Sexual encounters..of the virtual kind.

It has become increasingly evident that 'people are forming relationships and communities in places that only exist in cyberspace' (Maheu, 1999:5). It appears that as the understanding of what can be found online increases, people are changing their lifestyles around this technology in the same way mobile phones and television altered living forever. Along with (e)extremist and virtual realities, as I have previously spoken of, there has also been a revolution of chat rooms, dating services, cybersex and pornography online.
I remember a time when someone who was dating online was considered a little bit weird and if you were going to fly some mystery man or woman over to live with you and marry you..that was definitely going to end badly. Today, however, its pretty acceptable to chat and form relationships online, dating services were made for it. In fact, there are service available online to cater to ever demographics' dating needs - Young, middle-aged and even elderly, such as at sassyseniors.com .
Cybersex also seems to be expanding from the days when it existed in only a text-based form. Now there is access to virtual reality-based cybersex. This involves a virtual reality setting such as Second Life and sexual based communication or interaction taking place within that world. I recently saw a program which investigated sex in Second Life. They showed the way in which users could purchase body parts and engage in sexual interactions with another avatar. Essentially, these are two physical human beings sitting in front of their computers, with actual lives and possible spouses operating an these avatars. It raises an unusual question of ethics, I mean, I don't think I like the idea of my partner having a sexual interaction with someone online..even if there is no physical interaction, surely there is some form of emotional investment.

In terms of pornography, there are advantages to viewing online, such as access, affordability and anonymity. It's pretty obvious that theses are the main contributing factors as to why the online pornography industry is generating such revenue. For example, every second approximately $3000 is being spent on pornography, over 28,000 people are viewing pornography online and 379 people are searching adult terms. Not to mention that a new pornographic video is being created every 39 minutes (J. Ropelato).

An area of concern within the online pornography industry is the issue of child pornography and child exploitation. It is a disturbing thought that people are filming or photographing children and posting such images online with sexual connotations. It is also considered child pornography if child takes a sexually explicit photo of themselves and is found in possession of that image, I find the fact that this was not known to me, and what I can only assume is a lot of other people, truly disturbing. Similarly to (e)extremists, it becomes really difficult to consider censorship with these issues. In my opinion it would all around be better if these things didn't exist online. It's unfortunate the world doesn't work like that.

When did one life stop being enough?

The internet has been responsible for taking the idea of a computer or video game to the next level. Digital characters and avatars are enabling users to become a part of a different world, have a different appearance and different friends. Mark Meadows discussed the idea that within these virtual worlds people "build things, use them, sell them, trade them and discuss them". He also explored the similarities between the virtual and the real, the way in which rules, roles and a "structured method of interacting" are used. So do these similarities override a fundamental difference? I can't help but wonder why the people who create an avatar in an application such as Second Life, interact with other people, develop relationships with them and even make money from buying/selling stock, developing land or designing clothes, dedicate so much time and effort towards something that is virtual when the real thing is right outside their front door. Is it escapism? so they become someone else? or to avoid judgement?

Meadows explained his reasoning: "when another person confirms what I am seeing, places value on it, spends time working to pay for it, buys it, keeps it, uses it, talks about it, gets emotional about i, and then sells it - this tells me there is something real happening. The suspension of disbelief has become a grounding of belief". I question whether or not something real is actually happening. It might be fair enough to talk about an emotional or mental connection or correlation between what is happening in a virtual world such as Second Life and what happens in reality, people do get involved in this with similar feelings. At this point you could argue that shared experiences create a sense of reality. However, a sense of reality is not the same as actual reality and you can't just ignore the lack of physicality. There will never be a real physical interaction in a virtual world, you will never be able to feel a handshake or a hug or a kiss. For this reason I find it hard to agree with Meadows' statement that 'there is something real happening'. I just don't think we can say that what happens in a virtual world can be the same as reality, that the experiences are the same. It's great that Second Life offers someone something that they can't have or achieve in their everyday life but at the end of the day, the person behind the avatar is someone sitting in a chair in front of a computer.

Internet: Taken To The Extreme.

What can't be found on the World Wide Web these days? Social networking sites like Facebook allow us to search for friends and foes, search engines have been designed to scour history for information on long lost relatives and, if you don't have every other facet of your life catered for (shopping, banking, email), you can even find a date online, a person perfectly matched to you. It's bought the world into our homes, but it's not all finding families and getting hot dates, what else is out there?
Since 2000, the number of worldwide hate groups has increased by 54 percent (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2010) and, in that time, internet usage has also grown 380.3 percent in that time. Coincidence? I think not. Hate groups are no longer taking it to the streets, they are amongst society in cyberspace. However, its not just people taking a stand against Britney Spears' haters, there is an alarming neo-nazi and racial puritan presence, mostly coming from the United States, and, closer to home, I believe there is an extremist group operating in Australia - The Australia First Party.

So what does the internet offer to an extremist group? Well, firstly the internet is open for business 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Secondly, it is efficient - information on almost any topic you can think of is instantaneous. Lastly, there are no gatekeepers online, people who can edit and limit what is written. How much easier does the internet make things for an extremist group to spread their message and recruit new members? A whole lot easier than petitions and marches.
So what does this mean? Well, all we have to do is look at what I have done here. I'm an unknown person, with an email address and an internet connection, who just decided one day to come online, create a blog for myself and put my views and opinions out there for the world to access. The best part of this whole thing is that its free and I can write anything I want, anytime I want.

The Australia First Party website provides a detailed constitution and documentation of the Party rules. For someone who enjoys the multiculturalism of this country, its a shock to read about a group of people who hold such racist ideologies and who also have the potential to run this country. Sections 3.4 (Reduce and Limit Immigration) and 3.5 (Abolish Multiculturalism) of the AFP Constitution are probably the most confronting and the most controversial. Its a scary thought that the promotion of messages such as these are being aided by their utilisation of the internet but, in effect, I suppose that hate groups and extremists who are using the same method are entitled to the same freedom of speech, that the internet provides, as everyone else.