1 Online Love: Sex, gender and relationships in cyberspace. Julie M. Albright University of Southern California Tom Conran Marriage and family therapist, St. Louis, MO Running head: ONLINE LOVE Copies of this paper can be obtained from the authors via e-mail: albright@nunki.usc.edu, or by writing to : Julie M. Albright, Department of Sociology, University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angelas, 90089. 2 Abstract Most sociological research on computer mediated communication (CMC) has been in the form of impact studies of inovation within organizations. Much of the popular press has focused explicitly on explicit sexual images (gifs) and"hot chats". Little attentio n has been paid to the role of CMC in the formation and transformation of intimiate relationships in cyberspace. Theoretically, many social critics, post-modernists and post-structuralists have pointed to the ambigous progress and volatile potentials offe red by emerging communication technologies, making it difficult to conceive of reasonable, recipricol relationships taking place in a virtual cyberspace. Using a constructionist framework, examined is the course and form of online relationships, drawn fr om interview quotations of 33 people who are currently experiencing or have experienced intimate relationships online. They reported that CMC is mainly used in getting to know a potential partner, and sometimes in maintaining an enduring relationship. Fo r many, CMC has blurred the boundaries of gender and other traditional distinctions, and has expanded the potentials of intimate relationships for good and for ill. Discussion considers the moral, economic and social choices for personal and political use s of the Net in human intimacies. Later studies may wish to focus on analysis of live messages and on differences between temporary and enduring online love relationships. Online Love: Sex, gender and relationships in cyberspace Introduction What are the stories of people who love each other online? What can these narratives teach about postmodern courtship, romance, and attachment? What potentials, for good and ill, does computer mediated communication add to the age old dance of intimacy, overcoming the accident of geography with the immediacy of virtual selves on far flung internets? Interviews with 33 online lovers were conducted to hear the voices of stakeholders in online love. In keeping with advice and tradition of a number of qualitative researchers (Clifford & Marcus, 1986; Ely, 1991; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Van Maanen, 1988), we will account for our initial assumptions and concerns. One of us (J.A.) has been a participant in online communities and so this research is from the perspective of a native ethnography (Bernard & Pedraza, 1989). Many authors have reflected on cultural effects of technology (Anderson, 1990; Baudrillard, 1988; Gergen, 1991; Postman, 1992; Reingold, 1993). What will online love mean? What will it change? What will such distinctions as gay, bi, straight, male, female, old, young, healthy, or handicapped mean when one can assume any form of persona or image for any textual conversation or virtual reality intercourse in an online connection What will marriage and affair mean when one can have a warm relationship with an intimate str anger halfway across the globe whom one have never "fleshmet?" Will there be more long-distant relationships and virtual commuting? What will parents, schools, and churches do in response to teen's experimentation online? How should or could the access be controlled? By who What laws and customs might govern marriages, births, divorces and child custodies when couples reside in dif ferent states, regions, nations, or continents? How will virtual communication increase the differences between poor and rich where one class has many CMC love opportunities and the other is limited to traditional connections? Literature Journalistic Accounts and Popular Texts Many journalistic reports have been written about online love. Major print publications have included articles, even whole special issues on cyberspace: see the Time Magazine of February 5, 1993, New York Times Magazine for May 16, 1993, U.S. News & World Report of December 6, 1993, Wall Street Journal of March 16, 1994 (p. B1), Newsweek of May 16, 1994, and the special issue of Time Magazine for Spring, 1995. Such stories are exemplified by a quote from an article (Associated Press, 1995, p. 4A) : "It started with a few messages on the Internet. She hooked up a modem. They communicated at least 20 times a day. Nine months later, he popped the question - on her screen. And, they hadn't even met. . .but that didn't matter". These connections represent only the beginning of intimate virtual technologies, according to many writers. As noted by Van Der Leun (1993), Sex, as we know, is a heat seeking missile that forever seeks out the newest medium for its transmission. . . .[ There will be] a network. . .of tactile feedback devices onto our bodies so that fantasies don't have to be so damned cerebral. . . . Progress marches on. In time, robotics will deliver household servants and sex slaves. And, a new kind of publication has hit the bookstores: dating guides to online love. Phlegar (1995) , Fox (1995) and others (Maloni, Wice & Greenman, 1994; Rex, 1995; Rose & Thomas, 1995) have offered tours of the nets, mapping sites from S&M to platonic talk. Shea (1994) has dispensed advice on "netiquette", on what to do and not to do in cyberspace. Even the Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture has had a section on perspectives and advice for online lovers (e.g. Phillips, 1994). Professional and Academic Research Most published research of online communication has focused on work and school, not romance and intimacy. Several general reviews of the available literature and edited texts have been produced (Benedikt, 1992; Chesebro & Bonsall, 1989; Lea, 1992; McLeod, 1992; Walther, 1992; Walther, Anderson & Park, 1994). A book chapter by Lea and Spears (in press) has provided a broad review of current research on online personal relationships. The following review outlines a summary of the points made by Lea and Spears, supplemented by other research, which are most relevant for this study. Competence & affluence shared by online participants (Lea & Spears, p.3) To engage in an on-line relationship, the participants must own, or have access to, the required equipment, and must have the interest to learn how to connect. This limits online love largely to affluent peoples. Diversity of opportunity for online relationships (Lea & Spears, p. 4-6) Already, over twenty million people across the globe have an address on some system linked to the Internet. Six million use videotext to communicate in France (see Feenberg, 1992). Many others belong to local or regional BBSs and office groupware systems. The Whole Earth Online Almanac (Ritter, 1993) has over 500 pages of listi ngs of specific listservs, focus groups, chats, and BBSs. For example, in a study of the content of 700 college students email messages over three months, less than half were work or study related and 25% had intimate content (McCormick & McCormick, 1992 ). CMC allows for interactive pseudocommunities, interpersonal mass media (Beninger, 1987). Variety in development of online relationships (Lea & Spears, p. 7). Online communication seems to accentuate the diversity of styles, paces, and intensities of relationships (c.f. Hesse, Werner & Altman, 1988) Transitory, temporary, itinerant, and recurrent relationships are common tcyberspace. Online communities acceler ate the expansion of opportunities for relationships begun by