Towards the back end of March Diane posted up something about the (now discontinued) Orgy Nights at Commune Utopia, which elicited the following response from another website.

“Orgy night?” Aside from being pretty bizarre that folks could enjoy such a masturbatory virtual experience, it appalls us that you would include such personal idiosyncrasies/tastes on a site which purports to promote mainstream social nudism. It’s possible to separate the two, you know, and not to confuse those new to social nudism by presenting your own personal persuasions as part of our larger community. We expected better from you.

For those new to social nudism, whether SL or RL, please do NOT think that this in any way represents mainstream social nudism! We do NOT have orgies; exactly the opposite! We are a family-based community that arbors this sort of thing! As we thought SLN did.

What individuals do on their own time, AWAY FROM US, is their business. To pretend that this in any way represents the millions of us who know better is reprehensible and sickening.

SL Naturists, you had better have a damn good explanation for this disgusting posting or you can expect to be deleted from everything we’ve done to promote you, never to be shared again on our network, and definately to be excoriated in an upcoming article on All-Nudist.com. And we’re damn good at trashing those we don’t like!

Did somebody there eat some funny mushrooms or what?

This article and our response (already written) is hitting the Web big-time tomorrow, lacking a suitable response. It better be good, and you better hope that we’ll see it before publishing.

A bit threatening in delivery? I thought so at the time, and still think it now.

I had hoped that the issue would be closed, but it appears to be something that continues to vex you, the readers. I said two weeks ago that I was not going to publish any further comments on the matter because several had become quite abusive towards the website in question. As far as I was concerned the issue was over and done with. I responded on the website in question by saying that I felt it was better that links were severed, as our editorial policy would not be dictated by anyone else. I said that no-one had appointed anyone as God of all internet naturist discussion, and that we would take our own time to respond and to assess how best to move forward. I said that any conclusions would remain in-house and were not an issue for discussion for anyone else. What I didn’t say was that it would be best to sever links for other reasons which shall become clear.

Reader Erica took the time to comment previously, and did so again earlier today, this time directing me towards a page on the website who took such offence entitled ‘Swingers and Nudism’. 🙂

Having read it, I felt that there was some stuff on there that required further comment.

The page says…there are swingers in our community, and most of them behave so well that you’ll never know it! 

Hmmm…this seems like the condoning of values that run contrary to anyone’s marriage vows. Thou shalt not commit adultery? I take marriage vows seriously. I’m celibate in SL. I unfriend and mute those who don’t respect this. Cybersex is not for me, and I would regard it as something that blurs the lines of what constitutes adultery. Sorry, but that isn’t going to happen with anyone, ever, in SL.

However, I’m not so blinkered as to not recognise that it goes on all the time in SL, and sometimes in public whether you want to see it or not. We have a duty to report this in the broader context. Which is what Diane’s initial posting did.

We never actually reported her views, did we? Or showed photographs? Her text is coming right up at the foot of the page….! 🙂

Diane recognised that this pixellated orgy was simply one element of Second Life that may be repugnant to you (or maybe it appeals). On which note…

The site that appears to blithely acknowledge extra-marital affairs goes on and…though the whole idea of swinging may be repugnant to you (or maybe it appeals), it’s not something which impacts the average nudist experience in any way whatsoever!  Indeed. Just like orgies, then?

Your own little nudist camp probably has a healthy dose of swinging action going on. Healthy?

Swingers may be there but they’re much less likely to be noticed or to bother you (s0) Forget about it and have fun!  Indeed. Just like orgies, then?

I said then, and I’ll repeat now, that the apoplexy expressed (from the mouth out? Another section of that website says It’s ok that you didn’t know (about swingers) it means that those folks are behaving responsibly …in their commitment of adultery?) was simply because we’re on the margins of RL naturism, and were thus a soft target for some engineered ‘internet drama’.

Physician, Heal Thyself. (Luke 4 : 23)

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. (John 8 : 7)

So let me, for the first time, pull the text of Diane’s draft from March and offer it in its entirety.

‘I was intrigued by the idea of an orgy, but as the time for it to commence drew closer I got cold feet. One, I find the idea sordid. Two, even if not participating, I wouldn’t be taking photos. Sex should be a private thing, even in Second Life. It’s not like I felt I was cheating on anyone because I’m not in a RL relationship right now. I’m not even opposed to the idea of cyber with someone. But an orgy, for all those reasons and because it failed to match SLN’s core values, made me realise it wasn’t something I wished to report. I teleported out of the Commune, logged out of Second Life, and went to bed. All I have is a few more photos of me at the sim earlier in the evening’.

I did not expect to be revisiting this, or to even discuss Diane’s reaction with anyone. I know my staff, I support my staff, and we all pull together. Diane’s initial post may have been an error of judgment to post in isolation, but her subsequent, previously unpublished text shows that she remained true to our avowed core values. We were right to support and protect her and keep her part of the SL Naturist family.

As I said, it was meant to be kept in house. It was intended to have a line drawn under it. It was intended to be ‘the end’.

But when you find that you’re almost a victim of hypocrisy and double standards for internet drama’s sake….

That there’s a blithe acceptance of ‘swinging’ as a minor element of naturism, OK if it’s kept out of sight and contrary to marriage vows….

The question is, do we wish to be associated with a website that condones adulterous behaviour? Blithely accepts a ‘healthy dose’ of swinging as appropriate behaviour within naturism, with ‘genuine’ RL clubs being used as a front for it?

Absolutely not. Our naturist and marital vows standards are set to a much higher standard than that. Diane recognised that herself. So we’ve a situation where orgies are clearly well off our radar, as part of our core values, while other sites just pass it off in a bland manner, where the correct response would be to root out this sort of activity in genuine naturism.

I’ve found that I can mark the ‘referrals’ page to the website in question as ‘spam’, thus ensuring that clicks from there, to SL Naturist, should probably result in a ‘404 Page Not found’ error message. I’ve just done this. Please, no more comments on or about this subject, thanks.

Here’s a photo of a line in the sand…

Ella

It’s not that long ago, certainly within living memory of many Londoners, when boarding houses, bed & breakfast locations, would advertise vacancies but place a sign in the window suggesting they wouldn’t take anyone who was black, Irish, or owned a dog.

Appalling and disgraceful, I think we would all agree, and prevalent in the last half-century, possibly well remembered by many SL avatars.

My blog post on Gay Naturism in SL prompted a response by reader Ruth, who felt that sexual segregation within SL was possibly worse than it is in RL, with some sims putting up ‘No Women Allowed’ or ‘No Men Allowed’ signs. Which got me thinking. She’s right! We, as avatars, seem to tolerate and accept this.

Should we accept this?

Consider this: if a sim put up a sign that said ‘No Blacks’, or ‘Heterosexual Avatars Only’, what would be our reaction?

In the very early days of my Second Life I recall that there was a sim run by far-right fascists whose sim was effectively a recruiting ground for fascists, closely mirroring the policies of the far-right British National Party, the BNP. It was the closest I’ve ever witnessed to a ‘demonstration’ in SL, as avatars of a liberal persuasion would turn up at their sim border to effectively bombard, IM, and harass anyone trying to use it. People were buying particle generators to effectively flood the (small island) sim and make it unusable. And this would occur on a daily/nightly basis until those who supported the BNP’s brand of racism (I have no idea if the sim was run by card-carrying members of the BNP, the BNP itself, or mere advocates of BNP policy) shut up shop and moved off the grid.

To the best of my recollection Linden Labs were also being flooded with complaint tickets, and that it may be that LL changed their policies after this to prevent a reoccurrence of that particular loathsome problem. Thankfully, in that respect, the problem has not to my knowledge reoccurred.

Of course, this was back in the days when anyone who was anyone wanted a piece of this brave new world, Second Life, and real money could be made within the grid. Companies like IBM had a corporate presence on the grid. And with it came odious presences like BNP supporting racists and fascists.

