The virtual simulation of child sexual abuse: online gameworld users’ views, understanding and responses to sexual ageplay

SL residents who discussed or mentioned sexual ageplay broadly shared an understanding of what ageplay is as “Adult/child AVI sex.” (SLjoy), highlighting that it is not about RL children but rather “using child avatars to engage in inappropriate sexually-themed role play” (Lashka) through “adults controlling child avs engage[d] in pixel sex with adults controlling adult avs” (Skli). Nevertheless, on occasion, this was conjoined with behaviours that related, at least indirectly, to RL children, for example, Ember wrote that they viewed the sale of sexy lingerie for child avatars in the SL market place as “age play pedo paraphernalia” and that “if any of those pictures advertising those sex outfits were in rl a bunch of people would be going to jail, obviously.” Ember, was equating the sexualised image of a child avatar in SL to the sexualised image of a child in RL (which would be illegal both in England and Wales, and in Linden Lab’s jurisdiction, even if digitally created), however, by definition, it would be more appropriate to equate the market place outfits to a sexualised image of a RL adult dressed as a child, which, of course, sets the image in a very different moral as well as legal context.

These definitions are clear in identifying sexual behaviour between avatars as central to the definition, and not just the representation of age. Despite this, some residents did conflate in their writing ageplay and sexual ageplay. For example, Koala described an experience in which a sexualised submissive “boy child avatar” propositioned their avatar for sex, ending the post with “Maybe I just don’t get the whole child avatar thing in SL with adults behind the keyboard.” Similarly, Chemix linked ageplay and sexual ageplay in commenting on “the ageplayers and pedos that are all over”. Furthermore, when discussing sexual ageplay it was not uncommon for residents to shorten the phrase to just ageplay, prompting some residents to point out the difference:

Delicia: What do I do when I stumble on ageplay in progress? [Asks questions on how to report.]

Jewel: You should report it if you’re pretty sure one of the participants was a RL minor or was roleplaying a minor. [Details given on how to report.]

Jared: Assuming the OP [original poster] was talking about sexual ageplay…No mention was made of such. Nonsexual ageplay need not be reported.

Delicia: Yes, it is sexual ageplay I am referring to. I am aware that nonsexual ageplay is completely tolerated in second life.

However, in SL, sexual ageplay need not actually involve interactions with a second party at all, as some residents explained: “a child avatar may not use adult furniture [sex-play furniture], but also may not be NEAR adult furniture or images” (Tempest). Of course ‘near’ is “somewhat open to interpretation” (Rose X) as is “what adult furniture is..is a bed automatically adult? What if no one is on it [the adult furniture]?” (Pheonix). Some SL residents enjoy family role-play and in those contexts an SL child being naked or near their adult SL parents’ bed is acceptable so long as there is no sexual context, which some residents state as not just sexual chat, dress or conduct, but also being aroused, although whether this is the SL avatars, or RL residents, or both, is unclear. Thus, recognising the boundary between ageplay and sexual ageplay is acknowledged to be very difficult in some contexts. To complicate matters further, residents discussing the ‘wrongness’ of the child avatar lingerie referred to earlier agreed this was an example of sexual ageplay due to being a sexualised image of a child avatar, although acknowledging it was a “grey area” (Jemerie) as no sex act was actually taking place or implied in the advertisement.

Intrinsic to defining and recognising sexual ageplay, therefore, as Jewel notes above, is recognising the relevant avatar as representing a child, or as predominantly human child-like (as in the case of furries, vampires, angels and the like). This may be considered a ‘loophole’ in which sexual ageplay could be occurring but without meeting these particular definitional requirements. For example, the post below appears to be advertising for a sexual ageplay relationship, but by tying this into a furry ‘pet’ master/sub relationship it attracted no attention or comment:

im a red fox looking for a loving furry master that is ok with ageplay and just will love me i don’t want real love i have a mate he just cant play i just want them to love me as a pet and sub but we can get personal but like i said i have a mate but i will love u as a master im looking for a k9 fur but bunnys will wirk or otters (FoXXy)