personals, video dating, and telephone chat line (Woll & Cosby, 1987). Online communication is visible, permanent, and often planned (Lea & Spears, p. 10). Messages or images can be composed, choreographed, timed, publicly broadcasted or privately delivered, and recorded in any of the many technical ways available to computers. Lovers can send of 20-30 posts a day without interfering (much) with th eir work. And, a jilted lover can publish complete transcript of betrayal to half a million people with little effort. Communication cues, self-disclosure, and simulation (Lea & Spears, p. 9) Shamp (1991) found that CMC participants felt, in his term "mechanomorphisized" in that they did not seem to be communicating with a person, just with a computer. Over time, 5 CMC participants are reported to individuate, to gain a sense of speaking for themselves to other individual (Matheson & Zanna, 1990), by recognizing, inventing and adopting distinct verbal and textual cues (Walther, 1992). For example, a person's digit al signature in email often includes a nickname, a quote, or some other personalizing item. And, complex text codes such as "smileys" (e.g. : <:-) [:-} ), "kisses" ( :* ) and acronyms (e.g. "BTW" means "by the way" and "LOL" means "laughing out loud " "ROFL" means "rolling on the floor laughing") offer a number of non-verbal and paraverbal cues. Online participants also at times simulate identities, and watch for the simulation of others, using cues to create and discover artificial selves. Egalitarian, potentially controlling, communities (Lea & Spears, p. 10) A number of researchers have commented on a reduction in power differentials and hierarchies in CMC. For example, math students using CMC with other students felt gratified to have their problems discussed on a network, and a sense of democratization increased, in contrast to typical classroom behavior (Bresler, 1990). Others have reported reductions in status effects, ability of a high status individual to control a group, (Dubro vsky, Kiesler & Sethna, 1991) and social influence, ability of a group to sway the opinions of an individual (Smilowitz, Compton & Flint, 1988). Even very young children became more involved with each other and motivated to complete tasks on computers (Podmore, 1991). Remarkably, disturbed adolescents improved their communication and had less troubl e in relationships when interacting in CMC (Zimmerman, 1987). And, a study of five young women who regularly used their local BBSs suggested that the women gained in confidence and self-expression through their use of CMC (Kaplan & Farrell, 1994). On th e other hand, many women have reported that they are ignored, ridiculed, or harassed in online communication (Shade, 1994; We, 1994). Lea and Spears (in press) note that online communities also have the potential to exert tremendous influence on individuals who develop strong and persistent bonds with a larger group (p.19-21). Optimization of self-simulation & presentation (Lea & Spears, p. 22-23) The primary impression left by a review of the research literature is that CMC allows a participant to prepare, optimize, present, and supplement a chosen self with one or potentially thousands of others, many of whom are optimizing their own self-presentations. Lea and Spears (in press) have described the kind of capability of fered to those who wish to craft their online identity by stating: Those who are most skilled at manipulating the interaction context, either technically, by reconfiguring the system architecture, or socially, for example, by helping others to create mean ingful on-line identities gain the most power and control over the communication behaviour of others. (p. 22 ) Loveonline is a special instance of these relational capacities. Some use their technical and social abilities to recognize, discover, or seek an intense, intimate, enduring love with a uniquely delightful partner. Others cruise the nets and enjoy a wide variety of temporary, exciting, stimulating connections. And, some use their r esourcefulness to deceive, exploit, and gain pleasure at the expense of others. Many potentials, for good and ill, are expanded, accentuated, and escalated by virtual intimacies. Research Method Overview Since the range of online love practices is so broad, and since research in 6 this area is relatively new, this study has been restricted to a tentative, preliminary exploration. No specific stance has been taken on specific theoretical issues in sociology, communication studies, or social psychology. The inquiry has been informe d largely by social constructionist (Gergen, 1985; Gergen, 1988; Gergen, 1992; Gergen & Gergen, 1988) ideology, and has drawn some interpretive rhetoric from the social criticism of such postmodern authors as Lyotard (1984) and Baudrillard (1988). Some o f the particular details of online attraction have been understood in terms of general attachment literature (Fisher, 1992) and the development of online relationships has been considered in terms of general literature on temporal qualities of relationships (Werner & Baxt er, 1985). Particular interviewing techniques and interpretive analyses have been derived from ethnographic fieldwork literature (Gilchrist, 1992; Pratt, 1986; Punch, 1986; Whyte, 1984), and some sociological and anthropological writing (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Tyler, 1986). Inquiry Clarification A key objective in a social constructionist study is the understanding of human phenomena from a relational perspective as distinct from interactional or intersubjective stances. As clarified by Gergen (1993, p. 9), "Lone utterances begin to acquire me aning when another (or others) coordinate themselves to the utterance, that is, when they add some form of supplementary action (whether linguistic or otherwise)." In lieu of an emphasis on the internal dynamics of two or more individuals in communication with each other, a relational account attends to the pattern of supplementation between acts of communication. For example, an observer can choose to consider the individual motivations, dynamics, and histories of persons posting messages to a BBS. Or, one can examine the trail of messages to note how some ignite feedback, others elicit only tepid response, and some, ignored, vanish into the virtual ether. Three kinds of specific questions may be posed about intimate online messages. First, what is characteristic of romantic or intimate messages online? Specifically, what are the online correlates for well-observe phenomena of inquiring gaze, wicked wink , forward thrust chest, romantic remark, flirtatious touch, candlelit dinner, slow dancing, and caring caress? Fisher (1992) summarizes much of the literature on attraction, including an early work by Darwin on facial expressions, and she emphasizes the crucial role played by small nuances, often ritualized, in the supplementation of patterns of romance. The "smileys" noted above (e.g. :-) ) frequently placed in online messages seem to illustrate the significance of facial expressions. Woll (1986), in a stu dy of decision strategies in videodating, noted that age and physical attractiveness were the most mentioned factors in potential partner selection. Since age and appearance are not obvious online, and can be simulated, what are key attractions for onlin e dating? Second, what might be said about the variable temporal developments of diverse kinds of online attractions and attachments? What can be said of the construction, transformation, and evaporation of online relational realities? Werner and Baxter (1985) cataloged numerous approaches to the temporal study of relationships, and noted that a dialectical