For next week, April 5th, please read:
- Branwyn, Gareth. “Compu-Sex: Erotica for Cybernauts” (CR 396-402).
- Alapack, Richard, Mathilde Flydal Blichfeldt, and Aake Elden. (2005). “Flirting on the Internet and the Hickey: AHermeneutic,” CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 52-61 (sent to you via email).
- “A Rape in Cyberspace” by Julian Dibbell
For this week’s blog response, I want you to adopt or confront one of the primary arguments from any one of the authors above and explore that argument with thoughtful analysis, examples (your own or found examples), and support your position with textual evidence found within at least one of the other articles or an outside source. So – you may begin by saying that you agree or disagree with this or that argument that so and so makes, but rather than simply inserting quotes by that author (as so and so says – quote), make YOUR OWN argument – in YOUR OWN WORDS. Use quotes to help support your position (rather than leaning on the quotes to speak for you). Why do you agree or disagree with the claim being made? What moments in your own experiences and passages in other readings helps to support your position? Since these articles are a few years old, one approach you could take is to update the argument (perhaps you do not agree with something because you think certain things have changed – if so, what? why? how?). Or perhaps you think that a certain argument is even more powerfully made now, with the update of internet text to more interactive environments (like Second Life, video chatting, and so forth).
In my reading of “eXistenZ and the Spectre of Gender in the Cyber Generation”, I had a very hard time with agreeing with the author, from nearly the first page. There were actually many claims that the author made that seriously angered me on a personal level. The first comment that I noticed said that, “In her book Irigaray argues that society is coded by the phallocentric discourse of the ‘One’; a discourse in which woman is configured in terms of ‘lack’ through her biological ‘“atrophy” (of the sexual organ)’ (Irigaray 1985: 23).” Now, essentially I took the argument to mean that the mythological understanding of “one”, in any of its qualities, exists in a male sense, since men have a one, visual attribute that, at best defines them, and at worst, is simply visible enough to make an apparent difference; the male penis. Since the female vagina is not genitalia usually described as a single thing, the author chooses not to attribute “one-ness” to femininity. But is this something that is true, or simply something that is a “simulation” of reality, according to the author’s opinions. In my opinion, if you want to get technical about anatomy, the male penis and the female vagina both have many parts working in tandem; or even on the other hand, I can tend to see the female vagina as one thing just as the author sees the male penis as one thing. So in either case, both sets of genitalia are either one thing, or the result of many things, and either possibility, in my mind, in no way places masculinity over femininity.
The next quote that I caught, said that:
…the possibility of swapping hetero-normative sexuality for ‘something else’ is forcefully denied by the protagonist (played by the bastion of hyper-masculinity, Arnold Schwarzenegger). Before taking a trip into a VR world, Quaid is asked about his sexual orientation in a compulsory questionnaire, to which his reply is an emphatic ‘HETERO’. With this established, Quaid is permitted to enter cyberspace/VR (Chilcoat 2004: 162). The assertion that an open admission of his sexual orientation would help Quaid enjoy his trip, in a world in which the body is all but obsolete, is highlighted by Chilcoat as something analogous to the possibilities that VR and cyberspace could provide.
The author essentially asks why it matters that Rekall Incorporated chooses to make the very clear distinction of the sexual preferences of the client, and why would that admission in some way affect the VR experience. Now I took this to really be nothing more than a “social commentary” by the filmmakers; that such a “hyper-masculine” man would have such reservations or discomfort with the idea of homosexuality. Does it imply that homosexuality, or anything at all that is “other” than heterosexual American masculinity, is bad? Maybe it is asserted by the “hyper male” character Quaid, but not by the writers themselves. Why then, would feminist authors take offense to the idea that Quaid would not want to have a different sexuality? I myself am heterosexual and I do not have any contempt for other sexual orientations. By the same token, I would not wish to be of a different sexuality, simply because that is my choice. It is in no way an attempt to elevate my heterosexual masculinity above women or individuals of different sexual orientation. My choice is simply a choice, and while it may be argued that it is close-minded of me to not wish myself to be of a different sexuality, but why do I have to? I don’t need to do that to be an intelligent person, or a well-mannered “enlightened” individual, but I still believe in the importance of harmony in our society. I don’t have to be of a different sexual persuasion to appreciate my ability to accept others.
Next, the author argues the masculine bias of “The Lawnmower Man”. The author writes:
The film indicates this repulsion to the exchange of gender identities most clearly in the scene in which Jobe enters cyberspace to have sex with the blonde next-door neighbour. At one point the two figures dissolve into one, which causes Jobe to detach and transform into a fanged-monster that devours the female and signals the anxiety caused by the potential of breaching the bodily and gender boundaries between male and female.
In my opinion, this assertion has a very complex and emotional component to it, i.e., not logical. It is completely ridiculous to assert that the merging of male and female on a physical, mental, spiritual and/or emotional level, as an act that destroys the male and female identities, is a bad thing. What is described is the merging of the male and female, in what is, rationally, a possibly very chaotic, dangerous, and traumatic experience. The shock of losing the individual identity and merging the mind and soul with another individual, is as far as I know, impossible, and even if it was possible, it is probably very painful or very apt to shatter the sanity of one or both individuals, and thus, not a good idea in any logical sense. I would question that the outcome of Jobe separating from and then eating the blonde girl, is a very predictable effect, whether caused by physical or mental trauma or not. It in no way logically asserts that the joining of male and female is in any way bad, and to assume so is, in my opinion, to expect, and look for, gender biases.
Next, the author asserts the masculine-dominated overtones of the Matrix trilogy. The author says:
…the Oracle’s prophesy reveals parallels to our own co-optation into the patriarchal hegemonic order of gender roles (that is, heterosexual and heteronormative desire followed by monogamous union). The fact that this ‘wisdom’ is relayed by a black mother-figure is something that Springer points out as equally significant in what she suggests is a gendered and racially inflected narrative. Springer suggests that the Oracle is configured in the film as a racial and gender stereotype of the black mother-figure, or ‘mammy’, who tends to everyone else’s children other than her own. She states that, ‘her apron, ample figure and her kindhearted fussing are traits of the Hollywood mammy and perpetuate a longstanding stereotype associated with black women’ (Springer 2005: 96). In a similar fashion to Trinity, then, the Oracle’s agency is only a simulation of power. In her double oppression – of race and gender – the Oracle’s position of authority masquerades under the guise of the black mother as a site of powerful Black wisdom (Springer 2005: 96–97).
The assertion that the Oracle’s wisdom, and Trinity’s role as Neo’s lover and “sidekick”, somehow devalues the two characters and robs them of their importance is completely and utterly ridiculous. The Oracle possesses what I as a spiritual person like to call “Goddess wisdom”, or a feminine emotional wisdom that is attributed to rationality, cool-headed common sense, understanding and empathy; and this is not limited to black women. As literally the only guiding force in Neo’s quest, the Oracle has what I call Goddess wisdom. So many of these “male-centric” fairytales and stories always have an Oracle kind of character; old, wise, frail, but above all, very correct in her advice and as such, respected a great deal. To reduce someone as amazing as the Oracle to a “mammy” is an incredibly racist and ignorant action. Similarly, Trinity is Neo’s love interest. She may exhibit stereotypical “feminine” attributes of compassion, understanding, gentleness, and love, but that is the point. She loves Neo, and thus will act in that way. Even though Trinity also breaks the stereotypical female gender role, by being a soldier, a warrior, that in no way insinuates that Trinity is devalued for either not being a traditional female, or being one when the author says that she shouldn’t. The fact is that when one looks at Trinity’s character very rationally, she makes perfect sense. She is a fighter because the humans are fighting for their survival. She is a gentle lover simply because she loves Neo. When she wants to be a lover, she is, and excels at that. When she has to fight, she does, and similarly excels. Any gender bias that might be seen, because she dies at the end, is insinuated and perhaps desired. There are plenty of supporting characters in the movie, male and female, that help Neo in his quest. None of them are devalued, in my opinion, regardless of gender or race.
As far as cyberpunk writers go, unfortunately none of which I am certainly familiar with, the author argues that:
Nixon also argues that many female and feminist science fiction writers, particularly of the 1970s, have been virtually written out of the canon by cyberpunk’s most prolific self-publicists, such as Bruce Stirling (Nixon 1992). She argues that by ignoring female authors’ contributions to science fiction and by potentially situating women and their femininity as the object of discourse in a male-orientated genre, rather than engaging them in the discourse of gender in these new spaces, cyberpunk envisions ‘an unsavoury and regressive positioning [of women]’ (Nixon 1992).
The biggest thing that irritated me about this claim is the word “potentially” used, as in “…potentially situating women and their femininity as the object of discourse in a male-oriented genre…” It doesn’t make any sense to me, because to say “potentially is virtually the same as saying “possibly”. The word “possibly” is often misunderstood by many people. It is assumed that what is possible is something that definitely will happen and should be treated as such, but that is not true. The word “possibly” is defined as something which is of uncertain likelihood. It is completely possible that what the author claims is happening is actually not happening, and if such a claim is indeed not true, which is possible, then the above is an example of the author looking for gender bias, when in fact there may be none there.
The next quote that jumped out at me had to do with “eXistenZ”, where the author states:
Pikul’s own assessment of his maleness rests in its value as a non-penetrated and ‘whole’ body, which he chooses not to ‘violate’. He does not desire ‘freedom’ from his culturally embedded notions of masculine identification. Symbolising the vaginal opening, the bio-port is identified as part of the female biology and the game-pod is configured as a metaphorical sex organ to be manipulated in order to enter the game. Cronenberg thus links the female, her biology and her sexuality with the fluid spaces of cyberspace and VR. This essentialist linking of the notions of borderlessness and fluidity with femininity is displayed through Allegra’s easy fusion with this technology and, like much cyberpunk fiction, identifies the matrix of cyberspace with the feminine.
This quote on the sexual symbolism of the eXistenZ game pod and the bio ports is another attempt to suggest “phallocentric”, or penis-centric, i.e. male dominated thinking, and it is another way in which I do not see the male-centric viewpoint. I do not know that it is “male” to wish that the body be “whole”, not penetrated, because in my opinion, the same could be said of lesbians, or other women that do not wish to engage in penetrative sexual intercourse. What about this desire not to be penetrated is distinctly male, if anything at all? I have experienced surgery, though not by choice, but I have never distinctly made the decision to have my body penetrated or not, and no surgery that I have undergone has ever had any sexual activity or symbolism. I do not see how this scene of “eXistenZ” has any distinct male or female symbolism, aside from the Freudian sexual connotation that the author chooses to apply to that particular portion of the storyline. Even suggesting that the gas station attendant’s installation of the bio port as a homosexual activity is an extremely large symbolic leap, and in my opinion, unnecessary. There is nothing, neither innuendo nor any offering of sexual favors in the film to suggest homosexual activity in that scene at all. Why would the author suggest this, if it was not in the movie? If it is an attempt to suggest “phallocentric” thinking, as is my thought, then in my opinion, the scene fails to prove this mode of thought.
The next quote that I noticed, again pertaining to “eXistenZ”, states:
Thus the film adopts this, perhaps naïve, idealistic attitude in its characterisation of Allegra and in its delineation of the experiences of cyberspace and VR gaming. However, it also demonstrates that the modes of operation in this world are foreign to men, which is shown through the difficulties experienced by Pikul in adjusting to new physical and social spaces of cyberspace (the VR world of ‘eXistenZ’). Those difficulties experienced by Pikul contrast with Allegra’s own abilities in negotiating her way through cyberspace and the pleasure she takes from each new stimuli that her game-word offers her. For example, momentarily confused by this newfound freedom, Pikul represents the phallocentric notion of truth and he initially resists immersion into the free-play of self-creation and self navigation, needing to know what the goal of the game is before he can start playing it.
This quote seems to suggest that what “phallocentric” thinking is is a seeming “preoccupation” with truth. The quote also seems to suggest that the almost obsessive or insane search for what is true is an exclusively male mode of thought. This in my opinion, does not just suggest gender bias, but in fact, creates it. Describing Pikul as “wrong” for wanting to understand the goal of the game, as opposed to Allegra, who already is familiar with eXistenZ, is unfair. It is commonly human to ask “why?”, to wonder what purpose there is behind human experience and existence. This is not an exclusively male idea or emotion, nor should it be, and to assume so is, in my opinion, insulting to both genders. Gaining understanding of anything in general is not exclusively male, and to think so is also insulting to both genders. Why does the author make these claims? Why does the author attribute this “phallocentric”, or male-centric mode of thought, as something that is so bad, assuming that it even exists?
The author’s next quote that grabbed my eye, says that:
I would argue that, in Croneberg’s film, the codification of woman as abject and its refusal to sanction the multiplicity of identity, found in the realm of cyberspace, is subtler but no less indicative of the horror of surrendering the borders of masculinity and ‘Oneness’. The game slips into another level and, as Pikul gropes Allegra’s breasts, the film cuts to his hand, which shows Pikul gripping a grotesque and slimy amphibian whose throat he is about to slit open. Thus, Pikul’s momentary sexual abandon is linked to the horror of the abject body of the woman, identified as it is as grotesque and repulsive, and the film articulates a violence towards the female and the feminine, which seemingly deserves nothing more than to be sliced up and mutilated.
Making this sort of qualified judgment is, in my opinion, wrong. The author is saying that “eXistenZ” treats the female body as something that is grotesque, bad, and the same thought is applied to the man giving up his sense of masculinity. The quote assumes that the obviously vilified action of Pikul groping Allegra’s breasts is similar to or the same as gutting a fish. And it should be noted that the act of “sexual abandon” is not entirely Pikul’s act; Allegra exhibits similar actions and desires in interacting with Pikul in that one moment. Saying that this scene somehow advocates violence toward women, who are seen as nothing more than fish to be gutted, is an extremely biased statement, enough so that it should be immediately recognized as completely ridiculous; or at least it should be considered that the author is actually making negative comments toward women for once, whether or not this is actually realized.
The next quote, states that:
…with the amphibian as a sign of difference, along with femininity and homosexuality. As Pikul’s urge to kill Allegra is displaced to the Chinese waiter, one could also contend that it is an example of displaced homophobia and symbolic revenge for the pseudo-rape by Gas in the bioport scene, thus, locating difference, such as sexual, gendered and racial otherness, as the site of abjection in the heterosexist and white, male phallocentric world of the body.
This quote only has any merit at all if one assumes that the aforementioned bio port scene really does contain any rape, symbolically or otherwise. The author’s insistence of a Freudian connection between homosexuality and femininity with surgical operations makes no sense to me. I do not have any reason, in the text, in the film “eXistenZ” or in my personal experiences with surgery, that suggest any sexual connection or overtone, no matter how subtle or disassociated. I have no idea why the author continues to make this assumption, nor of any way to validate the claims by the author; as such I must conclude that this idea is a construct of the author’s opinions and biases, and thus a value judgment not based in fact or empirical evidence.
The final quote that I will choose to analyze, states:
While there has been an attempt to attribute a partially positive reading of Cronenberg’s position on gender and technologies of the Internet/VR in this film, there is a sense in which his ambiguous position does not hold out hope for transcendence and indeed reveals a distinct ambivalence about the positivity of such a future. Thus, one could suggest that while Cronenberg’s film simulates an open debate, the film finally fails to imagine the environment of VR and cyberspace as a genderless, bodiless and borderless zone and, like much of science fiction cinema, resurrects the spectre of negative essentialist configurations of gender for the cybergeneration.