Consequently, it is important to the strategic efficacy of primarily relying on SL residents to report sexual ageplay incidences that residents have a collective understanding of not only what constitutes sexual ageplay, but also on what is a child avatar, which is dependent on appreciating how age is performed and represented in SL. Unlike traditional online communication, age in SL is indicated through visual and verbal cues such as: youthful dress; skin complexion, tone and smoothness; avatar attractiveness; body development, height and size; choices of activity and movement; as well as text and verbal language associated with youth culture (Martey et al. 2015). Notably, because SL residents, if they have humanoid avatars, tend to portray themselves as comparatively youthful and attractive, often being positive self-representations, the general age profile of SL avatars is youthful in comparison to the RL population. For example, in Martey et al. (2015) SL study, the average RL age of the 201 participants was 32 years, with 24% being over 45 years of age, however, none of the avatars had the normal visual cues of older age (such as greying hair, wrinkles, body shape). Further, RL younger residents tended to have taller avatars. Thus, the age of the avatar is little reflection on the age of the resident, nor can avatar age be easily understood from the avatar itself if not clearly a human child in appearance, as ‘tiny’ avatars (SL adults who are very small), animals, furries and other such fantastical avatars complicate this significantly. Therefore, recognising a SL child is not simple and was highly debated in the forum posts as the standards do not define ‘child avatar’. These discussions centred around the key age-indicators of skin tone, dress, behaviour, body type and height, acknowledging that, because of the constructed nature of avatars, the “definition for child ava would have to be very “state of the art”” (Catsya) based on the “overall impression people get from your appearance” (Charlz). Furthermore, age-indicators were often in conflict, causing confusion. For example, in endeavouring to determine the representation of the age of a sexily dressed avatar DarkLord noted the “very mature face of the model. While the body appear to be very child-like, the face (and makeup) appear to be that of a mature (age of consent) woman.” This often results in child/adult avatar hybrids than can be difficult to define and understand in terms of age as they represent “TEENS with jiggly parts much to big for most women” (VLee) as well as adult avatars that are dressed as babies or children (for example, in nappies/diapers). The later was broadly considered to not constitute ageplay at all as the avatar was intended to represent a SL adult.

VLee’s experience in trying to find a child avatar to role play family life with indicates a further confusion in terms of the avatar size and relationship dynamic. VLee explained how they found someone to role play as a child in a family context, but that this ended when the other party tried to initiate a sexual relationship with them. VLee described the other avatar as a ‘little’ who went on to request a ‘daddydom/littlegirl (DD/LG) relationship. VLee eventually blocked them and described this as an attempt at sexual ageplay. This account resulted in a number of rebuttals in defence of ‘littles’ and DD/LG relationships. Most articulately from Phoenix who wrote:

Littles are adults […] They are NOT child AVs. EVER. Daddy Dom/Mom/little relationships are a part of BDSM [bondage, domination, sadism and masochism], not part of parent/child RP [role play]. [….] Do NOT lump DD/LG relationships into paedo territory. Thank you.

The confusion stemming from hybridised age-indicators is highlighted in Felix8’s response:

I don’t see much difference outside of the shape. The talking is the same, the spread of power is the same, the clothes are the same. Just the shape.

It is evident from these discussions that size can be both an indicator of age and of the emotional or power status of one avatar to another. As Phoenix later writes:

DD/lg is a relationship between two adults. When a little is in little mode: as in she is feeling childlike, scared, needy or just in need of comfort, the Daddy) or Mommy) does not start a sexual moment.

Thus, size is a complicated issue that is further confused by the artistic trends in avatar design within SL:

Make sure it’s really sexual ageplay and not just a realistic proportioned (180 cm) [just under 6 ft] avatar. The norm in many places in SL is sadly 7 ft + which makes people who are realistically sized sometimes look like children. (Trior)

One problem is that “standard height, full sized” is pretty meaningless in RL, and entirely so in SL. There is no standard for height. For some reason, 5′3″ is sometimes thrown around as a cut-off point. We’re told that under 5′3″ is too short. [….] For most women in the world 5′3″ is too tall! (Mellow)

Of course, this is further complicated by RL difficulties in determining a ‘child’. As residents may originate and/or be located across the world, and so their legal and cultural understandings of the age, appearance and associated behaviours of a ‘child’ may vary considerably (c.f. Pasura et al. 2012), resulting in a wide scope of child-related representations (although it should be noted that SL operates under the legal code of California, the home of Linden Lab). For example, Jellie posted asking for advice when they were reported for sexual ageplay for “mistakenly” saying they were 17 in SL when they are really 67 in RL (they deliberately wanted to role play a teenager, but believed 17 was acceptable). Harmon8 commented: “I think she meant to put 17 because in most states depending on her location 16 is the actual age of consent.”