approach to time in relationships offers the idea tha t, Contradictions serve as the "motor" of change in personal relationships (p. 368). As noted by Lea and Spears (in press), the "gaps" in online experience of another, such as not 7 knowing another's appearance, allows a person to "fill in" with their imagination, hopes, and fears. Online communication is then fraught with even more surprises, anomalies, and breakdowns than usual in romantic connections. Questions about the development of online relationships raise a third group of questions around the themes of online truth and deception. As noted before, on the one hand, many accounts of online love report that the participants offer their true selves in their messages. On the other hand, many reports speak of intentional dec eptions, of crushed emotions suffering the loss of an apparent true love. In a study of social judgment, VanLear and Trujillo (1986), noted that initial affective reactions to another lead to a mix of attraction and uncertainty, with trust developing onl y through periods of exploration and a growing perception of interpersonal stability.Uncertainty continues throughout the process, that social judgments of veracity are made on an ongoing basis. In a study of deception, Miller, Mongeau, and Sleight (1986 ) reported that the extent of interaction and previous relational history of communication create a sense of what is typical and expected. Over time, a baseline of idiosyncratic information accumulates, and inconsistencies and anomalies are taken as deceptive. Online, however, messages are optimized, identities are created, and baselines can be crafted. It is also som ewhat more difficult to note inconsistencies between verbal and nonverbal communication, the most common form of deception recognition in the fleshtime. And, questions of truth and deception are made even more complex by a typical experience of cyberspace communicators, that it is not uncommon to meet someone with whom you have been communicating for several years by e-mail and realize that they are entirely different from what you had thought they were like (Fuller, 1993). Even when the participants intend to share honest intimacy with each other, they may be unintentionally deceived by their own expectations, assumptions, and optimizations. The increased opportunities for finding true love, from a no hassles virtual one night stand to an unbelievably intimate email other, seem to elicit the mass of mutual supplementations that is online love. Highly optimized self-presentation messages are sent as if they are notes in a thousand bottles cast upon the virtual ocean. And, carefully crafted return messages may ring true or false, depending on the internal cues of the message, the social and environmental context, or the prior baseline establ ished with the message author. Whenever intimacy is discerned, more is given, whether in the form of a quick, unrepeated, mutually satisfying cybersex chat or an enthralling sequence of surprising connections and romantic intimacies. This particular pattern of supplem entation varies tremendously in its pace, content, and endurance, yet appears to be the signal characteristic of online intimacies. To explore, supplement, and deconstruct this statement about online love, we developed a series of questions to ask online lovers. We did not ask for copies of their online messages with each other (a topic for later research), so the research reports their memories of the messages shared and the events of the relationships. The questions were loosely organized into three groups, as outlined below: Initial Meeting and Attraction: Where and how did you meet the person or persons with whom you became intimately involved What first attracted you? What got you interested? What fascinated you most? 8 How did you know this person (or persons) was "right" for you? Development of Relationship: What was the frequency, intensity, and content of your online communications? How did you augment and shape your messages for each other? Did you speak on the telephone, send photos, and plan a time to fleshmeet? If you did some or all of these, how was it decided and what happened? How did your relationship transform, grow, or end over time? Did you develop an offline relationship? If so, how did that evolve, and what, if any online communication was still used? Truth and Deception How did you learn to trust the other or others? How quickly did you experience a meeting of the minds, a sense of intimacy? What, if any, nice surprises or disappointments did you experience? What, if any, fantasies or simulations did you do online? Participant Solicitation and Interview Approach In line with Gilchrist (1992), key informants were solicited, first by simply asking people in cyberspace who they knew to be online couples or who had online intimacies, and later by posting notices about the research on various BBSs and Usenet groups. Prospective participants were informed of the nature of the study and all agreed to a statement on confidentiality (see Appendix B for research release). As experienced by Punch (1986), the participants saw themselves as active stakeholders in the resea rch. Most of them asked to receive copies of the paper when complete. They were very curious about others' experiences. On the other hand, one response to a Usenet post was a diatribe to "get out of these people's lives." Privacy is a sacred virtual reality in cyberspace, and is jealously protected. Within this boundary, the participan ts were open and informative. The 33 interviews were usually conducted by live chat, where the interviewer (J.A.) typed questions in real time to respondents who typed responses. Most interviews were conducted with individuals, a few with couples. A few respondents preferred to answer by email. Though some prior ethnographies using posted questionnaires have been conducted in cyberspace (e.g. We, 1994), using chat may be a contributi on to the development of computer use in research, which has largely been limited to the analysis of quantitative or qualitative data (Fielding & Lee, 1991; Tesch, 1990). It seemed appropriate to interview the participants in online love through online c hat, a medium frequently used by online lovers. Participant demographics were as follows: Of the 33 particpants in this study, 24 were male and 9 were female, with a range of ages from 18 to 46 years. Twenty five of the participants were heterosexual, 5 were gay, and 3 were bisexual. We wanted to spea k with people from a variety of "places" in order to get a variety of users and experiences, since the user profile may vary from place to place, due to cost of access differences or special interest considerations. Of those who participated in our study, 4 met via IRC chat; 5 met on a BBS; 8 met on a commercial server chat service; 3 met via e-mail; 6 met via alt.personals; 3 met on a listserv; 3 met through various newsgroups on the Interne t, and one person met via Internet "talk". 