines any reference to Japan or japanese culture as offensive and obscene. Under the guidelines set forth by Robin Linden, the ability to access that market will be weighed against the freedoms currently held by the residents in other parts of the world. If the value of entering that market outweighs the protection of a certain kind of speech, then the certain kind of speech may be deemed offensive and cause for banning. In this hypothetical, residents would have to remove their tea gardens and katanas or face eventual banning. And if accounts are banned for expressing that certain kind of speech, then the items owned by that account would not be left out. All content deemed offensive by the future jurisdiction would be removed under that scheme.
I understand that the Lindens have a warn, warn, ban system as part of their Abuse Reporting system. But it is still a limitation on legal speech in a person’s home jurisdiction if it cannot be expressed due to regulations in a foreigh jurisdiction that the Lindens wish to enter.
Here might be where residents like Prokofy would state that what I’m describing is poor precognition. And I could agree with that, except I was there when Robin Linden stated that she couldn’t give guidance on what level of BDSM or what activities might be banned in the future due to not knowing what future jurisdictions and authorities would require. In other words, the Lindens have retained for themselves the ability to ban certain content based on the desires of future authorities, not current authorities and not local authorities.
What should have been last is the concept of a resident spokesman. Prokofy stated loudly that each individual resident would be and should be defending their activities to the authorities. Ignoring that the Lindens do not have the capability as of yet to sort out its residents by jurisdiction, the Lindens have a valid business reason to not let residents speak on their own behalf. The Lindens are trying hard to advance a novel concept and in many ways they seek to control the message getting out to the media and the authorities. One thing I recall is that the Lindens requested approval for any research project that was conducted in Second Life. If the Lindens are actively trying to control media and other access to Second Life, why would they want to have individual residents talk to the media and authorities without the Linden’s input?
Prokofy Neva
Jun 9th, 2007
>I have seen Prokofy make that charge multiple times as a basis for his arguments. If it is not to be taken literally, stop using it as an argument.
This is totally retarded, and no, I most certainly will not “stop using it as an argument.” Many, many people want LL to serve as a cover for them, so that they have a playground free of interference from RL. I will post the chat from my meeting tonight at the Dam — it’s just one of gadzillion meetings going on now all saying the same thing.
It’s terrible how people can’t grasp whole concepts any more, I dont know how that is happening in their education. Go to any forums, blogs, coffee klutch of any SL residents and hear them talk, post, debate. Many people do not wish to verify their information because they do not want RL authorities to come after them, or to have their name sold. They fear “the Moral Majority”. They want LL to take the rap for them and they want freedom — where someone else, not them, takes responsibility and deals with RL police — not them. They think they should have freedom — but don’t want to think about the consequences of what that entails.
>It is part of the Big Six Community Standards that a resident’s privacy should be protected. However, there is a tacit understanding that illegal activity on behalf of a resident would allow the Lindens to reveal that resident’s private details.
It’s not some “tacit understanding”. Go back and read the TOS. Of course the Lindens have the right to give names to authorities, and they do so, and have proclaimed they do so.
You weren’t here in December 2006 and ff. when Ginsu Linden, at that time the general counsel, made unmistakeably clear warnings in the forums that anyone who crashed the grid would face having their names turned over to RL authorities.
I don’t know why this has to be established. That’s the problem with neophyte not-yet-lawyers, they cannot accept common-sense estabilshment of the facts and think being a lawyer means questioning reality.
>My second rebuttal was that no resident is asking the Lindens to be apologists for any behavior. In my previous post, I wrote that statement then went on to another point. That might be where there was confusion. Later in the same comment, I stated that if the Lindens expanded Second Life into a jurisdiction that might find certain existing Second Life content objectionable, possibly “broadly offensive” under the Daniel Linden blog post, then the Lindens should act as the agent of the community in regards to speaking with the new jurisdiction and defend the current resident’s own legal content. The reason why is based on equity. The resident is not the one venturing into the new jurisdiction, the Lindens are. They should be the ones who ensure that the existing community standards established for existing residents are not upset in favor of a new jurisdiction.
