bit-gamer.net

Child abuse in Second Life?

Child abuse in Second Life?

Rumours of child pornography in Second Life have prompted investigation from German Police.

It seems like every week there is a "world's first" going on in the online virtual world of Second Life. The world's first design degree show, the world's first online embassy the list goes on.

But not all firsts are to be celebrated.

Following rumours, made massively public by a German TV programme, of child abuse and the trading of real child pornography in Second Life, the German police is now launching a formal investigation.

Second Life is a complete virtual world entirely filled with user generated content, which players can purchase from each other using the virtual economy.

Linden Labs, the operator behind the online world, is said to be fully co-operating with the German police forces in the investigation and are very eager to chase down the real identities of the traders.

Also under investigation are so called 'age play' groups, which revolve around the abuse of virtual children and individuals who masquerade as children in order to be virtually abused.

The programme that aired the rumours said that their reporter, Mr Schader, was; "asked to pay to attend meetings where virtual and real child pornography was being shown. Members of this group also offered to put him in touch with traders of real child pornography."

Have you ever had any bad experience playing an online game? Let us know in the forums.

68 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
bilbothebaggins 14th May 2007, 12:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Second Life is a complete virtual world entirely filled with user generated content,
Which is exactly the reason why this was bound to happen. :(
AcidJiles 14th May 2007, 13:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbothebaggins
Which is exactly the reason why this was bound to happen. :(
as with anything created by man it will be corrupted. I just hope there isnt a huge backlash on the producers who obivously never wanted this especaially with how german is jumping up and down or killspie games
olly_lewis 14th May 2007, 13:30 Quote
"Show me on the doll where the Second Life avatar touched you"
capnPedro 14th May 2007, 14:42 Quote
Quote:
Also under investigation are so called 'age play' groups, which revolve around the abuse of virtual children and individuals who masquerade as children in order to be virtually abused.
And I suppose Counter-Strike players will be arrested for virtual-murder?
CardJoe 14th May 2007, 14:47 Quote
I reckon deathmatching is a lot less creepy than pretending to be a three year old so that people can pretend to sexually abuse you...
djDEATH 14th May 2007, 15:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
I reckon deathmatching is a lot more creepy than pretending to be a three year old so that people can pretend to sexually abuse you...

lol - are you sure you dont want to retract that comment!!!

as above, this was bound to happen, took longer than i thought, but bound to happen. Where theres a will, theres a way!!
Tyinsar 14th May 2007, 16:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
...
fixed in edit ;)

I agree: Death-matching clearly a game to most people. The other is just sick from any angle.
airchie 14th May 2007, 16:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by djDEATH
lol - are you sure you dont want to retract that comment!!!
What's that loud bleeping noise??
Oh yeah, its my sarcasm detector... ;)

The 'age play' thing is pretty wierd, but it can have numerous parallels drawn to the likes CSS.
Virtual mass murder and terrorist bombings are acceptable but virtual child abuse isn't?

I personally think its correct the way it is.
ie, child abuse, whether virtual or not is wrong.
CSS, while depicting violence, is much more acceptable IMO. :)
CardJoe 14th May 2007, 16:45 Quote
Originally Posted by CardJoe
I reckon deathmatching is a lot more creepy than pretending to be a three year old so that people can pretend to sexually abuse you...

Yes, I do want to retract that comment. It wasn't sarcasm, I just got my sentence mixed up. Meant to point out to Capnpedro that deathmatching is much LESS of an issue. I've edited the post to show what I acually meant.

Sorry again, simply used the wrong word (more/less) :'(
yodasarmpit 14th May 2007, 16:47 Quote
If it was purely a virtual pursuit then why the hell not, let the weirdo’s role play in their virtual world so long as that’s where it stays.
However, if as the report suggests real life abuse is being bought and sold in this virtual setting, then those responsible should be perused by the highest authorities and have their balls chopped off.
djDEATH 14th May 2007, 16:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Originally Posted by CardJoe

Yes, I do want to retract that comment. It wasn't sarcasm, I just got my sentence mixed up. Meant to point out to Capnpedro that deathmatching is much LESS of an issue. I've edited the post to show what I acually meant.

Sorry again, simply used the wrong word (more/less) :'(


lol
Tyinsar 14th May 2007, 17:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
...Sorry again, simply used the wrong word (more/less) :'(
Thanks for the clarification / correction Joe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit
If it was purely a virtual pursuit ...
even as "pretend" it's sick - I agree with the feelings behind the rest of your post though.
HandMadeAndroid 14th May 2007, 18:49 Quote
Interesting news story, relevant to me, as I joined second life around a month ago. The various escorts and strip clubs are quite funny really, I don't see the attraction in a cartoon person. As for the age play, I guess if they are consenting adults who are role playing, then it is their choice. I don't agree with this form of role play as I think it's obviously sick. The distribution of child pornography has far wider implications, as this unfortunately involves children being abused in real life by real adults, and should be dealt with appropriately. There are retailers who will sell adult baby clothes etc in real life for consenting adults to use...should this be stopped? As for second life...after a month I'm pretty bored, the lag sucks, its just the same stuff everywhere
DeX 14th May 2007, 21:01 Quote
People seem to forget that Second Life is just a fancy chat room. And as long as chat rooms have existed, people have used them to share illegal material as well as act out their fantasies with like minded people. This is nothing new. It wasn't 'bound to happen' simply because it already has been happening all around the world ever since the internet began.

The only significance that this story has is that in Germany, depictions of child abuse whether real or not are illegal. It may well mean that someone will try to ban the game in that country. That of course is the important issue we should be discussing. :p
DXR_13KE 15th May 2007, 00:00 Quote
this was bound to happen...... but anyway this is pure and unadulterated stupidity in a jar with razor blades and TNT.
mikeuk2004 15th May 2007, 01:28 Quote
no surprise at all.
Burnout21 15th May 2007, 01:34 Quote
ok, here is one statement we should all agree with,

''Child abusers should be hurt badly, very badly!!''

end of story.
Cthippo 22nd May 2007, 06:58 Quote
Meh, file it away with the "war on drugs" and the "War on poverty" and (my favorite) the "Global war on terror". Where there is a demand, and I think it's pretty clear there is a huge demand for child porn, there will be a supply.
Hivemind187 12th July 2007, 10:46 Quote
Just to clarify a point for some of you here (whose prejudicial comments bely nothing more than closed minded knee jerking).

Age PLay is a form of roleplaying that may or may not have a sexual component to it. It is, for many, a paraphillia much like shoes, baloons, clowns or (for a large group of you here) the latest offering from the Nvidia Graphics Labs.

Age play, between consenting adults, has catagorically nothing to do with "real children" or "real child abuse" and to group them together is not only an irrational and illogical statement, it is also extremely offensive. It is the same mentality that claims "all homo-sexuals are child abusers".

Child abuse is an extention of a need to control or exert power over a vulnerable individual (hence the moniker of abuse). Age-play is simply that, PLAY between consenting adults.

So if you are going to react to something of whichyou have no understanding then the argument to arrest CSS players for virtual murder, WOW players for Virtual Warcrimes or RTS players for virtual membership of the Nazi party.

Peace out.
CardJoe 12th July 2007, 12:18 Quote
Um. I don't think the examples you cite are anywhere near comprable. There's virtualised violence for entertainment and then theres realistically pretending to be a pre-teen so that somebody can seduce you. No wholly different ball games IMO.
Hivemind187 12th July 2007, 21:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Um. I don't think the examples you cite are anywhere near comprable. There's virtualised violence for entertainment and then theres realistically pretending to be a pre-teen so that somebody can seduce you. No wholly different ball games IMO.

BAH!

Its either all ok or none of it is.

I think you have a problem separating "play" and "reality".

At the end of the day, consenting adults roleplaying extreme violence towards one another and consenting adults engaging in age related roleplaying for kicks have two intrinsic things in common.

1) Consent

2) Fantasy

I'm not saying that CSS equal to child abuse, I am saying that it is a fantasy done for entertainment and gratification purposes - exactly the same thing that Age-Play is about.

People are whinging about the age-play issue because they dont understand it and in this culture of heightened awareness and irrational and pathological fear of anything that involves children it is hardly surprising that people are villifying a harmless piece of fantasy.
DeX 12th July 2007, 22:26 Quote
I agree Hivemind, but I think you're reacting to this more strongly than is needed. Nobody in this thread said that they thought people who have fantasies involving virtual child abuse should be punished in anyway, just that in their opinion it is a bit weird.