9 The interview approach with these participants was minimalist. The questions listed above were not presented as a questionnaire. Interviews began with a general request for respondents to tell the story of their online attraction and connection. Speci fic questions about details of attractions, ongoing changes in relationship, decisions to send pictures, arrangements of F2F (face to face) meetings, and experience of truth, simulation, and deception were included as the participants raised the relevant topics and then paused in their story-telling. If a respondent did not bring up a topic in one of the three major categories, some questions from the area were posed, so that most interviews amplified opinions in each of the three main areas of research interest, as recommended by Whyte (1984, p. 99-101). Also, follow-up questions were asked, of any topic or detail that was novel or surprising to the interviewer. For example, one respondent was invited to expound on her efforts to convince her online c ommunity that they could still hot chat with her new husband. Both she and he were members of the community and the wife did not want their virtual lives to change just because they were married. She made a clear distinction between in the flesh adulter y and virtual intimacies, even if the hot chat included masturbation by her husband during the online encounter. Such counter-intuitive and unforeseen ideas evoked elaboration in the interviews. Results and Analyses Since this research is exploratory and preliminary, several decisions were made. Only one interview was conducted per respondent. Questions were minimal. Analyses were limited to arranging quotations of respondents into appropriate thematic categories . The juxtaposition of similar statements was made to elicit a range of perspectives on several key issues. Surprises, paradoxes, and apparent contradictions were highlighted. In type, this report is similar to the travel writing of the diaries of shi p-borne Europeans of the late 19th century who visited strange, dark continents (Pratt, 1986). More refined interviews, analysis of intimate message contents, and extensive participation in publicly available online intimacies will be necessary to provid e the information and experience for either the rigorous, highly categorized studies of the type recommended by Tesch (1990) or the provocative, personalized, and narrative accounts often used by postmodern authors (Tyler, 1986). This research quotes the respondents in ways similar to quota tions made of professionals and researchers in literature reviews. As noted by Stewart (1978), "Quotation is a method of making texts, a way to give integrity to discourse and to focus interpretive procedures within a set of parameters defined by what is internal to the quotation marks" (p. 122). By valorizing the respondents as intelligent observers in their own lives, the research may evoke for readers a sense of the respondents' own experience and interpretation of their experience. This research therefore begins to etch a sketch of online love, and lays an utterance ready for further supplementation. Quotations and Accounts From Online Lovers Initial Contexts The people we interviewed cited a variety of reasons for being online in the first place. Meeting an online lover seemed to be a happy accident for some, for others, an unexpected outcome in their search for casual cybersex, and for still others a much desired outcome of their search for virtual love. Diane, a 37 year old heterosexual schoolteacher, opened her e-mailbox expecting a 10 bulletin from a teacher' s conference. Instead, she found an unexpected first message from Daniel (who is now her on & offline lover), who had been referred to her by a fellow teacher who "thought they'd have a lot in common." Diane says: On January 3, 1995, I returned to work after a two week holiday break (I'm a high school teacher). One of the first things I did when I arrived at the school was to check my e-mail. I didn't expect an overloaded mailbox because I had only had my Net account since October and I was not yet very proficient using it. I had, however, made a few contacts with other teacher across the country and I thought there might be an informational bulletin or such. Anyway, what I found in my INBOX was a message from Daniel. Other online lovers went online specifically in search of a mate. Several respondents mentioned several different reasons why meeting single people was difficult, due to where they live or work: These people used the medium to expand their potential for meeting a compatible partner. David, a straight male age 27, says: I started using e-mail to meet people in September 1994. Circumstances in my life dictated that I needed to try something new for meeting people. In particular, I had just broke up with my girlfriend of 5 years. Also, I just moved to a new area (i.e. Virginia from South Carolina) and didn't know anyone in the area and finally, my job (college professor) is such that everyone is older and married and I don't "socialize" with students for obvious reasons. David, a 44 year old ex-engineer (currently a full time student) talks about using online communication as a safe way to expand his potential for meeting a compatible mate when his offline possibilities for doing so looked slim. He says: For the past eleven years I have pretty much met ladies in a couple of Country and Western bars in this town. Working in an 'all man environment, meeting women on the job was out of the question. In the past I have participated in Church social events, as well as other singles type activities. With my town being quite sma ll, obviously the number of woman that are available (and that I find attractive) diminishes the longer I am single. I fell into cyber-relationships quite by accident. In December of 1991, I bought Prodigy software so my daughter would have access to an up to date encyclopedia whenever she was living with me. One night I was just looking at what was offered on Prodigy and stumbled upon the personals. At first I was quite shocked at how some of the people, both men and women presented themselves. Wee ding out the 'odd ones,' I did find a few that genuinely interested me. I thought what did I have to lose. . .although I didn't know how they looked other than a vague description, I was safe, I was in my own house! I took a chance and hit the reply button. Within a few days, replies were starting to fill my mailbox. Another single male, Robert, described himself as, "An autodidactic (self-educated HS dropout) with an IQ in the stratosphere (3.5 sigma) who works at truckstops, c-stores, redneck restaurants, etc." Despite the fact that he and his online lover met through a sex-related newsgroup, the reason he gave for being online was purely old fashioned romance: We're both looking for an emotional relationship i.e. LOVE, not just sex. The e-mail we exchanged was quite romantic. Other people had quite the opposite in mind. Sometimes, cybersex was the reason people gave for being online- for others, it was a search for offline, real-time sex. Laura, a married, bisexual female, uses Internet listservs as an efficient way to broade n and expand her pool of available sexual partners, and as a way of optimizing her sexual identity by keeping in touch with the bisexual community online while being located in a rather small town. She says: I have a very hard time believing in monogamy. I have been married twice, first time for five years, this time for ten years this May. While I still love my husband passionately and will never leave him because he understands me and can deal with me as not many men could, I still have a desire to make love to other men (and wo men). As I said earlier, I'm somewhat unique in my views. I'm on two email lists (biwimmin and Get-A-Life) and get volumes of email as well as having a very hectic life with two small children. I'm just not interested in getting involved with a cross co untry "email romance" at this point in time. I want to meet some local women to be friends with and see how it progresses. For some people, online love has been a happy accident, the unforeseen result of each person accessing the net for purely sexual reasons. One gay couple interviewed online, Alex, age 37 and Scott, age 30, met on gay-oriented bbs. Though they met and eventually fell in love, their online love was somewhat of a surprise to bot h of them, as both accessed the board for, as Alex put it, "Quick, easy, non-committal sex. And I had a bit of that too." Scott tells of his reasons for being on the bbs at the time of their meeting, and talks about his philosophy regarding his encounters with the men he meets online: Alex and I met one evening on a gay-oriented computer BBS system. . .I have been a member for over 5 years and have used it extensively in that time to meet people, both for purely sexual reasons as well as friendship-oriented reasons (no promises, no guarantees and no regrets) has been one of my catchphrases. . .with this s ort of thing! 12 Another gay man we interviewed used the Internet chat service, or "IRC' to overcome his shyness, and to meet others in the gay community. He talks about his experiences of being on IRC as expansive for him in several ways: It's really the totality of my experiences on IRC that has had a big impact on my life, and not (at least so far) any individual relationship. Since I am a somewhat shy, intellectual gay man, I have in the past (pre-IRC) cultivated relationships very slowly, and had a few strong friendships that were only incidentally physical. I felt as though I was missing out on a lot, but didn't know-how to expand my horizons until IRC came along. Immediately after finding out about IRC from a friend, I got a computer account on Netcom and started talking on the gay channels. I used it primar ily as a means of meeting men in real life, and have now met over twenty men, with physical relationships in a third of the encounters. The thing that has impressed me in all of this is the extreme variety of personalities, tastes, sexual predilections, o f the men I have met. Also, I would say that by and large, the men I have met were far above average in terms of their intellectual level, breadth of interests, depth of perception, and warmth of personality. You could say then, that this is a completely new outlet for making friends and socializing. Whatever the initial reason for accessing online communications, whether on a local bbs, a commercial server like Compuserve or Genie, or the Internet itself, most people interviewed used the medium as a way to expand their potential for meeting suitable partners, whether the desired outcome of that meeting was focused on sexual activity or a search for enduring love. Initial Attractions and Simulations: We asked our participants a series of questions to determine what it was about their online lover that had attracted them in the first place. Given that the people are not in the physical presence of one another at the time of their first meeting, what t hen would respondants say is attractive about virtual others in cyberspace? Our initial set of questions: "What first attracted you? What got you interested? What fascinated you most?," elicited detailed accounts of attraction online. Participants reported a variety of reasons for their initial attraction in response to thes e questions. Many people identified senders as attractive when they were able to identitfy things in common with the sender of the message: similar values, ideas and interests. Humor was mentioned by many respondents as one quality which attracted them to their particular mate. For those mainly interested in a sexual encounter, similar sexual preferences or desires were a first indicator of initial attraction, as well as other qualities such as a wry wit. Interviewees tried to gauge physical attractiveness of the online lover using other factors, such as the person's self-description in personal ads, bios, or during the course of conversation online. Since people were not in the physical presence of the other person, but rather were dealing with the "simulated self," a hyperreality presented by the other person, the people we interviewed sometimes seemed to only tentatively accept the 13 simulation as "real." Alex and Scott talk about their initial attraction on the gay bbs. What started out as a search for a casual sexual encounter soon found them looking at other qualities which perhaps hinted at their compatibility for a longer-term relationship. When I as ked Alex what first attracted him to Scott on the bbs, he said, "He had a great sense of humor! in fact when I made the notation of our chat in my files I remarked SOH (sense of humor!) I liked too (from his bio) that he is not from the US." Scott expla ined his initial attraction in a bit more detail (Interestingly, Scott substitutes his own imagined representation of Alex for the simulated representation Alex has crafted for the bbs bio, perhaps as an effort to create an image possibly "truer," or more representative, of the "real" Alex): To be perfectly honest my intention that evening was gravitating to finding a partner for a sexual liaison (as in "a quick one"). . .you know, no strings attached quick sex! I read Alex's bio (which on the BBS that I use is very explicit and sexually-oriented). . .and he seemed to be interested in easy anonymous sex from the way he answered the questions. I also liked his physical characteristics. . .height/.weight was in proportion, though the BBS does not have a listing for "goatee," so he answered "moustache and beard." Coupled with his handle "STUD DOCTOR" and the fact that he was a student at a university lead me. . .to imagine him to be a sort of gangly, be-spectacled, somewhat maybe nerdy university type. (The bios are MORE than personal ads, because they are FAR more in-depth and MUCH longer) I go for MANY types of men. . .but will confess to having a penchant for facial and body hair. Even if people don't seem to be exactly my "type" I still chat with them, becau se I have been surprised in the past by people. Some turned out to be MUCH better in person than I imagined an others turn out to be much WORSE. I like to give people a "chance" since the bbs is so wonderfully anonymous.When I chatted with him he seemed like an articulate (at least typing wise, because some people are great at a keyboard and terrible on the phone!) person. . .and was obviously interested in quick sex . . . the conversation became sexual-oriented and he gave me his phone number and asked me to call him so we could chat and see what would happen. Laura, a bisexual woman, used the relative anonymity of the net to get to know a woman and to find out more about what she called "deviant sexualities" via a local bbs: I started talking to this woman out of interest, knowing nothing would ever come of it. We first got to know each other in October, and have continue to talk ever since. Most of our communication is through BBSes, and we hardly ever actually email each other. (Only when something is really weighing on our minds) So for me at first, there was a fascination. She is much kinkier than I am, and it was a way of vicariously learning about "deviant" sexualities. (and no, I'm not referring to bisexuality) She felt 14 strongly for me before I had any feeling for her. But when someone cares for you as much as she seems to care for me, it's hard not to be affected. . .She was always affectionate and willing to listen. Her lifestyle is very unlike mine, so for awhile it was interesting to learn about her lifestyle. (We later learned that the woman Laura was referring to was into a dominant/submissive lifestyle). Many people we spoke with seemed to be looking for a "virtual mirror," in which to find their own selves reflected back to them. Diane, a schoolteacher and mother of teenage sons, seems excited as she looks into cyberspace and sees her own self in the form of her values, ideas, and life experiences, mirrored back to her. She s ays: In the message, Daniel introduced himself and told me