by Jessica Holyoke on 14/11/07 at 7:09 am
LL reminds residents they really don’t like ageplay
by Jessica Holyoke
In another 5pm post from the Labs, Ken D Linden reminds the Community that Sexual Ageplay is not allowed on Second Life. This is not the first warning – but this time the Lab goes a bit further detail and scope.
The unsurprising prohibition is the depiction prohibition. You can’t "appear to represent minors" in any Sexual or Lewd Act . Keep in mind that any form also includes text. So if you and your partner look like adults, you may not be able to call him "Daddy". (…whether, based on the circumstances, an avatar is speaking or acting like a child (e.g. “My Mommy says…”)).
The second non-surprising no-no is showing children in a lewd or sexual manner. So at least one of the Lisae Boucher pictures of this summer might be prohibited using this definition – depending on who you are and how you define lewd.
The third prohibition is placing child avatars near sex beds or pose balls. On the surface, this seems ok. You can’t say that a playground is innocuous if you can get a BJ behind the slide. But what if you are roleplaying a family? Must Mommy and Daddy now remain chaste if they have a child in the house? Will mall owners have to enforce "no children avatars allowed" if one store features sexual content?
The standards are to be applied objectively, just like the gambling standards are applied to residents. That would be where two Lindens see the same program and one views it as bannable and the other views it as ok.
Granted, the Lab is in a bad position; balancing public perception, international law,without mentioning exactly which law they are applying and why, and the reaction to the recent Sky News article about paedophiles in SL. At the same time, making the sexual ageplay ban broader to include activities that do not include sexual or lewd acts makes "Your World, Your Imagination" into "Your World, Your Imagination* (*Certain restrictions apply.)"