Like I said before, I don't think it's important to discuss what some people get off on. It's more interesting because of the fact that in Germany, even virtual child abuse is illegal. Is the German legal system correct? Or should people be able to have whatever fantasies they desire so long as it doesn't harm anyone in any way?
specofdust 12th July 2007, 23:00 Quote
There's a game you can play where you get to hurl abuse at, and make cry, those loud obnoxious 3 feet tall bags of poop who infect everything with more germs than a sewer and absolutely refuse to go away?

I wanna play!
CardJoe 13th July 2007, 10:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
BAH!

Its either all ok or none of it is.

I think you have a problem separating "play" and "reality".

At the end of the day, consenting adults roleplaying extreme violence towards one another and consenting adults engaging in age related roleplaying for kicks have two intrinsic things in common.

1) Consent

2) Fantasy

I'm not saying that CSS equal to child abuse, I am saying that it is a fantasy done for entertainment and gratification purposes - exactly the same thing that Age-Play is about.

People are whinging about the age-play issue because they dont understand it and in this culture of heightened awareness and irrational and pathological fear of anything that involves children it is hardly surprising that people are villifying a harmless piece of fantasy.

No, it's not a black white issue. It doesn't have to be all right or all wrong, the world is made of infinite grey areas.

Bear in mind that CSS isn't roleplay at all for most people, it's simply a team sport or game. Roleplaying indicates getting further into the character and manifesting their persona or reality - which is where ageplay can get creepy. Don't get my wrong, a girl dressed up in a sexy schoolgirl uniform etc is fine by me, but when that girl also goes around talking, acting and constantly pretending to be a fifteen year old who wants to hang around an older man (or genders reversed) and get it on - thats when I get nervous.

I'd feel the same if I saw a load of CSS people running around role-playing, shouting extremist phrases and taking things too seriously.

The distinction between reality and fantasy in games is a fine one and for me the line is drawn when somebody uses games to manifest their fantasies as a reality in a game and when those fantasies would be considered illegal or morally suspect in most societies.

In regard to your final paragraph, I have two points. One; its entirely possible for someone to understand ageplay and still disagree with it. I can understand why some people find ageplay attractive and I can understand the surrounding issues, as I am a rational and well educated person. However, the rational part of me can still choose to disagree with it.

Two; the reason people are villyfying ageplay is because it could be considered a springboard to real abuse, just as video game violence is often associated with actual violence and low-level drugs are associated with higher level drugs. It's not nessercarily going to be true that the two are linked, but an investigation into the issues from any angle, if purseued by rationally minded people, cannot hurt and may actually increase awareness to the act. You don't need to be so defensive.
Hivemind187 13th July 2007, 11:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeX
I agree Hivemind, but I think you're reacting to this more strongly than is needed. Nobody in this thread said that they thought people who have fantasies involving virtual child abuse should be punished in anyway, just that in their opinion it is a bit weird.

Like I said before, I don't think it's important to discuss what some people get off on. It's more interesting because of the fact that in Germany, even virtual child abuse is illegal. Is the German legal system correct? Or should people be able to have whatever fantasies they desire so long as it doesn't harm anyone in any way?

Thats fair enough, but the word "sick" and "disgusting" were both used (albeit by one poster).

(to cardjoe)

Opinions are fine but they do not constitute facts. You can morally disagree with something but that does not make you right (see the Catholic Church's stance on Gay Marriage for example).

As for age-play and role playing being a spring board to other things ... there has never been, nor will there ever be, a single, conclusive study that shows a direct, causative link between video games (or books, movies, tv etc) and violence. The same can be said for role playing.

If it were the case that role playing led to disillusionment and peculiar behavior (rather than mental disturbance or emotional issues leading to such) then we would see a far greater number of people running around dressed as Jedi or confused Trekkies wondering why their transporter array is malfunctioning. It doesn't follow and its the same bloody minded attitude that gives the Tipper Gore's of this world and the morons at the board of censors the ammunition to curtail what see, hear, interact with and do.
capnPedro 13th July 2007, 16:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
<words>
You had me at "sexy schoolgirl".
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
I'd feel the same if I saw a load of CSS people running around role-playing, shouting extremist phrases and taking things too seriously.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=i0sdwQtKA4M
CardJoe 13th July 2007, 16:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
Thats fair enough, but the word "sick" and "disgusting" were both used (albeit by one poster).

(to cardjoe)

Opinions are fine but they do not constitute facts. You can morally disagree with something but that does not make you right (see the Catholic Church's stance on Gay Marriage for example).

As for age-play and role playing being a spring board to other things ... there has never been, nor will there ever be, a single, conclusive study that shows a direct, causative link between video games (or books, movies, tv etc) and violence. The same can be said for role playing.

If it were the case that role playing led to disillusionment and peculiar behavior (rather than mental disturbance or emotional issues leading to such) then we would see a far greater number of people running around dressed as Jedi or confused Trekkies wondering why their transporter array is malfunctioning. It doesn't follow and its the same bloody minded attitude that gives the Tipper Gore's of this world and the morons at the board of censors the ammunition to curtail what see, hear, interact with and do.

Then please bear in mind that your opinions are only opinions also and are not facts. In fact, one may go so far as to take your reaction as being indicative of an interest in ageplay and therefore regard you as biased on the issue. Myself, I've had contact with it and read about it a bit (psychology at uni), but I've never involved myself in it, which one might argue makes my opinion more valid. Supposedly.

As for jedis and trekkies, we already have bloody millions of them. Used to be one myself until I lost interest in it all at the age of twelve.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that ageplayers are disturbed or weird but, given that they are a minority and have an interest which could easily be connected to a real world issue which is deeply distrubing, I would suggest that an open and frank investigation and discussion with ageplayers is in the best interests of everyone.

The simple scenario I heard given at university was to ask an ageplayer that, if they found out that the person they had begun ageplaying with was legally underage and was actually the age they thought that person was only pretending to be, would they be more or less attracted to the person. If the answer is honestly less then I can willingly take your point that its just play and not real at all. If the answer is they'd be more attracted then it just highlights the concerns that everybody has and these groups deserve investigation.

Of course, the same is true of CSS players. I'm sure that most players, if quizzed on how they'd feel if they really killed somebody would indicate they would be upset, distrubed etc and would like the game less. From my point of view, that ability to take pleasure in the fantasy but not in the reality is what distinguishes 'harmless fun' from potentially harmful activities.

And don't get me started on FPS Doug and Pure Pwnge etc...;)
Jamie 13th July 2007, 16:37 Quote
Doug is a legend!
Amon 13th July 2007, 17:08 Quote
My understanding is that this child pornography contention involved Hentai, not live imagery, which is legal to view for some and *possibly* permitted in Second Life, provided that it is contained in adult-rated districts. Admittedly, Hentai's depiction of the stuff often begs the question of age.
Hivemind187 16th July 2007, 14:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Then please bear in mind that your opinions are only opinions also and are not facts. In fact, one may go so far as to take your reaction as being indicative of an interest in ageplay and therefore regard you as biased on the issue. Myself, I've had contact with it and read about it a bit (psychology at uni), but I've never involved myself in it, which one might argue makes my opinion more valid. Supposedly.

As for jedis and trekkies, we already have bloody millions of them. Used to be one myself until I lost interest in it all at the age of twelve.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that ageplayers are disturbed or weird but, given that they are a minority and have an interest which could easily be connected to a real world issue which is deeply distrubing, I would suggest that an open and frank investigation and discussion with ageplayers is in the best interests of everyone.

The simple scenario I heard given at university was to ask an ageplayer that, if they found out that the person they had begun ageplaying with was legally underage and was actually the age they thought that person was only pretending to be, would they be more or less attracted to the person. If the answer is honestly less then I can willingly take your point that its just play and not real at all. If the answer is they'd be more attracted then it just highlights the concerns that everybody has and these groups deserve investigation.

Of course, the same is true of CSS players. I'm sure that most players, if quizzed on how they'd feel if they really killed somebody would indicate they would be upset, distrubed etc and would like the game less. From my point of view, that ability to take pleasure in the fantasy but not in the reality is what distinguishes 'harmless fun' from potentially harmful activities.

And don't get me started on FPS Doug and Pure Pwnge etc...;)


And we could all claim to be doctors, scientists, lawyers or spacemen and online no one is the wiser nor able to judge without reasonable experience and education regarding specific subject matters. resorting to petty implications and allusions to someone who is making an argument of equivalency and base line equality is frankly the kind of petty high school tactic employed by failing debate teams.