how he had obtained my address. The message was funny and filled with, IMHO, a lot of love for his kids. He sounded like someone who was excited about becoming a teacher. I could tell he was intelli gent. He asked if we could become *e-mail friends* and share advice and such on raising teenagers (especially sons. . .) and teaching. (IMHO is cyber-slang for "In my humble opinion.") People seem to look for the most minute things in common in order to experience this sensation of the virtual mirror. Cynthia explains what first attracted her to Eric: Eric and I have many parallels. Not long ago we both had a Chev Cavalier and a Dodge Colt in our driveways. Eric's birthday is 2 days before mine. We have the same electronic organizer, both LOVE sex, and want to grow old with an intellectual stimulatin g mate who is also domestic! What drew me to Eric, initially, was his swift wit and wonderful use of language. He has a gift for expressing himself well! He was meticulous about his spelling and grammar at first. That has loosened somewhat, but I know that it is only because we have become comfortable in our speech patterns. He can "think on his feet". . .something I really admire in a person! We are explicit about our sexual preferences and it would seem that we will be quite in "synch" when we final ly meet in August. . .that is provided we don't KILL each other before then! Eric describes his initial attraction to Cynthia as filling an emotional void in his life: I had been in an emotional void until I met Cynthia, she excited me and challenged me. We were simpatico at almost the first post. It was strange and exciting all at the same time. She captured my heart as no one had ever done. She was not condescending n or easy to get along with. She challenged me, made me work for every post. The strangest part was we 15 had never met and as a result turned to use the medium (Internet) to establish our boundaries. Boy did we exceed beyond that! Ralph, who met his online lover on a commercial chat system, seemed to indicate that he was attracted by Gwen's intelligence and her interest in him: Let's see, she was a very interesting person, who seem very interested in my life and opinions. I was also impressed at the time with her position as second in command of (the) county child welfare department for the city. I guess the whole impression (w as) of a bright, interesting lady who seemed very interested in me. Overall, then, people seemed to be looking for a virtual mirror in the form of another online person who would mirror back their hopes, dreams and desires, whether for virtual sex or lasting love. Expansion beyond the virtual A great many of our respondents seemed to follow a similar trajectory for their online relationship. Once having met online, they soon exchange phone numbers and call each other, often exchange photos, followed by what we have termed a fleshmeet (the ti me when the two online lovers first meet in person). We were interested in this trajectory, and in how and when people decide to take these various steps in moving the relationship from online to offline. Many interviewees reported an escalation in the nu mber of phone calls and e-mail or time spent online chatting, as the attraction between the online lovers grew. Diane's story is a typical example of this escalation in the frequency of both online communication and phone calls: Well, to make a very long story short, our friendship quickly became more. Daniel began calling me on the phone at home. Sometimes several times a day. We were e-mailing each other frequently, having daily afternoon talks on the Net, and then talking i nto the wee hours of the night almost every night. The thing about e-mail relationships is that you are forced to talk and communicate with each other. There is no body language to express yourself. You have to speak what's in your mind, heart. . .and soul. We talked about this because our *friendship* quickly became more. A lot more. We were falling in love. We told each other we loved each other. Then we questioned how we could possibly be in love. But, thinking about it, I explained that, if w e had been dating in a traditional way, we would get together only a few times a week, probably on the weekend, and go to a movie or dinner and talk about superficial things. It would take months and months to really get to know one another. And, import antly, the physical element of new relationships would probably get in the way. Sex. But because we were forced to talk to one another, we got to really know one another quickly. And we liked what we were hearing and feeling. We 16 exchanged photos and found each other attractive, too. Soon, we couldn't stand it. Our feelings for each other had become deep and intense. We planned a rendezvous. Carli, a 26 year old female, and Shawn, her 25 year old live-in lover of one year who met on a commercial chat system, describe a very similar pattern of escalation. For them, deciding to fleshmeet was made for practical reasons: Carli: "We first typed to each other occasionally, then more and more, then we started talking on the phone as well, which also became more and more frequent. After awhile, we were typing to each other "Morning mail" every morning, talking on the phone at lunch, typing to each other online for hours at night, and then talking on the phone to say goodnight again. Shawn: As far as progressing to meeting in person. It was quite simple with $700 phone bills for Carli and another $400 for myself. It was more economically feasible to fly out and talk in person. Carli: Oh, we also corresponded about once a week or so through the US postal service. That's how we exchanged photos and gifts. He had photos of me since before my wedding even. And I sent lots more later. It's kinda funny. He had never sent me a photo so I pouted and he, in one day!, had pictures taken, processed and in the mail. (laugh). Kyle describes a relationship with an online lover he currently has no plans to meet, but which seems to follow the same typical temporal trajectory: One day I was reading a travel newsgroup and responded by email to a posting by a girl in Pasadena. This was in November. Since then we have been corresponding every day, but we have never met. I can't remember whether she asked me or hinted or whatever , but she persuaded me to send her my picture. She just wrote me today that she is sending me her picture. I don't really have any plans to start a personal relationship with her. We just communicate via email almost every day. We have talked on the p hone a few times - she has a really sexy, whispery voice (must have taken lessons at the Marilyn Monroe School of Whispery Voices) heh heh. So that's one story. These stories outline the typical trajectory of online relationships: from meeting online, exchanging photos or phone numbers, to eventually meeting offline. Often, these fleshmeetings result in an amplification or transformation of the relationship whic h began online. Transformations and Endings Some mentioned the importance of meeting in person soon after the initial contact online, in order that hopes and expectations not be allowed to build too high. Others had 17 reasons for waiting to meet their online lovers in the flesh. Swan, a woman who met her live in partner of one year on a large commercial server, talks about her experience of her relationship transformation, and how the eventual meeting offline transformed the relationship from "online lovers" to "just friends:" Hm ... it was the normal thing I think, at least normal for (chat): we flirted we hotchatted, a lil phone sex, but when we met, it felt quite "weird." I think what attracted me to him and the relationship