October 30, 2007

Virtual Pedophilia Report Bad News For Second Life

Duncan Riley

78 comments »

Linden Lab’s Second Life has seen its fair share of controversies in the past; an FBI investigation led to a shut down of inworld casinos, some media reports suggested that Second Life may be being used as a training area for terrorists, and in July there was suggestion that Bestiality may be driven out of the metaverse by a crackdown under a new TOS that banned “Broadly Offensive” behaviour.

UK authorities may soon be entering Second Life as part of a crack down on virtual pedophilia following the above report being shown on Sky News.

The report investigates an area in Second Life called “Wonderland” where users dressed as children offer virtual prostitution in a space designed to mimic a kids playground.

Someone recently said to me at a conference that Second Life’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness: pure uncensored freedom; they are completely right. No self respecting person could argue that the staging of virtual pedophilia is anything but sick and should have no place within Second Life, and yet libertarian governance has been the key driver of the Second Life success story . The whole thing is yet another tarnish on a space where some really great things are happening, a space that is slowly finding a much wider acceptance in the broader community. The quicker Linden Lab cracks down on these sickos, the better for the many Second Life fans out there who preach the Second Life gospel where ever they go.

CrunchBase Information

Second Life

Information provided by CrunchBase

Sphere It

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 30th, 2007 at 6:55 pm and is filed under Company & Product Profiles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

Virtual Pedophilia Report Bad News For Second Life »TechAddress

October 31st, 2007 at 3:30 am

Second life and libraries: let’s sort out the first life first « Dana’s user experience blog

January 31st, 2008 at 6:41 am

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Peter Cooper

October 31st, 2007 at 2:47 am

No self respecting person could argue that the staging of virtual pedophilia is anything but sick and should have no place within Second Life

Whoa, hold on there. If you were to follow that train of thought then “no self respecting person” should be playing any of hundreds of computer games where you shoot and kill other people, including Grand Theft Auto 3. “No self respecting person” would also read many of best selling author Ian Mcewan’s novels.

What I think is absolutely sick is real life pedophilia. If someone can get their rocks off playing pedophile against some other pedophile acting as an underage character on Second Life, I’m going to vote for that every time rather than some unfulfilled pent-up pedo suddenly getting the idea to try it in Real Life.
Duncan Riley

October 31st, 2007 at 3:00 am

Sorry Peter, but I see these images and I cant help but feel like throwing up. Some where there has to be a line.
skribe

October 31st, 2007 at 3:00 am

No self respecting person could argue that the staging of virtual pedophilia is anything but sick

Strange, no self-respecting Libertarian would give two hoots what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. However if those consenting adults so much as choose to have flat-chested midget avatars and engage in a virtual rubbing of parts then certain Libertarian’s true colours begin to emerge showing that they’re really not very libertarian at all. Just saying, k.
skribe

October 31st, 2007 at 3:06 am

Duncan, the line is with the real pedos. It’s distinct, clear and certain. What you propose is a thought-crime. How tall does an avatar have to be before it’s considered a child-avatar? Why don’t you include furries in your faux-morality? I don’t do virtual sex. I don’t get it. It’s not for me, but consenting adults should be allowed to do what they like in privacy especially in the virtual world.
Duncan Riley

October 31st, 2007 at 3:16 am

Skribe
this isn’t in their own home, this is in a publicly accessible virtual world. If they want to dress up as kids at home, as much as the thought is repulsive, I have no objection to it. As I said in the earlier comment: libertarian or not there has to be a line somewhere. Did you see the footage in the video?
Geuis

October 31st, 2007 at 3:23 am

Hey skribe, cool to see you read techcrunch too.

On the note of this topic, I find the report particularly damning. I’m one of the biggest supporters of do-what-you-want in SL, however this has edged over a big line. While I have no problem with people having their BDSM fantasies in SL where they are roleplaying as adults, there is a line here that’s crossed.

Just to add some balance for Techcrunch readers who aren’t involved in Second Life, there was a story posted here http://www.secondlifeinsider.c.....-too-real/ that has quotes from members of the “ageplay” community, essentially saying they have posted numerous abuse reports about this Wonderland area to Linden Labs that have gone unheeded.

Just today, Linden Labs released a statement quoted here, http://www.secondlifeinsider.c.....-scandal/, which essentially says that LL has found no wrong doing so far.

Having been a resident of Second Life for over 2 years, I have found rare occasion to question Linden Labs’ handling of major issues. However, I recently found myself in a position where a well-known and widely disliked blogger in SL made a death threat against me in a public area. I reported the issue to LL, and I only received a response after I called their corporate office 3 times over the course of 2 days. The only response was essentially “we will investigate it”, and after 3 days of initial filing, it was closed and no apparent action was taken against that person.
Robert

October 31st, 2007 at 3:24 am

Duncan, the only “line” there “has to be” is that of not infringing on other people’s will. If tastes and mores played any role in the matter we’d still be 17th century Puritans.
karlfes

October 31st, 2007 at 4:09 am

Hold on. they aren’t actually children, they are grown ups pretending to be children, fantasizing with other grown ups pretending to be children….or women…or furry animals.
Where are the children and who is actually getting hurt? Sounds like a bunch of lonely nerds jerking each other, in 3d. Nothing out of the norm here.

The whole concept of Second Life is ludicrous to start with. This just adds another dimension to an already shallow and pointless activity.

And from a journalism viewoint, you take away the dramatic music and scaremongering voice over, and it’s just standard SL footage.
Jason Nelms

October 31st, 2007 at 4:12 am

You guys keep comparing this to libertarian governance. It is not. Libertarian governance has some laws, specifically ones that make sure people are not coercing others.

What Second Life has is much closer to Anarchy where their is a complete lack of government.
Marcus

October 31st, 2007 at 4:25 am

Robert is correct. The line should be drawn with those that prey on children in real life.

A virtual child, played by a real life adult, does not have nor hold the same connotations as a real world child, nor should it.

Lest we forget, the internet is full of many sexual deviancies that common people would find repugnant, disgusting, or in an extreme view evil.

Many people are made uncomfortable by things that are “TOO DIFFERENT” for them to mentally be capable of dealing with, but this in effect is essentially a compulsion to interfere with other people’s lives to try to force them to be more like yourself.

There’s a good deal of things on the net that are rather repugnant to me, but I’d never advocate equating them to real life activities.

If these people, for whatever reason, want to roleplay severely underage human beings having some form of sex… it’s their prerogative. Anything else is a form of thought-crime and pressaging others to conform to self-defined senses of good and evil.
micfo

October 31st, 2007 at 4:34 am

The people those are making controversies really don’t know about the actual concept of second life.
Bob le bobo

October 31st, 2007 at 4:36 am

We all know Second life is a POS. Still, people in this part of the game are adults, doing private things… You dont want to see virtual pedophilia? Dont go to wonderland…
I think here people are confused.
First there is a difference between pedophilia and virtual pedophilia, and second, what you dont like wand what other people like is different..

i mean its like a Sex shop… if you dontwant to see tapes of orgies… just dont go in a sex shop..

As shitty and awful second life is, its only adults ( in that aprt of the grid).
thaumata

October 31st, 2007 at 4:40 am

I would have to agree that this is consensual role-play between ADULTS, and should be left alone. You wouldn’t arrest someone for playing as an adult baby with their partner in real life, so why do it in the virtual world simply because they can create a better visual? I mean really, what IS the difference?