The main conclusions from this discussion are that whilst there is a broadly shared and agreed definition and understanding of what sexual ageplay is, this is very difficult to operationalise in the virtual context where none of the normal RL age-indicators are reliable. Importantly, what constitutes ‘sexual’ ageplay and child in practice are highly contested and even where there is agreement this is difficult to recognise in SL play when small avatars that “dress in sweet lolita, kawaii & pre-pubescent fashions” simultaneously claim “I am ALWAYS an adult” (Trixie). The difficulties of defining a child or child-like avatar, thus, may make it extremely difficult for SL residents to recognise when sexual ageplay is and is not taking place, as well as providing potential defences for accused residents.

As can be gleaned from the above discussions, some SL residents had come across activities that they understood to constitute sexual ageplay. Five of the 20 threads retrieved were primarily a question asking what to do to report or avoid sexual ageplay overtures by other residents. Commonly these threads recounted accessing a region related to ageplay in some way (most commonly family role-play scenarios) where the resident was then invited to engage in sexual ageplay:

I was checking out beaches and was tpd [transported] to a family nude beach where child and adult avis were naked. It creeped me out and I left once I realized it was a nude beach for all ages. I got several IMs wanting me to be a naughty mommy. (Sheena)

All posters reported that the invitations were both unwanted and made them feel angry or disgusted:

I have open a club on this sim… But after I bought the land, I turned on my mini map, and seen a bunch of avatars in one part of the sim. Ok… So I decided to check it out. It was a kid area… I was there maybe a minute when I get an IM from some guy in a boy child avatar and hitting on me. I thought I was going to puke, plus he was wearing a “Collar” and I checked out his profile seeing that he was also collared to a mistress as a child avatar. That is when I had to leave, before I was running to bathroom to throw up. (Koala)

Although, such encounters were reported as not uncommon, they were normally described as isolated instances. A common response to such posts was residents expressing surprise that others have come across such behaviours:

I must be hanging out in all the right places.. 8 years in SL and I have yet to come across sexual ageplay. […] (Phoenix)

5 years for me and I’ve been to some seedy places. Never seen anything like this. (Nox)

The disparity between some residents’ stated experiences and others led those that had not commonly come across sexual ageplay to make judgments on assumptions about the provocative behaviours of the other residents:

I suspect the OP [original poster] is visiting places that encourage it, kinda looking for trouble. (Poloma)

Thus, residents often constructed the experiences of others regarding unwanted sexual ageplay as stemming from their own actions and decisions, considering them blameworthy in respect to being in the ‘wrong’ places or in some way inviting this attention; with this reflecting negatively on their personal character: “why would you even want to be there?” [sim involving suspected sexual ageplay] (Skli). That residents posting about sexual ageplay, clearly stating it was unwanted, were nevertheless stigmatised as a result of this contact sheds light on how sexual ageplay is viewed through a moral as well as regulatory lens. In so doing negative attributes are applied to those who are associated with the disapproved social behaviour (sexual ageplay) and they become discredited in their community (Goffman 1963). That this is happening to residents who are not directly involved in sexual ageplay, but only coming into contact with it indicates a transference of stigma through which residents become tainted by association; with other residents attributing negative characteristics to them based solely on their unwitting contact with such universally socially disapproved behaviour.

This attribution of transferred stigma highlights how people thought to be engaged in sexual ageplay are othered: constructed as separate and different to the norm (Young 2007). For the most part this is through constructing sexual ageplayers as akin to paedophiles and sexually abnormal, with residents’ expressed reactions being visceral: referring to “revolting” (Draxx) “sick groups” (Aaas) that make them want to “puke” (Koala). In doing this residents are defining acceptable and unacceptable behaviour and conduct in SL. Sexual ageplay is:

[…] just about the only kind of behaviour pretty much universally condemned in Second Life. (Lashka)

Thus, sexual ageplay is understood to be a form of ‘edgeplay’: sexual play that transgresses or at the limit of social acceptability (Butts 2007). Sexual ageplay is stated as being the defining behaviour which sets this boundary. For example, as mentioned in the sampling, many adverts were retrieved that were seeking other residents to engage in sexual play with, but which stated that sexual ageplay was not permitted:

