Why Child Avatars in Second Life Are Creepy

By now anybody can see what happens if you try to stand up for the rule of law and morality on the issue of child avatars on the adult continent in SL:

You are accused of being a bigot, accused of intolerance, accused of witch-hunts and McArthyism, accused of ignorance about some special nuances among alternative lifestylers, accused of simply being a Bible-thumping reactionary creationist SUV-driving freak. You are accused of harassment of people who are innocently just reliving their childhoods or living the childhoods they never had; you are accused of misinterpreting scenes and distances from objectionable material and child avatars; you are accused of not cutting people slack on the opening day of a still-empty continent in a hub called a "safe hub" (whatever the hell *that* means).

You are accused of all manner of things, and likely will be accused even of being helping perpetrate the same evils you stood up against -- I've seen all kinds of wild stuff in the past, ranging from accusations that my tenants with swingsets were guilty of crimes (false), causing me to be pilloried falsely on the Internet with these screenshots; accused of not reporting actual crimes in SL (false); accused of in fact being responsible for evil acts taking place in RL because these "ageplayers" wouldn't get their pixelated hydraulic placebo with SL, and therefore "were driven to go to RL" to commit crimes -- to even refusing to acknowledge the "therapeutic" features of "ageplay" for women with horrible traumas in their past.

As one reader once sagely put it: "what's in it for daddy, then?" And as another put it very cogently in a question that I used for my most definitive blog post on this issue: why aren't the pedophiles reponsible? Why is it that every one else has to make way, adjust, accommodate, realign, distinguish, cringe, draw back, etc. etc.? Normal law-abiding and moral liberals with normal liberal values are not responsible for this problem; even Bible-thumpers and bigots aren't responsible for this problem. We have age verification *because the pedophiles are responsible*.

The Lindens have made it clear that a policy against sexualized "ageplay" will hold even with adult verification. So I'm not interested in having that debate -- go tell it to the Lindens, not me.

Meanwhile, let's look at why child avatars are creepy. Because they *are* creeper. Pretty much everybody finds them creepy. Some have made rather hilarious comments about the Lindens' creepy modernistic enviro-hegemonic architecture being as much as an adult, er, demotivator as the child avators lol. They *are* creepy. It's *ok* to say that. So many are bullied and silenced and feel that they *cannot* say this for fear of being pilloried, badgered, accused of being politically incorrect and all the rest that I want to make sure everyone can follow their natural, untrammelled instincts here and feel free to say it: child avatars ARE creepy.

So let's analyze just what it is about child avatars that are creepy, so we can all have this straight in our minds, and end the tyranny of the edgecasing Haskellers on the forums, shall we?

1. Child avatars are creepy in Second Life because they are a marker for those using them for unlawful and immoral "ageplay". They are either a marker for outright purveyors of child pornography from RL -- a more rare use case, we're told -- but much, much more frequently, are a marker for a simulated version of such pornography performed by adults, and even verified adults. They are a marker for this type of behaviour because...they are. There have been LOTS of them in SL, they have been deliberately encouraged and catered to in many ways, and they have only themselves to blame for the bad name that child avatars have. Yes, they are indeed a marker because this behaviour was indeed tolerated for some years and is not so much explicitly banned as much as it is addressed on a case-by-case basis through abuse reporting and policies that were late in coming.

This unlawful and immoral activity indeed was allowed throughout at least 3 years of the lifespan of Second Life, without any Linden sanction against it, so it's not surprising that it aggressively proliferated and brooked no dissent. So eager were the lib Lindens to encourage creativity and freedom that they looked the other way. Oh, sure, there might have been the removal of a few people with RL child pornography, but we never heard of that -- until the German prosecutors and the German TV (and it wasn't tabloid TV, by the way) got to work at it. Then the issue began to be aired, but still, Linden didn't have a policy about the EU brand of the law on this: the simulation and depiction of child pornography even with games, anime, virtual worlds, etc.

So Adam Linden (later Chadrick Linden, who has since left the lab) on his own initiative developed a notecard that was sent to some establishments in the year 2007 when the big corporations began to arrive in SL, and SL began to get a lot of attention, warning them that their content might be violatory in some countries and they should get rid of it. We also had a famous swooping on some content by Michael Linden, incited by mentors, a story I reported in the Herald at first with sympathy to the problem of overzealous prosecution, which ended with frank disgust at how manipulative and nasty the subject was. It was also my first real gander and just how disgusting and pandery Pixeleen/Mark McCahill was on this subject. Ugh.

2. Child avatars are creepy because even if they aren't a marker for actual child pornography distributors, or actual "ageplay" practitioners of the simulated kind, a broader category, they are a marker for a cynical, nihilist, and extremist sort of artist or geek or anonymous and insolent Internet troll  who like to shock, annoy, make uncomfortable, trip up liberals by hijacking their own values, etc. anything to get a reaction. There are geeks, like Baba Yamamoto, who deliberately dress up as children or midget avatars in order to evoke discomfort and creepiness. Or there are geeks who don't appear as children, but fight with extreme obsessiveness and violence (like Csven Concord) for the rights of "ageplay" against anyone who objects to this creepyiness, because they wish to portray themselves as politically-correct liberals and keepers of the human rights flame against all kinds of supposedly Puritanical and Bible-thumping intolerant types that they think threaten their own freedoms of creativity or activity of any sort. This type can range from an earnest weepy Victorian steampunk lesbians who tells you that if you censor child avatars, the next thing you know it will be lesbians, to nasty and vicious ARC-heavy dragon avatar weapons-makers and warplayers who think that everything pixelated is allowed simply because...it is copyably and manifest on the Internet which is a free zone that isn't "real".

3. Finally, child avatars are creepy because even if the creepy child avatar in question doesn't fit into one of these two categories -- 1) not a RL pedophile or unlawful "ageplayer," and 2) not an extremist edgecaser and nihilist cynic barking endlessly on the forums -- they are objectively carrying water particularly for the latter category by insisting that they must be granted the right to go everywhere, even in M and AO, not be sequestered to PG, because "in real life" children are everywhere, and therefore we must be very literalist about the Linden -- an EU legal stipulation -- that child avatars are ok -- unless you use them to engage in sexualized behavior.

