What does the New York Times know? NOTHING!

Posted by Mak on 12:11

Maybe I'm not hanging around with the right people, but when I read articles about SL like this one in the New York Times, I get really pissed off. Some of us like building because we LIKE BUILDING not because we're keeping up with the Joneses. Real Estate might be abundant in the USA, but here in London, I can't even afford to buy a studio flat. It's no mystery that in SL I live in a huge modern swanky pad, and in my free time, spend literally hours buying or building homes, putting them up, landscaping them, modding them and filling them with cool stuff, but does that make me a craven consumerist? No it bloody well doesn't. What on earth is wrong with wanting to look hot, live in a lovely environment and have tons of funky clothes? It doesn't mean I can't also read books, hold a conversation about deep stuff, care about world issues and do whetever else people do to prove they are educated and worldly wise.

And Homeless Hermes shoots himself in the foot rather by railing against the consumerist tendencies of some residents one moment, and then saying he makes all his money buying and selling real estate the next.

And another thing: sex and love. It's as real as the person you're making it with, and lots of people enjoy it on SL. You can't have much of a sex life if you have a wiggy avatar which looks like "a fruit salad encased in gelatin" - this isn't American Pie. Naturally, people want to be beautiful - I personally think my av is pretty hot - and for some people, having a sexy av takes away the fear of being rejected for their less-than-perfect RL looks, and allows them to express themselves sexually in an uninhibited way. It's a GOOD thing to be uninhibited, you morons! You can't deny physical attraction - it's an integral part of sex. Political correctness might not like the concept of physical beauty being valued but it's a natural human urge.

Anyway, in SL, where people can be as beautiful as they like, I find that how good the person is as a virtual lover is much more important than what they look like, a fact which seems to have passed by the writer of this article.

Regarding looking businesslike, our beloved leader, Chant Newell, has a basic skin and a friendly old man av - bald with a little grey beard - and I've never seen him wear anything other than a green shirt and a pair of jeans. Looks count for less than this article implies - it's your interpersonal skills and your business acumen that swings the deal. What this dork fails to realize that when anyone can look as impressive as they like, in SL more than in RL it's the fact that you can walk the walk and talk the talk that gets you taken seriously as a resident, not your big fuck-off glass office floating sky palace. If anything, SL is teaching people that appearances ARE DECEPTIVE, and that's a good lesson for the Real World as well as the Virtual one.

End of rant...


Comment by Esmiel on 21 September 2007 at 18:33

I like bit on the first page, just under the little picture about halfway down that says:

"The fashion-conscious female avatars in Second Life often shop for a provocative look."

Esmie translates this as:

"They are all sluts"

SL is about having what you don't have in RL - whether it's a beautiful house or a sexy avatar or just the ability to talk to people. How could you do that without some kind of economy, some consumerism?

This article makes me want to punch people. They say its a game too. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Idiots.