Peaches Limondi — Post 6 Grrrrl
by Alphaville Herald on 14/09/10 at 10:16 pm
[I saw Peaches Limondi at a shop one day and approached her about modeling for us. I was politely rebuffed. A couple of weeks later she contacted me, told me her story, and I haven't in recent memory met a more together, charming woman. It is a pleasure to introduce Peaches Limondi, this week's Post 6 Grrl. ~Timothy Morpork]
I have been happily partnered in SL for well over three years now, and happily married to the same man in real life for far far longer. My SL/RL husband and I have had our good times, our bad times, our ups and our downs just as any couple does. When he discovered Second Life and then brought me into it, it was the best thing our marriage had ever known, especially as he spends a lot of his life on the road while I’m at home with my job.
The line between SL and RL can be blurry for anyone, but for us I think it is especially strange as we spend a lot of time together on the grid. Our identities in-world aren’t always in line with how we act in real life, and a lot of that is intentional. I’m cautious in my real life, and though I tend toward caution here too, I force myself to be more assertive here. I find that lessons I learn about myself and my character on the grid translate to lessons I can use in my journey to discover more about myself.
About six months after I started in SL, I was approached by a hunky male avatar. After I told him to hit the road, he was back, explaining that he was my partner, wearing a new alt he had just made, roleplaying that he was some guy hitting on me. It turns out that my virtual infidelity was a turn-on for him, so we have played this scenario many times since. We have also explored other fantasies and fetishes, none of which would I attempt at home, and none of which would interest us in real life. The virtual world provides me with a safe sandbox to explore the world, and expand my own boundaries.
Which is where Peaches comes in. My husband and I have several avatars that we use for different roles, and when I made Peaches, I told my partner I had made a new avatar and he would meet her soon, and she would be his to do with as he pleased. No further pre-scripting needed. A couple of days later I dropped by our home with her and through one of the hottest dialogues I’ve ever experienced, an hour or two later "Peaches" was his Pet-in-Training. I hope she pleases him in every way, and that he sees fit to make her his full time "slave." We’ve never done any Dom and Sub play before so we’re learning as we go.
Out shopping for our roleplays, I ran into Timothy and he asked me to pose. I turned him down as I had latex to buy, but my partner and I discussed it and have included my appearance here into the fabric of our narrative. I hope you appreciate how nervous poor Peaches is posing here for you, forced to take her clothes off for the stranger with the camera and his blog’s legions of readers….
I have never had so much fun with Second Life as when I gave up trying to justify it and just started living it. My husband and I have some of the best times of our married life here in-world, and I will be forever grateful to the Lindens for giving us this platform to use. I only wish more people would get over their hang-ups and give in and "live" a little, even virtually.
Timothy has extended the offer to feature my husband and my "main" avatars, but we’re still on the fence with that one. Roleplay is fun, but not with the Alphaville Herald’s audience watching. Maybe someday I’ll be back here, but for now please know that it is an honor to be here and I thank Timothy for the opportunity. Be nice to each other, and to me. 
Skye D.
Sep 14th, 2010
I really like the perspective on that second picture.
Your avatar is very pretty, and I think it’s cool that you and your husband have turned SL into your own little playground.
Sinead McMillan
Sep 14th, 2010
peaches, you are a beauty.
ɷ==ʘ
Sep 14th, 2010
Hurrah! Yet another bondage roleplayer.
“Timothy has extended the offer to feature my husband and my “main” avatars,”
Ahh so already Timothy is looking to give you another bite at the cherry, thus adding fuel to the fire of recent criticisms that he keeps reusing the same people over and over.
Give Timothy the boot and recruit someone who doesn’t simply scour the bondage shops and clubs and roleplay sims for potential models.
Slayer
Sep 15th, 2010
@ “Hurrah! Yet another bondage roleplayer.”
Another cuckoo in a cage.
had enough
Sep 15th, 2010
Move on folks! nothing to see here.
She looks just like all of the other thousands of big fake, breasted, peroxide blonde Barbi Dolls.
adamadam
Sep 15th, 2010
I generally don’t like these post 6 models very much. This time though I was much more interested in what she had to say.
I think that secondlife can really be a tool for self-exploration sometimes, sexual and otherwise. It’s a good thing people use it in this way, in fact, it sounds healthy.
There isn’t anything wrong with having fantasies, and a married couple acting them out in a safe environment? What’s fucking better than that.
Anyway — this was a good read, thanks.
Pappy Enoch
Sep 15th, 2010
I gots me an ol’ Hoss-collar out in the shed, ma’am. I reckon a gal like you knows when to say “whinny.”
Don’t tell that lovin’ man o’ yours you done met you a Southern boy who knows about collars, bridles, and bits because you just won’t be rite afterward an’ settle fo’ sum’fin other than a Natural-born Southern feller.
If’n you swings thataway, hell, I don’t care. I’ll even wear the dang hoss-collar and pretend to be “The Tennessee Stud.” Like ol’ Doc Watson done sung that time:
We loped right back across Arkansas;
I whupped her brother and I whupped her pa.
I found that girl with the golden hair,
And she was a-riding on the Tennessee Mare.
The Tennessee Stud was long and lean,
The color of the sun, and his eyes were green.
He had the nerve and he had the blood,
And there never was a hoss like the Tennessee Stud.