Why would no. 3 be creepy, when it is all innocence and light and lollypops and tricycles? The answer is: because they all lost crediblity when Marianne McCann (shudder at the use of that RL abducted child's name again) went to the adult continent and appeared dancing next to a giant penis. (This isn't disputed by eyewitnesses, but it is now being whittled and fisked to death with various caveats -- but she wasn't that close (she herself claims that, but the pictures that resulted from this scene would vary greatly depending on where you were situated; I was in the next sim over not able to get into the sim where she was, and I saw it large as life and twice as natural as a very close bouquet of Dirk, Blondin, and Marianne-- there is no getting around this fact.

Now, everyone is saying, "Well, why didn't Dirk put it away?" (Huh? This is the friggin' adult grid! Why should he have to?!) or "Marianne helps newbies in sandboxes and provides content" or "Marianne never practices ageplay" or "Marianne is just fighting for her rights to her child avatar space, not to be tarred with the brush" -- of the first category I've raised" or 100 other things other than what one brave soul did say on the forums:

Marianne used poor judgement in appearing on the adult continent, and set back the cause for her entire group of child avatar users who didn't wish to be associated with "ageplay".

Exactly. Except...I really don't think such a space exists, because I think people using child avatars tend more than others to be coming from a dysfunctional place, and if they use the last name of an abducted child suspected to have been killed by sex offenders, and if they push for their rights to appear on the adult continent among clearly sexualized content -- that place becomes even more profoundly suspect.

Fake.

And that's why it feels creepy.

For the longest time we were told that there was this magical innocent child avatar of SL only involving lovely fun content (child content in SL is a big business). And weren't we wrong to EVER think ill of them (as we were constantly angrily browbeaten on the forums). Because they could do no wrong and we were in the wrong for thinking so.

And hey, I know just how much a business it is because occasionally, I will have someone come and sell children's type of content in stores on my land -- toys, clothes, bikes. Not often, as I don't have high-traffic malls, but several times over the years. I certainly don't discriminate against child avatars, although I check them out carefully because they are indeed markers for trouble, and no amount of banging me over the head and calling me a bigot will undo my very careful examination of such trouble. I've found that those with these stores aren't necessarily appearing as children even if they sell this content; I've also not seen anything objectionable in this open store content (if there is anything, it's returned immediately).

Sometimes, the trouble people in child avatars represent is an instant and obvious thing, you boot and ban them and the Lindens take care of them very swiftly. Other times, they are in category 2, that is cynical assholes just trying to annoy, and then you may find you boot them anyway because they put out a 6,000 prim gunship on your lawn or crash the sim.

As a rentals landlord, I've seen many, many kinds of people in Second Life. Child avatars are a very distinct minority, for all the attention they get focused on themselves. And I would say of the three categories of people using child avatars, after you discount the Babas of the world who use them to annoy as a cynical griefing gesture, this is what you often see:

A male playing a teenager who is mainly catering to the very classic and widespread Internet porn stereotypes of the gay male concept of "twinks" and "barely legals". However, the Lindens will ban you if you put that you are role-playing a 17-year-old prostitute on your profile. Bye.

Then there is the kind of person who is a loner, they don't have any visible roomies, partners or anything. They often present as a very young female child and expect you to go along with their silly RP and act like you fit into the scene, understanding them when they say "mommy tellsth me I can't pway outside here" etc. Mommy usually never shows up. The whole aura around some of these people is pretty awful -- they are dysfunctional, erratic, and often overprim. Usually they don't settle for long and move out quickly, whereupon you might find themselves dealing with their alt.  Sometimes they will have the markers that enable you to get rid of them quickly; other times, you can't know. They inspire a sense of revulsion precisely because the combination of their inept RP with those who don't want to be involved with it; their erratic movements; their often bizarre profile stories, etc.  -- leave you creeped. Everyone knows what it means to be creeped in SL. Avatar-to-avatar encounters often enable you to engage your "sixth sense" -- and all the alarm bells go off with some people and you hasten to get rid of them.

Yet another kind of category of child avatar consists of people who by and large are "innocent". That is, they are in a dynamic that is about a larger context -- a family -- and that makes it just come off with less creepiness, in fact. I find that there is indeed a category of people, often among African Americans and Hispanics as it happens, who love playing "family". They build up huge extended families that are a lot of fun, like one of those big family reunions you see in parks. They have sisters, aunts, uncles with elaborate legends. White people do this too, but I'm just calling it as I see it -- both white and minority urban professionals are not as likely to make "families" as poorer and working class minorities in the midwest and southern states and some poor countries of the south. Of course there are exceptions to what I'm saying -- I'm merely reporting *what I see*. In fact, if all the smug white male geek cynics on the forums that ridicule people with babies and families could take the top off and see that they are often talking down to black female entrepreneurs with successful stores catering to families that have made a very vibrant social and commercial life in SL, they'd be ashamed, and we could use their guilt-inducing shtick right back at them. I'm sure that if someone were to do their Ph.D. thesis on the making of families in Second Life they would discover that the lower the education level and socio-economic class, the more the families, however.

In the course of playing "family," women -- and men, too, in fact -- like having prim babies, with all their bottles and strollers and stuff and the talking pregnant stomachs, and they also then have the issue of how to have that baby grow up, giving that AI babies haven't evolved quite yet in SL. So they have their extended family play the "child" roles.  People often keep several accounts, one where they play the little sister or daughter to somebody else's mother, and the other where they have their regular adult life in SL. The roleplay that these people create is very intricate and formal. It's not like category one or two, really, because it is part of a kind of structured family hierarchy with various prescribed family activities that are richly developed on various themes with schools, camps, fairgrounds, etc.

These people can still inspire creepiness, but because they usually appear in larger family groups, or at least in obvious twos and threes doing very innocent things and not up in skyboxes, they allay concerns and dispel the natural sense of revulsion people feel about an adult needing to regress. (It's not surprising that if people who suddenly regress and act persistently like children in RL are greeted with a sense of creepiness because it is usually a sign of mental illness or dementia in RL, the same set of behaviours in SL will inspire chills.)

So, given what I'm explaining about the "family making" you see in SL, largely innocent, is there now a fourth category beyond the three I've already outlined that is sanitized, pure, safe, and should remain free for child avatars to roam in innocence throughout the grid?

No.

Not any more.

Not since Marianne insisted on going to the adult continent to frolic -- undermining the potential for an innocent category and space, now forever blurred with crime and/or extreme cynicism  -- and ever since Blondin Linden let us know that the cynical geeks still prevail at the lab.

Child avatars are creepy. Go with your gut on this -- don't be bullied.

Comments

[Elanthius Flagstaff]

I suppose you pre-empted my response with your "smug white male geek cynics" comment but I don't know why you went to such great lengths to describe family RPs as not creepy. Those are the creepiest ones of all. It's not to do with ageplay or sex or even the annoying fake baby talk. It's just fundamentally a little weird for adults to pretend to be children in public.

Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly want to deny people the right to RP whatever they enjoy doing. I tolerate child avs the same way I tolerate naked gorean girls and other weirdos that force their RP on me. Basically just pretend they aren't doing it and treat them like normal adult people. Nonetheless, I think most people will ultimately have to admit that there is something a little off putting about the whole genre.

[Micha Sass]

I am not sure which is more creepy, is it the adults trying to find their inner-child, or is the self righteous gnashing of teeth and loud barks of Mr. Neva and co. I have always liked cats more than dogs. BTW some people find the whole 'virtual world' thing to be creepy as hell. Just a thought.

[Extropia DaSilva]

As far as I know, nobody was weirded out reading J.K Rowling's enormously popular series of books. Nobody commented 'ohh this is too weird. A mature woman is pretending to be a little boy with magic powers'. But that was what she did. In order to write a convincing story, she must have gotten 'into character' and lived as Harry Potter in her head.

For some reason, the kinds of roleplay and character invention/development that are acceptable and even unremarkable in literature or theatre are suddenly transformed into intolerably creepy fare once moved to online worlds.

It seems to be that, while most people can ignore the mechanics of storytelling in other situations (the author with word processor; actors reciting lines while surrounded by cameras, lights, props and set dressing), concentrating only on the narrative, when it comes to online worlds people obsess with trying to peer beyond the 'story' and see the puppet master working behind the scenes.

[Daniel Regenbogen]

Just to set a few things clear. Marianne McCann - you can shudder about that name as much as you want, last time I checked, the SL account with that name was created long before the poor RL girl was abducted. Abduction was may 4th 2007 - Mariannes account dates back to feb 22nd 2006. If you want to blame someone, blame LL for allowing the last name McCann without thinking about the possiblity that at some point in the future someone with that name in RL could be the victim of horrendous crime.

The german tv magazin and it's report on child porn in SL was denounced by many people as tabloid journalism, the prosecutor who was interviewed about it is known to talk about lots of things without knowing much about them. Of course he reacted like he did when he was shown that tape - might have been nice if he had done research about how it was made. It was a setup situation, no more, no less. Kinda clear proof of that is that *nothing* ever came after it, no official reaction, nothing. Of course, you now will twist my words into defending child porn, I know. For the sake of others, not for yours because you are to stupid to understand the fine differences of thinking, I will explain it again: I am against child porn. Point. But I see a problem with made up facts and carefully directed actions that are done to get a nice sensational story. If people like you were correct with their assumptions about a wide running child porn community and scene in SL - wouldn't we hear about that all over the media, wouldn't we see some serious investigations by law enforcement agencies all over the world? I would think so, but: nothing.

Is there child porn in SL? Of course. Are people engaging in sexual ageplay in SL? Of course. The thing is: you usually won't see them, and they won't run around the streets of SL in child avatars. They won't put themselfs in the spotlight, they are too smart to risk legal problems or to lose their investment. With some little exceptions once in a while.

[melponeme_k]

I find it interesting that the majority of residents against child avatars in Zindra are being accused of rabidness. I haven't seen any such behavior. No one is calling for an outright ban of child avatars. Most of us only want them banned from Zindra and closely monitored in Mature sims.

It is the regression that disgusts me in regard to child avatars. And that most of them require "care", that we are forced to mummy/daddy them. This whole situation is another cry for attention and pulling us into their dysfunctional "RP".

Real children don't want to be patronized. They want to sit at the adult table, discuss and be treated as a functioning, mature individuals. Even the smallest are determined to be autonomous. And anyone who has had experience with children; mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, grandmothers and grandfathers know this to be true. Children are also careful in their speech, quick to correct any mispronunciations or ask for the correct meaning and pronunciation of words they don't know. Children are amazing people and it is wonderful to watch them grow into themselves.

Child avatars however are not growing into anything. They are regressive and extort emotional impulses from people who don't want to play their game.

[doubledown tandino]

I'm sure a lot of people know Loki Eliot? He's been in SL over 4 years, has always played the role of a younger person (a kid if you will). He's not creepy, he's a valuable asset to SL. His avatar is a kid, his filtered voice on the mic when he djs sounds like a kid, and his entire role-playing realm is for that free spirit childhood fun. He's created an entire Goonies themed tribute.

... tell me... would his Goonies mini-universe he's created even function properly with adults? In fact, adults hanging out in the Loki's Goonies place is what's creepy, not the kids running around on roleplay adventures there.

Finally, everyone views the other person as weird, creepy, something wrong... when they're viewing it from afar. I'm sure the kids doing the roleplay thing in SL right now have thought the adults on the grid are pretty shitty, with their business and their policy. I'm sure playing a kid in SL is another form of escapism for them... having a child avatar doesn't mean anyone needs toslap a sexpervert label on that user.

Know what i think is creepy, when people's first thought when they see a kid avatar in SL is: "ageplayer" or "pedophile" or "pervert" ..

[Prokofy Neva]

Elanthius, I'm merely describing the family context for the child avatar as less creepy and as less likely to be sinister -- but it's all creepy to one extent or another.

As with Goreans, if they have the right to their "lifestyle" (more like a deathstyle), then everyone else has the right to their revulsion and the expression of it. Revulsion and expression of it doesn't mean you have called for a ban on another's "lifestyle"; but you get the same right to revulsion that they get to express what is revolting.

