The Impact of Internet Socializing on Sex/Sexuality

This afternoon I was watching a show about the impact of technology on sex and friendships in today's society. I thought it might provoke interesting discussion for class especially considering one of the upcoming topics is pornography. I preface this entry with a warning that this may be a long one.

The show started with a discussion on how the government's attempts to regulate sexuality have been repeatedly outsmarted by technology. In today's society, lawyers are struggling with how to adapt laws made years ago to the technology of the internet. I had never stopped to ponder how to deal with the internet's impact on the law. Questions such as: who has jurisdiction when a crime occurs on the internet, how should we deal with crimes committed internationally over the internet, what definition of the crime should even apply, are arising on a regular basis.

The next discussion was how teenagers are now outsourcing their social life to software such as myspace and facebook. Our generation is one of the first generations to have to decide between a real friend and a virtual friend while understanding the key differences. The show makes the argument that these social networking sites are changing the definition of a friend into a consumer or content choice. People on these networking sites can select their "friends" based upon the content of their webpages, turning traditional friendship into societal consumption. One college age student said he could understand why people would rather become friends on the internet than in public. It was more comfortable and there was less risk of rejection.

Individuals can now engage in friendships and sexual relationships over the internet without meeting. It makes one wonder whether social skills are going to give way to empty internet relationships if action is not taken to raise awareness. Before the phenomena of webcams people had to meet to engage in a sexual relationship. Now, the scope of what sex is has morphed, with the advent of the internet, into a relationship that can be had in cyberspace. These internet sexual relationships can produce sexual satisfaction with little effort to please a partner. One can focus solely on themselves; and, because many individuals seek instant gratification, this may be appealing to many in today's society.

I was especially troubled by the story of an eighteen year old boy who used his myspace page to turn a profit. This boy filmed himself performing sex acts and charged individuals to view the video clips. The young man got the idea because he had thousands of myspace friends, most of whom were older men. He then realized he could make money off his looks and sexuality. Later, when he wanted to enter a real relationship, he realized the extent of damage he had done by making private sexual acts public.

Older individuals targeting children on social networking sites is an increasing problem. But, one first amendment attorney on the show had a quote I found provocative. This attorney said that many states have criminalized communicating over the internet, in a sexual manner (essentially flirting), with a person believed to be a minor. The attorney said that there is no such thing as the "thought police" in the United States. I find that opinion troubling on many levels, the main one being that the crude things often said in these "chats" are hardly what I would call "essentially flirting."

My final thought is about the constitutional right to privacy. On the internet (apparently anyway-it was news to me) there are voyeuristic websites. Individuals plant cameras in public places to engage in what is known as "upskirting" aka taking pictures up women's clothing and then posting them on the internet. A first amendment attorney commented he would have a serious problem with a law prohibiting all non-consensual filming of people in public because once you set foot in public you lose your right to privacy. Personally, I have a serious problem with someone taking pictures up my skirt and posting them on the internet. Interestingly, this attorney was a man, someone I seriously doubt can identify when it is not his clothing they are attempting to see under. I do hope, however, he has a problem with this type of public filming and this was not they type of non-consensual filming he would have a problem limiting. After all, he didn't want to allow all the filming, he just did not want to prevent all of it either.