Little Lost Linden
Sep 15th, 2010
Now that’s a peach!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhbRBzw_WQM
James Freud
Sep 15th, 2010
“I only wish more people would get over their hang-ups and give in and “live” a little…”
You’re a married couple, both lucky enough to have compatible fantasies, yet only act on them online through avatars?
I’d say that’s two pretty MONSTER hang-ups right there!
Mary Elizabeth
Sep 15th, 2010
A nice idea to use SL to stay together while he’s traveling. It’s a refreshing change from all the guys who use SL to cheat while their wives are in the next room watching Wheel of Fortune.
Nelson Jenkins
Sep 15th, 2010
@ Little Lost Linden
Oh, golly, I’m hot today.
Scylla Rhiadra
Sep 15th, 2010
This is really rather interesting, I think. (Nicely written, Peaches.)
I think that there IS a difference, and an important one, between playing out private fantasies, as Peaches and her husband apparently are, and engaging in *public* role play that reinforces stereotypes. What she is doing strikes me, not as particularly “good,” but certainly not as questionable as role playing abuse, misogyny, or rape at a place like Midian City, the Crack Den, or Hard Alley.
One can’t legislate personal fantasy, nor should one want to. The issue isn’t whether it is “right” or “wrong” to want to play with submission or dominance, but rather whether doing so is going to have an impact outside of one’s personal experience of those things. Doing this in the privacy of the bedroom (whether in SL or RL) is, in that sense, going to have a minimal impact.
That said, of course, Peaches IS taking it “public” by posing here. It’s interesting that she was reluctant to do so: I like the fact that she articulates that reluctance.
woooot
Sep 15th, 2010
lovely AV and a fantastic writeup! one of the best post 6 posts i’ve seen in a long time.
Persephone Bolero
Sep 15th, 2010
@Scylla “but rather whether doing so is going to have an impact outside of one’s personal experience of those things”
And you continue to insist that these public fantasies somehow encourage actual crimes. Yet, despite the proliferation of pornography and violent video games, we’ve seen a corresponding *decrease* in violent crime, including rape. If these fantasies and pornographic material caused violent behavior, this would not be the case.
And to date, you continue to dismiss this inconvenient fact and judge everyone according to your own misguided moral platitudes, using specious scare tactics to condemn those who engage in activities you disapprove of.
And here you have the arrogance to offer your approval of her private choices. It’s funny. When a woman wants to make a choice to get an abortion, she’s a grown adult capable of deciding what she will and won’t do with her body. But when she’s submitting herself to another male for the purpose of a fantasy, she’s a confused child that must be protected.
In other words, you’re pro-choice until a woman makes a choice you don’t like, which makes you *exactly* like any pro-lifer. They too love their scare tactics about billions of babies allegedly murdered. But, like you, they just want an excuse to control what women can and can’t do with their own bodies.
It’s not your body, Scylla. So, butt out.
Darien Caldwell
Sep 16th, 2010
It’s funny that the people who complain about kink the most, are also the ones with sticks up their ass. Kinky, Scylla!
Scylla Rhiadra
Sep 16th, 2010
@ Persephone
Your logic here is flawed. If all violent crime, including that which one would not expect to be influenced by porn one way or another, is down, that seems to point to an entirely different cause, or causes, for the decrease, no? Crime, including gender violence, is incredibly complex, and susceptible to a very wide range of influences and causes, subtle or direct. To claim that rape can’t be influenced by porn just because rape is on the decrease is a case of *propter hoc ergo post hoc*: you have merely demonstrated a correlation. There is nothing in your argument to prove that rape might not have decreased even *more* dramatically if porn usage had also dropped.
Scylla Rhiadra
Sep 16th, 2010
“But when she’s submitting herself to another male for the purpose of a fantasy, she’s a confused child that must be protected.”
Not at all: she is an adult who has every right to make her own choices. Just as, for instance, she has the right to support the political party of her choice. But when her choices are, in my view, the wrong ones, I have the equal right to critique them, just as you are critiquing MY views now. I presume you are not about to argue that my particular feminist perspective should be banned, despite the fact that you obviously disagree with it. Neither am I suggesting that a woman should be prevented from making HER choices, even if I disagree with them. Having the right to make choices doesn’t mean that you are necessarily going to make the right choices; criticizing someone’s choices (as you are criticizing mine) doesn’t imply that you want to take them away. It merely means that you disagree with them.
Scylla Rhiadra
Sep 16th, 2010
The main point here is that Peaches’s choices aren’t merely “private” ones: they have BECOME public by virtue of the fact that she is showcasing and talking about them here. And that makes them an entirely legitimate subject of discussion. I won’t barge into Peaches’s bedroom to lecture her, I assure you. But if she, or anyone else, chooses to talk about their choices in a public venue such as this, they are fair game.
Scylla Rhiadra
Sep 16th, 2010
Darien, another brilliant and insightful commentary: the masterful way in which you delicately sidestep any actual intellectual content, and get right down to the personal abuse is truly breathtaking. You are an inspiration to aspiring trolls everywhere.
Yep
Sep 16th, 2010
Do you ever notice that when some weirdo is arrested for rape, they seem to always find porn at their house? The rapist become desensitized by the porn and move on to the next level to satisfy their sickness.
The sad part is that these roleplay sims that encourage rape, send out the wrong message that women like this type of behavior. So then they again…. move on to the next level.
I am sure Glenn Beck knows who else had porn.