If you want to crack down on pervs on the internet, why not start with one of the creeps that lurk around every corner in flickr, lewdly commenting on anything that remotely shows female skin, or one of the 1800 people i have blocked on youtube for doing roughly the same thing. I find people like that WAY more offensive, because they often choose to say something that makes me suspect I’m being included in their sex life whether I like it or not.
HeavyWave

October 31st, 2007 at 4:50 am

So if I my avatar contains children I’m probably a pedofile? nice.
Have you ever seen what sort of extreme sexual things people are doing in WoW and other mmorpgs?
thaumata

October 31st, 2007 at 4:53 am

Also, Duncan, SL itself might be a publicly accessible virtual world, but that doesn’t mean that all areas of the grid are accessible to the public. Many are not and you should clarify that. I have had a home and office in SL for close to two years now, and I can easily keep you from getting inside of it should I choose to do so, the same way I can easily hide items of an adult nature. In other words, I HIGHLY, HIGHLY doubt that any of these child avatars (or most ANY avatar, for that matter) was willing to strip down and get horizontal with your dolly right there in the park, where anyone could stumble past and see. It’s not how prostitution works in SL, pretty much EVER. Just like real life, people meet each other in a public space and go back to private spaces to do private things.

As someone else said, if you don’t want to see sex in SL, don’t go to the sex clubs. There’s hundreds of other (more enriching) things to see and do there, from interactive art to live music to amazing 3D builds. Go find one. I’ll happily recommend some to you if you need a list and take you there myself.
Peter Cooper

October 31st, 2007 at 4:57 am

The problem with line drawing is that the moral spectrum is wide and varied. Even though murder is a more grave crime than pedophilia, online communities where people murder each other on a regular basis aren’t on the receiving end of such high morals. Some people are sexually conservative but violence liberal, and vice versa, but I think we just need to trust our existing legal system to defend the line along some kind of middle ground.
Generic_Guy

October 31st, 2007 at 5:24 am

Pedophilia, in all its forms, is evil and shouldn’t be tolerated and applying moral relativism to this issue in no way minimizes this fact.
Marcus

October 31st, 2007 at 5:41 am

Generic_Guy: There are some people that feel the same way about BD/SM, or really, anything that is even remotely sexually deviant.

You construe imagination as being the same thing as reality. There is a fundamental difference. I have imagined violence against some people in my life, it does not bear the same weight as actually committing violence against someone.

As for moral relativism, I think you will find that moral relativism is far more accurate than an absolute moral system. You will encounter people who do not share your moral values, do not believe in what you think of as evil, and have their own values and mores that you might be appalled with.

There are people who do and do not believe in a supreme being. Neither position is more right than another, though some will argue.

Some people argue that homosexuality is evil, and right up there with pedophilia. I tolerate the presence of Homosexuals just fine, provided they don’t force their issues on me.
Gareth

October 31st, 2007 at 5:41 am

I’m glad to see that reason has prevailed in some of these comments. Villifying people’s free choice to roleplay things to suit their desires is only to drive underground and force into being worse case scenarios. People are the way they are, choosing to express it in such a way as not to hurt anyone but only for mutual enjoyment is perfectly acceptable. I’m really sick of people being narrow minded and self-righteous. You go on about “good and evil” when all you do is hurt and no good for anyone. I have great respect for those who have expressed similar viewpoints (incl. you pete well done for #1 comment) and just disgust at the self-righteous preachers who clearly need to RTFM.

If it makes you feel like throwing up that’s your weakness and inability to get out of your own head into a more balanced view of life, it’s not the fault of anyone else.
Generic_Guy

October 31st, 2007 at 6:01 am

Marcus, I believe the more we tolerate evil the more it becomes normal and acceptable and the more we suffer as a society. Everyone posting in this thread has acknowledged the repulsion they feel regarding this issue and I think this is a natural response to this particular form of evil. I’m intolerant when it comes to the abuse of children, virtual or otherwise. At some point in our society and in this world we have to draw the line.
Gene

October 31st, 2007 at 6:44 am

It’s foolish to think that acting out a repugnant desire in a virtual world acts as a release for that desire. On the contrary, it makes that desire grow. The same goes for porn. Who looks at porn and doesn’t act on it (if only by themself). Does porn satisfy sexual desire - or inflame it?

What makes virtual pedophilia (or virtual bestiality, etc) wrong is that it allows people who may initially just be curious, grow use to it and become comfortable with it.
SL_User

October 31st, 2007 at 6:47 am

Second Life always has been plagued with people pretending t be people they aren’t. I was a user for 4 years and many of the users are under the 18 year old age restriction, especially since the credit card requirement was removed.

It is wrong to even think about raping people and other such actions let alone acting out such fantasies in 3D.

I hope they clean up the metaverse, then hopefully more respectful people will return. I may even go back on there..

I have friends who use SL, they try to stay away from the Mature content but there is just too much of it. If you have kids in the house they may see things they shouldn’t, even if you are trying to prevent it by staying away from those areas.

Ether way you look at it, this is all just plain wrong. Something should be done to clean it up.
Marcus

October 31st, 2007 at 6:56 am

Generic_Guy, That is certainly a quaint belief. I’ve always been of the opinion that intolerance is the primary cause of much evils in the world.

Gene, whether you think it is foolish or not is not an argument. I am unaware of any studies that actually demonstrate that viewing porn inflames desires, and my own view on such a concept is that it is positively puritanical.

I’d love to know where this mindset originated, the idea that indulging in something makes you more likely to indulge in it again. If I ate cheesecake every day, I’d get mightily sick very quick. If I read the same book every day, my brain would turn to soup.

There are some things that I’ve been exposed to on the internet that I have absolutely no interest in. Such as Scat and other such things. Personally, I think those people are kind of troubled… but whatever floats your boat as it were.

This is the same argument that having a preference for blondes in your pornography means that it will inflame your desire for sex and cause you to rape blondes. Likewise, I don’t think if someone deluged me with child pornography, I’d suddenly become interested and inflamed for children sexually.

Gene, if I may ask, are you also against any sort of deviant desires such as Furries, BDSM, Vore, etc. being portrayed in adult one-on-one sex-play?

If indulging causes such a prediliction, I’d love to see evidence for it.
Gene

October 31st, 2007 at 7:17 am

Marcus,
Thanks for the reply. I’ll see what I can find during my lunch break in the way of studies (I’m sure they’re out there). But from my own experience and frank discussions with friends, we come to the same conclusion that fantasy inflames rather than satisfies desire. You make stronger that which you dwell on.

In regards to your second question, I don’t know (and don’t care to know) what those are - but in general there’s a sharp distinction between fantasy that involves only adults and fantasy that involves children. Like Generic_Guy said, at some point we have to draw a line. The line I’ve drawn for myself is in line with the teachings of Christ. The line we have to draw for society is one to protect our children. Any sexual fantasy that involves children should not be tolerated. Tolerance can only go so far - it is not an absolute.
Marcus

October 31st, 2007 at 7:30 am

Gene, I draw the line between reality and fantasy. Indulge in any and every fantasy you might ever have the heart or interest in doing so, but if it is harmful either physically or emotionally, be sure that you can discern between fantasy and reality.