Roleplay and Sex without Limits (except child/age play) […] No Child Avies/No Age Play… never ever (Phor)

This boundary norm creation is a construct recognised as evolving from the diverse cultural interaction of SL residents:

While a common mode of thought is that SL is what you make of it, the greater truth is that SL is what we make of it. “We” as in all of us, everyone, and all at once. (Stormi)

The boundaries of the freedom of expression in SL are very significant as SL is valued for its openness and freedom to experiment with sexual interests as well as identity and social interaction without judgement: “you don’t get to choose how other people enjoy Second Life” (Viking girl). This leads to SL residents arguing that “combating intolerance is a cornerstone of Second Life’s Community Standards.” (Flaxx), and that “decent [SL] places are filled with nice accepting people.” (SLover). This acceptance and tolerance extend to the simulation of a wide range of sexual and violent behaviours that in RL would be unacceptable and criminal, from role-playing sex slaves, torture, (adult) incest, and rape to humiliation and prostitution: “every form of human depravity rages on in world.” (Jellie). For example, Flame defended the right to be ‘kinky’ in SL and that “SL is a relatively safe place for people to play” and that her own interests meant that:

I’ve been incinerating people in SL since the day I discovered fire, some more than once. I get great pleasure out of it.

The response to such an admission—the simulated sexually-motivated murder of others—led not to condemnation or stigmatisation but light-hearted banter:

I’m well-aware you want to burn me down, and am okay with that ϑ (Viking girl)

This moral boundary of acceptability between virtual sexual murder (the incineration of avatars, who can come back to life) and virtual sexual ageplay (as understood to be representing virtual child sexual abuse) reflects the ‘gamer’s dilemma’ as posed by Luck (2009) regarding why some behaviours that are considered morally taboo and legally sanctioned in RL may be acceptable or even required in online environments whilst others are not; questioning the moral difference between the two groups of online behaviours. For example, assaulting, killing and even sometimes torturing other computer characters or avatars is not only accepted, but normal and intrinsic to many MMOG gameworlds, despite their moral and legal position in RL. However, virtual paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and rape have been generally regarded as beyond the realms of acceptability, even in virtual simulation. However, even these moral absolutes of acceptable online sexual behaviour are being eroded in SL. Resident’s discussions of incest role-play help to further illuminate the boundaries of sexual morality in SL. When Fallyn asked for any suggestions for family role-play incest regions some other residents argued this was against the standards in respect to sexual ageplay, but this conflict was quickly resolved when it was pointed out that it was strictly between adults and this was not against the Community Standards as it would not make sense as the avatars have no biological relationship to each other (due to not being biological beings). Thus, incest role play was acceptable because it was only considered as an in-world behaviour and not linked to RL or the RL-self of the residents in anyway, and did not involve children or the image of children.

This begs the question of why would virtual murder, torture and incest be morally acceptable, but not virtual paedophilia (as which sexual ageplay can be regarded)? The question is complex and most academics conclude that morally there is no real difference in the online nature of the behaviour beyond the culturally shifting notion of public disgust and abhorrence, and so we need to look to other issues such as psychological harm (c.f. Young and Whitty 2010), or morally reconceptualise sexual ageplay online as child pornography, regarded as intrinsically immoral as it sexualises inequality (c.f. Bartel 2012).⁷ These positions draw a distinction between virtual murder (for example) and virtual paedophilia, saying that the former is either (or both) not psychologically harmful or not a legally and morally prohibited image, and therefore acceptable in virtual space. (Young and Whitty 2010, temper this by arguing it is only acceptable in virtual space where these sorts of behaviours are collectively accepted by the online community and it is an agreed ‘status function’.) Bartel’s (2012) position of moral (if not legal) difference based on it being an image of child pornography and sexual inequality is considered by Luck and Ellerby (2013). They argue that equating virtual paedophilia with child pornography is not always appropriate because in gamespace it may be part of the game structure to commit such acts, therefore the player is not choosing this virtual behaviour voluntarily and/or not taking enjoyment from the intrinsic act; which they argue is fundamental to Bartel’s understanding of what child pornography is. Partridge (2013) takes issue with this claim, arguing that just because something is pornographic, does not make it necessarily pornography.⁸ However, if players do take enjoyment from the act of virtual paedophilia, why does it not follow that taking enjoyment from virtual murder (as in the case of Flame, above) would also be immoral?⁹