Rawst Berry
Sep 16th, 2010
Scylla, do you realize that conservatards use the “public displays” argument to justify their hatred towards homosexuals? Because if people act a certain way in public it obviously forces everyone else to participate by watching it.
Second Life taught me the sad truth, that many women want to be treated like pets, objects, or shit. Maybe in the bedroom and not 24/7, but at least some of the time. Maybe it is a bad influence on others to see this kind of behaviour in public but why hide something that seems to be natural human behaviour.
Slayer
Sep 16th, 2010
Women like a good lump on the noggin with a club before you drag them off to your cave.
Little Lost Linden
Sep 16th, 2010
Now this is a peach…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73ax6ZrcUx4
Little Lost Linden
Sep 16th, 2010
As much as I despise double posting, I just had to in order to get this song out of my head. It goes like this…
Chickie Peach, Chickie Peach, Chickie Peach Piiiiiiiieeeeeeee.
There, now it is out of my head.
facepalm
Sep 16th, 2010
And here come our local feminazis, crawling out the woodwork.
Ya know what feminism really is about? Equal rights. Nothing more, and nothing to do with the agenda above feminazis are trying to push.
Please stop calling yourself feminists, you’re making us look bad.
Persephone Bolero
Sep 16th, 2010
@Syclla “To claim that rape can’t be influenced by porn just because rape is on the decrease is a case of *propter hoc ergo post hoc*: you have merely demonstrated a correlation. ”
(The spam guard won’t let me say porn, so I’ll replace it with “adult material”)
Oh, no, no, no, Scylla. This is such intellectual dishonesty. What you’re doing here is called a strawman.
I’m NOT making the argument that adult material caused a decrease in violent crime. You ARE making the argument that it DOES cause an increase in crime. I then point out that despite a proliferation of adult material, no increase in crime has happened. So, now you twist that simple fact around to turn it into an argument that the proliferation of adult material led to a decrease in crime. But no such argument was made.
This is my argument. Fact: If adult material caused crime, an increase in adult material would precede an increase in crime. There was no increase. Therefore, it raises a lot of questions whether or not there is any link between adult material and crime.
In an attempt to preserve your unsubstantiated claim of a link between the two, with evidence absent to support your silly claims, you’re now claiming that crime is too complicated to link to a cause like adult material.
Well, duh. But you can’t claim there is a link and then claim it’s too complicated to find one when someone calls you on your bullshit. Stop playing these silly games, Scylla.
Persephone Bolero
Sep 16th, 2010
@Scylla “Neither am I suggesting that a woman should be prevented from making HER choices, even if I disagree with them.”
Right. And I think you’re immoral to go around pouring your misguided, baseless judgments on what consenting adults do together. It’s none of your damn business, girl.
Yes, you have the choice to condemn these practices. And having that free choice hasn’t led you to make the right one. So, hopefully I can encourage others to see your choice as the wrong one and morally condemn you for making that choice just as you wish to do to those who refuse to live by your moral values.
It’s your medicine. Choke on it.
Persephone Bolero
Sep 16th, 2010
@Scylla “But if she, or anyone else, chooses to talk about their choices in a public venue such as this, they are fair game.”
And so are you, Scylla. By showcasing your opinions, I have every right to criticize you for making them known in the first place. This isn’t about whether or not you have a right to criticize adults for their personal consenting behavior. This is about whether or not it’s moral to do so.
Persephone Bolero
Sep 16th, 2010
@Yep “Do you ever notice that when some weirdo is arrested for rape, they seem to always find porn at their house? ”
This is the same stupid argument used by knuckle-dragging drug warriors to keep marijuana illegal. They find that murderers and rapists often take drugs and conclude that the drugs caused the crime.
Is it possible that a person who is willing to disregard laws against murder and rape probably wouldn’t have a problem disregarding laws against drugs?
Likewise, a person with no sexual restraint against raping a woman probably would have no restraint against looking at adult material. That doesn’t mean the material caused the crime.
Why is it that those like Scylla and Yep, who want to pour their moral judgments on people’s private behavior, always use the same irrational scaremongering tactics?
Inniatzo
Sep 16th, 2010
i’m not even going to touch the whole bit about this being a ‘public’ choice or whatever.
the important thing here is that Peaches strikes me as a cool chick with a healthy relationships and having fun – what’s wrong with that? The pictures are good too, she has a nice avi. go Peaches!
Gundel Gaukelei
Sep 16th, 2010
@Yep: Do you ever notice that when some weirdo is arrested for rape, they seem to always find porn at their house?
I was wondering where they got all the pr0n in mediaval times then …
Darien Caldwell
Sep 16th, 2010
@Yep: Do you ever notice that when some weirdo is arrested for rape, they seem to always find porn at their house?
That’s like saying “you ever notice when soe weirdo is arrested for rape, they seem to always find a car at their house?”
Everybody has a car, more or less. Everybody has porn, more or less.
Darien Caldwell
Sep 16th, 2010
“You are an inspiration to aspiring trolls everywhere.”
Thanks, I try.
had enough
Sep 16th, 2010
The BDSM peeps have a few screws loose anyhow. Wearing collars sitting in cages always good for a laugh when I see them..
Slayer
Sep 16th, 2010
Throws a peanut at the monkey (idiot) in the cage.