The quote, to me, suggests a wish that gender lines were blurred or eliminated completely, despite the fact that, in my opinion, the author spends most of the time actually enhancing the lines between genders with overly powerful value judgments, and gender and racial biases. One cannot eliminate the barriers between the genders if one spends ones time insulting both genders; saying that men are essentially stupid for clinging onto notions of or the desire for truth, and that women, simply because they are women, are abject and repulsive, or should be seen as such, depending on whether the woman embraces or denies traditional gender roles of femininity.
In closing, this article, aside from taking me 8 hours to read, angered me a great deal. I am not entirely sure why the author would choose to argue, or include arguments of other individuals, with such terribly biased and completely illogical claims. I acknowledge the fact that I could have totally missed the point of what the article was saying. However, wherever these claims originated from, it is my opinion that given the racial and gender bias inherent in most of the article, racial and gender bias really only exists if you want it to, if you look for it. This has an effect on the blurring or strengthening of the boundaries between genders; inciting hostility or making outrageous claims about either gender is not conducive to the eventual ideal that the author seems to desire, the elimination of gender boundaries. But I wonder then, why does this boundary need to be eliminated in the first place? Is it based off of the assumption that gender boundaries must, or will be, eliminated if human beings fully integrate into virtual reality? Whether or not this is possible, I still wonder at the need to eliminate the gender barriers.
Speaking from a prospective where technology wasn’t really advanced I agree with Branwyn in “Compu-Sex; Erotica for Cybernauts”. Computer sex is a growing segment in the world of technology. I agree that it is the safest and convenient way for individuals and or couples to act out their private fantasies without having the feeling of guilt and or embarrassment from their peers. It also shares the tendencies of reducing diseases that get spread around between individuals of states. For example, a couple of weeks ago I found out on the radio that D.C has a high rate of HIV carriers. I feel as though to prevent this from furthering on computer sex is not such a bad thing.
The author states “The freedom to hide behind a phony name also contributes to a plague of on-line sexual harassment and rampant rudeness”. Immediately I thought about the situation when I was in second life when we changed genders. I tried to have conversations with this one female and she immediately assumed that I was trying to talk to her by trying to get to know her and she became annoyed as though I was harassing her. All I wanted to have been a friendly conversation and make new friends in second life. I think the thing that makes truth to this sentence is that woman think that all dudes want to have sexual relations with them and some might just be in it for the conversations or helpful advice.
Now a days since technology is forever changing and different from how things were you have to take in effect the consequences now. With that being said, at this present time I wouldn’t agree with this argument that the author is making. I still feel the same that it is safe to explore and not catch harmful diseases or be called a “hoe” but being that parents don’t watch their children enough and don’t know what’s going on for the most case it can be dangerous. Have the choice of being anonymity is good but when you really don’t know who it is then that’s when it becomes a problem. Today these generations are becoming aware of how females/males are and become interested in being someone else and have the power to have that control. Anybody can make a fake profile and lie on their age or appearance especially since children are looking older then what they actually are. For example, I was watching a episode of Law and Order SVU and this rapist was out of jail and was messing with this fourteen year old female and was caught by the detectives and luckily they found him before something went down because he was HIV positive and she was going to have sex with him that night. He was tricked by the girl because she told him she was eighteen and frankly she did look like she could pass as that age. This makes you realize the advantage of the computer and some people don’t want to realize it at times especially when they know deep inside what the truth actually is.
The author also states that “if people tend to get attached then all the other person has to do is delete their identity and recreate their profile”. I believe that just because one does delete their profile doesn’t mean that they aren’t going to get hooked again or start lingering on to another couple/individual and make them delete theirs as well. Today, we don’t have the guides searching around and making sure there’s nothing provocative going on within chat rooms. Also, the same couple before might have conversation with another couple and that couple can easily inform them about the experience they was having and might become back in touch with you.
All in all, computer sex is taking toll of people’s life’s and relationships especially when they try to bring it into real life and their partner might not be feeling the same and wanting the same things. The author states in the beginning that “it’s a tool for examining our very sense of reality” and after reading the authors points, it is agreeable and does it in a since of diseases.
Response #7
The primary argument that I am going to confront for this week’s blog response is found in “Compu-Sex: Erotica for Cybernauts” by Gareth Branwyn. I disagree with the argument that compu-sex brings new meaning to the phrase”mental masturbation.” My argument is that as much as people would like compu-sex, public chat rooms, like InfoMart, and the Internet, to be like “real world” situations, they are working towards a false hope. The reason why I disagree with the claim being made is because it is near impossible for the participants to keep up with and have the same feelings and connections as in the actual world, with themselves, a pair or groups.
I agree some with Richard Alapack, who wrote, “Flirting on the Internet and the Hickey: A Hermeneutic.” He states that sexual intercourse has mutated into basically just “talk about sex.” I like how he choose to use the word “mutated” because I feel that it is true, physical, sexual interaction and masturbation has been around in our world since the very beginning of time, this is one o the few and most common ways to reproduce. In my own experiences, “the messy, wet-ware of body fluids, saliva, sweat, slobber, and the fresh meat of body odors, the blush, or the hickey,” (Alapack) is part of the whole package, otherwise are people just saying they are too good for the real deal or just don’t have time anymore?
A few weeks ago we were assigned a reading by Deborah Lupton called “The Embodied Computer/User.” There were a couple things she said that I feel prove my argument that people are trying to achieve a false hope. Lupton stated that the sound her computer makes when it turns on helps her prepare emotionally and physically for the day. She says there is an emotional relationship. The question then I would ask is what if her computer broke and couldn’t be fixed? Would you cry, go into a depression, or never buy another one again?
I had to go to court the other day, and something reminded me of all of this talk about new dependency humans are having on technology, in all aspects of their lives. A man got into an accident because his GPS system told him to turn onto incoming traffic, and he did! The judge told that man that he cannot depend on his GPS to take him safely where he needs to go always. It is a machine she said, and he is the human that in the end has to make the final judgment. In the end, he got charged with reckless driving.
I do not feel that going on-line, engaging in conversations, and having texted-based sexual exchanges, would go under the category of “mental masturbation.” Most likely the person is still touching themselves, like the woman in the article states how it is hard to type with just one hand. Also, it does cost money. Branwyn says, “Tonight’s disembodied tryst has cost about six dollars.” Does this in a way mean that people are paying others for sexual pleasure? All of these reasons are why I feel that “texted-based compu-sex” are far from “real life” intercourse, you have to pay for the service, there is no physical connection, and if something happens to your computer, you can buy a new own, and if the chat room gets shut down, you just join another room.
Right off from the first sentence in the Abstract portion of “Flirting on the Internet and the Hickey”, where it states “erotic behavior in cyberspace is customary” helps me to see that, this is definitely something that I truly agree with. I believe that cyberspace has now become an area that you can go on to do anything and somehow some type of erotic or sex type website can come up in a pop up or can occur when you are trying to have local chats, or find a webpage with a similar name. As the introduction starts off, we see that the replacement of the physical sense, of messy “wetware” of body fluids, is now replaced to virtual experimentation. I completely agree with this thought. I feel like many have replaced their sex lives from the personal physical one on one to a computer screen. On page three we see one of the questions answered with “chat room is tailor made for flirting”. This statements shows that people have a comfort online that they do not posses one on one.
When typing in a chat room, I feel like people have a sense of comfort, because they do not have to face the other people. You can be who you want to be. Sometimes people with lower self esteem have been able to go online and find them to be a stronger person. You can go on and be the beauty queen you never were, a hunky, beefy muscular man or just be you that is a bit more outspoken. I tend to look at it in the sense of someone who has been at a bar and consumed alcohol. You know that after a few beers, your mood changes and you sometimes tend to betray yourself in a different light. I look at this much like how people probably feel in a chat room. On the internet you can be a different person. No one is going to now that is not you.
I part that I do not know how I truly feel about is when Lisa is describing how she feels a comfort with the person that she met in the states. She stated that she felt more comfortable talking to him rather than her close friends who knew everything about her. For me this is hard to perceive, because I am one of those people who likes to talk to someone who knows me very well. I feel like if they know more about me than they will have an understanding that one would not have if they had just recently met me. I assume this is something that some get into in the cyber world, I just am not one who has ever found those strong connections on the Internet. “Even though her and her American never met in the flesh, they had an “amazing link””. I find this hard to believe when I relate it to my own life. I am one who has to have that face to face interaction, and the fact that this woman felt so strongly to someone she never saw is very new to me. I have to wonder, how does she know who she was honestly talking to? You can say anything you want on the internet thus why I think it has such a high appeal to so many. Not truly knowing who I was talking to and who else was in the room would bother me and make me very hesitant to the information to which I would tell someone online. “The setting elicits projections of wishes, hopes, dreams, and fears” this is something again that I would have to disagree with. I know that this is just my opinion, and I myself have known many who feel this way and have met the loves of their lives either through local type chat rooms or through online dating, but from a personal perspective, which was what you had wanted from us this week I would have to say that I do not feel much of that quote above can be summed up from an online friendship for me
By making the first ‘click,’ one sets the mood and often decides immediately to orchestrate an obvious flirt or settle for another run-of-the-mill “rap”. The other participant follows the lead, switches focus, or ends the session” (AlaPack 5). This statement how ever does play on the other side for me. I do agree with this theory both in the cyber world and in the real world of face to face interaction. I feel like this is how a typical first part of a relationship can go. It goes on to discussing that you can say anything you want first time meeting on the internet, where in person you cannot. I also feel this to be very true. As mentioned before there is a sense of comfort on the intern not felt in person. Since you are not looking the other person in the eye, what you say is spoken more openly and freely where as it would be if you were talking to someone and looking at them in person.
After reading this week’s assigned articles, the idea that stands out to me the most is that physical intimacy is being replaced with cyber intimacy, and “[r]aw sex has been mutated into talk-about-sex, to disembodied action in symbolic spaces.” (Alapack, Blietchfeldt, & Elden, 2005) This idea is one that I agree with, and in some cases, I feel that this “technosexuality” transformation can be beneficial to society, and in other cases, I feel it can be quite damaging.
Over the years, more and more platforms for cyber intimacy have been created and have been developed, such as My Space, Black Planet, Second Life, and Facebook, as well as various messengers, such as Yahoo, MSN, and Google. Because of the influx of these platforms, more and more people are trying cybersex. In 1998 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that use of the Internet is doubling every 100 days. Of the estimated 9 million adults who access the internet daily, 33% have visited sexually explicit sites. A survey given by MSNBC in 2000, found that 25 million Americans visit cybersex sites between 1-10 hours per week. In just this 2 years time, it is evident that cybersex is growing exponentially due to increased access of platforms.
I’ll start out my saying that I have little to no first-hand experience with the online chatting world. Most of my knowledge on this topic comes from second-hand accounts from family and friends, and other stories I hear from the news and advertisements. My first recollection of the online chatting phenomenon comes from the summer of 1997 when I was living away from home with an older friend. This friend was constantly on AOL searching for people to chat with, with the intention of the content turning sexual. Occasionally, I would sit in on the conversations, purely motivated by my curiosity of why this person would sit at the computer for hours at a time. The content was pretty raunchy and I was embarrassed to witness the communication. I experienced first-hand how “[o]nline flirting often triggers physical […] reactions.” (Alapack, 2005) When I asked why this person was so into cyber intimacy, the person replied “because it’s easy to meet new people who can fulfill my sexual fantasies.” Reflecting back, I see that “[c]yberspace grant[ed] [this person] a free breath of fresh air because [n]othing stops you from revealing your innermost fantasies and wildest imaginings.” (Alapack, 2005) I later found out that this person was on narcotics and that the attraction to chat in this context was a result of this person’s high. I’m not sure how typical this situation is to intimate cyber chatting, but in retrospect it’s interesting that this person was attracted to cyberspace when influence by a false sense of reality, when “cyberspace is […] a tool for examining our very sense of reality.” (Heim, 1993)
Other experiences I have had came from friends and family members’ stories of online interaction. My sister has actually met up with people with whom she has engaged in cyber intimacy, with the intension of finding Mr. Right. Not to my surprise, she was unsuccessful because “most [people] are one person on the net, another, different one in real life.” (Alapack, 2005) I’m just glad someone didn’t turn her bones into chimes.
Although my first and second-hand experiences have not all been positive, I feel that there are some advantages of cyber intimacy for those who aren’t looking for a relationship and just want to fulfill superficial intimate urges. Especially with sexually transmitted diseases and promiscuity on the rise, cyber intimacy can be a good way to reduce these incidences. In Gareth Branwyn’s “COMPU-SEX: Erotica for cybernauts,” he states that “[c]ompu-sex enthusiasts say it’s the ultimate safe sex for the 1990s, with no exchange of bodily fluids, no smoke-filled clubs, and no morning after.” (Alapack, 2005) The problem with this is that many feel that “[o]nline discourse […] only fits rational secondary relationships” (Alapack, 2005), and that “[i]ntamacy requires the full spectrum of the vital sensing-feeling modalities which richly punctuate carnal interactions.” (Alapack, 2005) A double-edge sword perspective on this topic is teenage curiosity. Many parents are over protective of their children using the internet in any capacity because of the fear that they will become victimized by online predators. However, teenagers curious about sexuality will look to other channels if one channel, such as the internet, is blocked.
A disadvantage of cyber intimacy is that some people want to take the interaction beyond cyberspace into real life. This can be problematic because you never know who’s on the other side of the communication because “[i]n cyberspace, there are no limits, no boundaries, no rules, no regulations, no traffic signals…and no border-crossings.” (Alapack, 2005) One may come across a serious psycho or a looser like my sister often did. Another problem with cyber intimacy is that once you engage someone, it can be very difficult to cut ties because of the anonymity. “The freedom to hide behind a phony name [could] also contribute to a plague of on-line sexual harassment and rampant rudeness.” (Branwyn, 1994) One last problem with cyber intimacy comes when one begins to replace his/her personal relationships with online relationships. In this respect, I feel that cyber intimacy is only valuable when kept on a superficial level.
I agree with the argument in place in Richard Alapack, Mathilde Blichfeldt and Aake Elden’s “Flirting on the Internet and the Hickey: AHermeneutic”. “With seeming ease, users, youngsters in particular, cope with issues that had plagued their ‘modern’ counterparts: shyness pressure to act sexual, fear of rejection and the strain of trying to form a relationship”. “Cybersex is “clean”, less pressure-riddled and easier to negotiate than intensely emotionally laden interaction of real life.” This is what I believe is the main point/argument in which I agree with. I have never myself had any relations online but I do see why and how people could feel this way about online dating. Anyone knows that a first date can be really awkward and nervous if you don’t know the person or haven’t really had any interaction with that person before. When reading this article and also in my opinion, meeting a person online and getting the awkward conversations out of the way when you are online could really benefit the relationship. A lot of people I know are shy before their first date but I have noticed that if they have had multiple conversations and got to know the other person their first date usually runs more smoothly. I also agree with the article in the way of if there is this way of meeting people in more comfortable, less stress full and “clean” way, why not approach it. I believe that is the main reason people this day are using the online way, not only to meet people but for “cybersex”. As it is stating in the article this way is more “clean” and that if a person feels uncomfortable with something online they can simply “log off”. In real life, if you are in an uncomfortable situation it is less likely that you can get away from the situation as easy as you could online. This new way of dating, through the internet, in my opinion isn’t “taking over” real life dating. I believe it is enhancing how real life dating goes about. It is giving shy people the advantage of getting a lot out before meeting and also making it a safe way to meet people, and multiple people. I believe that this idea is not going to stay the way it has, just like real life dating has changed, so will online dating. I see in the future more people adapting and using online dating (or online as a way of meeting/interacting with people). I also see in the future there will be a change in how people who are “against” this online interaction, and as it becomes used more, there will be a better impression of it.
