This is a tricky subject. While pedophilia is certainly damaging to all involved, I'm torn about this in Second Life. It's certainly something I would never do, but if people are able to get their sick fantasies realized through pixels and polygons instead of kidnapped and abusing children to post online, it might be a lesser of two evils situation.

Kind of like how some cities (Not in the US, though SF is trying) provide safe and clean places for drug addicts to shoot up so that they don't OD and die, and can get some help. They're doing unsavory things, but they're only doing it in a way that harms themselves, and no one else.

Now I feel disgusting for writing something that kind of supports online pedophilia. Gross.

.... -_-

Oh please. This is as bad as that pico-chat report.

Delicious.

That's all kinds of messed up. You could say that it's better that they're doing it online instead of in the real world but it doesn't make any of this better.

So Manhunt 2 has a highly fictional story of someone being hunted for game and Second Life has people fucking children and horses... some cunt needs to straighten out their gaming morals.

@Max - well, it's not UNhealthy at the very least. It does happen a lot more than people would like to believe. Most people just resist the urge and never act out on it in any way, except fantasy. I could ask my Psychology-major sister about it though, she would know better.

Onto the story... they JUST found this? Fuck, they're slow at this then. It's kinda obvious you'll find something like this on SL if there are enough furries running around that you can find areas specifically for babyfurs, among other things. There are far more disturbing things to find on SL, probably including people distributing REAL child porn, instead of this faux-CP. This is my educated opinion from past experience with the "game."

I think a lot of people are realising that Manhunt is almost as sick as this. The only reason that Manhunt isn't as sick as this is because you're not killing people for no reason. but then I guess these young girls aren't exactly getting raped so maybe Manhunt is sicker.

The thing is, I really want to play Manhunt 2 and I would pay not to have to play Second Life and do stuff with little girls. What does that say about us as people?

What does that say about us a species???

@Luca

There's a fairly evenhanded article about pedophiles here. I think my point is that adults who are sexually attracted to children are not well, psychologically, physiologically, or often both. Teenage boys who have violent instincts are responding to sharply increased testosterone levels, which is common, natural, and temporary.

If we can assume people who go on Second Life to have virtual sex with children are not completely well, I would suggest treatment to deal with these impulses rather than relying on the unproven "release valve" theory of therapy.

@Caffeinepowered
Lowls!

Via Fox News! Fair and Balanced!

This might get some people mad, but I'm going to lay it all out so people can have some stuff to think about.

Many people who are bashing this faux-cp sex acts on second life, are probably the same people who have boatloads of shota or loli manga in their C:/.

Setting that aside, I think its horrible that real cp is being distributed in Secondlife, and Linden Labs should try their best to stop this from happening. I know the idea of virtual 12 year olds having sex with virtual adults is sickening, but I'm rather Linden Labs spent their time actually stopping real cp in their "game". The same goes with law enforcement. I do not support virtual cp, nor do i look favorably to loli or shota manga, but real cp is where my real anger goes too.

Now that I got that off my chest. I want bring up and issue thats been running through my mind.

Now most states in the US consider having sex with animals illegal. Yet there is nothing morally, or legally wrong with people dressing up as animals having sex with each other. There is also no problem with porn stars dressing up as little schoogirls getting themselves violated. If anybody seen any jp porn the girls defintely look underage, but they are really not (completely legal). There is an understanding that these girls are all legal in age and therefore the act is between consenting adults.

Now lets bring this real-life CP cosplay into the virtual realm. Although its disgusting, but having virtual sex with a unicorn is not wrong. In a way that person is dressing up virtually as a unicorn. How is that any different from a person dressing up virtually as a 12 year old girl having virtual sex with a 42 year old male avatar. Although disgusting, is this wrong? How is it any different from the multitude of porn movies depicting 18 year old girls as innocent underage virgins dressed like little girls?

I don't have an answer to my own questions, but its bothering me for some time concerning what responsibilities we have in the virtual world and how should we translate our morals and legal laws into the virtual realm. Is it ok to dress up virtually like a 12 year old girl eventhough your a 24 year old male, and have virtual sex with a complete stranger who is also over the age? I really don't have an answer to that.

This is just like the episode of Law and Order: SVU. The one about Another YOUniverse (aka Second Life). The basic conclusion: the only real problem with this is the possibility of someone transferring their activities from virtual to real life.

It seems like a valid point to say that the point of Second Life is not to virtually perform illegal acts, while that is the point of games like Manhunt. But really, this doesn't matter. You have to make just as much effort to buy and play Manhunt and you do to buy and play the (virtual) illegal parts of Second Life.

Max:

Interesting. I hope it makes good on that.

->Rorschach: Thems american laws, and being not american, I give less than a fuck about them. Besides, do you really believe legality is the same as morality? If the only reason you don't commit rape or murder or muggery etc. is that you're afraid of being punished by the law, then I think you've got problems anyway.

->MaxVest: Interesting, it very troubling article. But considering public opinion, asking a paedophile to identify themselves would be asking them to become a pariah. With today's climate of intolerance, I'd imagine most would be too terrified to come forward, even if they wanted help. Hopefully this will change, but in the mean time I firmly believe that fantasising in order to relieve sexual tension is not unhealthy, as long as the person knows where the fantasy ends. If someone told you that you could never have sex with a woman again(assuming you're a heterosexual male) for the rest of your life, don't you think it would be easier to cope if you at least had some porn?