Nelson Jenkins
Sep 16th, 2010
Sorry I’m a bit late on this. When I originally tried to post my comment, the PHP settings were fucked over and didn’t let me post.
@ Rawst Berry
Unlike violent sexual fetishes, homosexuals pose no known danger to John Q. Public.
Also, Second Life taught you wrong. Some weirdo guys just like to be treated like a woman while concurrently being treated like pets, objects, or shit.
Nelson Jenkins
Sep 16th, 2010
@ Persephone Bolero
First of all, triple posting is fun, I should try it sometime.
Rape is an especially cloudy subject when it comes to crime rates, as it is exceedingly difficult to find cooperative victims. So refuting Scylla’s argument with “crime statistics show it’s decreasing” is not exactly a good rebuttal.
Crime statistics in general don’t tell very much of a story when it comes to promiscuity in society. There are a near-infinite number of things that can affect crime rates; making public one’s sexual fantasies, in this regard, has almost no effect. Hell, crime statistics don’t really explain much at all. For example, the US has approximately 380% the number of homicides per capita as compared to the UK. However, there is no explanation. You can propose a theory – for example, the UK has a more liberal attitude and less religion, so apparently conservatism and religion must cause homicides – but obviously, you can’t prove it.
Now, I have no official stance on abortion (because I don’t care either way), but you really don’t convey an attitude that would want me to become pro-choice. However, that’s outside the scope of my argument.
My real point is that once someone’s actions affect someone else, it becomes the law’s concern. While certainly one has a right to privacy – which was the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court’s invalidation of numerous laws, such as those banning “relations” between consenting males – taking these actions to a public forum necessitates the enforcement of certain other rights, such as the right to not have one’s eyes bleed from watching two gay guys get it on in a library.
In that sense, you misunderstood Scylla’s point. She is not going against a woman’s right to do whatever she wants with another man – she is, however, questioning the ability to do so in a public forum. Let’s take a real-world example. Go ahead and walk down Las Vegas Boulevard at 11 at night. You’ll see that most of the women there are scantily-clad. In fact, you can try this in any large city in the United States. Several decades ago, you definitely wouldn’t see this. However, things started to “catch on” with the public, and now popular styles include showing off as much skin as possible.
Is this dangerous to the public’s health? Not likely. While one can argue that it contributes to the demoralization of a child, there really isn’t any imminent danger to seeing that sort of thing. However, let’s take a look at the cities Scylla cited. They are urban, corrupt, dark, scummy, et cetera. They exemplify the high-crime cities of America, such as Baltimore and Detroit. High-crime cities have seen an increase in violent crime as compared to other areas, partly fueled by the recession. But does the abundance of violent adult activity there cause this as well? While the open-source wave of the adult world is gaining ground, we can’t definitively prove anything until it’s over and extensive research has been done. That would be like trying to calculate the exact amount of damage a hurricane will cause – you can do it, yes, but don’t expect anything near accurate results.
Above all, is it healthy for oneself to partake in this activity? Probably. It’s not good to keep those sorts of things all “pent up”. But yes, advertising these things in a public forum is not exactly a safe, controlled, and private arena. If all women started to tell their innermost desires to the world, we’d be seeing a lot more amateur “adult material” than we do today. Considering Peaches’s account holder’s reluctance to “go public” with her private needs, I think she at least understands this concept. While playing out these acts with her husband in private and breaking the shell a bit to tease perverts on the internet is alright, once you start to make these acts themselves acceptable in public, you’re in different waters.
Persephone Bolero
Sep 16th, 2010
@Nelson “Rape is an especially cloudy subject when it comes to crime rates, as it is exceedingly difficult to find cooperative victims.”
Yes, but we would know of any increase in trends, even if their total number is not known. The trend is downward. If adult material caused rape, this would not be the case. Scylla has made the argument that it does cause rape. I never suggested adult material decreases rape. You, in fact, are denying the strawman she was creating.
“Now, I have no official stance on abortion”
Who cares? I never shared mine.
“My real point is that once someone’s actions affect someone else, it becomes the law’s concern. ”
Yes, this is how control freaks justify a wide range of intrusions into people’s private affairs. They try and find some way that they are affected by it. This is the rationale used for banning gay marriage, homosexuality, smoking, marijuana consumption, nudity, over eating, and playing video games.
The truth is the danger to others in all those areas is grossly exaggerated to justify controlling people’s consensual behavior. There is never any real danger. There is just scaremongering to create a rationale for control.
“she is, however, questioning the ability to do so in a public forum.”
So, this is a war on free speech. You, of course, could justify all kinds of limits on free speech with this silly notion. This is like saying, “You’re ideas are fine and you’re free to hold them. The problem is communicating them to others.”
Let me ask you this. Why would anyone need protections on speech that doesn’t offend or threaten anyone?
“Several decades ago, you definitely wouldn’t see this.”
Several decades ago, a black woman wouldn’t eat at the same restaurant I do.
“we can’t definitively prove anything until it’s over and extensive research has been done.”
This is another specious argument. It says that we all must be denied freedom until we can prove something doesn’t cause harm. Well, it’s next to impossible to prove that something is 100 percent harmless. Is water harmless? I can cite drownings and floods to prove otherwise. Should we all have our water intake limited to be sure water is 100 percent safe?
“That would be like trying to calculate the exact amount of damage a hurricane will cause – you can do it, yes, but don’t expect anything near accurate results.”
This doesn’t even make any sense. How is the destruction of a hurricane anything like the threat posed by publicly discussing one’s consensual behavior with other adults?
“Above all, is it healthy for oneself to partake in this activity? Probably.”
Eating Big Macs is unhealthy. Would you argue that anything that’s unhealthy should never be advertised. Cars kill tens of thousands every year. Should we ban all automobile ads?
“once you start to make these acts themselves acceptable in public, you’re in different waters.”
Tell me. Were you forced to read this? Did you have the option to not do so? So, you consented to reading about her private fantasies and now this raises questions about whether or not they should be expressed? Why did you consent to do this if it was such a problem for you?
You choose to enter those waters, and no one forced you to. So, I don’t see how your personal choice changes anything for anyone else.
Who wants to start a betting pool for how long it is before someone makes the “think of the children” argument?
Persephone Bolero
Sep 16th, 2010
@Nelson “Unlike violent s3xuall f3tishes, homosexuals pose no known danger to John Q. Public.”
Sure they do. Homosexuality spreads AIDS. One can easily use your rationales to justify oppression of homos3xuals. The difference is that you don’t have a moral opposition to homos3xuality, so you have no need to find a rationale to explain how it’s harmful to the public.
These “violent S f3tish3s,” which would be more properly described as consensual behavior between adults, are outside your moral comfort zone. So, you have a motivation to find a rationale to explain their danger to the public.
And this really shows what this is about. When you approve of a behavior, it’s safe for everyone. When you don’t, it’s a threat to all. If you were morally opposed to homos3xuality, you’d be in the same camp with the homophobes, claiming that permitting homos3xuality will spread AIDS and destroy the family.
Nelson Jenkins
Sep 16th, 2010
@ Persephone Bolero
I’m going to have to split this up to get around the Herald’s inane spam filter.
“Yes, but we would know of any increase in trends, even if their total number is not known. The trend is downward. If adult material caused rape, this would not be the case. Scylla has made the argument that it does cause rape. I never suggested adult material decreases rape. You, in fact, are denying the strawman she was creating.”
Again, violent crime is on the rise in high-crime cities that are the basis for roleplay sims in Second Life that encourage rape and violence. It would be nice if you could point me to any statistics that prove otherwise, in which case I would retract my argument. However, from what I can tell, the numbers say it’s going up in high-crime areas but generally unchanged in the past few years nationwide. If you are going to go back a decade or two, then yes, we have less crime than we did then, sure, but since around 2004, crime hasn’t decreased.
““Now, I have no official stance on abortion”
Who cares? I never shared mine.”
You seemed to ridicule pro-lifers, which made me assume you were pro-choice. If you’re not, my apologies.
Nelson Jenkins
Sep 16th, 2010
““My real point is that once someone’s actions affect someone else, it becomes the law’s concern.”
Yes, this is how control freaks justify a wide range of intrusions into people’s private affairs. They try and find some way that they are affected by it. This is the rationale used for banning gay marriage, homos3xuality, smoking, marijuana consumption, nudity, over eating, and playing video games.
The truth is the danger to others in all those areas is grossly exaggerated to justify controlling people’s consensual behavior. There is never any real danger. There is just scaremongering to create a rationale for control.”
You are combining several different topics into one massive snowball of contradictions.
Gay marriage does not pose a significant danger to the public. It may dilute marriage if you’re a raging Christian, but in reality, it has no effect, which I am sure the Supreme Court will find within the next decade. It is only illegal because, in voting, those opposed to it are more likely to vote than those for it. We saw that in the recent Prop 8 vote here in California. No On 8 groups got a tiny fraction of funding as compared to Yes On 8 ones, and most Christians felt as if it was their “duty” to stop them from being able to marry. But hey, I just put it this way – they’re gonna keep on doing what they’re doing, whether they’re married, civilly unioned, or just partners.
H0mos3xuality itself has zero effect on the public. You can argue that it is a breeding ground for AIDS, yes, in which case I would retort that anyone that gets AIDS from a diseased partner should have had the foresight to ask that both of them get tested. In addition, I have no remorse for people who pick up whores and contract STDs. Even so, it’s not illegal anymore.
Smoking is obviously dangerous, and frankly it pisses me off when someone has the nerve to stand in front of a no smoking sign and puff away upwind from me, particularly because smokers seem to multiply exponentially, so within 5 minutes you’ve gone from 1 to 8 smokers billowing smoke in your face. Secondhand smoke is a danger – it may not be as severe as firsthand, but smoking 20 packs a day in the same room as a baby clearly causes some bad health problems.
Marijuana consumption is a different story altogether. While it is somewhat dangerous, and I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, alcohol and smoking are far worse in terms of addiction and side effects. Numerous jurisdictions are beginning to legalize the stuff. But as a retired LEO friend of mine told me, if I’m stopped at a traffic light, I’d like to know how many people around me are stoned out of their minds so I can avoid them while they navigate a 5,000 lb missile.
Nudity is a two-fold problem: first, if everyone was nude all the time, there would be a huge spike in s3x-related crimes. Second, current laws state that nudity is defined as visibility of the genitals, anus, or – for women – the areola. That just isn’t going to change anytime soon, sorry.
Overeating is a danger to the individual, but it’s not illegal, so I’m not exactly sure where you got that one.
Playing video games isn’t illegal, but it can be the reason for negligence (see the several cases of parents that were so addicted to video games they let their children die).