I do not posit opinion as fact. I use fact for their intended purpose, to back up my position and opinion. Perhaps a little difficult for some to extricate one from the other but its not an excuse to ignore it.

While your analogy of the college experiment is colourful it is neither scientific nor useful to the discussion. There is no actual study involved and the value of such responses are no better than those in a magazine poll.

Your position is to suspect and vilify before comprehending and investigating whereas mine is to give the benefit of the doubt to a unfairly maligned group within society (and growing in their presence on the net by all accounts). Equating ageplayers, infantalists, regressives etc to paedophiles, child molesters and others with serious sexual dismorphia's is irresonsible and the fundamental reaction of the folks on this thread from the outset was to do just that - hang 'em before we know 'em.

There is absolutely and catagorically no evidence to suggest a lnk between age play and child abuse and a lot of evidence supporting a contrary position. From a cursory investigation into the subject (admitedly over the internet and a small number of books available in the public library) it is possible to discern a small number of facts. The most impoprtant of these to my argument are that most online communities of infantalists, ageplayers etc are openly hostile towards paedophiliacs and are known to report any and all instances of solicitation etc. A large number of ageplayers were, infact, victims of said abuses and use the scenario "headspace" in order to take control of negative emotions and feelings to create a positive and productive use for them. Lastly there appears (at least on the surface) to be a very strong sense of community amongst the sub culture (similar to LBGT groups) where an air of openness and mutual support and advice regarding relationships is prevalent with many borrowing from the BDSM sub-group (notably the "safe, sane, consenual" maxim) and a defintie sense of consensual adults engaging in consensual role play.

I am not defending the rights of peadophiles, on the contrary, they should be removed from positions of temptation until such time as they can be counselled of their issues, however, I can not abide by the mentality of lumping everyone "different from me" into the same boat as them. That approach leads to the kind of nonsense like adding homosexuality t the list of psychological disorders in the early 20th century or declaring that 66% of homosexuals are peadophiles. It's codswallop.

I am not saying that there has never been, now will there ever be a scenario where someone is exploited involving the kind of thing that occurs during age-play situations - however I would argue that it is the poor intentions of the perpetrator and not the actions nor the trappings of the scenario that are to blame. Much in the same way that a psychotic kid might play Manhunt and then murder someone - it is the fact that the kid is psychotic and nothing was done about it that is to blame and not the video game.

Surely that is not a difficult position to understand?
Hivemind187 16th July 2007, 14:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amon
My understanding is that this child pornography contention involved Hentai, not live imagery, which is legal to view for some and *possibly* permitted in Second Life, provided that it is contained in adult-rated districts. Admittedly, Hentai's depiction of the stuff often begs the question of age.

The issue of Hentai is sticky. There are many countries (Germany I believe is one of them) where the possession of materials (ranging from photos to crude pencil drawings) of minors will land you a jail term. There are countries, Mexico and certain Eastern Bloc ones I beieve, where no such laws exist and the age of consent is more a local custom than a strict law.

Second Life is online which means, by its very nature, it is everywhere at once and as such certain things said, done or alluded to may be legal in one country but not in another.

The issue itself seems to be more about peoples irrational and unfounded fears than about anything of substance. Child abuse and kiddy-pr0n are separate issues from paraphilia, role play and the like.

At the end of the day though, surely the point of second life is to take on an alter ego to express your fantasasies? Provided you arent messing with someone you shouldnt then whats the problem?
CardJoe 16th July 2007, 15:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
And we could all claim to be doctors, scientists, lawyers or spacemen and online no one is the wiser nor able to judge without reasonable experience and education regarding specific subject matters. resorting to petty implications and allusions to someone who is making an argument of equivalency and base line equality is frankly the kind of petty high school tactic employed by failing debate teams.

I do not posit opinion as fact. I use fact for their intended purpose, to back up my position and opinion. Perhaps a little difficult for some to extricate one from the other but its not an excuse to ignore it.

While your analogy of the college experiment is colourful it is neither scientific nor useful to the discussion. There is no actual study involved and the value of such responses are no better than those in a magazine poll.

Your position is to suspect and vilify before comprehending and investigating whereas mine is to give the benefit of the doubt to a unfairly maligned group within society (and growing in their presence on the net by all accounts). Equating ageplayers, infantalists, regressives etc to paedophiles, child molesters and others with serious sexual dismorphia's is irresonsible and the fundamental reaction of the folks on this thread from the outset was to do just that - hang 'em before we know 'em.

There is absolutely and catagorically no evidence to suggest a lnk between age play and child abuse and a lot of evidence supporting a contrary position. From a cursory investigation into the subject (admitedly over the internet and a small number of books available in the public library) it is possible to discern a small number of facts. The most impoprtant of these to my argument are that most online communities of infantalists, ageplayers etc are openly hostile towards paedophiliacs and are known to report any and all instances of solicitation etc. A large number of ageplayers were, infact, victims of said abuses and use the scenario "headspace" in order to take control of negative emotions and feelings to create a positive and productive use for them. Lastly there appears (at least on the surface) to be a very strong sense of community amongst the sub culture (similar to LBGT groups) where an air of openness and mutual support and advice regarding relationships is prevalent with many borrowing from the BDSM sub-group (notably the "safe, sane, consenual" maxim) and a defintie sense of consensual adults engaging in consensual role play.

I am not defending the rights of peadophiles, on the contrary, they should be removed from positions of temptation until such time as they can be counselled of their issues, however, I can not abide by the mentality of lumping everyone "different from me" into the same boat as them. That approach leads to the kind of nonsense like adding homosexuality t the list of psychological disorders in the early 20th century or declaring that 66% of homosexuals are peadophiles. It's codswallop.

I am not saying that there has never been, now will there ever be a scenario where someone is exploited involving the kind of thing that occurs during age-play situations - however I would argue that it is the poor intentions of the perpetrator and not the actions nor the trappings of the scenario that are to blame. Much in the same way that a psychotic kid might play Manhunt and then murder someone - it is the fact that the kid is psychotic and nothing was done about it that is to blame and not the video game.

Surely that is not a difficult position to understand?

I don't think you understood what I was saying before, maybe I wasn't being clear. The college experiement I talked about (as you called it) wasn't an experiment, simply a hypothetical situation intended to outline the fears many people associate with ageplay.

I've never heard of abused people using ageplay techniques to help overcome childhood abuse and, from my knowledge and experience of psychotherapy and psychodrama (of which I have some) it wouldn't be very advisable.

The tie between CSS and ageplay isn't really valid and, even if it was, it serves only to outline my arguement further - that investigators need to open public, frank dialogues with these groups (gamers, ageplays) to increase understanding. Gamers however are not a subculture and make up a large part of society anyway, and every step we as a community has made has been to increase understanding. Ageplayers such as yourself (assumedly) come across over defensively or do not even want to have these discussions.

The fact is that investigation in question began when suspicions of child abuse were raised within the group and the group was then investigated. I can't see any arguement with that from anyone.

I never indicated in any of my posts were to suspect and villify, merely that the entire practice is unusual to me and, because of obvious associations, suspicious to a lot of people and that I myself would be wary of it. I haven't condemned anyone at all, merely put forward a hypothetical point to illustrate the fears (which may be warranted or unwarranted) of others and suggested that a sane, safe route out for everyone would be a public, frank investigation and discussion - which is whats needed no matter how you look at it, I think.

You've been given an oppourtinity to respond and win support here, but instead you've ending up alienating through your over defensiveness.
Hivemind187 16th July 2007, 16:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
I don't think you understood what I was saying before, maybe I wasn't being clear. The college experiement I talked about (as you called it) wasn't an experiment, simply a hypothetical situation intended to outline the fears many people associate with ageplay.

I've never heard of abused people using ageplay techniques to help overcome childhood abuse and, from my knowledge and experience of psychotherapy and psychodrama (of which I have some) it wouldn't be very advisable.

The tie between CSS and ageplay isn't really valid and, even if it was, it serves only to outline my arguement further - that investigators need to open public, frank dialogues with these groups (gamers, ageplays) to increase understanding. Gamers however are not a subculture and make up a large part of society anyway, and every step we as a community has made has been to increase understanding. Ageplayers such as yourself (assumedly) come across over defensively or do not even want to have these discussions.