Nobody made LL an agent. That’s a fake invocation. There isn’t any new jurisdiction. This is all just fake lawyer talk to try to impress everyone one with Ms. Jessica’s years at the paper chase.
>Hypothetically, a fictional Asian country has a law that defines any reference to Japan or japanese culture as offensive and obscene. Under the guidelines set forth by Robin Linden, the ability to access that market will be weighed against the freedoms currently held by the residents in other parts of the world. If the value of entering that market outweighs the protection of a certain kind of speech, then the certain kind of speech may be deemed offensive and cause for banning. In this hypothetical, residents would have to remove their tea gardens and katanas or face eventual banning. And if accounts are banned for expressing that certain kind of speech, then the items owned by that account would not be left out. All content deemed offensive by the future jurisdiction would be removed under that scheme.
This is all silly. There isn’t removal of contact. You really need to go and read all the office hour transcripts. Again, all just legal posturing.
>I understand that the Lindens have a warn, warn, ban system as part of their Abuse Reporting system. But it is still a limitation on legal speech in a person’s home jurisdiction if it cannot be expressed due to regulations in a foreigh jurisdiction that the Lindens wish to enter.
This is all specious. The Lindens are insisting that people take responsibility for their own compliance with their own laws and not hide behind LL. That doesn’t mean the entire service has to be on the run because of one country on every single thing — that’s why all this hysterical drama-mongering about the Lindens beginning the stoning of gay boys like Iran is just totally nauseating. On certain obvious controversial issues, the Lindens may make a ruling that doesn’t provide for as much protected activity as some group, like “ageplayers” might like. But…where did they think they were going to *get* that protection? It doesn’t exist. And for good reason.
>Here might be where residents like Prokofy would state that what I’m describing is poor precognition. And I could agree with that, except I was there when Robin Linden stated that she couldn’t give guidance on what level of BDSM or what activities might be banned in the future due to not knowing what future jurisdictions and authorities would require. In other words, the Lindens have retained for themselves the ability to ban certain content based on the desires of future authorities, not current authorities and not local authorities.
I’m afraid that’s reasonable for a company that wishes to have the success of their product, not to be “right” and have a closed service. Google did the same thing in China.
>What should have been last is the concept of a resident spokesman. Prokofy stated loudly that each individual resident would be and should be defending their activities to the authorities. Ignoring that the Lindens do not have the capability as of yet to sort out its residents by jurisdiction,
Of course they do, if people give RL sign-up info, and furthermore, the Lindens have said numerous times they plan to add jurisdiction as an identifying marker so that you could have things like casinos legal in one country have patrons from that country.
>the Lindens have a valid business reason to not let residents speak on their own behalf. The Lindens are trying hard to advance a novel concept and in many ways they seek to control the message getting out to the media and the authorities. One thing I recall is that the Lindens requested approval for any research project that was conducted in Second Life. If the Lindens are actively trying to control media and other access to Second Life, why would they want to have individual residents talk to the media and authorities without the Linden’s input?
The Lindens shed that requirement ages ago. There is no longer any requirement to seek approval from LL to conduct research. They also long since gave up trying to control media.
A little legal knowledge is a dangerous thing; it doesn’t aid clarity of thinking, it obfuscates it.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 9th, 2007
A good — and typical — article for you to read so you can learn something:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1179997531994&pos=ataglance
Judge Upholds Use of Sex Trafficking, Forced Labor Laws in Abuse Conviction
Prior consent was not accepted as a defense.
Jessica Holyoke
Jun 9th, 2007
Prokofy, you are missing the point and substituting others, including unnecessary insults against me. The protests, the uproar over the blog post and the office hours, the actual concern is over this: a resident can follow their own local laws but they can still be terminated from Second Life based on someone else’s opinion as to what constitutes broadly offensive. When Robin Linden states that she can’t tell people what will be considered broadly offensive because she doesn’t know what other places will consider broadly offensive, that means that you can follow your own laws, but your account may be terminated based on someone else’s opinion as to what constitutes broadly offensive.
Lewis Nerd
Jun 9th, 2007
“As men, I suppose she believes we should admire her. Do you admire her, Lewis?”