There were many points within Gareth Branwyn’s article “Compu-Sex” that I found to be extremely interesting and thought- provoking. I was able to consciously sum these points up into the generalization that: sex online is so successful because it is so convenient, accessible, and easy.
Branwyn even goes as far to say that, “every computer information service, large or small, has lurking within its bits and bytes an active subculture of users engaged in text-based sexual exchanges.” Since it is everywhere, it is so easy to find, and convenient to use. If a person is feeling in a “sexual” sort of mood, he/she doesn’t have to go out to a bar, spend hours finding the right person to exchange boring conversation only to get rejected. In Alapack, Blichfeldt, and Elden’s article “Flirting on the Internet and the Hickey”, they explain multiple reasons why online sex has become such a phenomenon. One of these reasons is that “the chat room is tailor-made for flirting”. You can enter one of these chat rooms, and express what you are looking for while going straight for it rather than bouncing around with “where are you from/ what do you do” questions that you really don’t care to know the answer to.
Branwyn even explains that online sexual environments give you a blatent choice for what sort of environment you would like to enter into. You could enter a chat room for bi-sexual women, gay men, orgys, etc. Think about how hard it would be to walk into a club and yell out “anyone else interested in an orgy?!” Pretty difficult…unless you were looking to get beat up or kicked out. The author explains that there are three main different kinds of sexual encounters on the internet. The first, and most common, is the type of compu-sex where the “participants describe and embellish real world circumstances”. This is where the people are telling each other something that is really happening like “I’m in my room and doing this…”. In the “Flirting on the Internet” article, the authors describe a scenario where two people were able to form a serious relationship online. They never met face-to-face, only spoke through technology, but they formed a true connection. They told each other true facts about themselves, their day, their lives and formed a great long-distance relationship. This is very convenient for those people who may have had a rough break up in the past. Maybe the two people had lived together and found it very difficult to break it off completely. Being in a “internet relationship”, there is no physical bond between two people- only the text based bond they choose to form. This sort of compu-sex is also great for a couple who may have physical distance between them. Maybe a partner is in the military and got shipped off to another country. They can still keep the intimate part of their relationship, even though there is no physical contact between the two.
According to Branwyn, “the second type of interaction involves the creation of a pure fantasy scenario (‘We’re in a healthy club doing our workouts, only we’re both totally nude’).” The people involved are not giving each other an accurate story of what they are doing. Because they’re both typing on the computer, it is obvious that they are not in a health club working out. But it allows them to be other people, personalities, or in different situations than they normally would. The authors of the “Flirting on the Internet” article could back this up because they explain that sex online through the computer has very few limitations. The computer user is free to be whoever he/ she chooses to be and do whatever he/she chooses to do. “The lure to hide safely behind the computer screen is strong. You orchestrate the “music,” direct the “play,” and juggle several personalities. John affirms, “Only your own moral standards and feel- ings set the limits. Literally, it is ‘headycontrol’.” You can do whatever you choose within cyberspace, and the only thing that will steer you one way or another is your own personal conviction to do such.
The third type of online sex is very popular with couples who want to swing online. It involves the idea of giving actually instructions of sex over the computer. While reading this article, I was a bit confused on what this type might actually be. The only thing that I really understood from that particular paragraph was that the sexual encounter is meant to be extremely short term, and that if a user becomes too emotionally attached, the others can leave immediately, and create a new “screen personae”. Again, extremely convenient and easy. The users don’t have to stick around for something that might annoy them. They just leave- it’s as easy as that.
While online sexual encounters are becoming increasingly popular and convenient, there are still some hindrances. There is still no physical contact. And the question remains- is it really sex if there is no physical contact? Programs like SecondLife are beginning to touch the surface of this by having sexual encounters with avatars. A person becomes to attached to their avatar, that they could eventually feel as though they ARE their avatar. And if a sexual encounter is happening through their avatar, it is becoming increasingly closer to real contact between two people. I think it will be extremely interesting to watch the future of this phenomenon and see where it goes.
The article “Flirting on the Internet” illustrates the internet is no stranger to social interaction, particularly between those who want to date or find “love” or a partner online. From my own personal perspective, I don’t believe many people will go out of their way to have an online relationship. How can people share passion and the true experience when sitting behind the computer screen? I strongly believe that those who are open to forming a relationship through a virtual world, chat, etc are lonesome in their real lives. For example, Lisa is noted in the article to form a strong bond with an “American” interest after a break-up from a long time boyfriend. Those who want to find love online may be because it is easy source to use for a rebound.
I have no experience really “flirting” online unless it was through e-mailing or chatting with my boyfriend in real life throughout the day. However, I see forming a relationship online a completely different issue that is mostly because of vulnerability. I do have strong opinions about online dating, flirting or even meeting people through the internet because I don’t know their real identity. I can’t trust that they are genuinely expressing their true character online. It also scares me about how many reports of sexual predators are behind the computer screen looking for their next victim which is illustrated in Dibbell’s article. Those who are OK or unaware of risking these dangers are usually more willing to test and explore virtual realities/internet with the mindset that they could find friendship and/or relationship.
I agree with the points the author makes about how interaction online may actually be less subtle, ironically as it may sound, than in person. For example, the author notes how a compliment might “provoke a blush”. However, on the internet, people actually type in the worlds “::blush::”, “::wink::” to express their gestures. Another example is that in real life, people may go to events/places that their love interest is attending and play it off as if it were a coincidence. On the internet, people’s intentions are clearly shown as they navigation to a location where it is more private to meet their interest. Movements are controlled online so users can see more clearly if there is a connection developing. Users knowingly use gestures to communicate their emotions or feelings towards one another. People may say using the internet may be a more subtle way or a barrier to really communicating with someone, but I believe that because of the control we have behind the computer screen motives are more distinguishable and less questionable.
I have questioned a friend as an outside source who states that she is also “more aroused by text” than when flirting in real life. She had “online boyfriends” who she met through the internet in the past. Because her character was more shy and quiet in person, she felt comfortable meeting people online and “free” to express her interest towards them. This helped me to also consider the fact that those who want to escape their personality in real life or how they are perceived may thrive more on internet interactions and are open to forming online relationships. She also felt it reassuring and less complicating when building connections. She would get typed responses of what they were feeling by smiley faces that were winking or texts such as “::holding hands::”. It is strange to me how relationships are developed and I find it unrealistic as characters may be deceiving online. However, many people are fascinated and find themselves building a strong bond sooner or later.
Gareth Branwyn’s article entitled “Compu-sex Erotica for Cybernauts” brought up many interesting points. Before reading this article I was really unaware of how common it is to use the cyber world for sex. The conclusion that I came to after reading this is that compu-sex has a lot to deal with the fact that it is easy in accessibility. As Branwyn states, it simply changes form to fit the modes of communication available” (p. 397). Why is this important? I feel that society has come to a point where things need to be easy in order to have an interest in something. “The participants are content to return night after night to explore this odd brand of interactive and sexually explicit storytelling” (p. 396). The fact that people are so willing to take part in this phenomenon and also continue to return “night after night” shows that the accessibility of it makes people want to take part in it. Even though this article was written in the 90’s, I still feel that this accessibility to the cyber world has been the main attractive to using it. As years have passed there have been more examples of ways the cyber world is accessible. Through examples such as facebook, myspace, Second Life, and texting it is obvious that the less face to face communication the more comfortable society feels. I think this has a lot to do with compu-sex. People feel comfortable not actually physically taking part in sexual activity but instead are comfortable with experiencing it through the computer. I personally find this awkward but hey I guess whatever makes you more comfortable. I think it is said that the society to coming to this. I am guilty for having a facebook, a myspace and texting non-stop. But I still feel that face to face communication is extremely important. If you do not feel comfortable speaking to people in person than how will you interview for a job? I personally enjoy the cyber world but I am trying very hard to not get consumed by it. I think that is article is an example of how people are getting consumed by the cyber world and I think it all relates back to the accessibility. Hopefully, people won’t take it too far.
assignment 7
I agree wwith Gareth Branwyn I think it is okay to have a sexual ralationship online as long as you do not meet face to face to do the real deed. This will help you stay away from diseases and wont be face with the tragies that come when you actuall meet up. This is the safe sex practice, you get what you need without getting hurt. Nobody knows your identity you can be either female or male characters. NOBODY knows you actually sex. I was curious once and tried it out , it weirded me out but if it helps people stay away from disease and rape then its okay. I dont believe you should ever meet up with anybody because you could get raped or murdered
Branwyn’s analysis of internet flirting and web based sexual encounters is a logical perspective on the topic. She points out that although there is a lack of physical connection, the encounters and experiences still mirror the traditional physical sexual encounters. I agree with this analysis. The Dibbel reading discusses a woman that was raped online. Her reaction was much like actual rape victims. Even though she was never physically violated, she was forced to read text in gory detail about her character being violated. Although it seems obscure, it is perfectly logical. When online, the mentality is to be mentally immersed in cyberspace; although the keyboard and monitor are barriers between the user and the virtual world, the user can still feel immersed in the virtual world. While playing games such as Counter Strike Source and Call of Duty, I have often found myself feeling as though I was in the game. Every time my character died my heart dropped until I respawned, so it is logical that someone using similar technology for sexual reasons would react the same way. Dibbel also mentions the virtual lynch mob that developed on the MOO sight after the virtual rape, demanding the perpetrator be toaded. At first I did not think the deletion of some ones account was much of a punishment, but then I began to think how I would react if one of my accounts on the various forums and games I participate on was permanently banned, and I realized just how attached I am to my virtual identities. It also makes sense that this carries over to the more carnal aspects of cyberspace. Even though computers are metals and plastics, the user is still human, not machine, and still has carnal desires and needs, so it makes sense that virtual reality respond to these needs.
I chose to analyze “Flirting on the Internet and the Hickey: A Hermeneutic.” In this reading the authors pose an initial question of “Why prefer a virtual mode to generate sexual attention, to gain/grant both social experience and romantic-erotic feelings? Why choose the “chat” room as the arena for flirting?” I will choose to answer these questions from my own analysis of this reading and others that support my findings.
People prefer a virtual mode rather than a physical mode to experience romantic-erotic-feelings for three important reasons. Before the internet people would go to bars or clubs to meet a potential mate, in this setting physical appearance is the basis of initial attraction. Online interactions provide a setting in which someone’s (online) personality is what attracts another. In this case a better relationship is formed when attraction is based on personality. Another reason people prefer a virtual mode rather than the physical is that we as a society have changed, today people are a lot busier and an online relationship provides a less involving relationship. In the first case of Lisa she explained her physical relationship as “heavy and preferred” and her online relationship as “light encounters, even breezyones.” She goes on to explain that she “got in touch with someone with minimal exertion, and nourished the distant contact with the ease of just pecking keys.” Point blank, people do not have time to waste on relationships with people they meet at a bar. The last reason is that a conversation held on the internet allows a different form of communication which involves interpretations of both sent and received messages. In text based conversations it is very important to use different cues so the receiver can interpret the message exactly how you meant it. According to the reading “over the net, one shares the heat and reddening by using brackets (blush). Thus moment-by-moment punctuations diminish the gap between the screen and the life world.” This practice has developed over the years and I think some people can interpret what someone types better than what someone says. For instance if someone who is constantly involved in online relationships will experience neglect to form personal relationships. This person will have difficulty understanding someone’s physical body language to interpret messages while having no difficulty decoding the same message through text.
People use the chat room as the arena for flirting because the interactions are less formal. This setting allows people to “let their guard down.” In Johns experience he explained that “you can’t say some things to people the first time you meet them. But you can say anything immediately over the net.” People feel this way because if someone doesn’t like you then “there are plenty of more fish in the sea” and online the fish count is probably quadrupled. To add to that it is a lot easier to experience rejection in the safety of your own home on your computer than in real life at a bar or club. With the use of technology people can actually say (type) what they feel, and be who they are. On the flip side of that the internet also can also prevent unwanted advances easily. The reading explains that “It also minimizes possible bruises to sensibilities that “rough” chat room tactics can inflict. Refusing your correspondent’s invitations is as easy as logging off.” The informal nature of internet interaction provides a setting in which rejection is easy to handle and easy to deal.
After reading flirting on the Internet and the Hickey: AHermeneutic, I agree that erotic behavior in cyberspace is the norm now a days. Between online dating, chat rooms, and people sending scandalous pictures to each other the internet has gotten its name as a common place in people’s everyday lives.
No matter what age you are everyone is constantly on the internet, and people are continually meeting people on line. Whether they’re just friends or romantically involved, meeting on line has become a new phenomenon. I believe that flirting and sexual tendency’s online has become more popular because people feel more comfortable about their insecurities when no one can psychically touch them and see their insecurities that they have about themselves. As it says in the article “Since you can’t ‘read’ your partner’s face, hear her voice, touch him or smell her perfume” I feel that the communication is probably easier between them. Even thou it probably isn’t the same as it is in person with actually being able to have that physical contact with the person, many people still enjoy it.
I feel like being able to touch the person your with is a must. I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing that kind of stuff over the internet. “Online flirting often triggers physical and sexual reactions stronger than in a regular conversation: shuddering, shivering, having an erection, blotching.” I think that this is because it’s something exciting and new to them, especially if they have someone at home and a family they get excited for a change of scenery and visuals. Many people have fantasies that involve erotic and unrealistic situations. Many of these situations can take place on the internet, because people aren’t always who they say they are. They could say their a 25 year old cheerleader for the redskins, but in actuality they’re a 40 year old man.
Over the internet you can really say anything you want, and a lot of people ironically believe what they hear from people on the internet. It just goes to show that people seem to feel more comfortable over the internet than with eye to eye contact, and you get to skip out on the awkward moments. I think that people are going to continue to use the internet as a place to meet and interact with others and the internet meetings are only going to get more of a norm.
The Compu-Sex article started off with an interesting twist of describing a man mustering up the courage to go talk to a woman. The introduction goes through all the details if what a typical guy feels approaching a woman he is interested in but not sure if she is interested back. She ends up being interested. “The chemistry is right; things heat up.” They ended up doing there thing and to a reader not paying attention one would think they had actually phsyically gotten together and did the nast. “They quickly undressed each other and begin making frantic love.” “The exchange is short but intesnse.” It turns out however that they were merely ‘cybering’ computer to computer over an internet connection and never physically came in contact. I can’t help but to chuckle when I read this article. It was great how they described the end of the experience by doing things like, “exchanging nervous pleasantries” and how they hit the quit button which is what gave away the fact that it was all on the computer. If people find pleasure in this, though I personally think it’s a little ridiculous, I don’t see why it’s a completely bad thing, like the article says, it keeps people away from the dangers of STDs and let’s people stay away from unhealthy environments such as crowded and smokey clubs. What health risk is there ‘having sex’ in cyberspace? On the other hand, it may handicap a person’s ability to interact intimately with a significant other, especially if the ‘cybering’ starts at a young age and continues. Obviously messing around through the internet is very different from actually physically interacting with a person. Perhaps in combination with real interaction, ‘cybering’ may be an acceptable behavior as long as it is kept in check and done in moderation.
“A Rape in Cyberspace” described to me the dark side of ‘cyber sexing.’ Apparently a particular user was abusing the system by implementing commands that forced other avatars into sexual behaviors. He was dressed up in a clown suit and forced some avatars to do some pretty sick things, things that would get a person a lot of time in the real world. Apparently this disturbed the users of LambdaMoo and sparked the assembly of a meeting between significant users with admin privileges. They got together to decide what action to take against this out of control user. I don’t think they ever came to a decision, but this occurrence caused a shockwave in the LambdaMoo community nonetheless and is a large part of it’s LM’s reputation. Eventually admins changed things around to allow the booting of people abusing their ‘avatar privileges.’ I am sorry, but this is the silliest thing. They were actually trying to prosecute this guy beyond the level of just simply banning him from the network or something. Though some of the actions described were pretty despicable, I think one has to keep in mind that is it merely an AVATAR. One may feel close to their avatar and somehow develop close feelings but it is not the real person. If they don’t like what they are seeing, they can log off, report it do the admin, come to terms with the user that is causing the ruckus (or ban them) and move on with life.. Or should I say virtual life? I don’t think it’s right to do things that will cause people ‘emotional trauma’ and cause them to have “post traumatic tears streaming down their face.” At the same time, if you are that effected, I think it’s time to spend more time and focus on other things. What they should do is make some type of virtual court system and even a virtual prison where avatars who act up, like our friend Mr. Bungle, have to spend a particular amount of time based on jury rulings and the offense. I hate to sound sarcastic and insensitive, but I just find it really hard to take something like this as seriously as some people seem to take it, that’s all.
First off, I thought this week’s readings were very interesting and quite engaging. I found the Branwyn reading and the Alapack, Blichfeldt, and Elden reading actually useful for our group project which subject is texting and its influence/effects on individual’s lives and habits.
I chose to mainly discuss for this week’s blog “Flirting on the Internet and the Hickey: A Hermeneutic,” by Alapack, Blichfeldt, and Elden. Basically what I took from this article was that cyber/text/type sexual interactions and experiences are beginning to, or already have, take over and replace the ‘real life’ physical sexual interactions and experiences. Although I agree with some of the points made in the article about the subject, ultimately I would have to disagree with the main argument that I understood to be, that techno/virtual sex and sexual interactions have replaced the physical act of sex and human sexuality. Just as how trains, cars, airplanes, telephones, computers, technology in general, has made our lives and existence as human beings easier and more entertaining, they have also given us new ways and opportunities to create and exploit new ideas or personal needs. Since the beginning of man’s existence, sex and sexual/erotic pleasures and urges have also existed along with the need to act upon and come up with new ways/ideas to satisfy these urges and acts of pleasure. So wouldn’t man find a use for technology with sex since technology has already replaced or enhanced so many other aspects of our lives such as writing, communicating, cooking, and transportation? Really it was only a matter of time. The question isn’t WOULD we use or WHY we would use technology for sexual/erotic pleasures, but HOW and WHEN we would use it and to what degree.
In the article sexual interactions are described as “mutated” from physical to virtual; I wouldn’t necessarily describe it as mutated, because physical sexual interactions between people still very much exist and are not solely virtual, and probably always will exist unless for some unforeseen reason; rather I’d describe it as an evolution or an intervention, a new method, no different than using sex toys for personal pleasures. Sex is as natural for human beings as eating, breathing, sleeping, and now at this day in time, the everyday use of technologies, therefore it is inevitable that they would intertwine with one another. As teenagers and young adults people begin to experiment with sex and all its entities. However, with teenagers especially, just as animals feel the need to ‘mark there territory’ and show they are sexually engaged in these acts, so do they, the creation of the “hickey”. For teenagers hickeys use to be the THING to have, to represent sexuality, sexual relationships, and ties to a person. As one gets older, the need for public display of these ‘labels’, i.e. on the neck, wrist, arm, shoulder, chest, etc., become unnecessary, but rather more personal and concealed. Even when I was a teenager, this was true. As an adult, I find no need for it; in fact it seems almost embarrassing to have such marks on my person that can so easily be seen. It seems to give off the wrong message and persona. A few years ago online or virtual sex or ‘flirting’ was pretty much something that adults engaged in among chat rooms or what have you. Today as the internet, online communities, and SMS text messaging have become so popular and used by all ages, teenagers also have begun indulging in virtual sex and ‘flirting’. And now it seams that photos ringtones have replaced hickeys and intentional PDA. It seems as though today having a nude or explicit photo (with or without a personalized message) of ones self or another person on their phone is acceptable along with the new phenomenon of SEXTING, and is not seen as taboo or unheard of, especially with teenagers. Although many people see SEXTING as a problem and dangerous, many participate indulge in it and have no regrets; sometimes becoming addicted to it, but not necessarily taking away from ‘real life’ physical sex. Since people have partaken in this virtual world of sexual/erotic pleasures, it has not really had a negative impact on the physical nature or acts of sex. Physical sex, sexual interactions, and face to face flirting are still being had and going on; if not more so now than before technology became a sexual tool.
If anything, I think virtual/online/cyber sex or SMS SEXTING has become an ultimate tool for masturbation for people who need interaction to get them ‘off’; couples who are separated by distance and do not want to cheat, but do want to sexually interact with one another; and people who are just very sexual beings and like flirting and talking about sex with people they may or may not know on a daily bases, no different than phone sex. Has phone sex taken over physical sex? No. Neither has virtual/cyber sex. I also feel it’s used a tool of foreplay for couples who may or may not talk to each other constantly through the day and want to sexually interact with each other while at work, school, running errands, etc.; or couples who don’t actually have the time for real physical foreplay, and can ‘turn each other on’ via text messaging or IMing before hand, meet up and jump straight into sex. For some people it may just be fun to sex text, another form of entertainment, no more than playing a game.
Although I agree with some points this article did make, I feel that I can argue against its main point based on my own experiences. I have been in online chat rooms where of course, sex is a topic and flirting does go on, but I really haven’t had an interest in it, flirting with strangers just isn’t for me. As for online communities such as MySpace, Facebook, AOL, etc., I have had sexual flirting experiences through personal messaging, nothing to explicit though. Neither of these satisfied any of my sexual urges or fantasies. Now with my fiancé, well my ex-fiancé, while we were apart for months by long distances because of his job in the military, we would ‘sex text’ each other all the time through the phone and through our Yahoo or AOL IM. We’d share pictures back and forth with each other, sexual pictures and regular pictures, and we also had phone sex. We did this because we loved each other and wanted to be intimate with each other while apart, and felt comfortable with each other to do this. While this wasn’t the same as being with each other physically, it filled the void to some extent and helped with the time and distance apart. Personally speaking, I am a very sexual person, and I like to have physical sexual interactions on a regular bases, and when my fiancé and I were together this was possible and I enjoyed it. We were both happy. Now while we were apart, sexting and IMing helped to sooth the sexual urges and refrain from cheating (at least for me it did, him not so much, one of the reasons we’re no longer together). Now that we are no longer together, I am not just out with any and everyone because I like sex. I keep to myself until I meet a person I feel is deserving of me to give myself to them, or is simply worth my time and effort. Now do I use the internet and technology to masturbate while not in a relationship or to sooth my sexual urges? No, not really because that’s not me, it does nothing for me and I don’t get anything out of it. It has be an attachment there like there was with my fiancé for me to get off via cyber sex. Now for some people this cyber sex interaction works for them, and that’s fine, but I’m sure it doesn’t replace the PHYSICAL urges and satisfaction of ‘real’ sex, unless they are physically unable or incapable of participating in the act of sex, then for them this is ‘real’ sex, not simply flirting “technosexuality” or “technomasturbating”. Now although while some people feel more comfortable and more inclined to express themselves and play out their innermost fantasies or sexual thoughts through the cyber world because they feel unable to express these thoughts or fantasies face to face with someone, I doubt it completely replaces or ultimately is more satisfying then the “messy ‘wet-ware’ of body fluids, saliva, sweat, slobber (not necessarily slobber), and the ‘fresh meat’ of body odors”— (Flirting on the Internet and the Hickey: A Hermeneutic)
Now with such the mass increase of sexually transmitted diseases, unplanned pregnancies, and promiscuity, I do think that cybersex can be a good thing for people to use if truly trying to practice abstinence or are in a relationship to subdue the urges of cheating. “Compu-sex enthusiasts say it’s the ultimate safe sex for the 1990’s [2000’s], with no exchange of bodily fluids [...] and no morning after.”— (Compu Sex: Erotica for cybernauts, Gareth Branwyn) But along with this ‘safeness’ of cyber or virtual sex, comes the unsafe and unwanted connections with people who you don’t know on a personal level, and only know through online interactions, who may want to go beyond cyberspace and take these sexual interactions into real life which can cause many problems and unwanted AVOIDABLE dangerous situations, because you never know who’s on the other side of the computer screen.
Judy A.
Technology is rapidly increasing, as well as the interests of users and accessibility to those interests has become available, making part of Branwyn’s article “Compu-sex: Erotica for Cybernauts” slightly outdated. Branwyn’s research was comprised of using commercial internet servers, one I identified as the internet provider I first had in my house, being CompuServe, as his field of available information. The focus of his article is on “the ultimate safe sex for the 1990s” (Branwyn, p.396) which is now affectionately known by those who engage and those who don’t, as cybersex, which is an updated version article title’s compu-sex term.
Cybersex has become readily available to the public thanks to internet cafes, as well as a change from people having “a set monthly fee and an hourly usage rate,” to people being able to pay a flat rate (in most, but not all areas) to a cable company (or phone company for those who have not chosen to go to cable internet/high-speed internet) for unlimited access to the internet. Unlimited access has allowed for people like Kevin Alderman to go into SecondLife (a program that has developed from the old fashioned basic “text-entry box” represented in InfoMart USA and CompuServe, into not only a chat area, but rather a “vast virtual imaginarium” (Bland) environment where you can not only chat with a person, but see your avatars interact) into a lucrative business of selling sexual anatomy as well as toys in a digital form for the avatars.
Thanks to SecondLife, a place that offers space for cybersexing folks as well as cybersex virgins, it is apparent that cybersex is still here to stay as people want to explore their sexuality as well as themselves. SecondLife represents part of the last answer to his questionnaire with his concern of “the future evolution of compu-sex” because it answers Branwyn’s concern of “the introduction of virtual reality technology into the realm of computer networking” (Branwyn, p.401). It represents not only a profitable business where people can explore their sexuality, interests, desires, companies, school work, and so forth, but it also represents the dirty laundry that people try not to air. Such as how virtual technology and cybersex can ruin marriages, such as “David Pollard and Amy Taylor, whose real-world marriage was added to the lift of those to be broken up by a Second Life affair” (Bland), because the line is blurring between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable by society just as quickly as the line is real and what is virtual is blurring thanks to the advancement in teledildonics.
Through all of the advances and creations that have come about, and those that will continue to come about, Branwyn’s general observations about cybersex and chat rooms remain the same. Chat rooms of different interests, especially those sexual are and will continue to pop up regardless of whether or not it is in a basic chat site or a virtual world like SecondLife, and there will continue to be moderators. Moderators represent society’s desire to remain in control, and protect. Sadly, what I have written, is most likely out of date by the time I post it thanks to the amazing advances in technology.
Bland. Archie. “Cybersex Blurs Lines of Reality and Fantasy,” The Independent 27 Nov 2008. 6 Apr 2009.
http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iArticleId=4729348&iSectionId=2891
Whether discussing the limitations of technology in comparison to human aptitude or using case studies of cyber relationships to demonstrate only temporary satisfaction, many of the conclusions drawn from Flirting on the Internet and the Hickey: A Hermeneutic are seemingly valid and logical. Based upon even historical evidence suggesting “Platonic-Christendom’s contempt for the flesh,” as an explanation for neglecting live embodiment in Western culture, this piece is seemingly filled with well-rounded, sound arguments. Seemingly.
As profound a level as these arguments seem to reach, their depth alludes only to mere surface issues regarding cyber relationships, cyber love, cyber sensations, and essentially cyber affect. In essence, the heart of this study thrives upon the assumption that a real emotional connection—whether love, lust, or otherwise—can in fact be made with/through computers.
Yet so often we forget in the midst of our infatuation, immersion, and obsession with technology that the manifestation of the self is what brings technology to life; we are what ultimately lend technology it’s character. As such, it is truly paradoxical that we try so desperately to create idyllic virtual versions of ourselves when they essentially yield fake IDs; a dishonest reflection of the self; a false identity. Sifting through these fallacies, how can we even find a genuine emotion left to lend to our virtual selves?
True emotion and genuine affect cannot develop on this foundation of deceit. These virtues of human existence will only unveil themselves upon the reconnection to the human, not the machine. If true affect and genuine content originally stem from our original, human selves, than why do we seek these same identity facets from machines?
This paradox only leads to another. The very fact that we escape into cyberspace in order to seek pleasure, passion, and love brings into question who the ultimate recipient of these feelings are. Is it not the phony self that is truly redeeming these phony emotions? And as such, in what condition does this leave the original self?
This bizarre disconnect ultimately leads to the grim reality within a lover’s virtuality: the seeker of virtual love is only having an affair with their own virtual self. The seeker is cheating on the original self (or cheating the original self out of) the opportunity to fulfill and to complete their original flesh. The seeker is cheating on the original self by the exploitation of the original self; surrendering one’s intimacy, one’s privacy, one’s modesty to a stranger who never earned this right, deeming the self worthless.
This isn’t love at all, but rather the abandonment and hatred of the original self. So while the article insists upon drawing equally comparably bleak conclusions upon its respective studies, I insist that these hardly come from “positive dimensions of virtual interaction”.
“flirting on the internet and the hickey: a hermeneutic” article really brought up something that people now a days are constantly dealing with. it first states that “nowadays, erotic behavior in cyberspace is cutomary.” (READING) is that really true is what i had to asked myself. why? because i do not feel that way for my personal life. cyberspace is not a way to sexual behavior. online dating has only become so popular that is a million dollar industry. is online virtual sex taking over real physical sex that takes place with physical interaction in real life? personally, i feel that it does and does not. all depending on who, their personal life style, relationship status, and own interest would have a different feelings towards erotic cyberspace behavior.
i feel that through this article it might seem like it has in some areas. there are people out in the world that we live in that might not have the social skills needed for real life and interactin with others. maybe their life deals with communication through technology and the internet. maybe that is their way of satisfaction, a way to relieve stress or just a hobby.
on the other hand for example in my personal life, i would not be able to communicate online for some kind of a sexual relationship. i feel that way it is not real enough and you need to be able to interact with people in real life. even though so many other possible ways of connecting and meeting others takes place online daily. for example: online dating is a huge way for people to meet people but in an organized way with intererst and some kind of introduction of who you are and who you would like to meet.
but i do not feel that online sexual communication will take over real life sexual intercourse. yes there are people out there that can fulfil their sexual needs through the internet maybe for masterbastion and other satisfactions. on the other hand some people are totally against that and feel the need to interact with other individuals in real life and not through the computer. it definitely has become more popular because the people who were born after my generation were raised with technology, computers, and the internet. unlike our parents who were not raised with these technologies therefore they are use to the old fashion way of “flirting.” yes technology has contributed to other ways of access of sexual whatever but will never replace real life sex.