This question is considered by Young (2013, 2016) who explored the role of player motivation in determining the moral status of virtual murder or virtual paedophilia. He highlighted the difference between the motivation of the avatar in carrying out the act in-game, and the motivation of the player (either for choosing to make the avatar act in that way, or choosing a game which includes those actions). Young (2013) points out that it is intuitive for us to make negative attributes about the player based on their motivation, but that we often infer player motivation from the avatar’s (possibly incorrectly). For example, an avatar acting out virtual murder or child abuse could, conceivably, be required (or encouraged) to do this through a game structure, thus, relieving the player from attributions of personal choice and enjoyment in the act—although such an inference may be incorrect. Ali (2015) similarly argues that the gamers’ dilemma could be partially solved by reframing the dilemma itself: that virtual murder and virtual paedophilia are not actually considered morally different in the first place, if you control for contextual differences. The difference he highlights is that virtual murder tends to take place in the context of legitimised violence (war, for example), but also in the context of furthering a game. Consequently, those virtual behaviours which align with the game structure and design are considered to be outside of the player’s moral decision-making, and thus acceptable as they do not indicate any relationship to the player’s motivations nor, therefore, relate to the possibility of psychological harm to the player. In arguing this case, Ali (2015) draws on the work of Partridge (2013) who also points out that not all virtual murder is acceptable either, and that the moral status of virtual murder is founded on the moral status of such acts in the real world (taking into account the lack of direct harm caused virtually). Thus, some virtual murders are more acceptable than others, with player’s more likely to morally judge other players negatively for virtual deviant behaviours where they conceive of the game (and acts within the game) as reflective of RL (be that the deviant motivations and desires of the player or broader social problems of, for example, inequality and discrimination). The player’s motivations, therefore, can be understood (however incorrectly) in light of a game structure which allows us to divorce the choice to commit virtual murder from the RL desires of the player. In contrast, however, virtual paedophilia is not a requirement of game structures and so is understood as inferring the RL desires of the player.

In respect to SL, however, there is no structured gameplay (beyond that potentially created by the residents themselves), Ali (2015, p. 273) suggests that in such gameworlds (or simulation games) that neither virtual murder nor virtual paedophilia would be considered acceptable because “the act here reflects the sorts of acts the gamer finds desirable.” But, as can be seen from the talk and responses to Flame, above, this is not the case in SL. Here moral distinctions are made between virtual murder and virtual paedophilia (as enacted through sexual ageplay) despite that both are unstructured and un-coerced by the gameworld. Thus, indicating that Ali’s thesis, at least, is not the basis of SL residents’ moral frameworks. Further, Partridge’s (2013) distinction based on targeting and discrimination does not seem reflective of the talk of SL resident’s either. Rather, those that highlight child pornography (Bartel 2012) and link moral judgments to views on the connection between the resident’s motivation and potential indirect harms to the resident or RL children, appear to better reflect residents understanding of sexual ageplay. However, as Young (2013, 2016) points out, such consideration of the player’s motivation does not explain the selective acceptability of virtual murder, for example, and not virtual paedophilia (sexual ageplay), unless also coupled with Ali (2015) distinction.

Young (2013) argues, however, where the player does gain personal enjoyment from such a virtual act, this may be not because of the act per se but rather, because of the thrill in transgressing social norms. This is highlighted in SL discussions around the acceptability of simulated rape and rape role-play, which show how embedded considerations of power and control are to SL culture, with some residents arguing that ‘playing’ with power and control is part of why many people spend time on the SL grid but that it is nevertheless a consensual arrangement in which both parties retain control and “one partner chooses to ‘submit’ while the other chooses to ‘lead’” (Viking girl). Rape-play was, therefore, seen by many residents as an acceptable fantasy extension of domination and submission sexual relationships which, despite outward appearance, remain founded on mutual respect and shared control. Notably no-one argued this about sexual ageplay relationships.