I can’t honestly say I see a lot there that I feel inspired to achieve in my life.
Lewis
Cyall Akula
Jun 9th, 2007
I know this may not count for much, but I heard from a reasonably trustworthy friend that at least one of the players banned by LL over the German TV stations actions was entirely innocent. See, he was creating a play castle for children, he had a sim, his build nearly finished BUT he had an adult male avatar and the German TV station journalists photographed this adult male avatar surrounded by child avatars. That was enough to get him banned!
csven
Jun 9th, 2007
“including unnecessary insults against me”
There’s a surprise. [/heavy sarcasm] Now stop making sense.
-
“I can’t honestly say I see a lot there that I feel inspired to achieve in my life.”
Agreed.
-
“at least one of the players banned by LL over the German TV stations actions was entirely innocent”
What I’ve been wondering is: Did these two individuals get the “warn, warn, ban” or did LL go straight to step three? Has that been asked?
I mean, LL could have turned names over to the German authorities on the first “warn”, couldn’t they?
Jazhara Keon
Jun 9th, 2007
Hum.
Please people, I urge you, stop the bickering and quarreling amongst eachother, there’s better things to do… Like making sure the next generation internet holds the same freedom (please a little more freedom) as the current generation. What LL will decide, and how LL will ‘govern’ Second Life will be example to future platforms, and the development of their platform.
It doesn’t matter if you’re for or against BDSM, it matters if you hold freedom of expression in high regard. Speaking your mind is included in that.
Please, I ask of you all, focus on the matter at hand: make sure you have the freedom to express yourself on the next generation internet, regardless of personal preference, lifestyle and opinion. The battle has already started. Divided we fall, United we stand.
~Jazhara Keon,
founder of “I am for a FREE Second Life”
co-founder of “United Protest”
PS: little note for Provoky, since s/he seems to love attention: your ‘broadly offending’ posts base on the freedom of speech. Wouldn’t you hate to have your right to rant be taken away? (that’s rhethorical btw, you can do the math)
profoundly irritated
Jun 9th, 2007
In some respects it is good that this issue has raised its head this ‘early’ in SL’s relative existence.
I have been around since Q3 2006. I came here to find some fantasy escape from RL, just like most people do in lots of MMORPGs. In that respect, SL offered a good variety of opportunity to all sorts of lifestyles to meet people from all around the world, and share their interests with them. I have made some very good friends as a result, from all over the globe. It also seemed to have a sensible way of handling all the interests that people might have, balancing between PG and mature areas for adults to be as prudish or not as they, as adults, might choose to be from time to time
One thing I did note was tension then, with a very vocal, albeit smallish, number of inhabitants who wanted to impose their RL practices, opinions and personal moralities within SL. I could recognise everything they went on about from within my RL working and political environment. And I wondered how long SL might be a place that could sustain a broad acceptance, given that the ‘broadly offendable’ were already here
Stating the blindingly obvious, sure, as in RL, some real rotten apples surfaced. The Lindens stamped on these as necessary, and quite rightly so. If they had been sharp enough at the outset, they would have insisted on NO age-play, not because some aspects of that are themselves OK (i have real sympathy with innocent role players there), but because of what would inevitably happen. Difficult to blame them too much though, as our Americans take on this, and that of parts of SE Asia, seems to be very different from the European one. Unverified accounts also made this inevitable
But as was all too predictable, here we are now, seeing the the usual stereotyped position being pushed, ie Pedophiles = BDSM = (in some cases) Homosexuality/Gay & that everyone, however or wherever it happens, that is exposed to any form of sexual material, which is all obviously broadly offensive anyway, is going to become part of that Axis of Evil. The prudist police, the SL taleban if you will, are now out in force, being broadly offended by everything they don’t approve of. (maybe slightly OTT – intended as a generalised summary only)
They are ably encouraged by the authoritarian politicos, who are using them as another means to achieving their virtual nirvanha, pure and chaste, free from any taint of those nasty people out there who dare think or do base things of which they don’t approve. Prok’s posts demonstrate this particulary well. Claims to encourage ‘freedom’ of individual thought, and says she rents without prejudice, but fundamentally undermines this by deliberately stoking up intolerance for whatever seems at odds with her own take on life. For example, through the equation of what has to be two people’s mutually acceptable virtual simulation of a fantasy, that they might also legitimately enact privately in RL, directly with real criminality that is single sided in nature. The absurdity of that leaves me speechless. And don’t expect an objective discussion. I asked in the comments on her article on this subject,for a straightforward apology from her equating, in the lack of any evidence, BDSM interest and Pedophilia. Solid Silence. For someone who is interested in the mildly Bound & Delighted end of the spectrum, an assertion like that is absolutely disgusting. When someone can so twist what is the acceptably mutual reality of life for other people, and be as venal in their form of argument in doing so, they are better just ignored. By all means let her argue from what is her own platform. I am just clear that after this, I won’t grace it again to give her excuse to expand her diatribe.
Looking into my crystal ball, however, the bottom line now is that as the world moves on ‘they’ are going to ‘win’. This is an exact mirror of what happens in RL. Pressure groups, ganging up together, cosying up (often called lobbying) to authority and peddling their own prejudices to credulous authorities, who then act on these in favour of their doctrinally compatible ‘friends’, while the rest of the world that is about to get screwed over goes on in blissful ignorance of those planning their repression. And even when the authorities are not so credulous (having read Robin Linden’s Office Hours comments, reading between the lines she seems to be no fool, and certainly not as authoritarian or prejudiced as she has unfortunately been painted by some of the less sharp people about), often they are placed in the position of not being able not to fend off what can be patently absurd or evidentially unsustainable, because they have been placed in the invidious position that they have to be seen to do something as part of their political posturing or business protection/development.
The inevitable outcome here will be that, not too far off, in governance terms
SL = RL
At that point, most of those who want to have a bit of fun with like minded people in a broadly tolerant society will move out, (and that won’t be just those who Prok doesn’t like – who wants to exchange one lot of RL rules for an even more stringent virtual equivalent?) SL will become a minor province of RL, populated by groups of opinionated authoritarian nerds who will spend their lives arguing amongst themselves that their brand of ‘this is the way things must be done’ is superior to the next groups. (sound familiar? – Prok will be in heaven, being in her own band of 1). Nobody looking for a bit of fun will join or stay for long (if SL = RL, why bother?…you can get a real drink at a bar). The inhabitants will gravitate to the geeks, techno script/3d nerds, and of course the on-line political and philosophy bores. The Commercials will suddenly realise that their real market has gone, the Lindens will get bored presiding over the squabbling, and it will eventually implode. The politicos will move on to annoy someone else. And who will really suffer? – to everyone’s shame, it will probably be our disabled friends, for whom SL has become amongst the most realistic virtual environments that they can participate in
So what is good about what is going on right now? Well, if it brings this on sooner rather than later, fewer will be seduced to coming here for a bit of fun and ultimately end up being disappointed than might otherwise prove to be the case.
Intolerance rules, OK?
Prokofy Neva
Jun 9th, 2007
>Please people, I urge you, stop the bickering and quarreling amongst eachother, there’s better things to do… Like making sure the next generation internet holds the same freedom (please a little more freedom) as the current generation. What LL will decide, and how LL will ‘govern’ Second Life will be example to future platforms, and the development of their platform.
>It doesn’t matter if you’re for or against BDSM, it matters if you hold freedom of expression in high regard. Speaking your mind is included in that.
>Please, I ask of you all, focus on the matter at hand: make sure you have the freedom to express yourself on the next generation internet, regardless of personal preference, lifestyle and opinion. The battle has already started. Divided we fall, United we stand.