The fact is that investigation in question began when suspicions of child abuse were raised within the group and the group was then investigated. I can't see any arguement with that from anyone.

I never indicated in any of my posts were to suspect and villify, merely that the entire practice is unusual to me and, because of obvious associations, suspicious to a lot of people and that I myself would be wary of it. I haven't condemned anyone at all, merely put forward a hypothetical point to illustrate the fears (which may be warranted or unwarranted) of others and suggested that a sane, safe route out for everyone would be a public, frank investigation and discussion - which is whats needed no matter how you look at it, I think.

You've been given an oppourtinity to respond and win support here, but instead you've ending up alienating through your over defensiveness.

Actually, you have missed my point, though I conceed I may have misunderstood you slightly.

Firstly, I will address, for the second time, the allegation of me being an "ageplayer" as you put it. I am not. I am approaching this from the position of equal rights, civil liberties and utter disgust at the attitudes people take, not just here but in the world in general. I have had similar knock down drag outs with the type who cant seem to realise that CSS is just a game an not a tool for Al Qaeda to recruit its next zealot. I am sorry if I appear "defensive" rather than "assertive" or "aggressive" but there is little I can do to point out the fallacies in your argument if you are going to attempt to paint me as a particular stereotype.

Regarding the issue of people using roleplay as a method to come to terms with, control and comprehend traumatic experiences it is strange that you have made the comments you have. Roleplay has long been used as a tool by counsellors for a multitude of things ranging from understanding marital difficulties, to anger management to rape counselling. Further more, if you do your research (which you have made allusion that you at least know how to) you will find that their is a significant number of people who use "rape play" as a cathartic experience to overcome issues stemming from traumatic events (a kind of controlled recreation in which they are actually in control). While this may seem strange, even abhorent to many people it none the less used by many people.

The argument of equivalency between CSS (or any violence based video game) and age-play in Second Life is valid. I am not denying that an open dialogue is useful and sorely needed but from what I can tell it is the "havent a clues" that are the problem since most of the community websites are happy to explain what they are doing.

The reason it is valid is beacuse in both cases participants take on the alter ego of a fantastical character to engage in a passtime that would otherwise be deemed abhorrent. In one case it is the wanton slaughter of living creatures (e.g. Soldiers, Terrorists and in the case of Bioshock children). In another it is the recreational role play as a young person, child, infant whatever. Why is one more difficult to cope with than the other? For the participants it is merely "a bit of fun" whereas to an onlooker ignorant of the pass time it might appear to be a revolting pantomime of horror. This is not an opinion, it is a simple fact of lilfe.

The article makes few distinction between child abusers and age-players and suggests that the roleplayers were being investigated because they happen to indulge in a specific fantasy. That is profiling albeit excusable when out of ignorance (it ceases to be excuseable upon even cursory investigation). This paints age-players as being paedophiles or connected to paedophiles in the same way as the some idiot in a trench coat murdering college students is linked to people who have seen "Old Boy" or the gimp who shot John Lennon being linked to anyone who has glanced through Catcher in the Rye.

The issue I have is with freedom of expression and the unfortunate attitude of people to assume that something is unsavory simply because they do not understand it. If we are free to express our base desires for violence in a manner where no one is actually injured then why are we not free to indulge are base sexual desires when no one is even physically touched?

Your hypothesis itself is anecdotal and as irrelevant as I have already said. It fails to take into account other peoples base ignorance of the subject and propagates a stereotype that it is "ok to vilify some groups becausse we dont vilify others" - I'm not saying that it isnt a good indication of peoples reactions but it is a reaction from a position of ignorance and therefore worthless.

Your posts are conceived from a similar position of ignorance and while there is a need for an open forum, I can state that it is not the sub culture that need to make the effort at this point. It is people who assume they understand something without evidence, investigation or comprehension. Browse the web yourself (as I have) and you will find that most if not all websites pertaining to this passtime carry explanations, disclaimers etc If that isnt taking the first step then I honestly dont know what is.

Lastly, gamers are a sub-culture. They are a culture within a culture and that, by definition, makes them a sub-culture. English language 101.
Amon 16th July 2007, 17:10 Quote
It seems we're all viewing the same painting with different glasses, so to speak.

With regards to viewing video games as a sub-culture, it will grow out of that niche in time. Although 'just a medium', the degree of decision-making and consequence afforded by games from their exceedingly invasive methods of interaction will root itself as an established culture of its own--lives will be lost in the bits and bytes of alternative realities, and it is something we cannot avoid nor afford to neglect. Likewise, the progressively sexual overtones in each of these tainted ageplay scenarios are a direct reflection of the human vileness that has elusively imbued itself into our existing reality. Ageplay is by no means wrong, it's just inevitable that erotica will hastily consume it with a vampiric efficiency.
CardJoe 16th July 2007, 17:27 Quote
To be honest, I've only read half of your last post. Why? Because you say you fight this arguement from both sides, which to me suggests you are either just looking for something to argue about, or you want to both have your cake and eat it - either way I get the impression your just going to go on and on. I think its evidenced by the fact that you've apparently joined only to combat me on this

As for Rape-play and role-play, etc. That wasn't what you spoke of before. Before, you mentioned ageplay specifically. I do know a bit about psychodrama and such practices, and I know about role-play being used in therapy, and I'm familiar with rapeplay to a degree, though I don't really agree that rapeplay specifically is as useful as other forms of role play. Age play however relates to the practice of using age fantasies for pleasure, not for therpeutic reasons or any type of regression. Thats why I was skeptical about its uses in therapy, it may be possible if handled rightly, but in that case it would be greatly seperated from the conventional understanding of ageplay anyway.

English Language 101 has nothing to do with whether gamers are a culture or not, it's to do with the perception of the size of the group. The industry of games etc is almost larger than the music business according to some, making it not a subculture in my mind.

As for the open discussion, well if the ageplayers don't want to make the effort to have this dialogue then they have to accept the consequences of this. If you don't tell people what you're thinking then they won't be able to read your mind and will have to ask questions/investigate in their own way to get answers.

I'm not going to continue on with these discussions however and have only attempted to clarify previous points here rather than raise new ones. I just don't see this debate doing anything but escalating.
Nexxo 16th July 2007, 18:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
Child abuse is an extention of a need to control or exert power over a vulnerable individual (hence the moniker of abuse). Age-play is simply that, PLAY between consenting adults.
A play which, by your own definition, recreates a fantasy. Now I am happy to regard it as just another variation of submissive-dominant sex play with age being the variable which determines the roles. But there is the slightly uncomfortable notion in my mind that one of the usual first steps in engaging in child-abuse is overcoming internal inhibition and arousal/preparation though fantasy (usually by looking at pornographic material), and that this play could be a function of that. Which brings me to...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
As for age-play and role playing being a spring board to other things ... there has never been, nor will there ever be, a single, conclusive study that shows a direct, causative link between video games (or books, movies, tv etc) and violence. The same can be said for role playing.
Actually, I am just in the process of writing a piece on this. There is a staggering amount of research that shows a direct, causal link between violent video games/movies and acted-out violence. There is an equally large body of research showing the importance of certain types of pornographic material in sex crimes. This does not mean that the material causes people to behave in such way, but that some people are predisposed to behaving in this way and use the material for stimulation and in preparation of the act. This is presumably also why, although we don't have masses of people running about acting like Jedi or Trekkies, we do have the occasional nutter who does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
Regarding the issue of people using roleplay as a method to come to terms with, control and comprehend traumatic experiences it is strange that you have made the comments you have. Roleplay has long been used as a tool by counsellors for a multitude of things ranging from understanding marital difficulties, to anger management to rape counselling. Further more, if you do your research (which you have made allusion that you at least know how to) you will find that their is a significant number of people who use "rape play" as a cathartic experience to overcome issues stemming from traumatic events (a kind of controlled recreation in which they are actually in control). While this may seem strange, even abhorent to many people it none the less used by many people.
Role play is very tricky. With sensitive issues such as sex or rape, it needs to be facilitated by a very experienced psychotherapist. Although it is natural for people to try and resolve experiences by acting them out in relatively safe pretend situations, this can result in a traumatic reliving of the abuse rather than a resolution of it. The problem is that people replay relationship dynamics even when they are not explicitly aware of it, and that resolution only works by a conscious awareness of, and deviation from, the usual pattern towards a more functional interaction/resolution. This essential fact is often overlooked and incompetent practitioners or well-meaning support groups can end up entrenching or reinforcing the pattern rather than resolving it.