On the other hand, if you think rape and violent s3x crimes pose no danger to the public, you need your head examined.
Nelson Jenkins
Sep 16th, 2010
““she is, however, questioning the ability to do so in a public forum.”
So, this is a war on free speech. You, of course, could justify all kinds of limits on free speech with this silly notion. This is like saying, “You’re ideas are fine and you’re free to hold them. The problem is communicating them to others.”
Let me ask you this. Why would anyone need protections on speech that doesn’t offend or threaten anyone?”
I can say it offends me because I might have been raped as a child. Or perhaps I can say it offends me because I was chained up in my uncle’s basement and forced to do naughty things to him until I was 20, and I’m now frightened at the whole BDSM concept. Or it can offend me because I’m just a prude.
And yes, if you’re a Nazi, “you’re” ideas – I should hope you meant “your” – are fine and you’re free to hold them. The problem is going out in public and telling everyone that the Jews should be systematically murdered.
““Several decades ago, you definitely wouldn’t see this.”
Several decades ago, a black woman wouldn’t eat at the same restaurant I do.”
So what? Are you implying that since black people were discriminated against back then, so were whores? Who cares?
““we can’t definitively prove anything until it’s over and extensive research has been done.”
This is another specious argument. It says that we all must be denied freedom until we can prove something doesn’t cause harm. Well, it’s next to impossible to prove that something is 100 percent harmless. Is water harmless? I can cite drownings and floods to prove otherwise. Should we all have our water intake limited to be sure water is 100 percent safe?”
As I stated before, crime statistics are a vast, complicated array of numbers that mean virtually nothing without some serious investigation into them. Water is not.
““That would be like trying to calculate the exact amount of damage a hurricane will cause – you can do it, yes, but don’t expect anything near accurate results.”
This doesn’t even make any sense. How is the destruction of a hurricane anything like the threat posed by publicly discussing one’s consensual behavior with other adults?”
And how is black people not being able to sit in the front of the bus anything like the public being shocked at a woman dressed in a thong walking down Main Street in the early 1900′s? Or how is water drowning a disproportionately small number of people anything like the demoralization of urban societies possibly causing an increase in violent crime therein?
““Above all, is it healthy for oneself to partake in this activity? Probably.”
Eating Big Macs is unhealthy. Would you argue that anything that’s unhealthy should never be advertised. Cars kill tens of thousands every year. Should we ban all automobile ads?”
Big Macs and cars are accepted by society. Pornos on billboards are not. That’s just how society is.
““once you start to make these acts themselves acceptable in public, you’re in different waters.”
Tell me. Were you forced to read this? Did you have the option to not do so? So, you consented to reading about her private fantasies and now this raises questions about whether or not they should be expressed? Why did you consent to do this if it was such a problem for you?
You choose to enter those waters, and no one forced you to. So, I don’t see how your personal choice changes anything for anyone else.”
I enjoy trolling people on the Herald. I also never stated that I was a captive audience, and that has nothing to do with my nor Scylla’s argument.
“”Unlike violent s3xuall f3tishes, homos3xuals pose no known danger to John Q. Public.”
Sure they do. Homos3xuality spreads AIDS. One can easily use your rationales to justify oppression of homos3xuals. The difference is that you don’t have a moral opposition to homos3xuality, so you have no need to find a rationale to explain how it’s harmful to the public.”
So does heteros3xuality. So do Africans. To ban homos3xuality on the basis that it “spreads AIDS” is silly, as I stated above. But if you do, you would also have to ban heteros3xuality, because it spreads AIDS as well. And you’d have to nuke Africa. So since everything spreads AIDS, we should ban everything?
“These “violent f3tish3s,” which would be more properly described as consensual behavior between adults, are outside your moral comfort zone. So, you have a motivation to find a rationale to explain their danger to the public.”
Rape roleplays are fine in a private environment. Healthy, even, if controlled. But once it becomes a public norm, rape will be accepted in society.
That’s sort of what happened with homos3xuality, as well. It was done privately, but eventually they got sick of keeping things under wraps and came out to the world, and now you can see that it’s perfectly fine and dandy for most of the non-hardcore-religious public.
“And this really shows what this is about. When you approve of a behavior, it’s safe for everyone. When you don’t, it’s a threat to all. If you were morally opposed to homos3xuality, you’d be in the same camp with the homophobes, claiming that permitting homos3xuality will spread AIDS and destroy the family.”
I could say I’m a heterophobe. That doesn’t mean I try to find risks in heteros3xuality. You keep claiming that just because I hate something, it means I consider it a threat that must be controlled through legislation. I hate Apple because of their fanbois. I hate horror movies and video games because they creep me out. I hate Glenn Beck (the real life one) because he’s a blubbering idiot. I hate spicy foods, gas prices, body odor, evangelists, linear algebra, rain when I don’t have an umbrella, my shitty wifi router that keeps breaking, and people who say the word “fag”. Does it mean that I want to find dangers with all of them to create news laws that ban them? Of course not.
Miss J
Sep 16th, 2010
I wonder what glenn beck has to say about this situation
Persephone Bolero
Sep 16th, 2010
“Again, violent crime is on the rise in high-crime cities that are the basis for roleplay sims in Second Life that encourage rape and violence.”
This is flat wrong. Across the board, violent crime is decreasing. Get your facts straight.