>~Jazhara Keon,
founder of “I am for a FREE Second Life”
co-founder of “United Protest”
>PS: little note for Provoky, since s/he seems to love attention: your ‘broadly offending’ posts base on the freedom of speech. Wouldn’t you hate to have your right to rant be taken away? (that’s rhethorical btw, you can do the math)
Jazhara, don’t be a dick, please. I’m all for people doing mass protests but…can you point to a case yet of anyone in BDSM being censored? Being banned? Having content removed? Merely because it was BDSM? Hello? Crickets…Right. That’s the problem. You can rant in advance — that’s a time-honoured SL tradition. But I don’t
My rhetorical right to rant has already been taken away — by LL from their official forums, by the high-falutin Tony Walsh from Clickable Culture; from the whiney Cristiano who limply caved to Weedy Herbst. So you came to the wrong address with that one.
Where were you when Meta Linden was harassing a blogger who wanted to write frankly about “lifestyles”? That was a REAL threat to freedom — an encroachment on a third-party site that that blogger and the Herald fought back against as a matter of principle.
Where were you? Oh, you only turn out when your own extremist sexual expression is *seemingly* threatened? I thought so!
Sorry, but I don’t stop my *writing* and my *freedom and expression* because some BDSM dom or domme comes around and *orders* me to “stop my bickering” — using the time-worn BDSM method of humiliation and mind control. Fuck off with that shit, I’m not in your RP.
We’re not all going to join hands across the sea and sing kumbayah on this one, and “unite for unity”. Because you’re not seriously interested in freedom of speech; you raise it only when it’s your own hide; and you don’t even have a case.
I refuse to united with self-serving platudinous windbags who show up only to try to manipulate the public around their own narrow interest agenda when convenient.
I think it’s very important that non-BDSM groups are formed or non-content-specific groups are formed to keep a focus on the broader issues at stake, and also to prevent BDSM from overshadowing the issue in the media — and making it impossible for anyone to condemn their questionable lifestyle. Sorry, but you won’t get me to accept that freedom of speech has to involve validating jackboots in the face.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 9th, 2007
No, it doesn't count for much. It's a meme, a virally spread Internet urban legend that is at odds with at least two credible major German media outlets. Sorry, no sale.
Safire Moonlight
Jun 9th, 2007
I think alot of you need to take a step back and realise SL is -NOT- RL. The ONLY RL issue that is in need of being addressed is the fact someone in SL broke RL laws.
Whether or not you like or support, or do not like and do not support BDSM is not a factor here. The issue is, we cannot bring in unlawful materials or face the fact that LL will be reporting the user/s and charges may/can be laid against them in thier RLs.
Our countries support freedoms and in those freedoms we DO support the right to choose our sexualities. So therefore condemning anyone because they are submissive/Dominant, gay or even straight, etc is ILLEGAL.
Sl is a place to act out your fantasies as you wish them and is fine for that as long as this type of illegal material is not brought -in world-. Sl is NOT REAL. When a person is ROLE PLAYING a slave or sub or dom or furry or star trekker or anything else that is out there in SL-land, non of it is real… it is all a role play. Your Avie is a role play, it may represent you but it is NOT you so don’t say you aren’t RPing. If you do not understand what role play is, grab a dictionary and look it up.
Sex will always be a part of SL, it is a part of most online games and should be a part of each and everyone’s lives to maintain a happy, healthy human (exceptions being those who have given thier lives and sexuality to thier God/s).
To say you are against anyone else’s form of expression is not welcome. Maybe I don’t like a certain type of role play in sl… but you won’t see me putting them down because I think it has no place, I simply will not -go to that sim-.
I agree children need to be protected, I myself am a mother AND an online slave/sub. I protect my child from witnessing any goings on in games and each and every parent out there had better be doing the same or YOU are the problem and are ALLOWING people to take advantage of our kids.
Each sim owner has the right to choose what theme thier sim will have, and so they should for the money LL is charging them to buy and keep that virtual land. BUT with that comes the responsibility of each person in any sim to keep illegal material out of the game.
Sex is not illegal. Bondage is not illegal. Being a Dom or sub/slave(ultimate form of submission, keyword SUBMISSION) or gay or straight is not illegal. Pictures of kids nude or in sexual acts IS.
Focus on the real issue of RL LAWS cannot be broken online or we ALL lose if SL is shut down. Stop straying off with opinions and muddying the purpose here!