I am therefore not sure that the comparison between recreational age-play and therapeutic role-play is a valid one. The agenda is very different. In the former, people act out fantasies that they feel comfortable and familiar with; in the latter people try to understand and change/resolve patterns of behaviour. They don't want to relive, they want to move on. It is not recreational; it is bloody hard and painful work.

Back to the whole thing of age-play. In age-play where one person plays the adult and another plays the child, the fantasy is about a sexual relationship between adult and child, which in real life would be inappropriate. Now I understand the argument that CSS involves killing people and that this, in real life, is also an inappropriate relationship to say the least. But most people do not run about in full combat uniform shooting at people, like most people do not run about with CCFL tubes pretending to be Jedi, or with tricorders waiting to be beamed up, and similarly, most people in age-play fantasies do not go about abusing children in real life. Most people understand the difference between real life and fantasy. So no harm done, no?

Mostly not. But as we all know, a few people are unhinged and not so good at making this distinction. Just as there are a few violent nutters who use CSS as "inspiration" in preparation of their real-life massacre, so there are likely to be a few child abusers who may use age-play as a rehearsal/preparation for the real thing. This does not mean that we have to pull the plug on age-play as a whole, because after all we do not feel the need to pull the plug on CSS. But neither can we live in denial of the fact that age-play, like CSS, may attract a certain brand of offender. And that is where the German police is coming from.
Bungle 16th July 2007, 20:14 Quote
Real life issues intruding on Virtual world environments seems crazy. Surely one cannot be held accountable for what goes on in an imaginary world? If the setting in second life was an alien world with non human avitars, would the case for "child abuse" still be valid in the game. If people are gonna be accountable for what they do in virtual worlds, whats next? Minority report future anyone? As Prince once said "If a man is guilty for what goes on in his mind, then I'll need the electric chair for all my future crimes". If there is real life child abuse going on, this needs to be dealt with. If it's just some sick roleplay, leave it online and don't drag it into the real world.
Hivemind187 16th July 2007, 20:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
To be honest, I've only read half of your last post. Why? Because you say you fight this arguement from both sides, which to me suggests you are either just looking for something to argue about, or you want to both have your cake and eat it - either way I get the impression your just going to go on and on. I think its evidenced by the fact that you've apparently joined only to combat me on this

As for Rape-play and role-play, etc. That wasn't what you spoke of before. Before, you mentioned ageplay specifically. I do know a bit about psychodrama and such practices, and I know about role-play being used in therapy, and I'm familiar with rapeplay to a degree, though I don't really agree that rapeplay specifically is as useful as other forms of role play. Age play however relates to the practice of using age fantasies for pleasure, not for therpeutic reasons or any type of regression. Thats why I was skeptical about its uses in therapy, it may be possible if handled rightly, but in that case it would be greatly seperated from the conventional understanding of ageplay anyway.

English Language 101 has nothing to do with whether gamers are a culture or not, it's to do with the perception of the size of the group. The industry of games etc is almost larger than the music business according to some, making it not a subculture in my mind.

As for the open discussion, well if the ageplayers don't want to make the effort to have this dialogue then they have to accept the consequences of this. If you don't tell people what you're thinking then they won't be able to read your mind and will have to ask questions/investigate in their own way to get answers.

I'm not going to continue on with these discussions however and have only attempted to clarify previous points here rather than raise new ones. I just don't see this debate doing anything but escalating.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you the prime example of premature declaration of victory.

You have unrelentingly attempted to undermine my position by making allusions etc to my character. You repeatedly state that you have "some" knowledge of these things yet any idiot with a net connection can point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_play#Inner_child_therapy which, while not exhaustive (nor by any means an authoritative source) it should give you some idea of the concept I have mentioned.

You have ignored, omitted and deliberately characterized me during this conversation as a means to justify your argument and assertion, which I have demonstrated to be wrong by means of moral equivalence.. I did not, as you put it "join to harass" you (sic) I have been reading bit-tech for ages but had no reason to say anything. The fact that you made a statement and have failed completely to justify or back it up is the reason I have argued with you.

Perhaps my last post was long but at least I had something researched to say - I veered off point but only to justify my argument.

I advise you to re-read my point on open discussion. It is the outer community who do not wish to engage in a discussion. There are numerable disclaimers, explanations, interviews etc regarding the subject yet for someone who claims to be educated you appear to have difficulty finding them. Here's a tip : www.google.com
Nexxo 16th July 2007, 20:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bungle
Real life issues intruding on Virtual world environments seems crazy. Surely one cannot be held accountable for what goes on in an imaginary world? ...If there is real life child abuse going on, this needs to be dealt with. If it's just some sick roleplay, leave it online and don't drag it into the real world.
The problem is that occasionally, it is the role players who do. South Korea set up a Virtual Crime Unit for a reason... Incidents which manage to make the headlines in particular are people killing each other in real life for a (perceived) wrong experienced in a MMORPGs.

This is my whole point. Occasionally a player blurs the boundary between reality and fantasy (remember the elf lingerie thief?). Occasionally an unbalanced player decides to act out his on-line pecadillos in real life. Age-play is not any more immune from that than any other virtual role-playing community --and that is when real-life police steps in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
I advise you to re-read my point on open discussion. It is the outer community who do not wish to engage in a discussion.
There is a discussion taking place right here. Feel free to join in. :)
Hivemind187 16th July 2007, 20:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
A play which, by your own definition, recreates a fantasy. Now I am happy to regard it as just another variation of submissive-dominant sex play with age being the variable which determines the roles. But there is the slightly uncomfortable notion in my mind that one of the usual first steps in engaging in child-abuse is overcoming internal inhibition and arousal/preparation though fantasy (usually by looking at pornographic material), and that this play could be a function of that. Which brings me to...


Actually, I am just in the process of writing a piece on this. There is a staggering amount of research that shows a direct, causal link between violent video games/movies and acted-out violence. There is an equally large body of research showing the importance of certain types of pornographic material in sex crimes. This does not mean that the material causes people to behave in such way, but that some people are predisposed to behaving in this way and use the material for stimulation and in preparation of the act. This is presumably also why, although we don't have masses of people running about acting like Jedi or Trekkies, we do have the occasional nutter who does.


Role play is very tricky. With sensitive issues such as sex or rape, it needs to be facilitated by a very experienced psychotherapist. Although it is natural for people to try and resolve experiences by acting them out in relatively safe pretend situations, this can result in a traumatic reliving of the abuse rather than a resolution of it. The problem is that people replay relationship dynamics even when they are not explicitly aware of it, and that resolution only works by a conscious awareness of, and deviation from, the usual pattern towards a more functional interaction/resolution. This essential fact is often overlooked and incompetent practitioners or well-meaning support groups can end up entrenching or reinforcing the pattern rather than resolving it.

I am therefore not sure that the comparison between recreational age-play and therapeutic role-play is a valid one. The agenda is very different. In the former, people act out fantasies that they feel comfortable and familiar with; in the latter people try to understand and change/resolve patterns of behaviour. They don't want to relive, they want to move on. It is not recreational; it is bloody hard and painful work.

Back to the whole thing of age-play. In age-play where one person plays the adult and another plays the child, the fantasy is about a sexual relationship between adult and child, which in real life would be inappropriate. Now I understand the argument that CSS involves killing people and that this, in real life, is also an inappropriate relationship to say the least. But most people do not run about in full combat uniform shooting at people, like most people do not run about with CCFL tubes pretending to be Jedi, or with tricorders waiting to be beamed up, and similarly, most people in age-play fantasies do not go about abusing children in real life. Most people understand the difference between real life and fantasy. So no harm done, no?

Mostly not. But as we all know, a few people are unhinged and not so good at making this distinction. Just as there are a few violent nutters who use CSS as "inspiration" in preparation of their real-life massacre, so there are likely to be a few child abusers who may use age-play as a rehearsal/preparation for the real thing. This does not mean that we have to pull the plug on age-play as a whole, because after all we do not feel the need to pull the plug on CSS. But neither can we live in denial of the fact that age-play, like CSS, may attract a certain brand of offender. And that is where the German police is coming from.

I agree with some of what you are saying but I disagree strongly with the rest.

Allow me to elaborate.

As it stands we must consider that things do not happen in a vacuum. This is a given. Art (and any other form of expression from painting, to movies, to music etc) cannot be produced with any substance without external influences. This is also a fact.