Now, I'm no fan of pedophilia (which is a great way to start any sentence, by the way), but I don't think Linden should do anything. No minor is being hurt here, assuming that the people in question really aren't under 18. If Linden allows stuff like Unicorn sex, then it really can't go disallowing other extreme forms of digital fantasy.

Pedophilia is a disease and a sickness and it should, ideally, be "fixed" or taken care of in a person, whatever that involves. HOWEVER, at least they're only indulging digitally and, hopefully, not acting out in reality. Small comfort, but at least it's something.

ew.

There's nothing to say that hasn't already been said, but I'll just agree with Jim on this one, no matter how wrong .. taboo the fantasy is.

But still, ew.

@brad drac:
I would indeed like some porn, and also hope that they didn't tell everybody else to knock it off, because heterosexual intercourse is a handy way to perpetuate the species.

I'm not saying that other sexual orientations are morally wrong, just that the argument of necessity is a good one. One could speculate that male homosexuality is an advantageous but not necessary genetic adaptation. Since each boy born from the same mother bears a higher probability of homosexuality than the last, perhaps these boys are destined to become a tribal "rear guard" (no puns intended) that protects the women (but won't impregnate them) when the main hunters/warriors leave for battle. But I just totally theorized, so who knows? However, a basic cost/benefit analysis weighs heavily against pedophilia. The major drawback to forbidding it entirely is that treatable personalities may not come forth, and instead get worse.

@Dexter345

It seems, from all media and historical evidence, that people do think killing others is acceptable. I'm not defending it, but just looking at a show of hands.

Not to say we're all cavemen, but perhaps it comes from the fact that we have a long tradition of killing animals for food and other people for our own safety. Most men are also familiar with the testosterone rush of adolescence. But most people don't have pedophilic urges, and it accomplishes nothing positive, so it's pretty easy to condemn it unequivocally.

@Dexter
What's the point that you are trying to make? Are you saying that we can't critisise simualted child sex because we simulate murder in our video games?
Dude, are you serious? There is a world of difference between the two. On the one hand, we rational, mentally healthy individuals playing video games that are clearly fantasy. On the other, you have people who are clearly in need of help, acting out a fantasy in a very immersive virtual world. The first group, by nature of the fact that they are able to distinguish between reality and a video game, will never act out what they have been playing and murder someone.
But the second group, a group that is clearly mentally ill, are clearly more likely to act out the fantasy that they have been playing online. I'm not saying all of them will, but if even only 1% of them act it out, then the gaming industry clearly has a moral obligation to shut this shit down.

[19:56] jimothy_sterling: You know, people say Second Life sucks. It doesn't, it's just fundamentally flawed ... it requires people. and *people* suck

That was beautiful.

For people who equate violence with the child porn, consider this:

How many people do you know who play violent games - first person shooters, RPGs, whatever floats their boat. How many people do you know who watch violent movies? How many of them, HONESTLY, are people you think would really want to commit those acts? Not shit like hitting someone back if they punch him first, but I mean, blowing up building, executions, that kind of thing? Probably very few. Games and movies with violence are a valid entertainment form. Most people can watch those and have no trouble distinguishing that it's not okay to do those things.

Now - how many friends do you have who watch child porn? How many friends do you have who get off on the thought of doing illicit things with a 12 or 13 year-old (or hell, as young as the 10 year-olds mentioned in the story)? Probably not many, at least that YOU know about. What would you do if you discovered your friend HAD child porn? Would you shrug and say, "Eh, no different than violent video games, doesn't mean he'd actually do something like that." No, you wouldn't. Or, at least I hope you wouldn't.

Thing is, I think the human psyche HAS a capacity for violence in games and movies, at LEAST where there's a point - is there a story behind it? Does it make sense to incorporate it INTO the story? Is there something else amongst the violence that validates the story? I've played violent games like Half-Life, Quake, Mortal Kombat - no matter HOW improbable the scenarios were, at least there was a point to the game. There was a story: Mortal Kombat is based around a tournament of fighters, Half-Life deals with an experiment gone wrong, etc.

What POSSIBLE story is there to . . . having children perform sex acts? Where is there any artistic merit whatsoever? I'm not saying Manhunt is the pinnacle of human expression, but you're telling me you don't think that a grown adult wishing to see normally non-sexualized beings put in sexual scenarios implies a direct problem with that person? Non "desensitization", but a general admittance that it's okay to be turned on by that? Because I'll tell you right now, they're doing it for no other reason. There's no story, there's no "fun" - they're doing it to get off. They're doing it to circumvent necessary bans on actual child pornography (because THAT I can certainly support bans on - a child has to be abused in the process of making child pornography, it's basically evidence of a real crime).

There's still a lot of back-and-forth on the "virtual" child porn question. Tell you this much, though - I wouldn't spend one thin DIME on a subscription to a game that allowed that kind of shit. I'd like to think most decent people would agree and withdraw their funds until some basic, lowest common denominator of decency is established.

The problem with your argument Bioautographical, is that your equating virtual cp to real cp. If you want to compare it to the issue of video game violence, having your friend have real cp is akin to having your friend owning a couple of guns and a list of people he wants to shoot. You would be just as worried in such a situation.

However I do agree that no money should be given to those companies who support virtual cp. I don't believe virtual cp is illegal, but as consumers we have the right to display our misgivings concerning the type of product being sold to the market such as through boycotts.