Okay, so it cracks me up how most journalists just don't seem to get things quite right. Now, I know they try, God bless their liberal little hearts. But, I am still amazed sometimes. Especially when they write about SL.
There's a fun-to-read article over at FOX News (link below) by Sexologist Yvonne K. Fulbright. - but before I send you off in that direction, lets take a look as a couple laughable quotes:
In Yvonne's words, Second Life is just another "mode of cybersex" and it's popularity is due to the cybersex that is Second Life. Umm... not true. Even in your own article, Yvonne, you cite an 'unpublished' study that proclaims on about 13% even dabble. So why is the above statement designed to paint such a dramatic picture in your readers' heads?
This is simply another case of the journalist mantra: "I'll spend a half-hour in Second Life and then comment on it like an expert, even though I am far, far from it and I'll be so far off-base, no one will even care."
But then again, this article isn't really about cybersex, is it? As one continues reading we learn that it's really a bash on Second Life itself and a bash on most, if not everyone who uses it? That they "need to get a life" - all in the guise of a cybersex story. Which is pretty good because you'll hook the readers into actually reading that way.
Typically pathetic. LOL
Okay - so here is the first proof that you, Yvonne have no idea what it's really like to be a "resident" of Second Life (besides never once using the term 'resident of Second Life'):
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (the only canon dictionary of the English labguage in my mind), the definition of "persona" is: the aspect of a person’s character that is presented to or perceived by others.
Hence, your 'avatar' becomes you. And I become my own avatar. In other words, for most Second Life residents...er, "users" - their avatars are an extension of themselves, not some robot machine they are driving. So you have the typically inherent disconnect that 99% of all Second Life 'users' do not have. What I see on screen is you. What I expect you to see on screen is me. yes, in many cases it is true roleplay and fantasy. In Second Life - those areas are clearly defined. "This is a roleplay sim and here are the rules if you want to participate."
Otherwise, you are pretty much assumed to be the real you.
Granted, this isn't everyone in Second Life. But it is the vast majority. Now, please keep this in mind as we continue, will you, please?
And I do understand my case may be different from many others who are roleplaying and fantasizing. What I'm trying to convey is that I am in the majority of Second Life Reside... er... "users."
Who exactly? What are their names? Their areas of expertise? Where are they from?
Yes, yes, we know what the "experts" are claiming. In fat, it's really a no-brainer. But please take this into account: with all that I've said above, even in Second Life, I and everyone else in Second Life is enjoying real social interaction with real people. It's exactly like the telephone, but with three-dimensional imagery to go with it. It is the real world. Second Life is just the 'telephone' we use to stay in-touch.
[To qualify this: Yvonne does goes on to say that people put off eating, sleeping, school and work - and I do concur, and this is a problem... for those people.]
I take the second as an insult.
It is a sarcastic remark that simply belittles you and your whole column. Many in Second Life would see this for what it really is: a cheap shot. It's the typical snarky remark every journalist seems to feel a powerful urge to rely on in order to end their calumn with some kind of bang.
But it only pops with a roll-your-eyes fizzle.
If it weren't for stupid quips like your last line, more people might actually read the news and take you more seriously than they do now. And all of you in the print media wonder why you're losing so much market share and all your numbers are falling faster that bird shit?
[yawn]
Listen, Yvonne, in case you're reading this:
I'm not trying to be hard on you.
Okay, nevermind - yes I am. And I do know with all the flip-flopping and having an agenda and all that is mostly due to some editor who is hacking and whacking the crap out of your story (see, I can give benefit of the doubt to you, just because I'm really a nice guy) - and likely spins what you wrote into their agenda.
So go and scream at your editor and tell him (or her) how bad they made you look.
Full article:
"The game Virtual Jenna, for example, enables any PC user to actually “toy” with a 3-D version of porn star Jenna Jameson.Okay, fuckologi...er, sexologist or not, this is typical journalism writing to influence what's going through the readers head, especially if they are unfamiliar with the topic. In the first sentence, Yvonne directly refers to an online destination designed explicitly for cybersex. Then, in the very next sentence, she implies Second Life is just the same thing.
"Interactive modes of cybersex, like Second Life, have soared in popularity."
In Yvonne's words, Second Life is just another "mode of cybersex" and it's popularity is due to the cybersex that is Second Life. Umm... not true. Even in your own article, Yvonne, you cite an 'unpublished' study that proclaims on about 13% even dabble. So why is the above statement designed to paint such a dramatic picture in your readers' heads?
This is simply another case of the journalist mantra: "I'll spend a half-hour in Second Life and then comment on it like an expert, even though I am far, far from it and I'll be so far off-base, no one will even care."
"I have no interest in virtual sex beyond it being a sociological phenomenon. (I haven’t been into a video game since PacMan was all the rage.) So you can imagine that I felt a bit sideswiped when I learned that cybersex is the latest craze."Wait! Aren't you a fuc...er, sexologist? How can you not know this (if it's true) if you are both: a sexologist and being interested in the sociological phenomenon? umm... HELLO? Can anyone say... oxymoron here? Or what about 'flip-flop'?
"Funny enough, Second Life wasn’t created specifically for sexual purposes. Is it any surprise, however, that humans tend to go that route?"Thank goodness this line made it into your article. And even as it's own paragraph. Though, since your article is really all about cybersex and Second Life, this line fades away pretty quickly in the readers mind. A little more emphasis on what you are trying to say in these two statements would have been cool. Of course, it's likely you did and your editor whacked it all up.
But then again, this article isn't really about cybersex, is it? As one continues reading we learn that it's really a bash on Second Life itself and a bash on most, if not everyone who uses it? That they "need to get a life" - all in the guise of a cybersex story. Which is pretty good because you'll hook the readers into actually reading that way.
Typically pathetic. LOL
Okay - so here is the first proof that you, Yvonne have no idea what it's really like to be a "resident" of Second Life (besides never once using the term 'resident of Second Life'):
"...players can send instant messages to other avatars. Such interactions often become flirtatious, if not explicit in a matter of minutes. Virtual people start having virtual sex, with one unpublished study finding that 13.6 percent of users often or always engage in cybersex on Second Life."Okay - your avatar is not an 'avatar' - it's YOU. In Second Life, I don't have 'my avatar' send and instant message to 'your avatar'. I send a message to you. You said early-on in your article that an avatar is your persona.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (the only canon dictionary of the English labguage in my mind), the definition of "persona" is: the aspect of a person’s character that is presented to or perceived by others.
Hence, your 'avatar' becomes you. And I become my own avatar. In other words, for most Second Life residents...er, "users" - their avatars are an extension of themselves, not some robot machine they are driving. So you have the typically inherent disconnect that 99% of all Second Life 'users' do not have. What I see on screen is you. What I expect you to see on screen is me. yes, in many cases it is true roleplay and fantasy. In Second Life - those areas are clearly defined. "This is a roleplay sim and here are the rules if you want to participate."
Otherwise, you are pretty much assumed to be the real you.
Granted, this isn't everyone in Second Life. But it is the vast majority. Now, please keep this in mind as we continue, will you, please?
"Basically, you can live out any sexual fantasy, which is a major reason these online role-playing games are so huge."Ah yes... the old "is it a game or not" debate. And, if you'd spent any time at all in Second Life, you'd know this has been a raging debate almost since the invention of Second Life itself. Again, it would appear the vast majority of active 'users' do not view Second Life as a "game". In other words - when my avatar chats with your avatar, I really view it - and I don't mean fantasy - every bit as real as a telephone, that I am speaking directly with you.
And I do understand my case may be different from many others who are roleplaying and fantasizing. What I'm trying to convey is that I am in the majority of Second Life Reside... er... "users."
"Experts warn that it can become a self-focused, compulsive behavior. Longing for social interaction and emotional connectedness, users may become more isolated and less engaged in the real world."Wait... which experts?
Who exactly? What are their names? Their areas of expertise? Where are they from?
Yes, yes, we know what the "experts" are claiming. In fat, it's really a no-brainer. But please take this into account: with all that I've said above, even in Second Life, I and everyone else in Second Life is enjoying real social interaction with real people. It's exactly like the telephone, but with three-dimensional imagery to go with it. It is the real world. Second Life is just the 'telephone' we use to stay in-touch.
[To qualify this: Yvonne does goes on to say that people put off eating, sleeping, school and work - and I do concur, and this is a problem... for those people.]
"Is it healthy for people to get sucked into fantasy relationships that can affect their real relationships, especially romantic ones? And what constitutes cheating?"In World of Warcraft and Everquest and so on, I can see calling these 'fantasy' relationships. Many relationships in Second Life really are fantasy, especially if those involved may not really realize it. But I also argue that there are real relationships in Second Life, romantically and otherwise.
"To keep yourself in check, don’t be afraid to step away from the keyboard on occasion. Some of you may just realize that you need to get a life."I totally agree with the first part of this statement.
I take the second as an insult.
It is a sarcastic remark that simply belittles you and your whole column. Many in Second Life would see this for what it really is: a cheap shot. It's the typical snarky remark every journalist seems to feel a powerful urge to rely on in order to end their calumn with some kind of bang.
But it only pops with a roll-your-eyes fizzle.
If it weren't for stupid quips like your last line, more people might actually read the news and take you more seriously than they do now. And all of you in the print media wonder why you're losing so much market share and all your numbers are falling faster that bird shit?
[yawn]
Listen, Yvonne, in case you're reading this:
I'm not trying to be hard on you.
Okay, nevermind - yes I am. And I do know with all the flip-flopping and having an agenda and all that is mostly due to some editor who is hacking and whacking the crap out of your story (see, I can give benefit of the doubt to you, just because I'm really a nice guy) - and likely spins what you wrote into their agenda.
So go and scream at your editor and tell him (or her) how bad they made you look.
Full article:
"Part of the draw — there are no physical laws in this world. You can, for example, have sex on a cloud. Avatars can mimic 100 sexual positions — a feat complimented by a “moan button” no less. You can also “marry,” pay for virtual escorts or prostitutes, get a lap dance, engage in group sex, or visit sex clubs and BDSM (bondage, discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism) bars."
2 comments: