|

“Cute, Charming, Dangerous: Child Avatars in Second Life”

1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Cute, Charming, Dangerous: Child Avatars in Second Life

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 What should a society do when a child’s performance isn’t that of a child? In the physical world, that question rarely arises. A person’s appearance quickly establishes age because the image of the body acts as a symbol of temporal status in the presentation of self, allowing others to define appropriateness in future interactions (Goffman 4-5). The child’s biological body signals to others to use interactions appropriate for the developmental level of that child. As the child grows taller and more mature with time, the temporal sign changes and signals to society that the child is ready for different levels of interaction. Society, in other words, uses the symbol of the temporal body as a way of binding a child to a specific set of acceptable performances. The focus of this chapter is a world in which the body is no longer held by the temporality of biology, making what appears to be a child’s performance unstable. Virtual worlds mask the biological body of the user behind the digital body of the avatar. While an avatar might look like a child, the user behind the screen is a verified adult, creating temporal dissonance. Using Brian Massumi’s notion of the positional grid and Pierre Bourdieu’s definition of habitus, I want to investigate how this temporal dissonance played out in the early days of one particular virtual world, Second Life, and how that particular virtual society utilized cuteness to regulate performance.

3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Second Life is a persistent virtual world, an environment “implemented by a computer (or network of computers) that simulates an environment” in a way that allows users to share information within a persistent space (Bartle 1). This world looks like a video game, but there are no game rules and no overarching narrative. The computer user isn’t a player, but a resident of a world where he or she builds a life, a Second Life, of his or her choosing. Users in the physical world craft a highly detailed digital body called an avatar. By performing through that avatar, the user grows into a resident of the world who understands how society functions in the virtual space. Millions of people have created an avatar in Second Life, and several thousand residents are online at any given moment. Residents have complete control over the environment and their own performances, and users are free to craft virtual lives that explore a variety of identities denied to them in first life, the physical world of the user.

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Since the user can leave behind the restraints of the biological body, the avatar can reflect a desired identity that ignores the temporal signs of biology in the physical world, such as age and physical limitation. Child avatars represent one type of identity much discussed in the pioneering days of Second Life, which started in 2003. Every Second Life user has the ability to craft her avatar’s look within the program, changing everything from the shape of the nose, the length of the torso, even to how fat the avatar will appear. Second Life requires age verification for all users, and the programmers behind the world designed the basic avatar shape to give the impression of an adult body. Given the user’s ability to manipulate this body, however, some residents played with the avatar configuration menu to change their avatars’ looks to present a far more childlike look. With the addition of children’s clothing, these residents began calling themselves child or kiddie avatars. Steller Sunshine, the world’s very first resident, started the first group for “big kids that just refuse to grow up. =0)” in early 2003 (Sunshine).

5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 At first, these residents performed childhood for short periods, reverting to adult avatars for the majority of their activities. As Second Life continued to grow, many of these residents gave up their adult alter egos. The temporal bodies indicated childhood, and these residents began to match their interactions with others to the symbol of the bodies they had chosen. Child talk like children, add animations to skip around like children, and interact with adult avatars as a child in the physical world might do. On one excursion, my avatar went to an adoption agency where child avatars look for parents to roleplay with them. One particular little girl skipped over to me and told me my dress was very pretty, and she wanted to be pretty like me one day. She then spoke to me through the text-chat feature of Second Life: “I’m Mery! I’m 3! I like PINK! Alls I wears is pink. my stuffie am-i-nals are pink and I am da pink princess. *smiles brightly*.” Despite Mery’s childlike performance, we are immediately faced with temporal dissonance. A person with a three-year-old body, as she presented herself to be, would not be able to type such a performance as smoothly and quickly. Her statement assumes either that the child is a prodigy who learned to write at the age of three or that the adult user behind the screen wrote this statement as a declaration of intention: I am performing as a child.

6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 My interaction with Mery was consistent. She performed as a child throughout our interaction, adding giggles, pouts, and childish antics throughout. Yet despite the performance, I know that Mery’s user behind the screen must be at least eighteen years old to be using Second Life, since she has to be age verified when she signs up for the program. My own experience exemplifies temporal dissonance, since I must come to grips with the fact that the sign that I see in front of me doesn’t match with the biology of the person controlling the digital body. With this dissonance comes the question: what should I expect from this digital image of a child? A child’s behavior? Or will this body act as an adult?

7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 Second Life residents wrestled with this temporal dissonance, and they looked for ways to define child avatar identity in a way that would stabilize the temporality of the performance. Virtual society started by designating child avatars as roleplaying, a specific cultural category within the virtual world. Groups of residents would set up specific areas with the characteristics of an environment, like a Wild West town, and residents occupying that space would clothe themselves and behave in roles suited to that specific environment (such as a saloon keeper or gunslinger). Roleplay was usually confined to a single area, like a game, with the roleplaying never leaving the bounds of that area. Roleplayers are free to go to other, more general areas of the virtual space, but while in those general spaces, their performance is confined to widely acceptable social behavior. Other residents don’t wish to be involved in the roleplay; they see roleplaying as impinging on their own Second Life experience. Gunslinging, for example, is discouraged in general areas. If a roleplayer arrived with a gun in a holster to a dance, other residents would send a private message to the roleplayer, the equivalent of taking him aside and speaking to him privately, to ask him to remove his weapons if he wished to remain in the area. If he refused, the owner of the land could click a button and transport that roleplayer away instantly, the virtual equivalent of kicking him out. The gun itself doesn’t pose a threat to the lives of the other avatars. No one can be kill another avatar in Second Life, even if a resident shoots a gun directly at another resident. Though there is no way of murdering an avatar, guns symbolize the roleplay, and regular avatars either ban other avatars with guns outright or ask offenders to remove the weapons. It is the roleplaying being controlled, the symbols behind the play.

8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 In the same way, child avatars represent a roleplay that must be tightly controlled and defined. While the intial intent was innocent, some residents began exploring a new potential with these avatars. Ageplay involves child avatars going into the adult-rated sexual areas of Second Life and participating in avatar sexual situations while maintaining the childhood roleplay. Second Life allows for residents to create and upload animations, and one of the earliest and most popular uses for this ability was and is the fashioning of sexual positions that two avatars can enjoy. Some enterprising residents developed sexual animations for a child and an adult, resulting in the practice of ageplay. When the practice was uncovered by the first-world media in 2007, the press touted one example of a child avatar who claimed to be a ten-year-old girl offering blowjobs to any adult male avatar in her vicinity (Dobson). In that case, both the user portraying the child and the one representing the adult would choose to use the animation and watch as the avatars engaged in underage sexual play. Even before the media storm that engulfed the practice, residents struggled with whether to allow ageplay, especially since the sexual activity occurred between avatars controlled by consenting legal adults. In other words, the temporal symbol of the avatar body suggested the interaction was inappropriate, yet the appropriateness of sexual activity for the user’s biological body, that of an adult, would allow for the sexual activity.

9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Getting to the root of how this particular virtual society dealt with this temporal dissonance requires digging into the history of the world itself. The earliest reference to child avatars and sexual play in the Second Life forums, the discussion area outside of the world where residents often continue pertinent discussions, occurs in early 2006, four years after the opening of the world. Residents didn’t immediately associate ageplay with deviant behavior. In fact, it was first considered a protected form of play within the world, and those residents speaking against it found themselves facing a backlash of virtual opinion based on an earlier component of Second Life society: the belief in each resident’s freedom to create. Linden Lab, the company that runs Second Life, sent an employee to openly admonish bella Ophelia, the first avatar to post about ageplay in the forums, for violating Second Life’s community standard for personal disputes, suggesting that even asking if ageplay is appropriate and confronting those who practice the activity is an example of intolerance (Linden). Ageplay forum posts show, however, that the issue became buzzed about by the end of 2006, with most residents expressing significant “negative emotional responses” over the practice (Adams). Other residents tried to fight that growing societal mistrust by repeating that child avatars are consenting adults pretending to be children in the sexual situations. One such resident, Taco Rubio, an active ageplay proponent, started an entire gallery of ageplay pictures in a little-used area of the forums because he thought that forum area could be “one of the few places where we didn’t have to deal with constant negitivity… let’s keep it that way…!” (Rubio).

10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 Taco was reacting to the burgeoning habitus surrounding ageplay inworld. Habitus, in its most basic definition, is a system that regulates social norms. In Bourdieu’s definition, habitus represents “systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures, that is, a principle of the generation and structuring of practices and representations which can be objectively ‘regulated’ and ‘regular’ without in any way being the product of obedience to rules” (Bourdieu 72). Habitus acts as an invisible web guiding residents of Second Life through paths of appropriate and inappropriate behaviors, masking its own existence through the belief that the regulations are “natural.” Despite his pushback against habitus, Taco and others in the ageplay community felt the constant pressure from the larger Second Life society, the result of habitus placing ageplay at a lower level of taste and class than other activities. After seeing performances of ageplay and wrestling with the temporal dissonance these bodies presented, society rejected the performance, deemed it inappropriate, and reacted to child avatar residents by avoiding them and reacting negatively to discussions of ageplay in the forums. Older residents passed on this disregard for child avatars to newer residents as they arrived, assigning deviant status to child avatars through the transmission of habitus, regardless of the each child avatar’s performance intentions.

11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 While society with Second Life reacted to child avatars with specific repercussions, the company behind Second Life was forced to deal with the temporal dissonance on a more formal level. Once the practice of ageplay was uncovered by the media, Linden Lab was confronted by pornography laws in Germany and the United Kingdom that state no images of child sexual behavior can be transmitted via the internet, even in the form of animation. Faced with having the program banned in those countries, the company relented on its previous position of allowing the practice and made ageplay a completely banned activity. The official wiki states that residents may use child avatars for fun and play, such as swinging on a playground or going to school.  Sexual behavior of any kind, including baring the “genital or chest regions,” is strictly prohibited and can result in a permanent ban. Without the need to confront child avatars engaged in ageplay, residents ceased the vocal opposition to the practice, but remnants of the habitus remain. Residents still view child avatars with suspicion, despite the fact that ageplay has nearly disappeared from the grid. Even when child avatars are participating in the fun and games first proposed by Steller Sunshine, residents consider them deviant and suspicious. The roots of this deviancy rests in the knowledge that behind the temporal sign of the child’s body lurks an adult user, capable of performances that step outside the appropriateness of the bodily symbol presented.

12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Society’s general mistrust of child avatar performance manifests itself in the way these avatars are forced to remain on the Second Life mainland. Linden Lab controls the area known as the mainland, and all activity in this area is to be generally acceptable to the community, meaning no sexual activity or adult behavior. Child avatars cannot be banned from this area unless stepping outside the written rules for their behavior, such as any discussion or overt acts of ageplay. Owners of private areas off of the mainland are free to enact rules that allow for mature or adult behavior, and even at benign events like a sailing competition or a fashion show, child avatars are instantly banned. No explanation is required. Land owners regularly kick out and permanently ban child avatars simply for their appearance. In 2013, kiskoshka Resident took to the forum to complain about the treatment he’d received as a child avatar:

13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 I can’t even begin to express the tremendous hurt and frustration I feel over the discrimination and prejudice against child avatars that is absolutely rampant in SL. It happens a dozen times a week; I was recently told that a woman wouldn’t sell me a prefab house because my child avatar offended her. Just today, I was ordered to leave an arcade on a moderate sim. The place was abandoned, there was no adult content whatsoever, but the sim manager approached me and told me to change my shape or get out (Resident).

14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 In response, many residents mentioned their discomfort with child avatars, with Porky Gorky stating:

15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 The world is full of sick bastards who either abuse and hurt children or fantasize about such things. SL is an ideal environment for these perverts to role play their sick urges and desires….I am not saying that this is your motivation for being a child Av. However, based on what I have seen in SL in the past, I view every child avatar with suspicion (Gorky).

16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 Notice that Porky states that he doesn’t know the reasons behind a resident’s decision to play with a child’s identity. His overwhelming assumption, however, is that the motivation rests in “sick urges and desires,” a negative opinion passed on through habitus. Ageplay has mostly disappeared from the virtual environment because of Linden Lab’s written rules, but Porky‘s first thought remains based in the beliefs formed before those rules were put in place. Even in 2012, five years after ageplay was banned and basically eliminated, residents still react with unease when child avatars arrive. Since deeply held beliefs are critical pieces of habitus, society’s conviction about child avatars marginalizes and casts suspicions on their activity, tightly regulating when, where, and how they can behave. The overt rules stated by Linden Lab dictate that child avatars can’t engage in sexual activity, but habitus perpetuates the belief that child avatars are suspicious to ensure that the virtual society determines what will and will not be childhood performance.

17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 Habitus works with the overt rules of society to bind a resident to the virtual positional grid, a notion developed by Brian Massumi. In his work, a virtual space such as Second Life is an event space, a world where potentials unavailable in the first, physical world suddenly reappear. He uses the example of a field turning into a game of soccer (79-80). At first, the field is empty, with no boundaries, players, or rules for how the field should be used. A single person enters the field and begins kicking a ball, then another person enters to kick the ball back and forth. Soon, many people are kicking the ball wildly around the field, which turns into chaos. In order to turn chaos into order, the group gives players positions to play and a host of rules to follow. A referee stands in the field to make sure the players follow the rules of the game. What was once simply an open field turns into a soccer field, a bounded area of performance with specific rules and expectations. Players are defined in relationship to the field, occupying a specific role within the space. The potential still exists for a player to run off, kicking the ball out of bounds and ruining the game, but he is held in position with the expectations surrounding the space.

18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 In Second Life, residents entered the open event space, filled with potentials for body and identity creation that included choices outside of first-life gender. As these residents interacted with the potential to mask the user’s biological body, they determined which performances would be socially acceptable. Only residents who chose potentials within the accepted societal parameters could continue to enjoy the social and creative aspects of Second Life. By coming into contact with each other, these actors shift the potential of the space. When one resident tries a potential, the way other residents react determines how the field of potentialities will look in the future. When animal avatars first appeared, for example, society was faced with the performance of a potential: performing outside of the human biological body. Society then had to examine the potential and agree whether it would accepted or not. Just as with Massumi’s soccer example, residents still hold the potential to perform outside of these boundaries, but habitus keeps them reperforming the same socially acceptable expectations.

19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 Through dynamic interactions with other residents, these possibilities were gradually whittled down to allow only for the behaviors deemed acceptable by Second Life residents. This virtual world did not begin as a pure event space, since that would imply the complete absence of rules. Linden Lab saw Second Life as a hurried business opportunity, and the company didn’t have the time to fully organize social aspects of the world before allowing residents to enter the virtual space. Because there was little forethought put into the process of building the virtual society, Linden Lab had very few written rules for resident behavior or creation. The only constraints on this event space were the limits of the program itself. The first Second Life residents made decisions about what behavior would be accepted in this new world through the trial and error of their early interactions. I argue that this world became, therefore, an open space of play for societal rules and the creation of habitus. The number of potential performances in this virtual world far exceeded the already habitus-bound first life, and early residents could and did play with the potentials available to them. The interactions of early residents dictated the way performance boundaries were established for this culture.

20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 As residents interact with specific potentials, they approve and disapprove potentials, setting boundaries for behavior, a framework that would governs future resident behavior called the positional grid. Massumi explains that all actors within a society are placed on a framework that classifies their bodies in terms of sets of binaries: child/adult, male/female, gay/straight (Massumi 2-4). The grid eventually becomes so engrained in the participants that the positions seem fixed and set, and the movement between points, the no-man’s land where transgression can occur, is obscured so that the grid seems fixed and immovable. Second Life had the barest minimum of a positional grid when it began, and even as bodies became defined, the movement between categories kept the categories fluid. Residents, for example, determined an adult/child, temporal grid position while playing with the basic starter avatar shape. Every resident arrives with an adult shape, so the child avatar is defined in relationship to the adult position on the grid. Residents could explore potentials, but these possible grid positions would always be defined on based on the points that already existed on the grid.

21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 Child avatars serve as an example of both dynamic interactions and the limiting of potential as well as the way bodies are defined within a positional grid through habitus and overt rules. The culture remained open to the potential of child avatars until residents had a chance to interact with the potential and determine its reasonable place within the world. Most importantly, society had to determine how these bodies would be categorized on the positional grid, most critically in the binary of child/adult. Children should not engage in sexual activity, and since the adult position on the grid included sexual behavior, child avatars needed to have a grid position defined. Residents came across child avatars, observed their sexual behavior, and expressed their disapproval. Mainly, this disapproval stems from the blurring of the positional grid points: these avatars cannot be both child/avatar and adult/user, for such a performance causes constant movement between two grid points—child and adult—that results in a blurred, chaotic performance. When a resident interacts with a child avatar like Mery from the previous example, that resident sees the digital body of a child and a performance that matches that image. If Mery were to say to other residents that she needed to leave for awhile for a physical world task, a common event in the virtual world, then the other residents would suddenly be aware of the adult body on the other side of the screen.  

22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 An additional layer of performance analysis helps explain how society keeps child avatars from disrupting the social fabric. Society not only demands specific grid positions based on binaries, but each person on that grid must learn the specific “poses” allowed within that position. To understand these performance “poses,” I propose mapping child avatar performance with that of the Korean concept of aegyo. Koreans perform aegyo as a means of confining sexuality with linguistic and non-verbal “charming, cute behavior” (Strong 29). All cute performances, however, do not necessarily fall under the aegyo category. Aegyo is “cuteness made visible,” a performance that is learned and circulated with the intention of codifying specific performances, namely how women behave toward men (Strong 30-31). In addition, it reinforces masculinity by continually demonstrating a helpless performance that stand in contrast to manly performances (Manietta).

23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 In Second Life, aegyo is used as a positional grid point in opposition to the adult avatars on the grid. Within grid positions, speech and movement is tightly restricted to a specific set of poses (Massumi). Parents in the physical world, for example, might allow a child to play for hours. The playing “pose” works for a child grid position, but if an adult were to play for hours on end, society might declare that person lazy or incompetent. The adult grid position does not allow for play in the same way as the opposite position does for a child. Aegyo stands in stark contrast to adult performances. As a grid position, aegyo works to carefully stand in contrast to the adult, sexual behaviors of the world. Participants are carefully guided to the childlike baby talk, the correct animations displaying cuteness, and the areas in Second Life where such performances are welcome. By tightly controlling the poses, Second Life society ensures that anyone choosing to be a child avatars remain far from the sexual behavior they exhibited in the past.

24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 Child avatars in today’s Second Life rarely step outside of this cute boundary. Consider Mery from the previous example: she skipped, giggled, snuggled with her mother, and used expected vocabulary and instruction for a toddler for most of the conversation. Such a performance demonstrates the necessary aegyo, childlike cuteness that essentially presents innocence. At one point, Mery asked permission from her “mother” to join the adult conversation. Mery was essentially asking for the ability to shift away from the cute performance she was maintaining. When released, Melissa didn’t use baby talk or smaller vocabulary words. Her pose shifted, rather like a marionette that suddenly came free of its strings. Parts of original aegyo remained, such as her look and the fact that she remained seated in her mother’s arms. The conversation topic and her ability to engage in the adult conversation, however, was outside of what society would deem an acceptable pose for a child avatars. She swore, talked of sexual behaviors, and laughed at crude jokes. The shift was startling; as a spectator, I found myself wondering why I felt such discomfort when watching this performance. When Mery was finished with her story, she giggled, signaling a return to her original cute performance, and she told her mother she wanted to be put to bed for a nap. In other words, Mery went back into her grid position, the one that matched the temporal image of her avatar body. My discomfort immediately eased. The temporal dissonance of the adult user making an appearance made it difficult for me to view the child avatar without suspicion, but the cute behavior reinforced and settled my concerns.

25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 Second Life society looks at child avatars as potentially dangerous performers because of the potential for ageplay. In sexual situations, the child avatar is no longer in a pose society can approve, even though that avatar is in a child’s grid position and exploring a potential available to that position. To keep that potential at bay, society presses specific cuteness onto child avatars, tightly watching and controlling how they are allowed to appear to adult residents. Mery exhibits these poses: the giggling, the baby talk, the feigned innocence, and the animations designed to allow her avatar body to skip and play combine to hold these two residents in specific behavior. In fact, the animations available for child avatars ensure that even how the digital body moves cycles through a series of distinct images. Mery started by swaying from side to side, then stooped to wiggle her shoelace, then threw up her hands in the air with joy. These three animations cycled over and over again, giving the illusion that the child continually and perpetually performed aegyo. Just as the visual component remained the same, Mery’s words and conversation style remained consistent. The pose includes all aspects of her performance: the conversation, the motions, the style of dress, even the choice of her name. She returns again and again to those same poses to reinforce the cute performance. Given the nature and history of child avatars in Second Life, this performance also reinforces what Ngai describes as cuteness’ “way of sexualizing beings and simultaneously rendering them unthreatening” (72). Secon Life society has moved these avatars, once engaged in sexual behavior, toward an aesthetic which holds them in a specific grid position, rendering them unthreatening by the completed cycle of poses available in that specific grid position.

26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 At the beginning of the world the potential for ageplay existed. Dynamic interactions foreclosed this potential. Habitus similarly keeps child avatars bound to the positional grid by keeping up the suspicion of their identities in the minds of other residents. Child avatars in today’s Second Life perform only “appropriate” childhood activities, and the deep suspicion of their roleplay keeps these residents from attempting ageplay. New residents may not see ageplay with their own eyes, but habitus roots mistrust so deeply that child avatars become suspicious without any evidence of wrongdoing. Bourdieu envisioned habitus as a set of profound beliefs that unconsciously rule the status of individuals, and in the case of child avatars, residents who arrived after the controversy about ageplay still feel the sense of unease with these virtual childlike bodies based on the beliefs passed on from those avatars that helped form the regulation. To return to the question I posed at the beginning of this chapter, when a childhood performance may not necessarily be that of a child, society steps in to bind the avatar body to a child’s grid position associated with cuteness so that the behavior can only be read as that of a child, letting habitus keep that body in place and legible while blocking the activities that blur the temporal distinction between child and adult.

27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0  

28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0
Works Cited
Adams, Andrew A. “Virtual sex with child avatars.” Emerging ethical issues of life in virtual worlds (2010): 55-72.
Bartle, Richard A. Designing virtual worlds. New Riders, 2004.Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Vol. 16. Cambridge university press, 1977.
Dobson, William. “Second Life ‘Wonderland’ scandal hits mainstream media.” Massively. Massively. Web. August 22, 2015.
Goffman, Erving. “The presentation of self in everyday life.” (1959): 1-17.
Gorky, Porky. “REALLY Sick of discrimination against child avatars,” Second Life Community Forums. Second Life. Web. August 22, 2015.
Linden, Torley. “Paedophilia Groups  Tolerated in SL?” Second Life Forum Archives. Second Life. Web. August 22, 2015.
Malaby, Thomas M. Making virtual worlds: Linden lab and second life. Cornell University Press, 2011.
Manietta, Joseph Bazil. Transnational masculinities: The distributive performativity of gender in Korean boy bands. Diss. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER, 2015.Massumi, Brian. Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press, 2002.
Ngai, Sianne. “Our aesthetic categories: Zany, cute, interesting.” (2012).
Resident, kiskoshka. “REALLY Sick of discrimination against child avatars.” Second Life Community Forums. Second Life. Web. August 22, 2015.
Rubio, Taco. “Age Play Parade!” Second Life Forum Archives. Second Life. Web. August 22, 2015.
Strong, Shelby. “Too Cute for Words: An Investigation of the Aegyo Speech Style and Its Pertinence to Identity, Gender, and Sexuality within South Korea.” (2013).
Sunshine, Stellar. “Introducing ‘Our Gang.'” Second Life Forum Archives. Second Life. Web. August 22, 2015.

Page 6

Source: http://retrofuturismofcuteness.net/cute-charming-dangerous-child-avatars-in-second-life/