Response Assignment #6 - Due April 6th
Posted by kscott on April 3, 2007
In response to the following readings:
-
- Garet Branwyn, “Compu-Sex: Erotica for Cybernauts” (CR p. 396).
- Randall Woodland, “Queer Spaces, Modem Boys and Pagan Statues: Gay Lesbian Identity and the Construction of Cyberspace,” (CR 416)
- Susan Stryker, “Transsexuality: The Postmodern Body And/As Technology,” (CR 588).
- Bonnie Ruberg, “Cyberporn Sells in Virtual World,” Wired, 12.19.05
Consider some of the following questions (though feel to discuss any issue that draws your attention that I do not mention below):
- How is sexuality embodied and performed in cyberspace?
- Thinking back to discussions of the body and the cyber/cyborg body, in what ways does the performance of sexuality online either inform or reflect our perceptions around the body?
- In what ways do people construct and deconstruct identities through the performance of sexuality?
- In what ways might identities be challenged by performances of online sexuality?
- What, if any, impact do computer-mediated relationships have on real-life relationships (or one’s ability to have such relationships)? Or is our contemporary culture and the way we interact with one another intimately informing cyberspace?
April 10th, 2007 at 11:31 am
After reading these articles, I had a few questions. I know that the stuff in the book is a bit dated, but I wish there was a slightly more recent piece on the gay and lesbian communities. One of my questions is, in regards to the Cyberporn article, why not talk to these naked avatars? For once I would like to hear the opinions of someone in the belly of the beast, so to speak. And for that matter, I want to hear what the LGBTQ communities have to say about these articles. I would be particularly interested in hearing what a transgender person things and feels about cyberspace.
I find it hard to respond to the questions you’ve posted because of my paper. Though I had not read these articles before, I feel like I am somewhat well versed in the subject. Though there is still so much I don not know or understand. Something particular that excited me was that Gareth Branwyn’s Compu-Sex article talked about the victimization theory (in so many words), which I focused my paper on.
“Cyberspace is a…tool for examining our very sense of reality.” That’s an interesting use of the word reality. Perhaps cyberspace is a good tool to examine our world, but reality. Is it possible, to understand reality through virtual reality? That’s sort of been a question we’ve been trying to answer all class. I see them as two separate entities. At least at this time I do.
One thing I would like to say, that I think makes the most sense, is about the body. “Inform or Reflect”. Part of cyberspace, whether it is an appeal or nice coincidence, is that you can be whoever you want to be. If you are heavy, you can be thin, if you are ugly, you can be pretty, and so on and so on. We portray ourselves in whatever fashion we see fit. When in cyberspace, there is no mirror reflection, only an image. Cybersex is an opportunity to construct a person, while ignoring the possible unpleasantries of yourself in the real world.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Several of these articles reminded me of a relatively humorous but none the less very true ‘internet rule’ which has gained much notoriety in the last few years. From what I can tell, this rule, referred to as ‘Rule 34,’ originated from several different sources, simultaneously, thanks to an overlap of users, but like most things like this on internet, you can find the majority of its roots on 4Chan.org. According to Urban Dictionary (www.UrbanDictionary.com) Rule 34 states :
3. Rule 34
Rule 34: If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions.
“Can I get sum Rule 34 on Captain Planet?”
The answer to the question attached to the definition is *of course* you can. As a matter of fact, I think it’d be more difficult to find a subject that did *not* have any pornographic counterpart on the internet. A frightening task indeed, but when you try it, you’ll be amazed. Want to see 2 cartoon Seagulls having sex? It’s probably out there, and if you can’t find a picture of it, you’ll probably be able to find a 30 page story about a Seagull love affair.
Keeping ‘Rule 34′ in mind, and thinking about the long list of chat rooms the different authors described in their adventures throughout different networks, what does this say about the Internet and how its suppressing or releasing sexual urges and needs in today’s user base. In th Branyn piece, the author describes several interviews where people admitting to have same sex cyber-sex because they are curious. An interesting prospect, and I’d be curious to know how these people felt post-experience. Could the internet be the new place to hide your sexuality, if your gay or lesbian? Is that a liberating thing, or is that just adding another proverbial ‘lock to the closet.’ Or perhaps it’s simply allowing people who don’t identify as one sexual orientation or the other to really explore what they like?
Is the internet creating ‘deviant’ behavior (with rule 34 and the like), or is it just showing us that we all have this deviance, and allowing us to release it in a ’safe’ environment? Additionally, does this add or subtract from our sexual repression in the real world?