It's that effort to try to scrub revulsion out of people and sanitize and PC them to death that is one of the alarm bells for this gang -- the desire to overthrow and control others so that even their natural feelings have to be denied. It's sick, especially coming from subculture raising its flag on the notion of freedom of expression.

Extropia is definitely in the apologists' cynical and nihilistic camp there, with her weird claim that writing a book, with the conventions of fiction, is the same thing as enacting and being such a character in a virtual world. It isn't, of course. If she doesn't think there's a difference, then why not just write a fiction about uploaded brains in the future, instead of planning for virtual worlds to be their real home?

Daniel, that's great that Marianne McCann was created before the RL girl was abducted, but it's still creepy. It isn't about the Lindens having ESP; it's about considering even keeping the avatar with such a name going after such a horror. But then, if you aren't stopped by the thought of having a child avatar in the first place, you're hardly likely to consider retiring the avatar over such an issue. It's creepy, and I'm right to say it *is* creepy.

The German TV was widely denounced as "tabloid" and yet the station and program were not in fact of the tabloid genre as Germans themselves said.

No, Daniel. Stop lying. You are not against child porn. Not at all. You are for *pretending* to be against child porn as you desensitize people to this evil, and attempt to bully and literalize and cynically defend someone going to the adult grid and dancing around in the context there. You are suspect, and will ever go on being suspect no matter what games of "gotcha" and literalizing you are able to muster on the forums and blogs.

You're the best advertisement there is for why child avatars are creepy, why they aren't persuasive, why their claims aren't believable. Your continual defense of the indefensible, and your cynical nastiness and "gotcha" playing in the process let us know that every sense of revulsion we have over this is absolutely justified.

People pretending that their innocent child play is just fine and shouldn't elicit revulsion would be far, far more credible in this claim if they didn't behave like cynical, decided *un* childlike assholes on the forums and didn't endlessly play a nasty game of making other people feel uncomfortable and restricted in a PC strait-jacket. If the child cause were really the thing it claims, it would not cause the strife that it does. But it isn't. At root, playing a child avatar is a profound statement of the desire to manipulate other people and their responses, not an expression of innocent playfulness.

Most people can do things in SL that are representative of the innocent playfulness of a child without having to BE a child and don a child avatar and begin to elicit revulsion and suspicion in their fellows.

We don't always hear about every prosecution in SL because the Lindens are keen to avoid publicity. And yammering on about how there no prosecution neatly sidesteps and obfuscates the problem that up until 2007, that is for 3 years, the Lindens *did* allow this type of activity. We all saw it, we all know it, and it was the fodder for constant forums debates, groups being formed, discussions, and blogs. Groups trying to protest it were even themselves harassed and even disciplined as "intolerant" by Lindens. So it was a disgrace, and we who lived through that period know that.

melponeme, you've hit upon the creepiest aspect of course, that in RL, a RL child is growing up -- growing up! Organically evolving into the next stage of life. In SL, it is an artificial preservation of that stage that goes against nature. Is having an elf or a dragon avatar or an eterntally 21-year-old avatar where you are really 45 in RL creepy then, too, by that definition?

Absolutely -- which is why some people find SL itself as a whole creepy and objectionable and just not their thing. And that's ok. Still, on the scale of things, the desire of someone to go on looking 21, which is something people practice in RL in a socially acceptable way as well, is different than wishing to stay arrrested at the age of 8.

I don't care if Loki Eliot is one of the "innocent kids". So what? That doesn't take away the creepiness, and the fact that this subculture of SL is very much tainted by their demand that they be allowed on the adult continent.

Everything they claim about being merely interested in playing Boy Scott camp and storyteller and spaceship explorer will all be given the lie if we see them continue to push the envelop and coming to the adult grid to hang out.

Doubledown, there is nothing "shitty" about business. You're evoking the revulsion that another subculture feels about commerce as something "dirty" except their own, which they usually couch in terms as being "good for the community". It's just a variant of socialism.

Of course having a child avatar opens you up to the suspicion that you could be a pervert. Why? Because it is a marker for many people who are, just as I've explained. There are simply far more of them that are in SL than are not because of a long period of tolerance of "simulated child pornography" in SL before it was disallowed.

What Marianne McCann has in common with those who are sinister even if they are not practitioners is their desire to desensitize and keep moving the goal posts. I would have thought Marianne would never demand to go on the adult continent, for all the protests she constantly made, putting us all in our place, of her innocence.

As another person said on the forums, she made a bad error in judgement, and now the entire subculture will pay.

It's not creepy to find the child avatar creepy; the child avatar is creepy. This effort to turn the tables and be "more politically correct than thou" engenders suspicion precisely because it is a form of violence against another person -- making them suppress a natural revulsion to something literally going against nature (not growing up and progressing as normal human children do).

It's ok to express revulsion over something that is revolting. That people are supposed to somehow scrub this from their emotional makeup so as not to look like the revulsion that someone might feel over gays or pagans is particularly reprehensible because people who feel revulsion over child avatars have a very good case for their feelings.

[Prokofy Neva]

This is a telling description of who Daniel Regenboten is constantly and aggressively trying to blur the lines between innocence and suspicion, on his profile.

The concept of "gay" for a child is stretching it. If a child is not yet sexually mature, they would not be engaging in gay sexual behaviour appropriately. They might not know yet that they are gay. Oh, sure, there are some people that know they are gay from a young age, but it is frankly stretching the truth and eroding the concepts -- again -- by trying to carve out the concept of a nonsexualized gay child when by the same token, the gay community has worked overtime to expand the limits of tolerance for open sexual expression. Can't have it both ways.

So here's the advertisement for boy's skins on Daniel's profile:

"They are back! The famous boy skins by Mattie Hansen are available again for both Second Life and K-Grid! Get them at Aspen (just click teleport), Undercity, Innovation Park, Neko Park, A Boy's Place Mall, Whippersnapper and Mig's Gay Neko Hangout! Lucky Chair at Aspen! Win your S&D Skin for the K-Grid!"

Another thing that's inappropriate for Daniel's claim of innocent boy child is a picture on his profile with the label "Boy Naughty" showing a boy lying on a beach towel with his midriff exposed.

Other aspects of his profile picks are creepy, with references to "a boy with a past...don't we all have one" and a "dark time" (i.e. a past of abuse? a dark time coming to terms with this?) which is inconsistent with what a child would be saying, psychologically.

That's also the ultimate creepout -- the pretense at playing an innocent child, while the anachronisms of the adult constantly burn through.

Finally, there is the issue of why someone who is "a child" also has "a partner" in the SL partner box.

Daniel is creepier than I realized, in fact.

[Daniel Regenbogen]

Last time I checked, LL doesn't allow avatar renaming, so "retiring" a name would mean the loss of all no-trans inventory. And for what? For being in the same situation next week because another horrific crime happened, this time maybe to someone with the last name "Neva"? And then next week again? And the week after that? And don't forget to google before chosing a name, who knows what crime victim from the past might have carried it.

"Report Mainz" isn't exactly known for good, unbiased journalism, even though it runs on german public broadcasting. The decline in quality of these magazines (Report, Monitor and Panorama) is saddening, but they are not anymore what they still were 10 years ago, when they were on the frontline of serious journalism.

Again, if the problem was as wide spread as you and some sensational wannabe journalists claim, it wouldn't be in some now 2nd class, late evening magazine but all over the media all over the world and in the court rooms of the world. It isn't. Not a single SL user in the last 6 years was dragged into court, not LL either.

You can call me a liar as much as you want, the facts speak their own language. Thankfully there are enough people around who don't buy into your twisted mind but are able to think for themselfs.

The real pervert isn't the one who is using a kid avatar - it's the one who shouts "child porn!" when seeing a kid avatar. Tells lots about the sick state of mind of that person.

[Daniel Regenbogen]

Haha, grabbing for straws now?

Never had a romantic relationship as a teen? You poor creature. It might come as surprise to you, but teenagers DO have boyfriends and girlfriends, they DO hug and kiss and cuddle, it's part of teen life. Funnily, even in the just released game "The Sims 3", labeled as suitable for kids age 6 and up, teenaged "SIMs" (as the avatars are called there) have all these options. Again, who is the one with the sick mind? I'd say you.

Thanks for reminding me about the skin add, Mig's place sadly is not anymore. It was a fully PG place btw, with strictly enforced rules. And if you think there are no gay teens in RL: get a reality check and try again.

You can't even read, how sad is that? The next pic in my profile is not labeled "Boy Naughty" but "Brother Naughty". Ever heard of naughty kids? I guess your's (if there are some living in such a sad environment) never were naughty, right? And of course they never had shirts slipping out of pants, showing some skin, especially when raising their arms. That boy is wearing shirt and pants, if you see anything troubling with that your mind is even more perverted than I thought.

So, now having a past, sometimes maybe even a dark one, is a sign for something wrong? Part of my past is the innocence I had to think that the world was nice and there weren't people filled with such hatred as you are. And isn't it nice to have a friend stick with you and help you in a complicated phase of your life?

How about making up your mind. You want kid/teen avatars to behave like real kids/teens. In the next sentence you call them perverts for behaving like real kids/teens. So what should it be?

[Prokofy Neva]

Straws? Hardly. Alarming signs that help us see the mask is slipping.

So all of a sudden you're a teenager and not a boy, Daniel? Which is it? All the "picks" talk about "boys' skins," not "teenagers' skins". At what point did it morph?

And wait...I'm accused of not believing there is any gay teens in SL? But...RL gay teens would not be allowed to be on the adult grid, Daniel. Of course any population of teens has gay teens and there are likely gay teens on the teen grid, but they are not permitted to have sex on the teen grid, either. And on the adult grid, you don't get to RP a RL gay teen because that is sexualizing "ageplay" in just the way that you all claim you never do.

Oh, you say, "being gay" isn't "being sexualized"? Well, you don't have that luxury to carve out these specious distinctions when gays also demand open sexuality, especially in virtual worlds. You can't have it both ways. Lindens can and do ban people who write "17-year-old gay teen RP looking for romance" on their profiles because simulated child pornography is indeed banned. You keep having a hard time grasping that, and keep looking for loopholes, exceptions, Fisks and exceptions. You keep trying to blur the distinction.

See, you're distracting again, trying to obfuscate your agenda and make the problem being about me when it is about you and your confusion, your troubled past, and your dysfunctional and aggressive agenda in SL. That's the real issue, not me, and my alleged "intolerance". It's always the real issue, and your nasty and sinister aggressiveness around it can't obscure that -- in fact, it helps make it more and more evident.

You're a liar, Daniel. I see right through you.

Sick mind? I don't think even the Lindens would accept that it's ok to have children "kiss and cuddle" on cuddle rugs and couches in SL. If this is the new frontier where all the "children" are going to push to in their never-ending bid to desensitize and erode the law against child pornography, I won't be surprised.

Say, what's the K-Grid all about? An opensim where you Peter Pans can all "run away and be free"? why would you need to do that if your play is innocent?

Whether "Boy Naughty" or "Brother Naughty" and whatever "innocent" spin you will put on it, anyone can see that it has an undertow of even more than the usual creepiness precisely because of the innuendo. Ugh.

The idea that "naughtiness" in a child refers to his showing his bare skin and not throwing a spitball in school is just one of the many obvious creepy alarm bells that go off in your entire creepy shtick, Daniel. Ugh again. It's not me that has a dirty mind; it's you that has a creepy dysfunction you can't come to terms with honestly. Normal, functional people don't perceive a child showing bare skin as a "naughty" act of a child; they view children pulling their sister's hair or spilling juice as "naughty".

Normal family albums and albums of kids don't show suggestive poses and images such as you show, trying to stay below the radar. It's just not on their menu. You've lost touch with reality.

I'm not the one filled with hatred. I'm filled with revulsion about something that it is right to be revolted at because it *is* revolting. Your angry and self-justifying nastiness and goal-post moving in the cause of trying to sanctify yourself is what is wrong, not my declaration of you as pushing a sinister agenda.

If the whole child thing was as innocent as it claims, people like you wouldn't have to be constantly engaged in angry, defiant, adversarial, self-justifying, nasty battle to exculpate themselves. They wouldn't have to explain 100 times a day that what they do is in fact innocent. They wouldn't have to keep banging on everybody else and trying to make them feel uncomfortable and accuse them of political incorrectness because they naturally and justifiably express concern.

They would never feel the need to try to shame and harass other people who find them creepy because they'd be secure in the knowledge that they are innocent.

You're not secure in that knowledge because you aren't innocent.

That more than anything lets us know what we're dealing with.

[Daniel Regenbogen]

Oh, your straws get thinner and thinner. I always was a teen in SL (well, not in the first 7 days I guess). This is well known (I even had it in my profile, but took it out because of the danger of false underage ARs from people who can't see the difference between RL and SL age), and it's also known that more than once I pointed out the differences between "kid avatars" and "teen avatars".

Yes, boy skins. Since when are male teenagers no boys anymore? Maybe I have a problem with the english language, so please show me where I can find information about a boy turning into *whateveryouwillcallit* when he turns 13.

Romance is no sex. Sex is sex. I can be sickenly sweet romantic without doing anything sexual.

BTW ... in our family album there are pics of me sleeping... pics of me nude on the beach... pics of me with pajama pants slipped down and my butt showing. Maybe stuff like that is called perverted in Absurdistan, but thankfully not in places where people don't think "SEX!" when they see something like that.

Oh, and why do I write here and at other places about these things, ripping the mask of the wannabe moral apostal from your hating face? Because some might actually believe you, if nobody stood up to you and uncovered your evil ways. Thankfully, you make this job kinda easy. In 9 out of 10 cases calling out your name gets the reaction "what did this nutcase do this time?". Someone with a correctly working brain would now start to question himself - but don't worry, I don't expect that from you.

[Prokofy Neva]

Daniel,

Keep talking. Your aggressive and belligerent screed here merely reveals the sinister nature of your agenda, over and over again.

Those trying to erode morality and law ALWAYS point to the concept of the romantic 17 year old to try to "age up" the entire experience. In a minute we will here about child bridges of 8 in Afghanistan and some statues with 16 as the age for statutory rape. These are all the predictable chimes run by ageplay apologists in these debates, and you ring them.

The question always remains: why do YOU NEED TO ring them, Daniel? What is YOUR REASON for having to constantly justify "ageplayers" if you are ostensibly not one yourself?

We all know that when you say "boys' skins" and show *screenshots of boys who are not teenagers* it means boys.

So it's a deliberate blurring of distinctions, again, with nothing but a sinister agenda.

My straws don't get thinner; your mask slips more and more.

I have found before that people who are part of nudists sects and grew up in nudist sects can be the most angry, belligerent and nasty about insisting on the "right to 'ageplay'".

Nudism is a sect. A minority. A minority that some would argue grows out of sectarian politics and dysfunctional lives. It certainly attracts those with sectarian politics and dysfunctional lives, whatever it's purported "healthy core" may be.

It is not the norm to take pictures of children nude on the beach and put them in family albums. Not taking pictures of them or portraying pictures isn't because of some dirty notion of seeing sex where it is not. It's about another faculty of the human spirit that seems completely alien to your cynical and nihilist raging persona. It's called "modesty". Modesty is a good thing. So is shame about being naked in public. These aren't things to condemn as politically incorrect. They are the basis for civilization, and they are ok. They don't represent Victorian repression or Puritanism; they just represent plain, ordinary modesty. Modesty is a good thing.

It's not from Absurdistan to think that; what's from Absurdistan is that you be clueless that you are in a sect, and that you are even belligerent about angrily defending that sect.
Creepy. Creepy. Creepy.

Um, we all get it that "romance is not sex". That's what PG-13 can mean. In SL, however, there is just PG. Not PG-13.

And if you try to push the envelope going around with a "romantic 17-year-old always in kissing poses but never, ever in explicit sexual poses" most people will simply find you are an "ageplayer" trying to pass as innocent, and will simply not find it persuasive, and find it a sophist and legalistic shtick. Because it is.

So people who AR you any number of times are right to do that, their instincts are correct, and the lib Lindens -- even the lib Lindens -- will eventually get you, and will put a stop to your edge-casing provocative "ageplay" which deserves to be banned.

I don't care if 9 out of 10 people on Plurk in your little sordid friends set think I'm a nutter.

You are sinister, and you are creepy, and I'm happy to keep telling you that as a public service.

It's not my life's work to make a crusade on the "ageplay" issue, however, I have so many more issues of interest to me, so I'll likely not continue to answer your self-justifying and increasingly sinister posts. They expose you all on their own.

[brinda allen]

=^..^= Whats that line about protesting to much? Child avies are creepy. Period. Exclamation point!
I see us as back to the same situation...Right?...Wrong?...So often its not,is it wrong?...But does it have the perception of illegality? {re: Creepy}.

RP in SL is big business...And though I personally dont,'get it'. Most is just fine. No I dont want to play house,dragon,slave,master,mistress,robot,box,furrie or any of the fantastic things some of the most creative ppl here have concieved of. And yes..I have RL friends that think this entire platform is 'creepy'. But, as most of my SL friends know,I dont want to leave Second Life. They are the ppl that I have gone to and asked them, "Why are you here"? I ask.. because I dont want to leave.

I have posted before..if you think I'm a right wing,church going,uptite bigoted,flag waving,extremist...either read some recent postings. Or send me an IM asking me for a brief history...(In many ways I'm the classic case of the Jewish curse,"May you live an interesting life". :-))
My god,can you possibly be willing to potentially sacrifice this platform for such a minority. As I read recently here...Nancy Grace...Fox News...even MSNBC...left right center. Some things just have such a visceral reaction and
I dont believe any company can withstand the power of negative public opinion.

[brinda allen]

@Daniel...In most states now... send a nude picture of your child of the bearskin rug to a photo lab and you will likely find yourself responding to an authority figure.

[Daniel Regenbogen]

Haha, so going to a nude beach in summer makes me part of a sect? Millions of sect members alone in Germany! Beware! Maybe you should realize that the world doesn't rotate around your narrowminded brain and idea about the world.

FKK - Freikörperkultur - I guess the best english word for it would naturism, swimming and tanning on the beach in the nude, was and is wide spread especially in the former socialist part of Germany, much more in the former western part. Sociologists think that one reason for that is some form of rebellion of the east germans against the allmighty state. JFYI: I'm not deep enough in the "sect" to do anything else than swimming and tanning naked. I might get my membership revoked if I don't start to bike or hike in the nude, soon...

It is a sign of a perverted mind to see the naked human body as something dirty. I guess you belong to that "sect" that thinks old greek statues are perverted, too. Being ashamed of your body? Well maybe you have a good reason for that, I don't.

You're missing out on some great family pics that will be the center of familiy reunions in later years, where everyone is laughing about them and saying "wasn't that a great time...". You don't promote modesty, you promote that people should be ashamed of themselfs.

Yes, they are boy skins for younger boys and not that well suited for teenaged boys. Does that make a male teenager less a boy? Of course, you never answer questions based on facts. You simply jump onto the next ranting session when you were called on your lies and factless accusations.

I'm quite sure I was AR'd in the past, with hatemongers and witch hunters like you around I would be surprised if not. But I'm still here with a clean history - nothing that you can say about yourself, right? I'm not the one who is banned from ... what is it all? Jira? SL Forum? I'm sure you're wearing these bans as proud badges of honor...

Oh, and the knowledge of you being a nutcase is spread much wider than amongst the kid avatar community... It's common knowledge.

[Prokofy Neva]

Yes, going to a nude beach is a sect, Daniel. Most of the billions of people on the planet, many of whom are religious, do not go to the beach nude nor endorse the nudist way of life.

Do you realize that the culture you are in, in Germany, is not "the truth" and "the way"? Far from it.

In fact, given the crimes against humanity and nihilism of Germany's past, its inability to come to terms with communism's evils for decades, its leftists' tropism toward terrorist groups, and the current voguish nihilism of large swathes of the left and liberals in Germany (who don't make up the entire political spectrum, of course), I hardly think we need to look to Germany as a beacon of progress, truth, and rights.

We don't.

Nudism in the former socialist part of Germany doesn't surprise me, but it's not the norm even for socialist Germany.

It isn't a sign of a perverted mind to wish not to take part in the nudist *sect* out of a sense of modesty and dignity. That's not perversion, nor prudishness. It's just modesty. It's merely civilization. Most societies chose not to go around nude. If there are some African tribes or leftist sectarians in Germany who still consider this a fashion, that's fine, but they can't pretend they are the norm nor insist that anyone refusing to endorse this as a norm is somehow dirty, perverted, or sick. They aren't. They're normal lol.

What's abnormal is the constant effort by sectarians like yourself to bully people into thinking your sect is the norm, when it is not. True hallmark of a sect.

I'm sure if I went up to the German Mission to the UN right now and asked everybody there what they think of the nudist way of life, I'd find some that laughed at me, some who'd be embarrassed, some who'd explain, "Yes, some people do this but it's not for everyone" and perhaps a minority who would say, oh, yes, I'm all for that.

What I can absolutely be 100 percent sure of is that I will NOT find 100 Germans who will applaud this without recognizing that it is a) not the norm and b) not for everyone. Even if by some strange quirk I did, they wouldn't be interested in applauding simulated child pornography and edgecasing of simulated child pornography which amounts to the same thing (as you do).

No.

The Lindens will catch up to this moral position eventually. They're in a sect themselves, of course, and still haven't come to grips with their own intolerance of the rest of the world. They will.

[Prokofy Neva]

This sums it up pretty well:

says in response to Vorren Voltaire:

I think the one thing that we can all agree on is that even if its not hurting anyone, its still pretty dang creepy having someone dressed as a kid walk in when you are having "adult" time with your friends.

It's more than creepy, it's a CS violation, and has been for over a year.

"...the placement of avatars appearing to represent minors in proximity to...sexualized graphics, objects, or scripts, would violate our Community Standards...If you are in doubt as to whether an activity may be interpreted as ageplay, we request you err on the side of caution and desist. Please note that some countries’ laws may impose penalties for graphics, drawings or anime that resemble child pornography, even where no children have been involved. Linden Lab reserves the right to immediately terminate the accounts of Residents who violate these standards."

https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/features/blog/2007/11/14/clarification-of-policy-disallowing-ageplay

I think it's reasonable to assume that in an area rated "adult only" that sexual activity might be occuring at any time. I don't see how briging a child avi into such an area could be consistant with " err[ing] on the side of caution and desist".

The way I see it, if somone wearing a child avi wishes to be asexual, going into an adult only area makes no sense; further, it is intrusive, intolerant and rude. If they do not wish to be asexual, they are violating the CS.

[Interested Citizen]

Your logic is impeccable. As a society, we have a responsibility and duty to expose those people who stand idly by as giant penii wave in their face. We should rail and critique those who don't do anything as loudly, if not louder, than those who actually engage in perversion.

Let's not pretend anymore that anyone who sets foot on the new continent isn't completely culpable and responsible for every putrid and disgusting act that takes place there. In fact... let's take it a step further and recognize how hypocritical all people are for simply setting foot in Second Life at all at this point. We all need to be flogged for our henious standing by as others engage in perversion. I call upon the champion of all that is right and good in SL, namely Prok, to stand up against this at once, by stepping away, once and for all, from Second Life.

[Prokofy Neva]

You need a valid and recognizable first and last SL name to post on this blog "Interested Citizen".

[cube inada]

creepy. all freakin creepy, and shows how virtuality is going to further fck up responsible civic actions until "adults" and Im forced to use the term lightly, recognize the real power and reach this media is having. "avatarzation" beyond consenting adults on "open" game systems and on heavily regulated systems for children, really have no place in virtuality as an environment for "real" civic interactions.

This is the failure of the Linden Experiment. What i find amazing is the false "state of play" given to this state of delusion.

http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail4112.html

anybody even want to TOUCH the IMVU and anime style big eye baby avatars and east- west otaku culture?... most "avatar-vr world products of the last 3 years" online today, are illustrated as anime children worlds- especially when "teen adult" targeted. its all kinda creepy...

context.... context rules always in a creative expression or product...
but when product "worlds" pretend to have no context,to be like "real" free societies, they are IMO , not a positive place for a larger civic culture to patronize , and should be held accountable.

Linden offers private sims and tools to lock out visitors. The entire "Adult" continent was nothign more than a money ploy for server rentals, they needed no x rated mainland...they should also never have mixed XXX and mature issues with PG content-- pretending to be a "country" and not a entertainemnt product liek any movie or rated dvd.

This should all be a non brainer for ANY company taking advantage of US and state laws to do "free" business in America.. that it's not, is really creepy...

SL psychosis is creepy...lol

[Arwyn Quandry]

I ask you: What would you rather have? Child avatars played by RL adults, or RL teens playing adults? You're not going to have legal issues with a first life adult playing a second life child on the Adult content because the person is an actual adult, and therefore legally able to access porn and the like. It might not seem right, but that's how the law is. Now if you let us teens over to the Main Grid, let us on Ursula, then you'll have problems. The difference is the person behind the avatar, not the avatar itself.

Besides, who made you the moral police?

[Katey Coppola]

OP, you have never spent any time around avatars who RP kids, that much is SO clear.

Do you know how fast word is spread when someone does something inappropriate? The name is plastered on banlists and spread like wildfire to protect people's right to do whatever the hell they want to in the environment they created.

I don't rp a kid, though I have a kid avatar and she acts as a front for the family poses area of my store. People have left comments on my flickr photos claiming they're child porn because in a pose of a father picking up his daughter, his hand is NEAR her butt. NEAR. Not on. NEAR. Who could possibly look at that and think it's sexual? They're the one with the problem, not the person who controls an avatar with "5 years old. PG player" in their profile.

I tend to think soapbox-wielding bigots (yes, I am accusing you of bigotry) are disgusting, abhorrent and creepy. But I don't spend an hour fapping my way through an angry blog about it.

If it's not your thing, be on your way, have a nice day. Gor isn't my thing, but I've never self-righteously sniffed at anyone who partakes in that particular RP, even though I find the nature of it somewhat creepy. I'm sure it's not creepy to the thousands of people who participate and enjoy it.

I'm not saying you're wrong for having your opinions. I'm simply asking, who the hell are you to judge?

[Aldo Stern]

The responses to this discussion are interesting, both in how some of them--like the feeble attempt at pretentious wit from "interested citizen"--seem to completely miss the point, and how some of the responses, like Mr. Regenbogen's successive posts, have become somewhat shrill and excessive.

As Brinda pointed out, yes indeed, "methinks the lady doth protest too much."

But I think Cube and others bring up an important point about context--and all I can comment on is the context in which I have seen child avatars used in SL, which generally has been in historical rp.

By the way, I would like to state that I have encountered two kinds of rp in SL--one of which is, at its best, an ensemble approach to creative storytelling, and the other, which is pretty much a loose framework in which to shoot one another and/or to cyber, coming up for air only occasionally. And in the first category, particularly in the historical rp sims, I have seen child avatars participate in the ensemble storytelling in ways that were not at all disturbing, and were in fact appropriate and positive.

In part, this is because in recreating an historical situation--say like an American frontier town of the 1870s or 1880s--it feels more realistic to have people playing characters of differing ages. But most importantly in the places where this seems to work I have observed the owners and admins of those historical rp sims making and enforcing rules that not only absolutely forbid those players using child avatars from taking part in any sexual activities, they are not permitted to enter environments such as saloons or brothels, where they would be in proximity to inappropriate or lewd behavior.

In short, they can't go where they don't belong.

What the child avatars primarily do is to go to school, play games, do chores, participate in the pg social activities and generally fill out the social structure of the recreated community. It's very much Little House on the Prairie kind of stuff--no nude swimming no posing on bearskin rugs, etc. And if someone has a child avatar with anything in the least bit questionable in their profile, they are not allowed to be members of these communities. Period.

I realize there are other strictly child-oriented communities and sims, such as those in which some form of "Lost Boy" fantasy is played out. I cannot speak to the creepy factor that may or may not be present in those contexts, being as I have never visited one. I have no curiosity about them, and in fact, I assume that they do not welcome adult avatars coming and hanging around for obvious reasons, not the least of which is that visitors in adult form would kind of distract from their unique storytelling.

Anyway, I can't say if those child avatars in those contexts are creepy or not.

But I can say that in the places where I have seen child avatars at work and play--the historical sims, where everyone, from owners to admins to the players actually portraying children, are extremely careful to not allow the child avatars in locations or situations where they do not belong, the overall reaction I have had to the use of child avatars has generally been positive.

The Grid is a big place with a sizable rotating population. I think most of us who have experienced it for a while can generally accept the premise that everyone on SL is not sick or weird. The larger part of the population in fact is arguably comprised of interesting, creative, sociable people, who balance their normal rl relationships with an enthusiasm for connecting with interesting people from all over the world.

At the same time, I think we must agree that a portion of this population, like the population at large, is a festival of pathologies. There are creepy people in SL and some of them use child avatars. In fact, right now, I would agree with Prok that Mr. Regenbogen is on that list. Dude--your posts here have succeeded in truly creeping me the fuck out.

But again, it's a big grid. There are places where child avatars can fit in a context that is not appalling, nor a danger to the future of the grid. However, the new adult continent is not one of them.

I can't even really see the point of arguing why not--suffice to say that as a rl parent, a responsible member of society, and someone who cares about the survival of SL, my heart, head and gut tells me that letting players bring child avatars to Zindra just isn't acceptable. It's wrong for so many reasons it just boggles the mind that anyone would be so self-centered and thick-headed to think they belonged there in a child avie.

No. They shouldn't be on the adult continent. End of story. And any Linden who misses the importance of this idea desperately needs to get their head out of their colon and think globally and realistically.

[Prokofy Neva]

Aldo, very well said, and thanks for backing me up on expressing your opinion on Daniel. Nobody ever stands up to Daniel, and it's disturbing.

I've only occasionally seen the historical RP sims you describe with the kids, and I think what you are describing -- a framework with formal rules of narration and rules of behaviour -- is in fact what I'm describing from another genre, which is the "family".

The family is a more loose structure, and its activities aren't as rote, they might be just hanging out and having a picnic or watching a movie or playing on swings but the relationships and their legends and descriptions are formal, is what i mean. And they don't seem to tolerate inappropriate behaviour, either. They are not demanding to enter brothels.

BTW, Long time no see! I have to stop by the Falling Anvil some night. Ouch, my head!