Ageplay theory

I started that on the forums, but the thread got closed. Meanwhile, I think the discussion I started has merit and is not idle theorising, because it demonstrates gaping holes in logic.

Second Life Terms of Service do not, as such, say anything about the subject of ageplay. It refers you to the Community Standards, which, as written, do not contain the word ‘ageplay’ either. In fact, never in those two documents are the words ‘age’ and ‘sex’ encountered in the same sentence. So whatever policy exists in place forbidding sexual ageplay, it is not stated clearly anywhere a rank resident may read it or even know it’s forbidden.

The consensus in various resident discourse has been that any person wearing a child avatar and simultaneously engaging in any activity that can be termed sexual, for example, animating their avatar in a lewd manner, is committing an offense against TOS, even though that is not stated clearly in any official source I don’t have to search the deep web for. But, this behavior is hardly atomic. What sexual ageplay in SL context is? Is it creating an image to be seen by someone else, consuming an image that has been created by yourself in cooperation with someone else, seeing an image created by someone else, or what? To clarify, let us consider the following set of hypothetical situations…

Situation 1: Suppose a person creates two accounts, A and B. That same person dresses up both as child avatars. Then the hypothetical perpetrator sets up an MLP-based animation device full of animations of sexual nature in a private region where no visitors are allowed. The animation device is set up in such a way as to be triggerable from chat commands.

Then they use Metabolt or another non-graphical client to log in both avatars and proceed to seat them onto the poseballs and engage in a sexual animation that even the owner themselves doesn’t see, and nobody else can observe since the region is private, except a hypothetical God-Mode Linden, who may or may not be present, and there is no way for the owner of the two nongraphical clients to know they’re there.

Situation 2: Same as situation 1. But let’s assume that instead of Metabolt, pure uncontrolled preprogrammed bots are used to connect, that can only sit down on two specially marked poseballs and nothing else. An LSL script is used to randomly cycle poseball pairs in the MLP device, and the device contains 50 purely innocent pose pairs and 1 pose pair of sexual nature. The cycling happens once, say, every hour.

The MLP device is set to silent mode — this way, at no time the owner of the bots may be aware what animation is being played right now. Since the animations are switched through server-side scripting, the owner literally has no control over whether the bots ever appear in a sexual ageplay scene, and the probability of it happening in any given day once is 47%. Mind you, the owner of the bots makes a point not to visit the bots to observe them, and makes sure nobody but a God-Mode Linden can do this.

Situation 1A: Same as situation 1. But now A is the owner of that account connecting with a normal client and viewing the animation as it occurs.

Situation 2A: Same as situation 2. But now A is the owner of the account connecting with a normal client and viewing the animation as it occurs, glued to the screen.

Situation 2B: Same as situation 2. But now A is the owner of the account, connecting with a normal client and not viewing the animation as it occurs, being busy around the house with something else.

Situation 3: A much more realistic and less scientifically rigid version now… Let us assume that a perpetrator has set up a system of camping chairs in a public mall, that are using an animation engine to animate avatars in innocent couple animations, like playing chess. At some point, a bot, B, dressed up as an adult avatar, sits on one of the couple poseballs. A few minutes later, a user, A, dressed up as a child avatar, sits on the other one. The multipose system used for the camping chair was made by adapting a sex bed, and the maker opted to keep the original sex animations intact. Due to a bug in the code, at a random point with an undetermined chance, the system may make A and B engage in a lewd animation. A is present at the keyboard as it happens, but is not aware that they may stop it by teleporting out.

Situation 3A: Same as situation 3. But now, A, dressed up as a child avatar, sits on a poseball first, and for a while has no idea a bot, B, might ever join them.

Situation 3B: Same as situation 3. But A, being an expert camper, is not present at the keyboard as a lewd animation happens, busy with something else entirely.

Situation 4: A common chair with an embedded pose is maliciously modified to request and keep animation permissions of the sitter with a separately introduced script. Since the scripts in objects sat upon are given permissions implicitly, the user is unaware that it happens. At a random time, if the person who was sitting on the chair but now isn’t, is still present in the sim, they are being animated in a lewd manner. A user, A, wearing a child avatar, sits on the chair to check out the pose, stands up and hangs out in other shops in the same sim, when the malicious script triggers.

Situation 4A: Same, but A was wearing an adult avatar at the time they sat on the chair, but purchased a child avatar shape, skin and clothing while still being in the sim, and wore them to check them out before the malicious animation triggered.

Which of these situations have sexual ageplay being committed as subject to an Abuse Report? Who exactly is committing it when, and who should be reported as the perpetrator? How exactly would their guilt be determined? Who has the burden of proof that any wrongdoing was committed? I must remind you — “There’s nothing objectionable nor illegal in having a child-like avatar in itself and we must assume innocence until proof of the contrary.” — Lewis PR Linden.

And most importantly, why, if it’s so easy to deliberately mislead a person wearing a child avatar into a situation which would be so questionable, and where they would have no control over ending up in it, are they actually presumed guilty by a rank resident that Abuse Reports them, and by a Linden that suspends them before actually checking if any wrongdoing occurred?!

Fun. I really should find professor Stanley Cohen — the gentleman is still alive and well, I hear — and ask his opinion on this particular moral panic. But I bet he’s crying his eyes out now.

Because I almost am.