That includes fantasizing about little girls and boys. I personally don’t find it appealing, and I think we can all agree that it is something that really turns the stomach. But there is a difference between acting out a fantasy and acting out a reality, and if we forget that and start legislating and punishing fantasies, then nobody should have the right to fantasize about anything that may be repulsive or evil to anyone else.
Bob le bobo

October 31st, 2007 at 7:30 am

I see one of the main problems here is the line between real and unreal, between fantasy and reality.

The problem is with people that can’t make the difference, and mix up fantasy and reality. I dont have problems with normal people, furries, whatever, when they make the distinction.
The real problem is education, parents have to teach their children the difference, how to step back and think ” ok, this is just fantasy”.
Json

October 31st, 2007 at 8:06 am

LMFAO I am absolutely SHOCKED by some of the comments in this thread. If you morons don’t understand Duncan’s opposition to the “pseudo” kiddie sex in SL, then you know absolutely nothing about the psychology of pedophiles. The pathology of pedophilia is NOT EVEN REMOTELY SIMILAR to that of a normal, healthy adult, and as such, should not be evaluated in the same manner.

Do some f*cking research before you open your ignorant mouths about such a complex subject, for Christs sake.
Json

October 31st, 2007 at 8:18 am

God damn the ignorance in this thread pisses me off. I just CAN’T believe how f*cking STUPID and uneducated you idiots are.

#’s 1,3,4,6,7,9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 (and anyone who agrees with them after this post): If I could bring you all together in a virtual world, I would torture and execute each and every one of you for imbecility.

Oh, but wait–it’s just fantasy roleplay, though.

Ponder that scenario, you f*cking peasants.
Robert

October 31st, 2007 at 8:33 am

Well Json, what research and higher knowledge are you trying to invoke, exactly? Of course the pathology of pedophiles is different from that of your average person. So is the pathology of people who are into S&M and that of homosexuals. Do you propose outlawing all their fantasies because they’re unusual?

Just because someone gets off on the thought of tying people up doesn’t mean they’ll start kidnapping people to fulfill those fantasies. I think providing an outlet for fulfilling these fantasies without harming anyone goes a long way towards reducing the incidence of harmful acting out, but that’s my conjecture and I’d like to see some studies.
Dan Schawbel

October 31st, 2007 at 8:53 am

Thats pretty bad publicity. I think they will append some privacy and defensive measures in Second Life.
Marcus

October 31st, 2007 at 8:59 am

Json’s response is perfect example of emotion controlling ones evaluative faculties. I’m not one to say that the subject isn’t a heated and precarious one to discuss, most people have very strong feelings about the matter.

If we really wanted to split hairs, there is a vast difference between Rapists and people who fantasize about Rape (Trust me, there is a subset of people who both write and read such stories, some people who want to be victimized and some who want to victimize in the stories, men and women alike).

Just as there is a vast difference between Child Rapists and Pedophiles. One is an act, the other is a mental predilection towards being attracted to pre-pubescents.

The act itself is probably the most vile and heinous of things a criminal can do. However, to think about doing something does not equate to doing it.

It never should, and if it does, then you had best worry about your own thoughts.
Ugh

October 31st, 2007 at 10:15 am

There is more then a few people in this comments thread I would NOT recommend leaving your children with.
Gene

October 31st, 2007 at 10:36 am

Marcus, and everyone…
unfortunately my lunchtime research effort has ended unsuccessfully. I couldn’t find any research on the topic of whether fantasy satisfies or inflames desire (or both).

But for what it’s worth, I subscribe to the idea behind this quote from Frank Outlaw:
Watch your thoughts, they become your words.
Watch your words, they become your actions.
Watch your actions, they become your habits.
Watch your habits, they become your character.
Watch your character, it becomes your destiny.

Thoughts have real (though often imperceptible) consequences. We have to be our own “thought police” if we want to be true to whatever moral code we follow. (BTW, for those who follow Jesus, remember that we are held accountable for our thoughts - “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”).

In regards to SL, we have a responsibility as a society to not allow these kinds of tools/games to facilitate fantasy that includes harmful behavior toward children. This kind of fantasy should not be tolerated.
image

October 31st, 2007 at 10:39 am

It simple if you don’t like that don’t sign-up with them and by mistake if you’re there don’t try to land on wonderland.
Lion

October 31st, 2007 at 11:43 am

The argument about whether or not actual pedophilia is being perpetrated when the participants are virtual, is facetious. Enacting pedophilia is being done, the people doing it are pedophiles, the only thing in question is whether or not real children are involved in that particular act. With SL’s policy of permitting free accounts, it would be naive to believe that minors are not on the adult grid. SL further makes it a TOS violation to speak about who one really is, thus protecting the charade that minors maintain and ensuring that children are cast into adult situations, whether using a child-avatar or not.

You don’t have to go to some pedophile-specific or bestiality-specific location in order to encounter this, or the signs over. Whenever you encounter child avatars, in a store or a park, there’s an excellent chance they’ll be talking in the open about their sexual intentions. Do a search for “swans” and you’ll receive no warning that just outside the tree where one place sells swans for water-features, one can come upon a group of people taking turns performing oral sex on a horse. The pedophiles and animal-lovers do not confine their behavior to private quarters.

We can argue about freedom of expression and moral relevancy indefinitely, but the real question remains; is this behavior legal and socially acceptable within your community’s standards of behavior?

Perhaps if SL did away with anonymity, requiring people to use their real names in the virtual world, the disconnect between action and accountability would at least partially bridged. The best argument against this is that SL is a game and people should be permitted to play their game as they please, and that they have a right to privacy. However, privacy ends in the public venue, and in SL, unless you’re on a private, restricted island, there is no actual privacy. As for SL being a game, that paradigm may work for some, but not for all. For many, SL is a business, or business forum, or educational forum, it’s grown far beyond the nonconsequentiality of an X-Box game.
dudu

October 31st, 2007 at 12:13 pm

In the end, the sickest part of all is not about the virtual pedophilia , but the minds behind it… the humans behind it.. they are sick. They will figure out another way to fulfill their sickness with or without Second Life, as it is happening in our real world…. it’s been happening since the existence of human kind.
Marcus

October 31st, 2007 at 12:30 pm

It would seem that people with a certain moral code and objective want to believe that the world works in ways that it does not necessarily work… and put forward that the way things should be is how they feel they should, such as criminalizing certain forms of thoughts.

There are people, alive nowadays, that strongly believe that homosexuality is a disturbing sickness and want it outlawed. They have the same reaction to homosexuality as people have to the idea of someone being sexually attracted to minors.

There are also a lot of claims of being able to find adult content anywhere in Second Life. I assume if you’re LOOKING for it, you’ll certainly find it… but having fiddled around with Second life for a couple weeks, I never came across anyone who solicited myself or was doing anything “Inappropriate” in a public place, so I have to doubt the veracity of such claims.

It’s clear that people cannot be rational about pedophilia. As stated, it is a subject loaded with emotion for most people.

It does boil down to people hating the idea of other people having a particular idea, even if that person perhaps can’t help their predilection.

Essentially, the rational people responded with appropriate skepticism by stating that if it is two adults “Age-Playing”, then there should be NO grounds for anyone else to interfere.

I hold to that. If it’s a fantasy, and two adults are playing around, it really isn’t anyone else’s business.
Axel

October 31st, 2007 at 12:54 pm

http://www.ludd.luth.se/mud/ab.....voice.html

1993 called, it wants its issue back.
Fabian Schonholz

October 31st, 2007 at 12:59 pm

When I first read the post and watch the footage, I felt a little like Duncan. But as I read some of the comments I realized the gravity of this post and what’s going on.

I agree that the line needs to be drawn with real life criminals. Pedophiles, murderers, etc., and let virtual worlds take their course. But it is hard to take. I look at it as the father of my children and I want to protect them; so my reaction is to crack down on these things, real or virtual. But then I look at the whole thing as a “political” person and take a more objective view and the reaction is different. But either way, certain securities and protections need to be put in place. A safeguard that will assure children are not molested. This is true for all such sites dealing with the “problem”: mySpace, Facebook, Club Penguin, etc.

Also, I think that anybody that would take his/her virtual persona to the real world has issues that would have arisen regardless of the virtual world or video games or TV.

Tough spot to be in.
Hotnews

October 31st, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Latest Hot US, World,
Local,Entertainment,Political,Business,Science,Sports News only at http://www.hotnews.co.in.
Gene

October 31st, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Marcus,
unless you are able to point to research that supports your opinion, it seems to me that you are equally guilty of wanting “to believe that the world works in ways that it does not necessarily work”.

In my opinion, virtual pedophilia results in an increased desire for actual pedophilia (at least for those who suffer from that predilection), and in your opinion it doesn’t.

Do you care to do some research and let us know what you find?
AW

October 31st, 2007 at 1:30 pm

@38: I’ve only played SL very infrequently (I hate the client), but AFAIK SL already has those “safeguards” — minors have their own “grid” that is composed strictly of teenagers. I think its called the Teen Grid or something. My homie who does play SL a lot says, “its better than letting the rugrats fuck everything up here.”
Marcus

October 31st, 2007 at 1:59 pm

AW, The real issue Duncan and others commenting have has little to do with protections and controls to prevent children from being exposed, and a lot more to do with the EXISTENCE of Pedophilia. That is my speculation, at the least.

Gene, you made the initial claim that pornographic content induces behavior. As far as I’m aware, there are no studies that draw a direct causation linked to erotic literature or pornography. Since you made the initial claim, the onus of evidence falls to you.

Just from a two minute search, though, I find this link…

http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/lesscrime.html

… Which Discusses Kuchinsky’s 1971 study of the effect that legalization of pornography had on sexual related crimes.

In stark contrast to the expectation that increase in circulation of pornographic material, the reality is that there is a cathartic effect which either has little effect or a lessening effect on sex related crimes.

And here is a paper from Northwestern School of Law where it is shown that since the 70’s, incidence of Rape has declined while availability of Pornography has increased.

http://anthonydamato.law.north.....s/porn.pdf

I could certainly dig for more, but the prevailing opinion garnered from most studies is that there is no causation of sex related crimes to porn or pornographic material.

Despite the fact that you made the initial claim, I hope this engenders some amount of contemplation concerning your stance. If not, I can always cite more studies of both law and psych.
AW

October 31st, 2007 at 2:51 pm

@42, Marcus:

Maybe what they seem to find more disturbing is that the concept that virtual pedophilia / age-play / whatever has the potential to be completely harmless. Sort’ve like your best friend telling you he’s into jerkin’ it to Guro (do _not_ Google that) but seeing “real” gore (Hostel, Saw 13.2) is a big turn off to him. Perhaps it indicates an aberrant thought process, but aberrant isn’t necessarily hostile or dangerous, and because of that I suppose there are people who would have problems reconciling that rationally.
Joe Matulich

October 31st, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Maybe all the 2nd Lifers could go over to weblo.com
This would remove the difficulty of virtual versus ‘real’ since weblo.com is real everything. We are always going to face the challenge that in a truly free society
nothing will ever be ‘fair’…the whole world is trying to move to America because we value liberty over equality. porn is definitley a four letter word … but whatdayado?
Lion

October 31st, 2007 at 4:16 pm

@Marcus;

I’ve been in SL for about a year, and while you’re entitled to “doubt the veracity” of my statement on finding sexually explicit activity and conversation involving pedophilia and bestiality, your doubts are based on your own very limited experienced in the environment and so, by your own admission, you aren’t qualified to make a valid observation on the matter. To be fair, since SL announced a few months ago that activities which are “broadly offensive” would be curtailed, much of it has indeed been taken from open view, but it does still occur.

While I’m sure you can find numerous articles supporting the theory that indulging in fantasy can produce a cathartic effect, I’m equally sure that I can find numerous articles supporting the fact that for some people, the fantasy is just the first step in a journey which requires more in-depth and realistic experience of progressively more radical instances of whatever their ‘high’ happens to be, in order to obtain the same degree of ‘high’ they initially experienced at a much lower level of exposure. Distance running, gambling, BDSM, and drug use are well documented examples of this latter progression and sexual excitement obtained by violating legal and social taboos can certainly fall into the same paradigm. That this will not be the case for all people does not mean it will not be the case for *some* people, but ultimately, that’s not the point in this issue.

While you dance around your key point of ‘freedom of expression/thought’, attempting to justify it by making any who disagree look like narrow-minded bigots, what you’re missing is that society, any society, by definition cannot permit or condone absolute individual freedom. Further, your ‘freedom of expression/thought’ doesn’t seem to extend to the right of others to find a particular pursuit to be repugnant. Ultimately, the society’s laws will determine where freedoms end, and the obsessive attempts to continually stretch the boundaries of freedom simply force society to make legal rulings one way or the other. Naturally, there’s no way to make everyone happy and the complaints will always be made.

In this case, the laws of the various nations will eventually catch up to the new paradigm of virtual societies and make those rulings clear. Some will disagree, but the majority will accept it because it fits with their social mores, and anarchy will have to wait yet again.

The US Supreme Court is currently wrestling with exactly this issue, and their ruling will determine whether or not the deliberately purveyed impression of child pornography will constitute a crime, whether or not actual children were involved, or not. A Google News search with the parameters of “’supreme court’ porn” will turn up the relevant coverage.
Gene

October 31st, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Marcus,
thanks for your research. I looked over your sources briefly and, not surprisingly was not convinced. But of course, this is a tangent we’re on. I never said that porn leads to rape - I said “Does porn satisfy sexual desire - or inflame it?”

Porn does not necessarily depict illegal behavior - virtual pedophilia does.

Lion said it very well above: “the fantasy is just the first step in a journey which requires more in-depth and realistic experience of progressively more radical instances of whatever their ‘high’ happens to be”
Marcus

October 31st, 2007 at 11:51 pm

Considering I did provide some cursory examples to back the view that fantasy does not induce behavior in reality, but in fact may alleviate such behavior I would ask that you provide similar courtesy.

Lion, A society that criminalizes thoughts and impulses that do not harm someone is not moral, it is mob rule and is on a precarious road towards oppression.

Equating a thought to an action is a break in logic, flawed reasoning, and essentially valueless as an argument as this current argument relies entirely upon a plea to emotion. One which people who clearly SEE a difference between virtual pedophilia and real world pedophilia as completely separate and different things.

The onus of proof that VIRTUAL pedophilia induces REAL pedophilia is on the claimant.

That you don’t like it, find it repugnant, socially diseased, or downright evil is totally irrelevant. That you want to believe it causes a slippery slope, resulting in enforcing that pedophilia is okay is also irrelevant, unless you provide a sound basis for your argument.

Rather than merely claim there are studies that support your views, cite them. Rather than say, “Well, I could find information to back me up too,” why don’t you go and find it?

My stance is to defend the people that others won’t, especially if they have done nobody wrong and hurt nothing except the sensibilities of the morally self-righteous.

I State again, the line should be drawn between real world actions and fantasy.
Gene

November 1st, 2007 at 6:20 am

Marcus:
your evidence is not relevant to our discussion, as it only suggests that porn does not lead specifically to rape.

There’s no need to look any further than our own experience to know that porn affects your thoughts and increases your desire (are you not more aroused after viewing porn?). Again, I’ve never said anything about rape.

Once again, our difference is that in my opinion, virtual pedophilia results in an increased desire for actual pedophilia, and in your opinion it doesn’t. Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be any scientific evidence one way or another on this (at least none that I can find).

Anyone else care to vote on which they agree with?
Gene

November 1st, 2007 at 6:22 am

As the women on the video above says, we need to be focused on getting the people involved in this kind of virtual activity help. If you find yourself attracted by virtual pedophilia, please seek help.

For those who don’t see this as much of a problem, consider taking a few moments to read this article - The Problem of Pedophilia - http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html
GolfCarter

November 1st, 2007 at 6:38 am

While I consider myself to be very open minded on most sexual matters, I believe it is impossible not to consider this behavior dangerous. Gene makes the point that porn, by it’s very nature, is designed to be titillating. My deep concern for the safety of children says that virtual pedophilia potentially could lead the curious to act, and therefore, opening the door to the exploration virtually is inherently dangerous.

So let me register myself on the side of caution, and suggest this behavior should be outlawed.
Luke Lucious

November 1st, 2007 at 7:17 am

Second Life is a demonic place. The name says it all. In my opinion it uses secret video techniques to hyponotize users into a kind of trance for evil purposes.
Noah Slater

November 1st, 2007 at 7:29 am

Funny how virtual child-abuse is considered totally unacceptable by some people here - people, I am willing to bet, who also have no problem playing GTA, True Crime, Call Of Duty or any other game where mass murder, torture, rap, gang-banging, drug dealing, drug use and crime is not only promoted but glorified.

I’m not going to comment on the age-play stuff as SL and other games like it isn’t my scene - but I will say that I get emense entertainment from beating up prostitutes in GTA and going on random killing rampages. I’m also a pacafist IRL. Go figure.
thaumata

November 1st, 2007 at 10:26 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

It’s interesting to note that a lot of people don’t really realize that there is a difference between being a pedophile in a medical sense and being a child sex offender (who usually also happen to be pedophiles.)

More interesting is to note the studies on the extent of occurrence. Some studies show that up to a quarter of adult men are attracted in some way to children… However, I really don’t believe that up to a quarter of adult men would harm a child, or even indulge this attraction at all.

I don’t think anyone on this thread wants to see a child be injured. I do think it’s fair to question who and what, exactly, we’re afraid of and why. I highly doubt that society will ever (nor should) have any kind of tolerance for sex offenders, but do we have tolerance for what goes on in someone’s head, if they never harm another soul as long as they live?

Think of it like this: If I think twenty times a day about punching my boss in the face, and maybe even go so far as to hang his photo on a dartboard in my office, should I be thrown in jail for assault? How is that different?
Marcus

November 1st, 2007 at 10:33 am

I apologize that I can’t reason with you. That pedophilia, somehow, has it’s own special rules that supercede other porn and is especially more dangerous and must certainly contribute to cases of child molestation flies in the face of actual studies which state the opposite.

At this point, I bow out. If I cannot reason logically with someone, and have that person see that they are being ruled by their fears and emotions concerning something that isn’t harming anyone or anything except their own sense of values and morality, then there really is no point trying to make the point.

I half expected such a case when I started into the conversation, I am just disappointed to be proved right. Again.

Believe someone or something is evil. Whether it is or isn’t doesn’t give you, nor anyone, the right to deny normal rights to those people. By making a special case to treat some people that everyone can agree are repulsive with special denial of rights, you open the door for others who feel the same way about you to do the same.

That’s a road I’d rather never walk on, for anyone or anything.
Gene

November 1st, 2007 at 10:51 am

Marcus,
realize that you give yourself special license to make assertions that are not specifically backed up by research, yet pounce on others who do the same. You have not produced relevant data yet.

Further realize that if everyone can agree that the very thought of pedophilia is repulsive - that’s a clear indicator that it is simply wrong. There’s no room for relativism here - it’s plainly wrong.

In my opinion, your fear and emotions about endless rights are clouding your ability to identify something so obviously wrong as wrong.
Marcus

November 1st, 2007 at 11:11 am

Gene,

It is also just as likely that the accepted and expected response is to state it is repulsive out of fear of social reprisal.

Thaumata posted the wikipedia article detailing Pedophilia and it’s related paraphilia’s, and many of the studies are cited in the foot notes. Having read the rather obvious propaganda you cited as an article (noted as such due to it’s word usage and tenuous balance between being anti-homosexual towards being homophobic in content), I am not inclined to state that something I find repulsive, and the majority of those discussing finds repulsive is necessarily evil.

I do not find thoughts, of anything, to be evil. It is to act on thoughts which harm others which is evil.

You may define the very THOUGHT as being evil. I do not. Thoughts and ideas cannot harm, only through action is harm brought.

As noted in the Wikipedia article, prior to the end of the 19th century, the age of Consent in London and AMERICA was 8-12.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexol.....ilia.htm#1

And here is something that more directly relates to the changes in consent laws here in the United States in the latter part of the 19th Century.

I suggest you read both, as well as many of the citations in the Wikipedia article as it more ably demonstrates the position.

As it stands, a set of adults VIRTUALLY emulating kids and having sex is NOTHING like molesting a child.

And you need to understand the difference between fantasy and reality.
Marcus

November 1st, 2007 at 11:13 am

Whoops. Forgot to post the second link.

http://listlva.lib.va.us/cgi-b.....mp;P=47352

As before, this more directly deals with the changes in consent law in the latter parts of the 19th century.

It is due to note that prior to those changes, Delaware’s age of consent was the age of SEVEN. Even after the other states raised their age of consent, Delaware’s remained at SEVEN for some time.
John Galt

November 1st, 2007 at 11:16 am

There’s no children involved in this. If you’re offended by what adults do with each other, you have a mental disorder and are invading other peoples’ privacy, and should learn to mind your own business.

The extreme overreaction some people have to any portrayal of a child sexually is actually a sign that they are repressed pedophiles. Normal, sane people see it and are simply uninterested. Repressed kiddy-rapists like Duncan or Gene see that, and get sick, because that’s what they want, and they hate themselves for it.

It’s the same symptom that Republicans have about homosexuality; all Republicans are repressed homosexuals, which is why they hate it so much. Real heterosexuals just don’t care, because it’s uninteresting to them.
finkster obstreperous

November 2nd, 2007 at 3:13 am

The NSPCC (National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children), a high profile childrens charity in the UK, commented on this story. A spokesperson from the Child Exploitation Online Network also commented on the story. Various psychologists and anti abuse charities have also spoken out.
All of them emphasise mainly the same points, namely:
*consistent acting out of the fantasy can act as a disinhibitor and lead to acts of abuse in real life. Not every person, but it is a very real possibilityfor some
*finding a community of like minded people engaging in and legitmising the
fantasy and/or behaviour can also act as a disinhibitor
(if you do some reading on the breaking of an international paedophile ring
a few years ago, called wonderland, you will see how important both of
these factors were to paedophiles in the group)
*it is possible that real images of children being abused can be exchanged
in these groups. If you saw the follow up report by the journalist who
broke the story, you will have noted that he did indeed come across a
real image of a child and has reported it to the police
*real children could be using second life. however, even if a child does not
have a second life account, an adult who does could use SL as a grooming
tool, prior to acts of real abuse. pornography is often used by abusers
as part of grooming children. it does not take much of a stretch of the
imagination to see how second life, a multi-coloured interactive animated
world, could be used to get the interest and attention of children, and
introduce them to ideas about abuse, sexual images and so on
Civil liberties are not just about individual rights, but about rights and responsibilities as a society. There are always lines that need to be drawn in terms of behaviour and action. Where there is harm or potential for harm, surely we need to consider ways of addressing this?
Marcus

November 2nd, 2007 at 5:30 am

Finkster,

I realize there are such things as imbalanced people, in fact I have to occassionally deal with such folks. Your argument can be used for violence in cinema and movies, too… that being exposed to violent imagery acts as a disinhibitor.

Does that mean we should ban the playing of violent video games? Censor the content of violent movies? There certainly are some who feel that this is an entirely appropriate action to take, if only to prevent those imbalanced people from becoming disinhibited and acting out their fantasies on unsuspecting innocents.

Now certainly, if there is more to the story and if there is a ring of people who are preying on children, they should be brought to justice. I wholeheartedly agree. However, I am of the mind that we should not pre-emptively judge people just because their behavior is aberrant and an affront to commonly held values.

Judge not on what a person might do, but instead on what they DO. It is all well and good to make the argument against me that, “You are saying you don’t believe in preventative tactics?”

To which I would certainly respond, yes, I do agree with some preventative tactics. But none that would deprive anyone of their rights, even the suspected criminal.

If they’ve done something wrong and it is found out, then they must suffer the consequences of their actions. If it is merely adults acting out age-play fantasies, I view it as entirely different. If there is harm being done, I am firmly against that. If there is no harm, then there is no harm.

Prosecute the wrong doers, not the ones that MAY do harm.
Angela Web2

November 2nd, 2007 at 7:28 am

It is sickening to see people approving of concepts of sexual torture and abuse. EVEN as just concepts. I believe those who approve of these sexual abuse acts on children, even virtually, are approving them in real life. I see them being sympathizers of sexual abuse of children when they see it (or act it themselves?) in real life. Virtual life is a reflection of who we are in real life. Just like on line portals are the natural evolution of newspapers, and media, SL is an evolution of our live as we live it today.
What would you do if you were in your living room or a bus stop and heard a conversation between adults fantasizing about raping a child? (who could be your son or daughter, by the way). Would you be sympathetic and defend their right to hope to abuse children? It is no different.
Angela Web2

November 2nd, 2007 at 7:50 am

It seems to me like you long the days of the 19th century and the seven years old consenting rule. Clearly, as society we have evolved and moved toward a more respectful society. Using laws of the 19th century as argument of “but this is what we were legally doing 200 years ago” is a bit outdated. Only a few hundredth years ago it was legal to kill at will. Should we look forward to those days to come back?
Marcus

November 2nd, 2007 at 10:13 am

Angela, there are some women and men that fantasize about being raped and abused, often a subset of BD/SM. Should they be held accountable for their fantasies?

You attack me for my views only because I defend what you feel is evil; people who have impulses or sexual attractions that are poorly understood or outright hated.

Nowhere in this conversation have I condoned the abuse of a child, either physically or mentally. The reason that the studies were cited which demonstrate the difference in age of Consent is largely because for the greater majority of human existence, the age of consent has been younger than the arbitrary age-limit imposed by western society.

To this day, there are still many cultures that rely upon pedarasty style relationships as a coming of age, and it is abnormal for them NOT to participate.

The Greeks and Romans were one of the height’s of civilization in history, yet both cultures had a very well known view of Adult men having sexual relationships with young boys and men. In fact, in the Greek Culture there was the idea that a Man could not have real love with a woman, as only another male could understand the mans heart.

Just because our society enforces the belief that certain things are naturally evil does not make it so, history flies in the face of such commandments. I certainly wouldn’t advocate trying to do such things in our own culture, as the expectations and roles which children take part in are very different from historic roles.

Do no harm, as it were.

You can deride and moan about how much you think I’m a disgusting human being for having such views in the defense of the indefensable in your eyes, but it still boils down to if it is two adults playing with eachother, it is nobody’s business no matter what they’re pretending to do.

Learn why there is a difference between Fantasy and Reality.
finkster obstreperous

November 2nd, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Marcus, would you say that you are more qualified to comment on the potential for harm than the NSPCC, the Child Online Exploitation Network, The Home Secretary of the UK and the various psychologists and representatives from childrens charities who voiced their concerns on this issue?
CallToArms

November 3rd, 2007 at 4:21 am

This is a curious discussion… it seems to me that Marcus has asked, at least six times, for any research relevant to this issue, and that he has found at least some that appears to support his hypothesis, that the availability of fantasy does not lead to behavior, which seems to me to be at least a plausible hypothesis.

Instead of producing any actual research, his detractors have insulted him or quoted “authorities” who have an obvious agenda. I could ask finkster, for example, if he thought that he was more qualified to judge religion than the catholic pope or the dali lama, and in each case, suggest that he should therefore adopt catholic or buddhist assertions, proved or unproved. Citation to authority is interesting, but not persuasive. So, the answer, particularly regarding the Home Secretary, is yes! I suspect that Marcus, who seems to be skeptical and rational, is more qualified than the Home Secretary, and, as he seems to have no agenda, is more qualified than NSPCC or COEN.

The issue seems to me to be open for doubt. I looked for such evidence myself, online, and, like Marcus, came up only with research that made me doubt my previous position more and more. The proposition seems to be obvious, and yet, like many other sorts of emotionally charged beliefs, seems not to be supported by any psychological or sociological research that would pass even a mild peer review process.

Interesting… it reminds me somewhat of the witchcraft assertions of the 18th century, that midwives were likely to be witches and that herbal healers almost certainly were (only prayer would cure illness, you see). Everyone knew that it was true, even though nobody could demonstrate it.

In such situations, how does a libertarian assert that the behaviors, which appear only to be fantasy exercises, must be punished?
Legis

November 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pm

It’s obvious that Angela was making a HUMAN observation here. Integrity and respect for one another are basic human qualities that are simply unassailable. The “documentation” about the age of consent presented in rebuttal, remains extremely unconvincing. And the idea that some sort of “research” is required to justify the extent of harm universally known to result from sexual exploitation of any kind, or to attempt justifications under the auspice of “privacy rights” is so off the chart offensive, it is a beggary that beggars description. The fact is that ALL PEOPLE KNOW inherently in their heart what is helpful and what is not, what builds up and what tears down, everyone can identify with the experience of being hurt physically or emotionally, and knows these things simply as a facet of being human. No one needs documents and books to tell them; subjectivities of “good vs. evil” are irrelevant. The poorly intellectualized pretenses advanced otherwise just insult everyone’s intelligence. For example:

QUOTE: “…If it is merely adults acting out age-play fantasies, I view it as entirely different. If there is harm being done, I am firmly against that. If there is no harm, then there is no harm. Prosecute the wrong doers, not the ones that MAY do harm.”