The extension of this is:

External influence -> expression and retelling -> Action

The position that violent imagery, sexual media etc beget action on their own is ignoring the evidence in favor of a predetermined answer.

Now I do not suggest that the odd nut-case out there will draw from the things he has seen, experienced etc but these are factors of his environment and an abusive father figure who runs down puppy's in a Mazda is as likely a cause of violent behavior as anything else. Movies, games, music, books etc are part of the environment in which such a dangerous personality develops and so are fluffy bunnys, difficult teachers, cheating girlfriends, morons in traffic and bad political decisions.

It is the fact that the subject is a dangerous sociopath (insert disorder here) that is the issue and the video games are merely incidental (I would further suggest that the type of personality we are discussing would have pre existing predilections for such material and would seek out as much as he could find).

The same principals can be applied to the issue of pedophiles. It is not contact with material that makes them a pedophile, it is the fact that they are a pedophile that makes them seek the material. While that material may exacerbate the subjects condition it is not the cause.

An analogy to this is penicillin.

Billions of doses of penicillin are administered each year. Out of which there is a small number of people (lets say 1%) who suffer adverse reaction. Of which perhaps 1% die from the reaction. This means that penicillin has a kill count of (conservatively) 10-100,000 people per year. There is not a single doctor out there who would call for an end to the prescription of penicillin based on these figures.

Compare the kill count of video games that can (spuriously) be directly attributed. Maybe 10-100 per year (a very optimistic figure). Yet there is an un -ceasing call for banning of video games, restrictions on content etc in order to cater to the 1 in 1,000,000 nutter who will imitate something he has seen.

It is putting the cart before the horse to blame media etc for the ills of the world

Further to this I would point to (cant remember his name) in Japan whose study on teenagers playing violent video games noted increased aggression after play. These results were touted by many different sources to state that the link between video games. These results were, of course, utterly useless because they failed to take into account the myriad other influences on teenagers and young people that lead to aggression such as hormonal changes, angst, diet, performance anxiety or the difficulty of the video games themselves.

While I agree that there may be some correlation between games, movies, music etc and emotional state (hardly deniable by anyone who has sat through a well produced play or a Beethoven concerto) but to suggest that these changes in emotional state are a danger to the public at large or are the root cause of anti-social or deviant behavior is, in my opinion (supported by the evidence and logic), false.

Back to age play (which is the main point). Simply stating that it is unusual is not criteria enough to warrant suspicion. The definition of unusual is far too broad especially where sexuality is concerned.

I do not pretend to be an expert in all things age-play/BDSM/Role Play/Rape play etc nor in the workings of the groups themselves however I know many people do indulge in what can only be described as cathartic fantasy. Whether it is conducive to healing or not is another matter, simply that they are extreme fantasies for sexual or lifestyle reasons is enough to validate the comparison.

There is, however, no explanation for Trekkies and Spock ears.
Amon 16th July 2007, 21:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
There is a discussion taking place right here. Feel free to join in. :)
Fair enough. I fully support what hivemind187 is pushing. You and CardJoe, on the other hand, have a tendency of making some wobbly connections and conclusions. They are fair arguments nonetheless, but simply lose their substance when you resorted to demoralizing your opposition with some disagreeable undertone.
Hivemind187 16th July 2007, 21:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
The problem is that occasionally, it is the role players who do. South Korea set up a Virtual Crime Unit for a reason... Incidents which manage to make the headlines in particular are people killing each other in real life for a (perceived) wrong experienced in a MMORPGs.

This is my whole point. Occasionally a player blurs the boundary between reality and fantasy (remember the elf lingerie thief?). Occasionally an unbalanced player decides to act out his on-line pecadillos in real life. Age-play is not any more immune from that than any other virtual role-playing community --and that is when real-life police steps in.


There is a discussion taking place right here. Feel free to join in. :)

The Shadowrun guy who was the lingerie thief? His own psychiatrist said he is just a nutter! Can't blame the game for one mad goon with a panty fetish.

As for my other comment and your invite, I was referring to the community in response to cardjoes admitted inability to read more than a half dozen lines without being distracted.
Hivemind187 16th July 2007, 21:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amon
Fair enough. I fully support what hivemind187 is pushing. You and CardJoe, on the other hand, have a tendency of making some wobbly connections and conclusions. They are fair arguments nonetheless, but simply lose their substance when you resorted to demoralizing your opposition with some disagreeable undertone.

Thanks, nicely put.
Nexxo 16th July 2007, 21:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amon
Fair enough. I fully support what hivemind187 is pushing. You and CardJoe, on the other hand, have a tendency of making some wobbly connections and conclusions. They are fair arguments nonetheless, but simply lose their substance when you resorted to demoralizing your opposition with some disagreeable undertone.
I distincly remember not demoralising the "opposition" (who is that, anyway?), or making any disparaging remarks about anyone particular in this discussion. Furthermore, I think you are both getting the wrong end of the stick (crap; I thought I was being so clear...). OK, here goes.

I am empathically NOT saying that age-play creates child abuse, like I am frequently saying that CSS does not create school shootings, and violent films or games do not creat psychopaths. There is a large body of scientific evidence that violence in games and films is associated with subsequent aggressive behaviour (albeit for a given value of aggression --going postal has not yet been recreated under experimental conditions). Similarly there is a large body of evidence that sex offenders use pornographic material to "work up to" their committing the act. As I said in my previous post:
Quote:
This does not mean that the material causes people to behave in such way, but that some people are predisposed to behaving in this way and use the material for stimulation and in preparation of the act.

No surprises there, really; people will seek out what stimulates them, and use it to stimulate them. The above studies (as I frequently point out) tend not to make very clear this direction of the relationship: that violent psychopaths simply like violent games, and sex offenders like certain types of pornograpy. What the studies tend to focus on is the other direction of the association: that these people may use such media to stimulate them to commit their acts. As you yourself say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
I It is the fact that the subject is a dangerous sociopath (insert disorder here) that is the issue and the video games are merely incidental (I would further suggest that the type of personality we are discussing would have pre existing predilections for such material and would seek out as much as he could find).

The same principals can be applied to the issue of pedophiles. It is not contact with material that makes them a pedophile, it is the fact that they are a pedophile that makes them seek the material. While that material may exacerbate the subjects condition it is not the cause.

It is a reasonable assumption that paedophiles will gravitate towards virtual age-play worlds to act out their fantasies. This does not make all age-players paedophiles, in the same way that not all CSS players are violent psychopaths or all firemen potential arsonists. I am not blaming the games (I thought I had made very clear), nor the people that generally indulge in them. I am just saying that certain types of nutter will gravitate towards certain types of games, and that this is where the German police are coming from when they investigate age-play sites for sex offenders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
Compare the kill count of video games that can (spuriously) be directly attributed. Maybe 10-100 per year (a very optimistic figure). Yet there is an un -ceasing call for banning of video games, restrictions on content etc in order to cater to the 1 in 1,000,000 nutter who will imitate something he has seen.

It is putting the cart before the horse to blame media etc for the ills of the world

While I agree that there may be some correlation between games, movies, music etc and emotional state (hardly deniable by anyone who has sat through a well produced play or a Beethoven concerto) but to suggest that these changes in emotional state are a danger to the public at large or are the root cause of anti-social or deviant behavior is, in my opinion (supported by the evidence and logic), false.
Again, as I said:
Quote:
This does not mean that we have to pull the plug on age-play as a whole, because after all we do not feel the need to pull the plug on CSS. But neither can we live in denial of the fact that age-play, like CSS, may attract a certain brand of offender. And that is where the German police is coming from.
Hells_Bliss 16th July 2007, 21:44 Quote
Child abuse in any form should be punished by having the guy sit in the biggest bubba's lap for an unlubed hershy ride, followed by castration and then executed with the most cruel and unusual punishment known to man. Somebody who does this is taking a child's innocence, their childhood is ruined because some F***er couldn't keep it in his pants.
Nexxo 16th July 2007, 21:48 Quote
Er... a bit non-sequitor, Hells Bliss.
Hells_Bliss 16th July 2007, 21:54 Quote
well, i never could read War and Peace to the end, so it's not like I'm going to read this whole thread :P Point is, Child abuse in any form shouldn't be tolerated regardless if its just "fantasy" That's a line you just don't cross IMO.
DeX 16th July 2007, 21:55 Quote
Hehe, isn't it great to have a nice long big discussion like this to try to establish some sort of consensus only to have someone take absolutely no notice of it. Sigh... freedom speech just doesn't work if people won't listen.