Lewis Nerd
Jun 9th, 2007
Prok, what exactly is your issue with BDSM? You seem more viral than usual whenever the subject comes up.
Lewis
Prokofy Neva
Jun 9th, 2007
Safire, if anything, you need to take a step *forward* and realize SL *is* RL and RL authorities are more and more going to be claiming jurisdiction.
I don’t wish to live in a society in RL, or SL for that matter, in which I have to leave it to a BDSM mom to protect both her own kids — and mine — from her objectionable lifestyle. It’s my right to continue to condemn this practice. I don’t at all accept the argumentation of BDSM apologists for what is legal or illegal.
What I do say is that we should refrain from abuse reporting based on judgements that will be subjective no matter how you parse them, and that we need to deprive the Lindens of their police informant state.
Lewis, BDSM is antithetical to Christianity, to the Christian notion of free will and the dignity and integrity of the individual. I’m surprised I’d have to give you a lesson that, but ask your pastor, who knows, there are all kinds of sects out there, perhaps he can find a way to approve it for you.
Mel Tendaze
Jun 9th, 2007
I am a domme not a role of choice and not one I take lightly.All the subs that serve me sort me out not I them. Bdsm as a group you would find none more honest,trustworthy, caring,and,loving. but like any group a few bad apples will always get in and rightly so should be banned.The united protest should be welcomed by all that want a free sl Daniels post has left us all in doubt as to what is offensive and what is not.As for Bdsm being banned it may or may not happen but say it does what next callgirls,escorts,the very ones who buy/rent most of the property on sl.then what gays, transgender,transsexuals nothing will be safe so yes easy to dismiss this group and sit back and clap your hands and think only a load of pervs but trust me will not stop at gor/bdsm every minority group will get a rougth ride if we do nothing.So support the protest its for all not just one group
Reality
Jun 10th, 2007
Prokofy, it is when you attempt to state your opinion on certain matters – such as this little gem: “SL *is* RL” – that continue to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you really have lost all hold on reality.
Second Life – as proven by all current scientific criteria – is not Real Life. It is your opinion – however deluded it may be – that it is the same as Real Life.
I am still waiting on your scientific, irrefutable proof showing your claim to be anything other than an opinion.
Just so you know dear … In cases like this you are the one who must provide proof (despite the fact that I know you cannot, as such proof simply does not exist anywhere else than in your mind).
Lewis Nerd
Jun 10th, 2007
That doesn’t answer my question Prok. I am not a fan of BDSM but the fact remains that it is not illegal, and if it is in areas marked in SL as having adult content, with the landowner being responsible enough to make sure anyone visiting is aware of what’s there, then anyone who visits there has no real right to be offended as they’ve clearly gone there by choice. If they’re in the middle of a public mall, that’s a different matter altogether of course. But I wouldn’t say it was right to lump BDSM and homosexuality – both of which are legal in most of the world – in with child porn, which is clearly illegal in many places.
I’m asking why you feel it’s such a threat to you that I am almost see the smoke coming out of your ears behind your red glowing face every time you post about it.
Lewis
TrixieBelden Batz
Jun 10th, 2007
Prok,
I’m confused. On one hand, you seem to be mocking the BDSM crowd for crying wolf when there’s no clear, immediate threat to their lifestyle on SL. On the other hand, you’re tossing about comments like the following:
“I don’t wish to live in a society in RL, or SL for that matter, in which I have to leave it to a BDSM mom to protect both her own kids — and mine — from her objectionable lifestyle. It’s my right to continue to condemn this practice. I don’t at all accept the argumentation of BDSM apologists for what is legal or illegal.”
and:
“BDSM is antithetical to Christianity, to the Christian notion of free will and the dignity and integrity of the individual.”
Now, I realize you’re just stating your opinions, not advocating for the full-scale abolition of BDSM on SL (or at least that’s how I read it, correct me if I’m wrong as I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth). But they’re clearly opinions you hold VERY strongly. Given your own personal distaste for BDSM, do you honestly believe there aren’t a LOT of people out there who would like to see it banned from SL? Of course there are.
And given the ambiguous-at-best post from Daniel Linden stating “real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of sexual violence including rape, real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of extreme or graphic violence, and other broadly offensive content are never allowed or tolerated within Second Life,” do you really believe it’s foolish and misguided for those of us who want BDSM to remain a part of SL (in mature areas) to act now, in a preemptive manner?
Maybe it’s all a tempest in a tea cup. Maybe nobody at SL has any intention of ever shutting down the BDSM and Gorean areas. But experience teaches that it’s far easier to prevent bad policies before they’re ever instituted than it is to repeal them after the fact. That’s why there’s so much activism going on right now; many of us feel this is our best chance to nip it in the bud.
One closing observation. You really seem to have it in for poor Jazhara. You accuse her of “…using the time-worn BDSM method of humiliation and mind control.” and follow that up with an invitation to “Fuck off with that shit, I’m not in your RP.” Let’s take a look at what the mean old Domme actually said. To quote: “Please, I ask of you all, focus on the matter at hand: make sure you have the freedom to express yourself on the next generation internet, regardless of personal preference, lifestyle and opinion.”
“Please.” “I ask”
If that’s what you call humiliation and mind control, you might want to look into purchasing a thicker skin. By far the worst name calling, intimidation, and outright rudeness that I’ve seen on this thread is coming from you. And, having said that, perhaps I’d better add my own name to the list. I try not to be a hot-head, but it’s a struggle at times. Especially when I’m being called “antithetical to…the dignity and integrity of the individual.”
Sincerely,
Trixie Belden Batz
humdog
Jun 10th, 2007
in the few conversations i’ve had with prok about BDSM, he/she tended to arrive with an argument that compared it to some kind of cult like the hare krishna people or the guys in tennis shoes who killed themselves to go to outer space or even the jim jones thing of ancient history in san francisco. that was her/his argument. of course you have to understand that prok thinks i am a commie-pinko-marxist-stupid-chick-with-a-lobotomy, pretty much. but then he/she would think that because, well, i disagree.
the fact however is that bdsm is not in and of itself any weirder than anything else in life. just the other day i was reading a marie claire magazine and it featured an article about a family in colorado springs, fundamentalist christian people, who had raised their daughter such that her first act on her wedding night was to wash her husband’s feet to show her submission to him. now my question is: how is that different from somebody washing the feet of their master or mistress? to my mind it is not different. it is just that if i put the BDSM letters in front of submission then it is bad. if i submit in colorado springs under the authority of Focus on the Family or whatever, well then it is good and holy.
so basically what i think is: prok. go home. you been writing the same essay since 2004 and it has not aged well.
thank you,
humdog
Prokofy Neva
Jun 10th, 2007
humdog, your extremism hasn’t aged well, either, hon. You have good insights, and I’m happy to praise them when praise is due, but you go to extremes and then aren’t credible, and that costs you persuasiveness.
Washing feet is something that Jesus did with His disciples. It’s not an act of submission, but a service, a kindness. Jesus said His followers should wash the feet of the poor, that is, not be too proud to perform services of kindness to those they felt beneath them. In those days, feet-washing was a bigger deal because they walked around in the dust in sandals and had to wash their feet more.
So Christians take this symbolic act from the Bible and the fundamentalists do it as a literal ritual. How you can compare something that is not involving violence, coercion, pain, or bondage, is beyond me.
Whatever the “service” or “kindness” you think exists in BDSM, it is an ideology based on breaking down and negating the human will ostensibly in the name of intimacy and connection. There’s another way of course: accepting the will and dignity of another person and restraining oneself in spirit to achieve intimacy not through coercion or pain but through communication. BDSM is really the antithesis of the Christian idea. That’s why you hate it, because you feel it somehow tramples on your freedom. But it is about the very voluntary consent that you claim is the basis of BDSM.
Many of your ideas are Marxist and are extreme and since you don’t appear lacking in intelligence, I have to call you on them, as they make you appear stupid. I just called you on them in the other thread; you couldn’t reply. You made a knee-jerk anti-American rant, when it’s in fact the EU that we have to thank for this current state of affairs.