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/09/fbi-report-shows-decrease-in-us-violent-crime-for-third-straight-year.php
“You seemed to ridicule pro-lifers, which made me assume you were pro-choice. If you’re not, my apologies.”
Again, I never shared my stance.
“Gay marriage does not pose a significant danger to the public.”
Neither do the consensual D/s fantasies of adults.
“You can argue that it is a breeding ground for AIDS”
Yes, just as you can argue consensual fantasies cause a non-existent increase in crime in major cities.
“Marijuana consumption is a different story altogether. ”
You don’t even understand the concept that it doesn’t matter if it’s harmful to the user or not. It’s none of your damn business. Butt out.
“Overeating is a danger to the individual, but it’s not illegal, so I’m not exactly sure where you got that one.”
You just don’t get it, do you?
“The problem is going out in public and telling everyone that the Jews should be systematically murdered.”
Yes, and when adults practice D/s, it’s *exactly* like calling for a second Holocaust.
“So what? Are you implying that since black people were discriminated against back then, so were whores? Who cares?”
You were saying that we’re a more tolerant society as if this is a bad thing. I pointed out that being permissive is good for everyone.
“Or how is water drowning a disproportionately small number of people anything like the demoralization of urban societies possibly causing an increase in violent crime therein?”
Again, your claim of an increase in crime is pure and utter, easily refutable bullshit. Get your facts straight.
“Big Macs and cars are accepted by society. Pornos on billboards are not. That’s just how society is.”
You missed the point again. I asked you what you were arguing. Not what is accepted practice today.
“I enjoy trolling people on the Herald. ”
Then don’t bitch when someone makes public their consensual fantasies you have a moral opposition to. You made a choice to hear it. Leave if you don’t like it.
“Does it mean that I want to find dangers with all of them to create news laws that ban them? Of course not.”
Then what do you want? You keep talking about how taking these things public is a problem for “John Q. Public.” If your point is not to encourage a ban, what is it? To share your moral opposition to these things? We got it. You consider D/s wrong.
I consider your opinions morally offensive. I’m just not going to try to make some stupid argument like that they increase crime. I’m going to accept I chose to read them and respond to them, and it causes no one any real harm. Isn’t freedom a wonderful thing?
Nelson Jenkins
Sep 16th, 2010
@ Persephone Bolero
“”Again, violent crime is on the rise in high-crime cities that are the basis for roleplay sims in Second Life that encourage rap3 and violence.”
This is flat wrong. Across the board, violent crime is decreasing. Get your facts straight.”
I didn’t say it was going up across the board. I said it was going up in high-crime cities, which you have yet to refute. Overall, it is generally unchanged. A 5% decrease is not particularly jarring.
““You seemed to ridicule pro-lifers, which made me assume you were pro-choice. If you’re not, my apologies.”
Again, I never shared my stance.”
Cool story bro.
““Gay marriage does not pose a significant danger to the public.”
Neither do the consensual D/s fantasies of adults.”
Of course. Key word being consentual. rap3, by its very definition, is non-consentual, so if you make rap3 acceptable, you are making non-consentual fantasies acceptable.
““You can argue that it is a breeding ground for AIDS”
Yes, just as you can argue consensual fantasies cause a non-existent increase in crime in major cities.”
I haven’t argued that. You’re twisting my words again. I’m arguing that while there is a correlation between the proliferation of previously-offensive material in society and crime in high-crime areas, it’s debatable whether or not that’s a causation. In fact, I’m arguing next to nothing, yet you continuously take my arguments out of context, puff them up to a point where they’re totally separate from my original claim, and religiously refute them.
““Marijuana consumption is a different story altogether. ”
You don’t even understand the concept that it doesn’t matter if it’s harmful to the user or not. It’s none of your damn business. Butt out.”
Once again, you misconstrued my argument. I argued that while marijuana doesn’t provide the same side effects and addictive risk that alcohol and smoking does, it provides a significant risk of intoxication, similar to alcohol. The nationwide legitimization of marijuana would cause a spike in marijuana-related accidents, and while they wouldn’t be near the number of alcohol-related ones, risking drivers’ lives is not an acceptable drawback of legitimization.
““Overeating is a danger to the individual, but it’s not illegal, so I’m not exactly sure where you got that one.”
You just don’t get it, do you?”
No, I don’t. Then again, you didn’t actually make any point in the first place. You just said that someone might say overeating is a danger, and thus should be made illegal. I said, in return, that whoever says that is an idiot because overeating causes no foreseeable danger to anyone else, so it doesn’t matter.
““The problem is going out in public and telling everyone that the Jews should be systematically murdered.”
Yes, and when adults practice D/s, it’s *exactly* like calling for a second Holocaust.”
Nazi ideals are offensive to some people. rap3 fantasies are offensive to some people.
““So what? Are you implying that since black people were discriminated against back then, so were whores? Who cares?”
You were saying that we’re a more tolerant society as if this is a bad thing. I pointed out that being permissive is good for everyone.”
Being permissive of things that can cause a risk to the health, safety, and welfare of the public is not a good idea.
““Or how is water drowning a disproportionately small number of people anything like the demoralization of urban societies possibly causing an increase in violent crime therein?”
Again, your claim of an increase in crime is pure and utter, easily refutable bullshit. Get your facts straight.”