The line of thought does not follow logic in this statement. In the first place SL is an open, unrestricted interface. This is well known even by its own advocates and anonymity is considered one of its most redeeming features. So how does anyone know they are in fact engaging in these fantasies with other ADULTS? The truth is: they don’t know that, they ASSUME IT. In the second place and more importantly with regards to the sexual exploitation of children, here’s a newsflash about pedophiles. Before a pedophile becomes “a pedophile” and takes action on their desires, the act is first projected AS A REALITY in the context of their own mind. It is rationalized as “just a harmless fantasy” that eventually leads to translation in physical experience; because it DOES exist for them as a real need and therefore must be expressed. Virtual reality, as an easily accessible form of expression, becomes the next step for role-playing. Finally, a physical connection is made whereby a real child becomes harmed. The very “thought of the act” truly IS from whence harm commences and the driving force behind the actual event. In fact, there is no act taken by anyone whether it is sordid or mundane that does NOT REQUIRE mechanical coordination of: psychological thought / consciousness impetus before physiological exertion (physical action).

Therefore, to suggest “no harm is done” by pretending to be a child in a 3D world having sex with another pretend child in a 3D world… is absurd. It is an argument founded upon the gross denial of the very RIGHT TO FREEDOM it advocates because it EXEMPTS the proto-type of its “fantasy creations” (i.e.: real children) the freedom to NOT be victimized by it in turn. Because you really don’t know how the other participants in your fantasy game will act out their repressed desires when “fantasy” no longer is enough to satisfy them. You cannot guarantee this safety for our children can you? How convenient it is to claim your OWN freedom under the opacity of the internet.

So you want to justify the “right to fantasize” now under the auspice of “free speech, freedom from censorship”. OK agreed; everyone is free to fantasize, engage, and participate in whatever they choose. Unfortunately, the freedom of committing an act in whatever form, simply DOES NOT PROVE the statement: no harm is done thereby. Please enlighten us pseudo-libertarian on YOUR OWN RESEARCH founded upon your work with children victimized by sexual abuse that documents for the world there is NO HARM DONE to our children by sexual fantasies; please confirm for us all “ipso facto” that the use of virtual realms and online mediums do not contribute in any way to the very real, terrorist and physical experiences sexually abused children have endured. Perhaps take a moment to undertake the task of the true Libertarian instead of pretending to be one, and hold some genuine regard for the right to “freedom FROM HARM” by investing your personal arrogance into something worthwhile such as: the subject of sexual exploitation and how to prevent it.

What exactly is being defended here by justifying activities (in an environment readily available and accessible by everyone including children) that advance the VISUAL IMAGERY OF A CHILD engaging in sexual acts, and to further assert them as a necessary pre-requisite of your freedom? It appears that your freedom imposes on the freedom of ALL children by portraying their collective image and likeness without their permission in a manner that is irrefutably damaging. No different than using the likeness of an African American in a racial way “to defend the freedom to be a racist”. PLEASE. So why not just be honest and engage in sexual play AS THE CONSENTING adult one claims to be? Does hiding aberrant sexual activity behind the image of a vulnerable child really support a legitimate cause? No, for some reason, it doesn’t seem to enamor those that recognize the lack of merit of anyone parodying themselves AS A CHILD (defenseless in real world terms), when the real truth is they are in fact an ADULT THAT SHOULD KNOW BETTER. Curiously, this is precisely the tactic and logic of THE PEDOPHILE (parody, pretend, portray). So let’s just call exploitation for what it is shall we, instead of trying to sell it under the auspice of the First Amendment.

If people think there is no harm done by using caricatures of children for sexual expression, then they are misinformed about the psychologies of pedophiles, child molesters, and sexual offenders and, the sequences of events that lead to the exploitation of children (and other age-groups likewise). The very negative impact of sexual exploitation in practice begins with the “mental masturbations of innocent fantasy”; it has very measurable long term and detrimental effects on the whole of society everywhere in our world; a well documented subject that cannot be argued by denial or shallow intellectualization. Truly, HIDING BEHIND A CARTOON CHARACTER or otherwise does not negate the repercussions that remain. As a member of the human race I sincerely believe we as a species are capable of better.
Gene

November 4th, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Legis,
thanks for adding your eloquent and heartfelt rebuttal. While it’s sure to draw some inane responses, know that it has been appreciated.
It’s absolutely frightening how far they’re willing to stretch their position.

Flinkster (@60),
excellent post - great summary of the real harm caused. Thanks for posting.

Angela,
right on. Well said.

I think it’s safe to say that most reading these posts are flabbergasted that some have actually chosen to defend the pedophiles in this - I seriously would have never guessed it.
Gene

November 4th, 2007 at 7:54 pm

btw,
I don’t mean to suggest that pedophiles don’t need support - they do. But not the kind of support that encourages them to remain mired in their mental disorder. To really respect their rights (and protect our children at the same time) we should be focused on how to help liberate them from their disorder.
Legis

November 5th, 2007 at 12:08 pm

This will be my last post here, but I wanted to thank you Gene for the kind regards and for your understanding. The problem of sexual violence and degradation is increasing (among other forms of violence); particularly in vulnerable populaces like children, even the elderly. Once sexual acts are engaged, on the street, on the web, doesn’t matter, it is now public (which means it seeks the involvement of other real live people) and no longer confined to the realm of “one’s own mind” and the adjudication of personal conscience. It has become an “act” with the express intent of soliciting participants in sexual game or play etc. This is the line of demarcation.

Yes, I am heartfelt. If my own blood were enough to stop it from happening; to help people even the offenders - to understand that their life and others lives are worth more than that, better than that. If one life were enough to stop the violence and pain, I would give mine without hesitation.

When a person confronts instances like: sexual molestation not just of children, but even INFANTS 3 weeks old; how it came about, family histories, the psychology and actions leading to the event, and the aftermath; these things inform as to the true scope of just how far it goes and how connected it all is. It is no longer about any petty personal pleasure. All beliefs of freedom as a stand-alone concept dissolve in the face of humanity; “this is what we have chosen as best for one another?” There is no way anyone can avoid the question if they have genuinely, personally reckoned with these things; there is no way to hide, forget you heard it or saw it; it becomes indelibly inscribed. It is beyond any border or belief or barrier. It just breaks your mind, and opens your heart.
Marcus

November 5th, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Legis,

I am sorry, but if you are going to claim there is an increase in sexual related crimes, as well as pedophilia, you had better back that claim up with some studies.

There are certainly a lot of horrible stories in the news in recent times of terrible things being done to toddlers and infants. That doesn’t mean the instance of such crimes are increasing, as much as reporting on those crimes are increasing.

Also, Legis, on the face of your claim that “Everyone knows what is helpful and what is not…” et al, I have my doubts you’ve ever taken any serious anthropological studies classes, researched non-western culture, OR taken a course concerning Ethics (Which doesn’t TEACH you ethics as much teaches you what ETHICS is.)

Ultimately, your response is the same as others. You are equating fantasy with reality. You are claiming there is a connection. You are held to the same standard as anybody else. When I was asked to supply evidence of my stance, I did so. I’d be more than willing to supply more. Where is yours?

Aside from people who already have deep seated problems with separating fantasy from reality, Average people with decently adjusted psyche’s don’t go about raping and molesting because they look at porn. It just doesn’t happen. If it DID Happen, there would be numbers to indicate that Pornography incites desires and induces higher than normal sex crimes.

