Cybersex and cyberdating seemed to reach mainstream, with the release of You've Got Mail, the cheesy blockbuster movie starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. Well alright, they never had sex over the e-waves--Meg's just not that kind of girl--but still, it brought into focus for a wide audience that cyberdating is just swell; everybody's doing it.

In support of this, we have also seen the numerous "fly-on-the-wall" documentaries of people who fell in love on the cyber-highway and have even arranged marriages before meeting each other in person! Surely this is madness, unless of course you have had any experience of cyberdating. Traditionalists will cry out in anguish, "you can't really know the person" or "you can't have experienced any degree of intimacy since you are too far apart." They argue there is something about physical proximity that is fundamental to ensuring one really knows another person. Yet, cyberspace offers new possibilities for understanding human relationships. You can get to know your life partner without ever having to meet him or her in person. But what side order of complications comes with this deliciously varied menu of possibilities and opportunities that the Internet offers for developing new romances? Is it really possible to know a person given you might never have seen or spoken to him or her face to face? Moreover, what is the response to the techno-skeptic who sees this mega-meeting place as devoid of human qualities and intimacy?

The ideas presented here give reason to consider, quite carefully, what takes place within cyberspatial environments. It is argued the confines of the web offer a unique location for personal expression and freedom that can be detrimental to human experiences. They are 'real' and meaningful encounters that are often misconstrued as frivolous or without consequence.

Furthermore, I would like to suggest that these virtual environments are, at best, virtual only in the sense that they are mediated by technology. One kisses another through textual descriptions rather than having a big smack on the lips from the lips of another human being! In response, the cyber-enthusiast will say Teledildonics, the technology allowing the simulation of physical stimuli through machinery, can achieve this effect. For example, realistic and electronic dildos may be used to simulate penetrate sex. However, my argument remains, dildonics still requires a piece of machinery that is doing the kissing (or whatever it might be doing), rather than the human being with whom one wishes to relate. Yet, this is the limit of their virtuality and it is a fairly weak basis for concluding that such experiences are devoid of human feeling. Cybersexual experiences can be as meaningful (or not) as the supposedly real thing. As such, things are far from straightforward when cyber-dating since genuine emotions and physical interactions are taking place between people who are not even in the same room. What remains unclear about the sceptic's thesis is whether or not some essential, or meaningful, element is lost by the lack of physical proximity. Indeed, examples of cybersex force the question of whether physical proximity is important at all.

To clarify, cyberspace romances can take place in a number of contexts that blur the boundaries of pornography, voyeurism, and romance. The still futuristic and immersing experiences described in The Lawnmower Man (1992), where the activity is entirely simulated and imagined, are becoming more probable with the emergence of Teledildonics and with more voyeuristic experiences available through such settings as "AmandaCam" (http://www.amandacam.com). This latter example is but one of a vast number of webcam sites set up with a view to luring the voyeuristic browser into a situation where they would be willing to pay money to peek into the lives of others. More often than not, they tend to be a somewhat pornographic version of The Truman Show (1998). Yet, the objects of our 'affection' are well aware of their being observed. With cameras placed all around her house, which are continually updated, the user is able to watch Amanda do the washing-up, sleep, watch television, bathe, and so on. For innocent surfers, AmandaCam tempts the browser with the GuestCam, which gives an insight into Amanda's home by providing one image that is continually updated.

Perhaps more interesting, cybersex can be an interactive form of pornography, though whether it is pornography or sexual liaisons is not at all clear. Presently, cybersex that tends to take place through chat-rooms adopts a text-based interaction, where people converse using text and create a sexual encounter using words alone. Yes, it is as you imagine! Cybersex involves writing things like "I am taking of your panties" or "I am licking your breast." It sounds crude, but experts will most likely tease their partners with much more sophisticated and rich descriptions. Does this really turn people on? Well not if you put it quite how I just did, but imagine if you have found someone online (yes, a person despite the fact that you are gazing at a screen), and begin talking. The interaction is real. This is a real person, saying real things, responding to your thoughts and words, and the reality of the situation is created through your mutual interaction. Your physical closeness is irrelevant; it is the meeting of minds that matters here. If you feel this person is talking to you, seducing you, it cannot help but seem real enough to arouse your interests for it most certainly is real. Perhaps it is best to consider that cyber-sexual encounters combine more traditional examples such as telephone sex, pornographic videos, and erotic literature. Cybersex can offer all the opportunities of these kinds of erotica and more. But significantly, it involves an individual who is not working for a living, who is not being exploited and thus does not generate any moral dilemmas for the customer to do with taking advantage of another human being. There is a mutual desire, and not a one-way consumption of a product, taking place here.

The appeal of such environments seems obvious; one can remain sufficiently anonymous in cyberspace and hide behind any inhibitions related to physical appearance or otherwise (particularly gender). Alternatively, one can be as open and honest as we would all hope to be in real life though are unable to for fear of being rejected by our peers. Thus, cyberspace offers the opportunity to mix fantasy with reality and reject whichever is less pleasing. However, this possibility brings into question whether one can treat cyberspatial relationships in the same way as we make sense of non-cyberspatial relationships. The significance of this is recognised by Rheingold (1991) where he states,

The secondary social effects of technosex are potentially revolutionary. If technology enables you to experience erotic frissons or deep physical, social, emotional communion with another person with no possibility of pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease, what then of conventional morality, and what of the social rituals and cultural codes that exist solely to enforce that morality? Is disembodiment the ultimate sexual revolution and/or the first step toward abandoning our body? (p.351)

Cybersex and cyberdating force the question, what constitutes human relationships and how one should conduct interactions when online? It has already been argued what takes place in cyberspace can be interchangeably real and unreal. However, it's not clear how one reconciles this blurring with traditional concepts related to romantic relationships, for example, being faithful. The title question is directed primarily at encounters within chat-rooms, though such examples are offered as paradigmatic examples of where the blurring or reality and unreality can take place. The less problematic examples such as the AmandaCam seem simply to be more sophisticated versions of telephone sex and, arguably, do not present unique problems for understanding human relationships. However, one might note that such environments do offer an interesting distinction, the depth of the voyeur's experience goes beyond simply browsing pictures of a sexual nature. It can also involve reading diaries of the subject, and spending a great deal of time watching the subject in fairly non-sexual positions, such as watching television. Of course, it could be argued, this is more voyeuristic than simply reading pornographic magazines as it allows insights into lived reality and not pretence. However, the details of this would need much more elaboration than is possible here.

In contrast, the status of the chat-room encounter is ambiguous as to whether it is meaningful or not. Would it constitute adultery or simply titillation if one were to engage in an extra-marital relationship with a real person in cyberspace? Let us suppose that you are in any chat-room, talking (by writing) with strangers about something and nothing. You are drawn to one individual in particular (or more if it helps) and you find yourselves talking about loves and life, embarrassing moments, and other inconsequential matters. The discussion takes a turn when the other person asks you what you are wearing or something equally leading or suggestive. Before you know it he/she is telling you how much they are turned on by the conversation. Now to be clear, you don't know this other person's name or whether what they have told you is the truth--bearing in mind that people like to interact in chat rooms through a pseudo-self. Individuals might even be pretending to be of a different gender and/or sexuality. Consequently, supposing you are heterosexual, your sexual encounter could be with a homosexual or a different gender who is turned on by this twist of identities when you are imagining that this is a heterosexual person of the opposite sex. Thus, for all intents and purposes, this interactive persona is fictional. Would you be committing an act of adultery if you were to pursue this engagement or would you tell yourself that it is simply an interactive form of reading erotic literature? What are the salient aspects of committing adultery that make it a problem? While it might be a cliché to say it is the physical act of sex (or a more diluted form of it) that is the problem. It might also be argued the act itself is less of a problem than the mental state of intimacy that is achieved between two (or more) people. Upon such a premise, having sex with a prostitute, for example, would be less problematic than this meeting of minds that can take place in cyberspace. It is the intimacy experienced between the people involved that is important, indeed, perhaps whether they are in love.

Cyberspatial relationships require a different kind of approach to make sense of romantic relationships. Whilst being far from exhaustive of these considerations, cyberspace and cyber-dating offer an environment that allows one to form different moral attitudes in the context of sexual and romantic relationships, where prostitution meets pornography and where adultery meets fantasy. So if your lover catches you in the act of e-adultery, then be sure to stick to the words of the U.S. President and claim that "I did not have sexual relations" with whom ever it was. You see, as President Clinton so rightly asserted, it all depends how you define sexual relations. If being faithful is a matter of physical acts, then cyberspace offers little threat and what threat it does pose may be construed as simply a sophisticated form of pornography. However, if being faithful is about ensuring one's romantic interactions are with one person and one person only, then cyberspace can pose a threat to remaining faithful to one's partner. But there does seem to be a need to draw boundaries within this categorisation. There would seem to be a difference between romantic encounters between persons who are each fantasising their identities and cyberspatial encounters between people who are being honest about themselves. Surely, it would not be considered unfaithful to pursue a romantic interaction whereby one is being aroused by an unreal person.

However, perhaps the salient point is that such fantasy could transgress into real feelings. As such, perhaps it would be better to hold to the view that any romantic thoughts about another person are adulterous, as was the position taken by ex-President Carter. Consequently, the relevance of a physical or mental act becomes void, since either will be sufficient to warrant concluding that one has been unfaithful. Yet, it would seem that this perspective is a little extreme and places a very high expectation on what another person is allowed to think. If one is to be held culpable for one's thoughts, then the possibility for creative thought or thought that challenges taboo or presumed values is curbed. That said, if you do value your relationship, then please, please, find out how your partner defines sexual relationship because if your ideas differ, then cyber-sex might be all you will be getting for some time!

References

AmandaCam http://www.amandacam.com
Rheingold, H. (1991) Virtual Reality. London: Manderin.

Copyright © 2000 All Rights Reserved

Andy Miah is a philosopher based in England and interested in all kinds of technology relating to leisure and sport. He is currently completing doctoral work researching human-altering technologies and the implications they have for sport.

Homepage: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/dept/schools/pesl/affiliat/grad/a_miah.htm

Email: De Montfort University amiah@dmu.ac.uk