Due to the way SL developed that corporate presence markedly declined, as did the notion that Second Life was a media outlet for the likes of the BNP -they all moved to Twitter other social media outlets- and the grid became a more benign, happy-go-lucky place.

Back then, there were also several SL ‘newspapers’, bloggers who blogged daily on various elements of the grid, something else that has declined in recent years. These papers could be read online, or ‘bought’ (they were free) from vending machines on the grid and read as a ‘book’ on screen while in world. It would be the likes of these papers/blogs who would highlight particular concerns and, very often, present the case to Linden Labs as the grid developed its own life and morality.

So…a sim that says ‘No Black Avatars Allowed’. What’s our reaction? Would we be standing at its borders briefing it with particle generators, or lodging tickets of complaint to Linden labs? You bet your life we would.

What if a sim put up a sign that said ‘No Gay avatars need join? We’re all real men and women here’. Would we complain? You bet your life we would.

So why is it that some gay sims can openly say ‘No Men Allowed’ or ‘No Women permitted here’? Is it because, if we’re heterosexual avatars, these sims aren’t going to readily fall across our radars? Is it because we sub-consciously imagine that it’s best to let the gay avatars have their own places ‘because then they won’t be bothering us’? If so, what does it say about our openness or inclusivity or sub-conscious homophobia?

I’ll go to sims where female avatars will kiss and cuddle other female avatars and speak in open chat about ‘kiss, kiss, missing you already, muuuwwwahhhh!!!‘ No one bats an eyelid. Rightly so. Why? Because, possibly, I’ve not analysed it, male avatars quite like that girl/girl fantasy and therefore it’s OK by heterosexual male avatars?

What might be the reaction if two gay male avatars did the same? ‘/me slides my tongue into your sweet mouth and explores the sweet taste of your hunky mouth‘, or similar? Some sims might not blink. Other sims might well have fits of apoplexy. ‘Can you not keep that stuff on your own sims?’ Is this what Ringo referred to in the his analysis of the division of sims by sexual orientation and gender?

The question is: have we reached a point where we should now be complaining about no men/no women rules at sims, and making for a more all-embracing, all-inclusive SL?

Shouldn’t lesbians, the rest of the LGBT spectrum and, indeed, heterosexual female avatars be welcomed here too?

My limited experience of the gay male scene in SL does, however, reflect my experience of the RL gay scene: the men are better looking, better groomed. 🙂 the music’s often great and the sheer sense of fun pervades from the screen. Why wouldn’t I, a heterosexual female avatar, not want to go to a gay club and dance too? You tell me I can’t because of the gender I’ve selected for my avatar?

Aside an aside, and as a rough rule of thumb, not an absolute, gay, male avatars will spend their Linden dollars to look like a million dollars. Heterosexual male avatars often think newbie hair, no AO and a free, permanently erect and badly proportioned and coloured penis is more than adequate. Do you read profiles? I do. So…he’s 8 years and 113 days old, and he’s still wearing newbie hair from eight years ago? At a time when better free skins, free AO’s, good free hair and even realistically proportioned free (non-scripted) genitalia are all readily available? Tragic! I get that you’re here for cybersex and without wanting to spend any RL money, but really….please!

In conclusion, then, I would say that this wrongly accepted gender division has to go, and it is an issue that is long overdue in being addressed. If not for the benefit or custom of heterosexual avatars, then at least for the sake of showing some solidarity for others in the LGBT community.

Ella

Note: I was going to add further SL photographs of signs at some sims who discriminate by gender or sexual orientation, but felt that it was unfair to ‘out’ just one or two. It is, however, an issue that I shall seek to address directly with sim owners to gauge their feelings on the matter.

Edited to add: This link leads to a report in the Alphaville Herald, one of those SL newspapers I spoke about, report France’s Front Nationale opening a ‘permanent’ presence in SL in 2006. They’re no longer present in SL.:)