We get it. Crime is going down slightly overall. Yet you keep ignoring those words, “high-crime areas”.
““Big Macs and cars are accepted by society. Pornos on billboards are not. That’s just how society is.”
You missed the point again. I asked you what you were arguing. Not what is accepted practice today.”
You asked, and I quote: “Would you argue that anything that’s unhealthy should never be advertised.” No, I would not argue that anything unhealthy should not be advertised. I would argue that anything that the public generally deems as unacceptable for public viewing should not be advertised.
““I enjoy trolling people on the Herald. ”
Then don’t bitch when someone makes public their consensual fantasies you have a moral opposition to. You made a choice to hear it. Leave if you don’t like it.”
You clearly don’t know what a troll is.
““Does it mean that I want to find dangers with all of them to create news laws that ban them? Of course not.”
Then what do you want? You keep talking about how taking these things public is a problem for “John Q. Public.” If your point is not to encourage a ban, what is it? To share your moral opposition to these things? We got it. You consider D/s wrong.”
rap3 fantasies and Apple are two wholly different things, which was my whole point.
“I consider your opinions morally offensive. I’m just not going to try to make some stupid argument like that they increase crime. I’m going to accept I chose to read them and respond to them, and it causes no one any real harm. Isn’t freedom a wonderful thing?”
For the last time, I am not saying that rap3 fantasies cause crime. Say it with me now, kids: “Correlation does not imply causation.”
Persephone Bolero
Sep 16th, 2010
@Nelson “I said it was going up in high-crime cities, which you have yet to refute.”
I did refute it. Did you even look at the link? What proof do you have that it’s going up in “high-crime cities?” Let’s see it.
“so if you make rap3 acceptable, you are making non-consentual fantasies acceptable.”
Yes, just as if you allow kids to play video games, they’ll become violent super predators. You are so full of shit.
“I’m arguing that while there is a correlation between the proliferation of previously-offensive material in society and crime in high-crime areas,”
Wrong. There is no increase in crime in cities. If this is true, let’s see your data to support it.
“No, I don’t [get it]. ”
Agreed.
“Yet you keep ignoring those words, ‘high-crime areas’.”
Again, let’s see your data.
“I would argue that anything that the public generally deems as unacceptable for public viewing should not be advertised.”
So, if the public decides criticism of the war on terror should not be advertised, then it shouldn’t?
“For the last time, I am not saying that rap3 fantasies cause crime.”
Huh? Yes you are. Do you know exactly what you’re saying?
Darien Caldwell
Sep 16th, 2010
“Again, violent crime is on the rise in high-crime cities that are the basis for roleplay sims in Second Life that encourage rape and violence”
Wait, so you’re trying to link Roleplay in SL to RL crime rates in the cities the roleplay sims are based on?
Um wow. you just undermined any credibility you may have had.
Nelson Jenkins
Sep 16th, 2010
@ Persephone Bolero
I know what I am saying.
I am saying that there is a correlation between the increase in publicity for sexual fantasies and certain crime rates in high-crime localities.
I am not saying that the increase in publicity for sexual fantasies is causing crime rates to go up in high-crime localities.
I have also stated that rape crime statistics through UCR (the method of crime reporting that the FBI uses, which has proven to be inaccurate when determining the number of crimes actually committed) mean virtually nothing, as it is nearly impossible to find cooperative victims.
I’m going to say this one last time, and I will no longer argue about this, because clearly you do not understand that…
CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.
@ Darien Caldwell
No; I am demonstrating that the increase in publicity for violent sexual fantasies played out in generally public localities has been shown to mirror that of actual cities.
Persephone Bolero
Sep 16th, 2010
@Nelson “I am saying that there is a correlation between the increase in publicity for sexual fantasies and certain crime rates in high-crime localities.”
No such increase exists. You have no data to support this claim, so stop making it. Quite frankly, you’re pulling this entirely out of thin air with *not a shred* of data to back it up. Your opinions of crime rates are wholly unreliable.
You can claim that there are inaccuracies in the FBI UCR all you want. Even if true, a flaw in that reporting method does not support your claim of an increase in crime anywhere, anyhow.
“CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.”
Right. Therefore, there is no connection between p0rn and crime. Agreed. Therefore, these adult fantasies, even shared in a public forum to willing participants, can NOT be shown to have any detriment to the public whatsoever.
I’m glad we agree on this.
Nelson Jenkins
Sep 16th, 2010
@ Persephone Bolero
Want statistics on why UCR reporting is inaccurate? Here you go:
– Fewer than 40% of UCR indexed crimes are reported by victims. That number changes to 5-25% when rape is involved. (For example, in the UK, in 2007, an estimated 95% of rapes went unreported; in the US, in 1992, 84% went unreported.)
– Law enforcement agencies have different recording practices and definitions, can make systematic errors, occasionally deliberately falsify crime reports, and have totally separate professionalism and reporting techniques.
– Reports are completely voluntary and vary in accuracy.
– Not all police departments submit reports.
– For multiple crimes, only the most serious is recorded.
“The government are very keen on amassing statistics. They collect them, raise them to the nth power, take the cube root, and prepare wonderful diagrams. But you must never forget that every one of those figures comes in the first instance from the village watchman, who just puts down what he damn pleases.” – Sir Josiah Stamp (1940)
And correlation also does not imply lack of causation, so these “adult fantasies” can not be shown to have no detriment to the public, either.