was the fact that I had never felt free to communi cate in the way that I was communicating- I felt like I could talk about anything and tell him about parts of myself that I had never talked about before . . . I was flirting with (him) here for a long time. We talked a lot, were real excited to meet- but when we did it was a let down. there was no chemistry ... just 2 very good friends. For Swan, the fleshmeet signaled the end of her attraction to her online lover, as physically he did not appeal to her. Rita, an 18 year old woman who met her online lover via the Internet talk service describes an experience similar to Swan's. In this case, the outcome of the meeting has still not been decided: We met early February and went out. We had a very good time and over the course of three weeks spent 10 hours on VAXTALK sessions, at least 15 hours on the phone and this past weekend we spent 14 hours straight together. He isn't the sort of guy that I would go for at all. I mean, he doesn't really meet my physical standards and is in fact quite average. However, since our initial encounter was "invisible," if you will, and for three weeks we developed a liking for each other without the physical aspe ct tainting everything, I found myself really liking the guy for who he was. Of course, now he sort of wants a commitment with me and I think, because of his mediocrity in the physical aspect, this might be a problem for me. I don't know. Finally, Robert vividly describes his disapointment with a less than perfect fleshmeet with his online lover: By the time I went to visit I think we were both convinced that it would work out more or less permanently and we only had to go through the formality of meeting each other and spending some time together. Well, I hate to say it, but as soon as I got off the plane and got my first look it was like a door slamming shut. I'll never forget that feeling, and never got over the first impression through the relationship. She was a *lot* bigger than what I thought she had led me to believe (in good shape, tho ugh). I decided I should try and stay positive, and we did get along pretty well as friends, but I did tell her about my reservations. 18 Obviously, some of these stories show the dissipations which can occur after a fleshmeet, due to the online love affair not creating the proper chemistry in person. Conversely, some people do manage to overcome the fact that a person may not be one or the other's ideal type. Shawn had this to say about he and Carli: Like in any place where you meet people. There are those who use the medium to hide who they really are and take advantage of people. Conversly, having just text nullifies many social and physical stigma's. Both me and Carli do not meet our individual "idea's" on a "perfect mate" physically. Not that we're unhappy. Just that if you look under just physical characteristics, you generally find different people. I think something has to be said for getting to know who a person is inside without their race, their hair color, or their physical looks interfering. Shawn has evoked some important potentials of cyber relating. Online, people may optimize their attractiveness via simulations, and in so doing, can take advantage of other for their own personal gain. Our next section will review a few of these decep tion strategies, and how people validate that what they are seeing is "real." Also, we will address several other surprising outcomes we heard in the interviews, including more on how people feel they are getting to know the person "inside," as Shawn has mentioned above. Learning trust A Meeting of the Minds Unlike face to face interaction, people communicating online are able to reveal and learn the most personal ideas, values, etc about people without ever revealing their "true" identity. Anonymity is one factor mentioned by many as a facilitator of intima cy between online lovers. There is a sense of getting to know the inner self. We have noted what we have called a meeting of the minds. People have the sense they are getting beyond age and appearance, and are finding true, meaningful interaction online. Rather than a slow "dance of the seven veils," there appears often to be a quick, fast joining between the online lovers. This quick joining leaves some people with the feeling that thei r connection is somehow "fated,"magical," or "meant to be", in some karmic sense. For example, Diana says: He was a very positive and spiritual person. I could tell because he wrote comments like "keep that smile on your body and God in your heart." The spirituality was not traditional, however. Which is what made this whole experience so intense. Aside fro m the obvious commonalties--the same alma mater, business teaching, interest in computers--we are both single parents of teenagers. Daniel has two children, a son and a daughter, and I have a son. But, as I said, we are both very spiritual people. Our spirituality, I quickly learned, was on the same plane. Our views and philosophies about God, spirit, and soul were parallel. I felt a connection to David that I had *never* felt for a man before. It was very intense. He felt it, too. Or so I 19 thought. Cynthia too talks about having a "magical" connection that sounds almost euphoric: We have a magic telepathy that is UNCANNY! After one major fight, I was feeling particularly needy. I logged onto the computer one morning at 10 am (the middle of the night there) and was really missing him. Lo and behold...he received the VIBES, woke up and logged on too! We REALLY bonded! Don't let anyone tell you that there is no such thing as a cyber orgasm! This quick joining may lead some people to be especially susceptible to deception strategies brought against them by unscrupulous cyber lovers. Lassie describes one such situation in which she thought she had met an interesting college student, like herself: I was using a different handle, and he paged me and wanted to talk, said he was 19, a college student, like me. Then we start to discuss common interests like the fact that we're both Irish, loved Irish culture, and talked about beer, parties- basic "you ng adult" topics. I was happy because I REALLY liked him- he seemed perfect for me. Also, not once did he bring up sex- that meant he wanted to know me as a PERSON not as sex. He was lying about everything...his age, everything he told me, he admitted, wa s a lie. He is really 52 and married. People offline generally establish "baselines" as a validation strategy: that is, through continued interactions a pattern of behavior is established, and new behavior is compared to old behavior for consistency in order to established validity. Online, it is more difficult to rely on such validation, especially in cases such as La ssie's, where the entire baseline was crafted by an unscrupulous suitor. Chosen Simulations Some online lovers create simulated personas online not so much to deceive and take advantage of an online lover, as was the case with Lassie, but rather to use fake identities for either playful or learning purposes. One middle aged man comes online as a young housewife, in order to hear the latest online gossip about himself and his friends. One 29 year old man we interviewed took on the simulated virtual persona of an 18 year old woman on a dare from his friend, a lesbian woman who felt he could learn a lot by experiencing the online harassment many women experience online. Cani talked with me (JA) about his experience with a simulated gender: JA: Have you spoken with men or women or both? Cani: both JA: and do they believe that you are a young woman? 