Of course, these claims of power-play as being between equals were challenged by residents pointing out that predominately the dominant partner (or rapist) plays a male avatar and the submissive (or victim) a female, and thus rape-play is actually indicative of, and maintaining, patriarchal structures of male dominance. Its relative frequency, taken with the sexualisation of the female body image in SL and prevalence of virtual prostitution, is regarded as reflecting RL culture, but able to be more freely and overtly expressed in the virtual world. Those arguing against the acceptability of such play claimed, therefore, that residents wanting to be degraded in SL only did so because of RL social patriarchal structures, or individual psychological and emotional issues they suffered from, and so should not be exploited. Again, other residents strongly argued against this perspective, invoking the freedom and tolerance embedded within SL:

Whats wrong with two consenting adults exchanging money for [sexual] service? No matter if you would like to participate in it or not or if you find it disgusting, its none of your business or your place to judge. (Jemrie)

From exploring the boundaries of virtual sexually acceptable edgeplay in SL two fundamental bases of moral positioning can be identified: most edgeplay is acceptable because it is regarded as consensual play, either not indicative of RL society or the RL behaviours and desires of the resident. That which transgresses the boundary is regarded as indicative of problematic RL social structures or the residents RL behaviours and desires. This still leaves the question as to why sexual ageplay online is so universally condemned as it is consensual behaviour, nor is it argued to directly harm the residents involved. Further, it is not considered to reflect broader problematic social power structures (for example as rape-play may be argued to), but rather only on the ‘perverted’ individual pathology of the residents. The moral ‘otherness’ of sexual ageplay thus, appears to lie in what residents believe it reveals about the RL self and motivations of the residents playing the avatars and their sexual interest in children, which leads to questions of how residents regard the relationship of the RL and SL self.

Outside of discussions of sexual ageplay the relationship between the RL and SL self is very contentious and highly debated with residents variously describing SL sexual relationships as “playing” (Marlyne) and “it is a fantasy” (KrashD), but others arguing that SL “mirrors” RL (Bookworm) and that RL and SL interests are related: “In SL they seek for power to compensate for their powerless, insecure characters.” (Flaxx). It seems, therefore, that some residents, at least, are concerned about the motivations of people who choose to ‘play’ in SL behaviours which are indicative of what they consider to be abnormal sexual interests in the resident, not just the avatar. Thus, in respect to sexual ageplay:

Ever thought about why LL has forbidden Age Play (Child Pornography Roleplay) in SL? No real child is harmed if two adults play child pornography in SL… Because there is so much more to it. It is not about whether a real child is hurt or not. It is about the idea of having sex with a child. Every sane person would agree that this idea is sick and wrong. Also it is known that such fantasies sometimes are the beginning of the plan of a crime. Such fantasies are not harmless at all. (Periate)

Periate sums up why sexual ageplay is considered unacceptable and immoral by many residents: because it is indicative of a RL sexual interest in children that could potentially lead to real-world offending. Although there is some debate about just how directly related sexual ageplay and real world offending is  (Reeves 2013), no resident defends sexual ageplay (though this may be because the act is against the Community Standards), however, Periate goes on to argue that the same is true of rape and torture groups in SL as they devalue women, and other residents do disagree openly about this, calling it only fantasy role-play even when they have just agreed with the wrongness of sexual ageplay:

Child pornography is definitely sick and wrong. Nobody disputes that. [….now referring to rape and torture play] As long as they stick to fantasies, and don’t act them out in RL, nobody gets hurt. It’s not your job, or anybody else’s, to dictate what goes on in other people’s brains. (Drey)

From Drey’s post it seems that perhaps the moral distinction is not based on perceptions of the indirect harm caused to the residents playing child sexual abuse, rape or torture, despite the arguments put forward. Instead the distinction stems from the simulation of child sexual abuse in SL being understood as a criminal offence, because it is regarded as a form of child pornography, and the latter (simulated rape or torture) are not because they are considered as a form of adult pornography, even if some residents consider them obscene or distasteful. Further, that sexual ageplay is considered akin to RL images of non-consensual sexual activity between an adult and child, and the others are consensual, even where consent is pretended to not be present: i.e. SL rape images are akin to RL image not of rape but of rape-play. This denies that SL sexual ageplay is actually also more like RL images of a pretend child consensually acting out child abuse-play, which is not illegal. Thus, from the SL forum posts it is clear that there is little logical distinction between sexual ageplay and other forms of edgeplay, but there is a strong moral and emotional distinction. This separation is validated by the Community Standards which do not prohibit consensual edgeplay in adult sims between adult residents, other than specifically sexual ageplay.

As a result of residents widely agreeing with the moral wrongness of sexual ageplay, and that such virtual behaviour is indicative of harmful RL desires or future criminal behaviours, broad support for a zero-tolerance in-world approach existed not present in discussions about other edgeplay behaviours: “First do be aware that ageplay is OFF THE MENU HERE.” (Lyra). For example, in discussing the suspension of a resident for breaching the Community Standards, support was given along with advice on how to appeal until it emerged that the breach was for presenting as a child in an adult sim which led to a withdrawal of support: “if you were banned for ageplay, well, bye.” (Bleeper) as well as hostility and sarcasm: “I shall now have to resort to wallowing in the wealth of tears which have been induced by your departure.” (Drey). This led to many of the threads discussing sexual ageplay to include support and guidance to “go there and Abuse Report it” (Dotti) coupled with indicators of moral condemnation: “if you have to live near that creep, just report him/she/it.” (Snowflayke).

This zero-tolerance approach coupled with the difficulties of operationalising the definition of sexual ageplay, or ‘child-avatar’ in practice, as discussed above, resulted in a risk-averse culture in which child-avatars were often uniformly banned from adult M sims, irrespective of the sexual, or not, nature of the area or the avatar’s behaviour, as described by Jenka, a manager of several adult regions:

We are strict about excluding child avatars from our Adult regions, since we’re very conscious of LL’s policy disallowing age play […] and we don’t want to put either our visitors or the estate owners at risk. [when asked about the look of a particular avatar] the pictures seem to show an avatar who looks sufficiently close to 15 or 16 to worry me. […] we’d politely ask you either to change your avatar or leave.

Similarly Koala explained their child avatar policy:

But I also have a “No Child Avatar” policy with my club…And sure enough, had a kid pop in, told she had to leave, she tried to argue with me on it. I banned her really quick.

This risk averse culture was believed to stem from Linden Lab’s own response to allegations of sexual ageplay: “LL have an itchy trigger-finger on this issue […as…] they have to be cautious in the first instance” (Viking girl). As a result residents advised each other, when wondering how to respond to potential sexual ageplay, to “Just file the AR [abuse report] and let the company deal with it.” (Buzzedoff), “A report will at least get the REAL judge to make a decision” (DarkLord). Conversely, risk averse behaviours resulted in individual residents feeling the need to defend themselves as not being child-avatars prior to any allegations being made:

In my Profile I have stated in several places that my avatar and me in RL is 18+. Here is what my Appearance Pick in my Profile reads:

I am ALWAYS an adult who [describes how presents as childlike]. By expressing myself this way DOES NOT mean i am a child. At ALL times i’m an adult mentally, emotionally and physically! […] i may look small & you are right, i’m petite in RL (4 ft 11in 100lbs) & represent my avatar as best i can here. Yes, i have realistic sized breasts. Just cos i don’t have some massively sized breasts doesn’t mean anything! We are have different sized bodies. accept it please! (Trixie)

Similarly Cressida explained that they would make their avatar appear more mature in adult sims, particularly where a lot of sexual activity took place in order to avoid allegations of sexual ageplay. Cressida described feeling like other residents could report them for sexual ageplay even when the avatar “wasn’t doing anything, or wasn’t engaging in sexual activity”, thus, describing a synopticon world resulting from the self-policed nature of SL and moral status of sexual ageplay. This could result in tensions between residents with some arguing that residents who regularly or frequently reported potential abuses were “busybodies” who should “Let LL police it’s own world” (Skli).

Other residents proposed mechanisms to try and make the policing and prevention of sexual ageplay more efficient and effective, without relying on residents. For example, Catsya suggested that avatars could be pre-approved, and that all child avatars should be reviewed for approval before allowed on SL and then only to be used in G(eneral) sims, coupled with algorithms to identify when child avatars are in pre-defined positions or places and automatically report these as abuses. Catsya recognises that this is not necessarily a popular idea in a forum which residents prize for the freedom it represents, but argues it is acceptable in respect to sexual ageplay as it is against the Community Standards and breaches the RL law in Linden Lab’s jurisdiction. Only two residents responded to this post, both to ‘roll their eyes’ to indicate they felt it was an over-reaction.