I am a father of a 3 year old boy. I care about him, and never want to see him hurt. Even so, I am not going to let my fears of demons and evils destroy my rational credibility. Studies show that the people most likely to molest or rape children are family members, or people very well known to the victims. Strangers on the internet is a modern day boogyman, and in my entire time on the internet, I haven’t met such people that would stalk a person across state lines.

Not that they don’t exist, but I think they are far fewer and further apart than the media would try to indicate.

I will state again, Two adults playing fantasy with each other. Mind your own business, they’re not hurting anyone. It doesn’t matter if you’re afraid they will, if they aren’t doing anything to hurt anyone you don’t pre-judge them guilty for what they might do.

Any one of us might go out on a murder spree. Just because we might doesn’t mean you should be tried for “IF”.

In the end, much of this is moot. 2nd life will implement what they need to in order to appease the people who find this abhorrent.
Provohost

November 8th, 2007 at 4:55 pm

This is just plain sick, if we continue to accept these type of things into our society …virtual or not, we are just asking for trouble. There is enough garbage on the web already to avoid playing virtual games where children in any form are used to promote pedophilia, because bottom line this is what this game is doing. We are conditioning ourselves to be numbed by this outrageous behavior, what shocked us even ten years ago dosn’t even phase us now..Whats next..how far can that bar be pushed.
Jolene

November 9th, 2007 at 1:17 am

I have participated in a local forum in my community where this is one of the subjects. The subject being pedophilia and child pornography.

I have had folks bring out the 1971 study numerous times to attempt to prove that the availability of pornography not only does not increase sex crimes, but reduces them.

The study DID NOT include child pornography. Apples to oranges. Nor are many of it’s citers taking current technology into effect. When they did the study, what did they have? Magazines, books, and 8mm?

We should not be attempting to legitimize pedophelia in any way. It is NOT comparable to homosexuality. Two consenting homosexuals is NOT the same thing as having sex with a child.

I think that the internet in general has brought about a legitimization of pedophilia or other such quirk as normal to your average Joe going online. In the past, maybe he could hook up with 1 or 2 fellow pedophiles in his local area, so he could feel normal. Now, it can be millions potentially.

It is still deviant. We even have this guy in California who has been posting links and pictures of children and locations where a pedophile can go in real life to view or do otherwise.

The damage done to children who are forced to participate in child pornography or sexually assaulted by someone who thinks it is okay are far too high for me to accept. And much more than I am willing to give someone for their so-called civil liberties.

The old adage applies, “Your freedom ends at my nose, or my kid’s nose.”

What we really need is a much newer study untainted by presumptions. I believe there was one done recently on folks in jail for child pornography charges. That only included those who had it on their computers. After studying these folks, they discovered, that they didn’t just enjoy it merely in cyberspace, but acted on it in real life, as they attested to themselves.
Jolene

November 9th, 2007 at 1:19 am

If you really don’t believe that folks use the internet to hook up with children go check out ‘To Catch A Predator’ on MSNBC.

It will be eye-opening.
Marcus

November 13th, 2007 at 7:06 am

Jolene,

‘To Catch A Predator’, while being true and about true cases, is intentionally used as a propaganda tool to make the instance of such crimes seem far more frequent than they actually are.

Many, MANY studies show that unlike the ‘To Catch A Predator’ Show, most offenses occur in the home with family members being the culprit.

I would also like to duly note that, as I cited previously, less than 120 years ago (And throughout practically all of history) it was common and normal to marry at 10. It was extremely common for young girls of age 12 to marry men of age 30. The reason for this is that historically (In practically every era, INCLUDING the modern era) older men were more financially secure and more capable of providing for a wife and children, young women just into menses were considered to best for such men because they could lavish their security upon the children they had.

There is also the instinctual alpha-male sort of reaction to take into account.

Less than fifty years ago, it was very common in some states for women to still get married at 13 or 14. I know, I have family members who did. And they married men usually 4 to 6 years their senior.

Everything I study and read on the subject indicates to me that however much society hates pedophilia, there appears to be a social predisposition for it that is more common than people would like to acknowledge.

So, while none of the issues that this stuff was normal and accepted not very long ago are ever actually addressed, those responding also appear to like ignoring that if it happens between two consenting adults, it is none of your business or the law’s business.

Your hatred for child rapists aside, this isn’t child rape. The desire to equate child porn as something that affects people entirely DIFFERENT than regular porn is also aside the point. I have seen no studies or evidence that there is a difference. Least of all from an impartial group that isn’t willing to let their bias speak for them.

Two adults, playing kids having sex in a video game? It’s nobodies business. Next people will be demanding that age-players be considered pedophiles and locked up because they like to wear diapers and pretend to be babies and get turned on by it. Frankly, I find them odd and more than a little bit disturbing to talk to… but I don’t find them criminal or offensive.
david

November 20th, 2007 at 9:10 am

I would like to shed some light as a member of the SL ageplay community. I have a young girl avatar which engages in sexual acts with adult avatars. Call me sick, evil, whatever you like, you have the right to your opinion. If I were acting these things out in real life I would even agree with that opinion, but I am not doing these things in real life and never will. I have known since I was a teen that I was attracted to young girls (not exclusively, I am attracted to adult women as well). I was confused and scared by this and its not something you bring up with a friend or relative to try to talk through. For the past decade or so, I have participated in chat groups online with other pedophiles. It has allowed me to understand my sexual attractions and given me an outlet for discussion and fantasies through roleplay. I know that sex between children and adults is wrong and do not support it, have never done it and never will, but I do fantasize about it. I also do not look at child pornography because I know the children involved were abused to produce it and I would not want any children abused. I know, 99.9% of the people reading this are disgusted and a lot are saying its only a matter of time before I act out in the real world. I know I will not and will try to explain it like this:

I am also very attracted to playboy models and once had the pleasure of meeting one in real life. Although I was attracted to her I did not rape her. I simply admired her beauty. Why didn’t I rape her? Because I am not a rapist and I don’t believe in harming women for my own pleasure. I will never have sex with a playboy model or a victoria secret model and I am ok with that. I can live without fulfilling that fantasy.
I pass women on the street every day who I am sexually attracted to but I have never groped one, never thrown one to the ground and raped her, I don’t even leer or stare. The same thing goes for young girls I see every day. I admire their beauty, I do not leer or stare, I do not grope and I do not rape. Consentual sex is not possible with children and I am not a rapist, so I will never fulfill that fantasy in real life and I am ok with that. I can live without fulfilling that fantasy as well. (Maybe for a pedophile who is only attracted to children and not adults it would be more difficult since they have no other real life release. I don’t know, only speculating here.)

I have had consentual sex with women. In my single years I tended to go for 18 to 19 year old petite girls, and that was great. I married a petite woman. I have children and I would kill anyone that laid a finger on them. I am not attracted to my own children anymore than someone who is attracted to women their own age is attracted to their own sister. I am a respected, upstanding member of my community and am considered by most who know me to be an extremely moral person.

I have been participating in ageplay in SL with other consenting adults for approximately 2 years and I feel no more desire to harm a real life child then I ever did. I am thankful for the sexual releif it gives me but can understand why it disgusts others. There are many practices on SL that I find revolting (dolcette, beastiality, rapeplay). I understand and appreciate peoples strong natural desire to protect children and share that desire. But consentual roleplay between adults does not harm children anymore than fantasy dolcette causes the death of real women, or fantasy rapeplay causes a real woman to be raped.