Edit: Also isn't it great that we can have opinions without knowing why we have them. Hells bliss, if you try to rationalise your opinion I think you'll find you'll either base it on more general opinions, or you'll just come across some of the issues raised already in this thread.
Nexxo 16th July 2007, 22:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
The Shadowrun guy who was the lingerie thief? His own psychiatrist said he is just a nutter! Can't blame the game for one mad goon with a panty fetish.
I indeed mentioned certain examples of nutters to emphasise that this is the issue: most people can keep virtual pretend and real life seperate quite easily, but occasionally people can't because they are nutters. And certain nutters gravitate to certain virtual fantasies for reasons often quite specific to them, and not shared by other (sane) people indulging in the same fantasy. That is where the problem lies.
oddball walking 16th July 2007, 22:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeX
freedom speech just doesn't work if people won't listen.
;)
Hells_Bliss 16th July 2007, 22:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeX
Hehe, isn't it great to have a nice long big discussion like this to try to establish some sort of consensus only to have someone take absolutely no notice of it. Sigh... freedom speech just doesn't work if people won't listen.

Edit: Also isn't it great that we can have opinions without knowing why we have them. Hells bliss, if you try to rationalise your opinion I think you'll find you'll either base it on more general opinions, or you'll just come across some of the issues raised already in this thread.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/4192/untitled44ah1.png
Hells_Bliss 16th July 2007, 22:15 Quote
why would I need to rationalize something that is considered morally, socially, and personally unacceptable (oh and legally too)? Do you dispute the fact that abusing a child has an adverse impact on their lives? Do you dispute that acting out something like child abuse is not in any way acceptable?
Firehed 16th July 2007, 22:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I am empathically NOT saying that age-play creates child abuse, like I am frequently saying that CSS does not create school shootings, and violent films or games do not creat psychopaths. There is a large body of scientific evidence that violence in games and films is associated with subsequent aggressive behaviour (albeit for a given value of aggression --going postal has not yet been recreated under experimental conditions). Similarly there is a large body of evidence that sex offenders use pornographic material to "work up to" their committing the act.
So, in short, the crazies use the "simulations" to prepare for the real act. The rest of the world treats it as what it's supposed to be - harmless entertainment.

Right?

As I've voiced in other threads that venture into this murky territory, society places way too much value on age when trying to criminalize otherwise-legal acts. Yes, we've defined 18 to be adult. Does that indicate that a 17-year-old doesn't know what s/he is getting into, just because s/he is under the magic age? I should think not. Sure, there's a point, but it's psycological, not age-based, as I'm sure our resident shrink would agree with. I'd suggest closer to the 11-13 age, but I'm no expert. Regardless, it appears beside the point as it sounds like it's all consenting adults just pretending with no actual children involved so it's a non-issue. If actual CP images are trading hands - see above.
Spaceraver 16th July 2007, 22:18 Quote
This reminds me of the old interview thingie:

>Thanks to the office of Rep. Edward Royce, California Republican,
>for sending us the following excerpt from a local radio interview.
>The female newscaster is interviewing the leader of a youth club:
>
>Interviewer: "So, Mr. Jones, what are you going to do with these
> children on this adventure holiday?"
>Mr. Jones: "We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery,
> shooting."
>
>Interviewer: "Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?"
>Mr. Jones: "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the
> range."
>
>Interviewer: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous
> activity to be teaching children?"
>Mr. Jones: "I don't see how, we will be teaching them proper
> range discipline before they even touch a firearm."
>
>Interviewer: "But you're equipping them to become violent killers."
>Mr. Jones: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're
> not one, are you?"
>
>End of the interview.
>

See where im getting at??
Hivemind187 16th July 2007, 22:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I indeed mentioned certain examples of nutters to emphasise that this is the issue: most people can keep virtual pretend and real life seperate quite easily, but occasionally people can't because they are nutters. And certain nutters gravitate to certain virtual fantasies for reasons often quite specific to them, and not shared by other (sane) people indulging in the same fantasy. That is where the problem lies.

Fair enough. I think it was the way you phrazed it. I took it that you were implying that the choice of recreational material dictates later behavior as a root cause.

I have no problem with certain materials being sought out by a nutter to indulge and reinforce whatever twisted fantasies he has. I do have a problem with the claim that games, movies etc are "responsible" for behavior

I think we can agree on that nu?
Hivemind187 16th July 2007, 22:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hells_Bliss
why would I need to rationalize something that is considered morally, socially, and personally unacceptable (oh and legally too)? Do you dispute the fact that abusing a child has an adverse impact on their lives? Do you dispute that acting out something like child abuse is not in any way acceptable?

Go back and read the rest of the thread. You are just embarrassing yourself now.
Firehed 16th July 2007, 22:21 Quote
Quote:

So? If you're going to be an informed participant, then read it. If not, it's unlikely that you'll be able to contribute much to the discussion. I've read the whole thread in the last few minutes, and written a response to a post or two. It's not difficult. Please don't go on about people needing to rationalize the issue when you can't even rationalize reading the whole thread?
Hivemind187 16th July 2007, 22:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaceraver
This reminds me of the old interview thingie:

>Thanks to the office of Rep. Edward Royce, California Republican,
>for sending us the following excerpt from a local radio interview.
>The female newscaster is interviewing the leader of a youth club:
>
>Interviewer: "So, Mr. Jones, what are you going to do with these
> children on this adventure holiday?"
>Mr. Jones: "We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery,
> shooting."
>
>Interviewer: "Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?"
>Mr. Jones: "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the
> range."
>
>Interviewer: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous
> activity to be teaching children?"
>Mr. Jones: "I don't see how, we will be teaching them proper
> range discipline before they even touch a firearm."
>
>Interviewer: "But you're equipping them to become violent killers."
>Mr. Jones: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're
> not one, are you?"
>
>End of the interview.
>

See where im getting at??

I cant believe I find myself agreeing with as republic *spit spit spit*
DeX 16th July 2007, 23:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by oddball walking
;)

Great, trust me to make a typo in something that someone then quotes in their sig. Please add the of after freedom so my stupidity and hypocrisy (given what's in my sig) is not broadcast to the entire forum. :p
Amon 16th July 2007, 23:08 Quote
I guess the debate is over. Even with the varied views on the same issue, we can probably all agree that 'ageplay' in Second Life (or any other virtual universe) is:
  • often a misinterpreted role as a whole and sometimes wrongly connotatively viewed
  • sometimes an antecedent to pedophilia
  • an intentional semblance using the anonymity afforded by the Internet for some personal endeavor (with a good intent, we hope)
DeX 16th July 2007, 23:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hells_Bliss
why would I need to rationalize something that is considered morally, socially, and personally unacceptable (oh and legally too)? Do you dispute the fact that abusing a child has an adverse impact on their lives? Do you dispute that acting out something like child abuse is not in any way acceptable?

Do you realise how crazy what you have said sounds? Are you going to believe anything just because it is socially accepted? In any case, fantasizing about child abuse is not considered morally or socially unacceptable and hence it is not legally unacceptable (in most places) either. Of course the line between fantasy and reality may be a bit blurry for some people and that is partly what this thread is about. If you read the main bulk of this thread we are indeed disputing that virtual child abuse is acceptable/unacceptable. The other part has been to do with how unwilling a lot of people are to debate the issue and how most people's opinions on the subject are apparently formed due to their ignorance of the subject. Then you come along and slap all the painstakingly thought out arguments in the face by not even glancing through them. There's no point in starting up the debate again so if you want an answer to your questions, come back after you've at least read the first couple of pages.
Nexxo 17th July 2007, 00:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hells_Bliss
why would I need to rationalize something that is considered morally, socially, and personally unacceptable (oh and legally too)? Do you dispute the fact that abusing a child has an adverse impact on their lives? Do you dispute that acting out something like child abuse is not in any way acceptable?

Kind of not what we were discussing here. Hence the "non-sequitur" comment. Good night!
CardJoe 17th July 2007, 08:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the prime example of premature declaration of victory.

You have unrelentingly attempted to undermine my position by making allusions etc to my character. You repeatedly state that you have "some" knowledge of these things yet any idiot with a net connection can point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_play#Inner_child_therapy which, while not exhaustive (nor by any means an authoritative source) it should give you some idea of the concept I have mentioned.

You have ignored, omitted and deliberately characterized me during this conversation as a means to justify your argument and assertion, which I have demonstrated to be wrong by means of moral equivalence.. I did not, as you put it "join to harass" you (sic) I have been reading bit-tech for ages but had no reason to say anything. The fact that you made a statement and have failed completely to justify or back it up is the reason I have argued with you.

Perhaps my last post was long but at least I had something researched to say - I veered off point but only to justify my argument.

I advise you to re-read my point on open discussion. It is the outer community who do not wish to engage in a discussion. There are numerable disclaimers, explanations, interviews etc regarding the subject yet for someone who claims to be educated you appear to have difficulty finding them. Here's a tip : www.google.com

No, I've not. And no, I won't. As I said, I could continue to discuss this much longer and if I wanted to then I would do as you say and come back with more points. I've simply had too many arguements along these lines on other forums before and I know they never end, so I'm bowing out at early stages of boredom. I'm not proclaiming victory, and bear in mind that if I really wanted it then I could edit your posts, close the thread and ban the account. I'm simply taking my leave and allowing other people to make their points.

Also, just because I have some knowledge of psychotherapy doesn't mean I know everything about it, so gaps in my knowledge are to be expected. As for vilifying you, I haven't intended to but it does appear that you came here only to argue - which is fine, but I don't have to argue back anymore if I don't want to. My assumptions that you were an ageplayer and that you joined to argue may have been wrong, and I apologise if thats the case, but given your arguement it was a reasonable assumption to make.

As I said, I'm not interested in discussing this any further, but Nexxo is an intelligent guy with greater knowledge than I and, from what I see, he's giving the same points as I was , albeit more successfully. I have work to do now.
Hivemind187 17th July 2007, 10:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
No, I've not. And no, I won't. As I said, I could continue to discuss this much longer and if I wanted to then I would do as you say and come back with more points. I've simply had too many arguements along these lines on other forums before and I know they never end, so I'm bowing out at early stages of boredom. I'm not proclaiming victory, and bear in mind that if I really wanted it then I could edit your posts, close the thread and ban the account. I'm simply taking my leave and allowing other people to make their points.

Also, just because I have some knowledge of psychotherapy doesn't mean I know everything about it, so gaps in my knowledge are to be expected. As for vilifying you, I haven't intended to but it does appear that you came here only to argue - which is fine, but I don't have to argue back anymore if I don't want to. My assumptions that you were an ageplayer and that you joined to argue may have been wrong, and I apologise if thats the case, but given your arguement it was a reasonable assumption to make.

As I said, I'm not interested in discussing this any further, but Nexxo is an intelligent guy with greater knowledge than I and, from what I see, he's giving the same points as I was , albeit more successfully. I have work to do now.

Frankly, it is extremely unprofessional to make statements like this. Bit-Tech have a reasonable reputation as an impartial source for hardware/software review and industry news - personal comments and unprofessional attitudes damage this and undermine any authoritative position.

You have;

Twice made allegation about my sexual practices - a petty, childish and frankly libelous thing to do when you are a staff member of a firm.

Made veiled threats to abuse your power as a staff member by deleting the accoutns of people (me) who have a differing opinion which they wish to express on a particular topic.

Implied that I have joined the forums to specifically start a fight with you, an arrogant and self induglent position to take, especially after I explained my reasons for joining and posting on this specific thread.

Stated you do not wish to read posts and have used this as the basis for dismissing other peoples (my) point of view.

All in all, your conduct has been highly questionable at best and outright libelous and offensive at worst. If you are a member of staff for a group or a company or a firm etc please try to maintain a professional decorum with the punters for your sake, that of Bit-Tech and those who wish to have discussions in an open and frank manner.

Lastly, on a personal note, if someone takes the time to respond to you then you should have the common decency to at least read what they have written before formulating a reply it saves you looking foolish and shows at least a base level of politeness one should be able to expect from a member of staff.
Hivemind187 17th July 2007, 10:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amon
I guess the debate is over. Even with the varied views on the same issue, we can probably all agree that 'ageplay' in Second Life (or any other virtual universe) is:
  • often a misinterpreted role as a whole and sometimes wrongly connotatively viewed
  • sometimes an antecedent to pedophilia
  • an intentional semblance using the anonymity afforded by the Internet for some personal endeavor (with a good intent, we hope)

I'm not sure I agree with antecedant. I would view it as a predatory individual using it as camoflage or a proving ground but not as the precursor of later behavior.

That was my original point (or part of). Consumption of "entertainment materials" does not dictate future crimes. It is psychological and genetic predisposition towards criminal or violent activity that preceeds later offences.

The rest of it is fine.
Nexxo 17th July 2007, 12:35 Quote
I would amend point 2 with:
  • Occasionally (ab)used as stimulation in the context of paedophilia

As Hivemind187 says, the predisposition (and I would ague, the intention) is already there.
CardJoe 17th July 2007, 14:24 Quote
Ok, due to the nature of your last post, I shall re-enter the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187

Twice made allegation about my sexual practices - a petty, childish and frankly libelous thing to do when you are a staff member of a firm.

No, I didn't. Read my words carefully and you'll see that I did not allege anything, merely infered that it was an assumption I was making based on your apparent support of it. I have also never condemned it as a practice, merely suggested it require investigation. I've also already apologised for this mistake publicly on the forums, believing it to be a reasonable mistake to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187

Made veiled threats to abuse your power as a staff member by deleting the accoutns of people (me) who have a differing opinion which they wish to express on a particular topic.

Again, no I didn't. I simply said that it was something I could have done if I had wanted to - as you acused - declare a hollow victory. I did not, nor will I ever abuse my position for anything other than free games ;). In fact, even when I announced I did not want to respond in this debate anymore, I left the thread open and encouraged others to join in. I think this is something which needs discussion - something I have said all along - I just don't want a place in the discussion any longer for various reasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
Implied that I have joined the forums to specifically start a fight with you, an arrogant and self induglent position to take, especially after I explained my reasons for joining and posting on this specific thread.

Yes, I said that, but not before you stated that you had been reading bit-tech for a while and had only joined the forum to discuss this. However, given that you created a new account solely for this thread and have not (AFAIK) posted anywhere else, I feel it is an understandable mistake to make. Still, apologies for making the mistake at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
Stated you do not wish to read posts and have used this as the basis for dismissing other peoples (my) point of view.

Yes, I said I no longer wished to read your posts, though I did not use it to dismiss your views. Your views are your own and you can do what you will with them on these forums, within the guidelines. In fact, all I said was that I no longer wanted to continue my role in this debate. If anything, I was concedeing defeat through exhaustion. You can do what you will with your views, but you can't force me to listen and it goes against your own arguements to say you can. I did not try to silence you at all, I merely bowed out of the arena of debate for previously stated reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind187
All in all, your conduct has been highly questionable at best and outright libelous and offensive at worst. If you are a member of staff for a group or a company or a firm etc please try to maintain a professional decorum with the punters for your sake, that of Bit-Tech and those who wish to have discussions in an open and frank manner.

Lastly, on a personal note, if someone takes the time to respond to you then you should have the common decency to at least read what they have written before formulating a reply it saves you looking foolish and shows at least a base level of politeness one should be able to expect from a member of staff.

I'm sorry you feel this way. Consider this a public apology. However, I have been very careful in what I have said and do not belive it to be libellous - we were after all discussing hypotheticals mostly and, when not, discussing groups you do not belong too.

I myself have tried to encourage open and frank discussion - it has been the single thing I have said ageplayers need with other groups, in fact.

As for reading your posts, well I did give you advanced warning that I would be bowing out and, while it is common courtesy to listen, I'm not condemnable for not doing so fully, especially when notice has been given beforehand. I apologise if I came across as rude, but nobody has the right not to be offended and I feel I have no given a full and frank apology; if not then I'm sorry again.

I will not be participating in any more discussions to do with ageplay and if you wish to discuss this matter further then you may contact me through e-mail at joe.martin@bit-tech.net, as all readers are invited to do. I will be keeping an eye on this thread of course, as I do not believe it is the correct place to air rivalries between members of staff and readers. You are obviously still free to dicuss ageplay with others however, a right we would never take away.

I hope this misunderstanding will not stop others from reading bit-tech in the future, as we have a strong and steady community here and feedback is always welcome to help us guide the site in the manner the community wants.
Hivemind187 17th July 2007, 14:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I would amend point 2 with:
  • Occasionally (ab)used as stimulation in the context of paedophilia

As Hivemind187 says, the predisposition (and I would ague, the intention) is already there.

Works for me.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums