Second Life

[surlynymph]

Hey everyone!  I wanted to post something exciting -- if this isn't allowed, I apologize and I'll get rid of the post.

I  know that some people here aren't really Peta fans, but then again, we are all pretty much anti fur so I thought I'd share this with you guys/gals.  If you aren't into Second Life yet, the only thing I can compare it to is a

Comments

[surlynymph]

Oh, and in regards to the pixelated characters -- that is of no fault of Peta's -- that would be a fault of Second Life. All the characters look like that, its an alternate reality and people create their alternate selves. Almost every woman on second life has a similar character, they CAN make them shorter with a more fuller figure, but next to no one does so.

My husband subscribes to a Second Life podcast and they talk about the psychology all of the time. There are no 'ugly' people in Second Life. And its the users that make it that way.

[cannibalcountry]

If that's true, why don't they have chubbier vegan women in their adds in real life (or vegans at all)? Why don't they have old women in their adds? Women who don't wear make-up or have a flat chests? Second life does have men too, so there is NO excuse for that. And men do wear fur - to say the don't would be a lie. It may not be a common but it still exists (like the person below said - trim is found on many mens things).

[surlynymph]

They do -- but I guess you don't pay attention to those ones.

[cannibalcountry]

Maybe those ones don't get circulated as much.

[vgnwtch]

Almost every woman on second life has a similar character, they CAN make them shorter with a more fuller figure, but next to no one does so.

Now that says it all.

[surlynymph]

Yes -- but once again -- its a fantasy. Even if all of the magazines were gone, and there were no more airbrushing, people would STILL be exaggerating or perfecting their looks. Its animal nature. I agree that airbushing is stupid, I hate it. It DOES give women a complex, but to say everyones self esteem issues would be solved by eliminating it all from tabloids would be naive. In the Renaissance it was considered beautiful to have pale skin, and to pluck the hairs along their hairline to accentuate facial proportions. Did Vogue do this? Did Peta? Did Cosmo or Entertainment Tonight? No. We did

[1_800_awkward]

"And on another note: the womans body is sexually stimulating. I am a woman and I understand this. I have read about studies about this as well, I also know many friends (female) who would much rather see a woman strip then a man

[surlynymph]

Hmm -- thats interesting. You just might have a valid point, but I tend to view the 'woman more stimulating' theory as being a biological thing. As in, women need to be extra stimulating to attract a mate since she is the one that can bear the children and spread the species.

But thats just my opinion -- it could very well be conditioning but I tend to agree more with biology :-P

[ams16]

Ummm.... That doesn't make any sense to me.

Women have to do all the work, biologically. Men get an almost free pass. So, logically, women should be much more choosy. (And sociologically, this is the case.)

Therefore, by the biology theory, MEN should be more stimulating, in order to attract a woman or women to bear his children. (This is the case in avians, for example.)

PS. I agree with the above statements that PETA objectifies women, and therefore destroys it's own case. I hate PETA, or at least its advertising methods. (I'm male.)

[surlynymph]

Thats fine, its your prerogative, but in my theory we are mammals, not avians. In mammals, the male is usually the dominant, non-choosy one with more of a sex drive. The female may have intercourse with many males to insure that she gets pregnant and the males have as much intercourse with women to spread their seed. Women DO choose, I never said they didn't. They are looking for the more attractive male for more attractive/healthier babies

[cannibalcountry]

I don't think that when they see a nude woman they stop and think "omg, the seals!" Really, it's almost diverting their attention from the message. Also - even though you seem comfortable with pornography - many people in society aren't. Many people are religious, church going people who actually are compassionate and might be open to the possiblity of being vegetarian until PETA comes along... Is PETA reaching any of THOSE people with their ads? A lot of religious people would be willing to be vegetarian but when pornography starts being associated with veganism - it totally ruins the message. It's not that I'm worried about people seeing ME in the same light as PETA but I worry about PETA pushing away all of the people who realize that porno and these kinds of advertisements do affect women. For young 15 year old vegetarian girls - they might be thinking that breast implants are okay - even though millions of animals have probably died and suffered in the process of testing them and they will continue to test them on animals

[surlynymph]

Although I don't agree with you fully -- you do make a good point about professionalism.

This is something I can definitely understand in the business I am in now (sales was NEVER a desirable job for me, but I am part of a small family business and now its something I have to deal with). PETA has done a lot to urge people about cruelty to animals, but you are right that certain people might be turned off (such as conservative but compassionate Christians -- this is a good point because they very well might become vegetarian, but PETA can chase them off)

A lot of time PETA ISN'T taken seriously, and although I like their message and really don't have any big tah-do's with them, I can understand what you mean that the 'lettuce ladies' (is that what they are called?) might make it seem less professional, therefore less sincere, or less credible.

In this -- I can agree. Even though I am fine with nudity and see it neither here nor there -- there are very borderline people who do, and it would be nice take them into consideration. :-)