April 10th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
ok, so, after reading all these essays, I was left with confusion and disjoint thoughts about cybersex and the politics surrounding it. I have never understood it, and I guess unless I try it out for myself I’ll never really be able to critically read about it. What did hold significance, however, was Stryker’s article about transsexuality. She held my attention not because I thought anything she said was profound, but because of the annoyance I felt the whole time through. She talks a lot about gender performance and the trans gender body as evidence of post humanism, but what irritated me was how she addresses this subject like it’s a science experiment. I would understand if someone talked about cosmetic surgery or other unnecessary body alterations in the manner that she did, but I think transsexuality deserves more justice than “The transsexual can thus be read as an avatar of postmodernity. It is one of Donna Haraway’s cyborgs.” She suggests that a transsexual is nothing more than a body, and throughout her whole piece she never addresses the fact that these are human beings struggling with their identity as HUMAN BEINGS not just as a floating gender. There’s a whole process and life change that comes with changing your sex organs, and I think by undermining that reality, it devalues them as humans. In short, it’s disrespectful, in my opinion. Transsexuals don’t just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be male or female, they are people who have dealt with identity issues their whole lives, and need a way to balance their mind and body. I may just be naive, but her article just didn’t seem to do any justice…
April 10th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
The reading that stood out most to me was, “Cyberporn Sells in Virtual worlds”. I’m sort of familiar with the other forms of sexual interaction on the computer but this one. I’m amazed by people’s fascinations with avatars. It is strange how someone could be sexual aroused by computer animation. Obviously it’s hot because it seems to be extremely popular. Struszka, said his magazine is more stimulating than conventional porn.” Is that possible? What is happening with the attraction to physical bodies when one can be just as aroused by and animated one? He also went on to say “I want people to be in the magazine as they are in-world, not as Playboy-styled, plastic products in exclusive packaging.” What! Isn’t he selling an artificial object as well? In my eyes it’s further from the real than playboy. I’m so confused by this concept that I’m not even sure what to say. The inclusion of avatars in a text-based sexual experience in my eyes makes it more odd, because wouldn’t it be a reminder that your not really involved in the act. It takes away from imagining the encounter. Maybe men are simply attracted to any form of sex. Whether physical, verbal, text based, or animated ect. I would personally find it extremely difficult to find any pleasure in computer animated pornography. Honestly I just don’t understand it, but I guess you can’t knock it until you try it!
April 10th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
The readings that we have looked at all seem to be highlighting the idea that the physical world is quickly becoming less important to us. Less important in the way that certain ideas and experiences that we have always associated with the physical body like sex are now being carried out without the physical body. There definitely have been people having phone sex or getting sexual pleasure from books (by reading them) for years, but the internet has allowed people to take it to a whole new level, which makes cybersex a pretty big deal.
The interesting thing about cybersex seems to be that there are very few constraints. You can “pass” for the other sex, a citizen of a different country, or really anything imaginable, even something non-human. This lack of constraint allows users to engage in sexual experimentation that they may be unable to try in real life because they fear societal consequences.
I can’t say that I really know that much about cybersex but everything that I have read makes it out to be a really interesting outlet for people’s more strange desires. While being entertained by this, I still don’t personally understand how it may compare to having sex in the physical world. Why spend so much time seeking an experience online that is (at least in its current stage of development I should say) so completely lacking what most would probably agree makes sex in the real world what it is?
April 10th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Identities can be challenged by performance of online sexuality by the nature of online communication. A heterosexual man seeking cybersex on the net begins a conversation with a buxom blonde babe. If, after this performance, the heterosexual man discovers his partner is not who he had assumed, he may question his feelings. Was he just turned on by a man!? Gasp. Who knows? The medium provides for a guise of anonymity, or the assumption of characteristics that one doesn’t have in real life. People can experiment to a certain degree with their own identity. It is in this way that computer-mediated relationships can impact real life relationships. By controlling the text that creates a character, one performs on the net. The degree to which one is honest in that performance informs the nature of the relationship that is created with other characters out there in cyberspace.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Sex is performed online the same way online conversations take place: text based with some form of masturbation if its one-on-one, or maybe another partner is in the physical room with one of the cybernauts. The process is done so with imagination and interaction. though the material is fairly out-dated, i’m sure not much has changed other than more technological advanced medias such as video and audio. when this was written is seemed like the only was was to imagine the words to come true and let the words of the online partner undress you wtih thier words insted of thier eyes.
people construct a image for themselves when they describe themselves. because the sex was textual based at first, the imagination could run wild, leaving little room for barriers in the physical world. now i’m sure there are some fetishes that require a compu-sex user to see and hear his partner during the intercourse which could make it seem more personal, but certainly no more real then textual based compu-sex.
I do wonder about what it is people do after thier initial sexual experiance; is there awkwardness? does she fake it? it still has elements of physical sexual activity and i’m sure a wide range of emotions are instated. It seems alot easier to live out absurb and alamring fantasies via textual based compu-sex because the sex is happening more in the head then in the sex organs leaving massive ammounts of room for role playing and such. I think it would be easier to live out your (in gneral) version of the ultimate fantasy online rather than in the physical world because of the sure ammount of directions text could take you. its like fictional writing vs. low budget film. words can take you further than reality
April 10th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Identities might be challenged by performances of online sex through when participating in group sex, in same sex relations, or if one might be trying out transexuality in a sense that they are playing the part of the opposite sex. All scenarios challenge ones identity in ways that require embodiment, awareness of the other, and a talent to communicate gestures and emotions through a key board. If one participates in group sex, for instance, they have to be experienced enough to follow the order and performances of others. They have to pay attention to who’s doing what, where, and when, in order for the experience to flow and create symmetry. If someone says, “now I’m getting ontop of Rog101, but Rog101 is “having sex standing up in a corner,” than the scenario isn’t “real.” It seems common for people to go online to experiment with cybersex because of the supposed safety and annonymity. That said, people often try out same-sex relations, maybe for the first time. New experiences such as having sex with a person of your sex for the first time might seem challenging because a first timer wouldn’t know what to expect. Things they knew about themselves or thought of themselves before might go out the window, leaving them at the leadership of the performance of the other, or discovering parts of them they haven’t identified with before.
In experimenting with different identities in the form of wearing the opposite sex, one can feel challenged by having to perform and embody someone else. When switching over to the “other” one might feel a loss of certain aspect of identity.