20 CANI: Yes. JA: Has anyone ever found out otherwise? CANI: nope. JA: What kind of things did the person or persons try to ask you? CANI: Very sexual questions, mostly. JA: Canyou give me an example? CANI: Do you like to fuck? Do you like to suck dick? Are you horny? Are u kinky? JA: Tell me- what was it like, the experience of being a young woman online, for you? CANI: Horrible, most of the time. The guys can be real sadistic and pushy... It opened my eyes. JA: Did you ever question the guys as to why they talked to you that way when you were posing as a woman? CANI: They either said they were horny, "knew that I really wanted it" or thought I was a slut or I wouldn't be on here. This seems to be the place that all these older guys can come on anonymously and act out their male fantasies. Cani expressed to me his dismay at the way women were treated online, saying it gave him a new view of sexual harassment. Perhaps the ability to simulate personas online will be expansive for people, as they are able to experience roles and situations wh ich allow them to learn in ways they would be unable to during the course of their ordinary offline lives. Surprises Some of what was surprising for us was the subtle, shifting definitions of relationship we encountered online. For example, what would constitute online dating, fidelity, and infidelity was idosyncratically constructed by the online lovers with more variety and quick shifts than appears common offline. In one situation mention ed above, a woman (Swan) who met her husband online had an interesting understanding of what fidelity means (ie. virtual sex is great for either, but extramarital physical sex is forbidden), as well as providing a good illustration of how online communication enables the mixing of self-stimulation with online fantasies. On this issue, Swan elaborates: First of all just talking about sex is pretty innocent Im not talking about typing while someone masterbates cybersex is a little strange but the masterbation part I mean but if that is really what alberto wanted and he was honest with me about what was going on I dont see the difference between masturbation to ascii and masturbation to a movie the problem I think that can happen is that one of the parties may get hurt If alberto was really hotchatting I would feel he was a jerk if the women he was ho tchattin with didn't know that he was in love with someone else and that she was just a masturbation aid. that would be really shitty. But if its two people just satisfying each others sexual needs...I don't see a problem with it. 21 Swan differentiates between online cybersex and offline infidelity, and feels they are two separate things. She does not view her husband's desire for online hot chats as infidelity, as long as it is understood by the other woman that he is in love with her. Conclusion Online love may have some important implications for attractions and simulations, fidelity and infidelity, and mating and coupling. The exponential increase in potential romantic partners invites many to search for sex and love online. The search ofte n involves self-optimizing of one's relational potentialities, and an awareness that messages from others are shaped and crafted to be appealing. Sorting through which optimizations and simulations are genuinely witty, attractive, and meaningful, and whi ch are insincere, deceitful, and manipulative seems to be a more and more difficult job. As mass media become more interactive, and as increase in CMC bandwidth allows for optimized video and virtual reality, surfing through endlessly reproduced hyperrea lities to find quick gratifications and lifetime bonds will challenge traditional conceptions and steps of romance and pair bonding. Some questions posed by this research end this paper. First, we did not learn a great deal about how online communication is or might be used by lovers in enduring relationships. Second, follow-up interviews, review of actual intimate messages, and di rect observations of live chats would add more detail to speculations about love online. Third, a more in depth study of the "meeting of the minds" experience of cyber lovers might add to reflections on what constructionists call "the relational self." And fourth, thought should be given to the ways in which access to cyberspace, especially online love, will widen the gaps of family, culture, and affluence between the poor majority and the wealthy minority across the globe. Appendix Research Release for Electronic Ethnography Consent Form I am doing a study with an associate, Tom Conran- we are trying to study how people meet and form relationships online, and I would like to interview you regarding your experience with this. All identities will be kept confidential- in no way will you or anyone else be able to be identified in the final paper- all names will be changed. You can drop out of this interview at any time. A copy of the final paper will be available for you, if you'd like to see it. By typing "I agree to take part in this online relationship interview", you give me permission to interview you, and to use the transcript of that interview for our study. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Thank you for taking part in our study! Julie M. Albright Department of Sociology University of Southern California albright@nunki.usc.edu 213-740-8868 References Anderson, W. T. (1990). Reality isn't what it used to be. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Associated Press. (1995). "Modem romance: Couple meet, court - by e-mail" The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Tuesday, January 3, 1995, 4A. Baudrillard, J. (1988). The ecstasy of communication. New York: Semiotext(e). Benedikt, M. (Ed.). (1992). Cyberspace: First steps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Beninger, J. R. (1987). "Personalization of mass media and the growth of pseudocommunity." Communication Research, 14(3), 352-371. Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1967) The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books. Bresler, L. (1990). "Student perceptions of CMC: Roles and Experiences II." Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 9(3), 291-307. Chesebro, J. W. & Bonsall, D. G. (1989). Computer-mediated communication: Human relationships in a computerized world. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Clifford, J. & Marcus, G. E. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S. & Sethna, B. N. (1991). "The equalization phenomena: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups." Human Computer Interaction, 6(2), 119-146. Ely, M. (1991). Doing qualitative research: Circles within circles. New York: Falmer Press. Feenberg, A. (1992). "From information to communication: The French experience with videotext." In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 168-187). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Fielding, N. G. & Lee, R. M. (Eds.). (1991). Using computers in qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Fisher, H. (1992). Anatomy of love. New York: Fawcett Columbine. Fox, D. (1995). Love bytes. New York: The Waite Group. Gergen, K. (1993). "Human understanding in science and therapeutic practice: Toward a relational standpoint." Paper given at the Conference on Constructed Realities: Therapy, Theory, and Research, Lofoten, Norway, June, 1993. Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in everyday life. New York: Basic Books. Gergen, K. (1988). "If persons are texts." In S. B. Messer, L. A. Sass & R. L. Woolfolk, (Eds.), Hermeneutics & psychological theory (pp. 29-51). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Gergen, K. (1985). "The social constructionist movement in modern psychology." American Psychologist, 40(3), 266-275.