What’s WRONG with love in a virtual world? Why does the press insist on obsessing with sex and divorce? Well, pretty much for the same reason I’m writing this post – as a shameless traffic generator.
Not really.
But hyperventilating commentary about the forlorn and the jilted, the lovestruck and cheaters – well, it makes good press, although it reminds me of the early days of the Web when the media, which didn’t understand what was going on, focused on what they termed a seedy underbelly and what everyone else termed a natural reaction: if you have a new vehicle for making whoopee, why the heck not? Besides, Second Life won’t cook dinner for you so you might as well get some of your basic needs met.
I’ve written at length about the power of virtual worlds as a site for real feelings and how they inform our understanding of how we carry emotional connections into online space. I think this is healthy amazing stuff (although, like all healthy things can be taken to extremes….a glass of wine a day can help your heart, a bottle a day can steal it).
Was it Philip who talked about SL being a dating site at SLCC? Can anyone find that quote? He was asked about adult-oriented content and went on this sort of tangent where he said something about sex at the office. It was such a priceless Philip moment.
I think that love and dating and maybe just connecting for a virtual coffee or dance is one of the things that holds virtual worlds together, it’s the pulsing heart, just as it is in physical life, and yet what we get are ads for owning your own home or throwing snowballs at Winterfest. But why NOT advertise more of the love?
When a client asks me about sex in SL I tell them – “OH! Then you KNOW about that! That’s awesome! Because what does that tell you about how far the level of engagement in a virtual world can go? What does it say about how deep collaboration can be?”
If nothing else, it often ends up being a pretty wild conversation and I breathe a big sigh of relief that they brought it up. Better to get it on the table, talk about the filters, and dress codes, and how you can have a private sim away from all that stuff – but use it as a learning opportunity, a discussion point, speak about the broader implications for where consumers or students are living their lives these days, whether it’s in virtual worlds or Skype video calls.
I was pinged on an in-world dating service that’s in start-up mode and looking for testers. And I have to say, I like the idea of this, although I can see it being extended to non-love based topics….why not list yourself as looking for someone who wants to go sailing or to an in-world concert or whatever? Plus, this type of thing can really help bring connection when to some of those single green dots….whether the reasons are just to hang out or they include a trip to Zindra.
“Second Love is a free gridwide dating HUD for friendship, partnership, marriage, adoption and more. Create your own profile and connect with others everywhere you want. Second Love is designed in a website look ‘n feel, but all the system is entirely >>ingame<< and always where your avatar is. It uses latest web & database technology to handle a lot of concurrent users."
With all the talk of linking to Facebook and this idea that sociality is happening somewhere ELSE, that social media is someone ELSE’S domain, it’s refreshing to see that there’s love enough to go around in Second Life, that you can socialize and meet people and, yeah, go on a date. You don’t need a widget on Facebook, you need one on Match.com or somewhere – “go on a trial run in Second Life before you meet in person” or something like that.
And in the meantime, come into Second Life and grab yourself a Second Love HUD and see what engagement is all about.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Valiant Westland, Wurfi. Wurfi said: <blog> Virtual Worlds and Second Life: Bring on the Love: http://bit.ly/8lNYfe #secondlife #lindenlab #virtualworlds [...]
[...] Virtual Worlds and Second Life: Bring on the Love: http://bit.ly/8lNYfe #secondlife #lindenlab #virtualworldsRT bucchigiri: [...]
I think the problem with love in Second Life is that the love is often misplaced. Many of the people that are in love wouldn’t be in love if they really knew each other. This again brings up the problem of anonymity in virtual worlds.
I suppose with less anonymity places like Second Life could be a fun and safe place for people to meet.
Although I personally prefer to get to know people in the flesh, that way there’s no rejection and hurt feelings when you realize that they’re not as cute as their photo. Or that the girl has a big pair of balls.
*shakes his head in incredulity*
What’s up with this sudden prevalent fixation on less anonymity? The flap over Facebook is apparently more of a watershed than even I thought it was…
Obviously, Barry: you get to know the personality first, build up the trust, and begin the exchange of more personal information out-of-world (email, etc.)
Dear Lalo,
It isn’t nice to be befriending people and building up their trust in the hope that they’re cute. Only later to find out that they’re not and then dump them.
Of course sometimes you can have a pleasant friendship with somebody online regardless of whether you’re going to be physically attracted to each other or not. But this has nothing to do with today’s subject of Luuurve and deliberately seeking a partner.
ps – What’s your email?
On a separate note I usually get about 200 spam an hour in the comments but putting love in the title has, um, bumped up the spam comments for cialis & viagara so it’s good to know love isn’t restricted to virtual worlds, nor are the tools we’ll use to improve it.
Did I just say that. Better get to bed.
Let’s put aside the issue of online anonymity and its perceived connection to dishonesty and deception for a moment.
After all, people can and do lie to each other in meatspace as well (often with great skill and enthusiasm). Yes, in the “real world” you have a harder time masking your physical attributes (though Lord knows, people do try with implants, botox, girdles and wigs etc, etc.). But still, people go to great lengths to deceive other humans in the real world in some very cunning and despicable ways.
Relying on meeting other humans in a physical context does not guarantee you won’t be disappointed, and you are a bloody fool if you think otherwise.
Wherever you try to connect with another human being, it’s taking something of a risk. That is part of what makes relationships and friendships of any sort so remarkable.
So let’s just forget about the anonymity issue for now, and let’s say that you take a chance on getting to know someone you meet in a virtual context. Arguably something interesting happens there: because communication in a virtual space is based on a series of extended ongoing typed and/or voice conversations (there are limitations to how much you can use visual cues and all that), there is an increased likelihood that you might actually SAY something to each other.
I am not trying to be facetious here: In the best online friendships and relationships, you are driven to put into words what you think, what you feel, and how you are reacting. You can’t get away with just making a face and hoping that the other person will pick up on it and realize that you like or dislike what they are saying or doing. As long as you’re able to put your thoughts and feelings into words (hopefully in complete, rationally constructed sentences and paragraphs), you can do some exceptionally complex, thoughtful and meaningful communication in that virtual context.
Another factor in this is that an awful lot of activities in virtual space require typing out or saying what is on your mind. And even with certain “activities” that can be done on autopilot, you are likely to do more talking than you might in the course of doing similar things in a phsycial space.
For example: let’s say you go dancing–in the real world, you are concentrating on the music and your moves, and trying not to look like a clumsy idiot. In the virtual, you both jump on some dance poses and get twirled around by the animation–so what do you do while that is going on? Well gee, unless you have actually used the dancing anim as an opportunity to go to the bathroom and get another beer, you TALK to the other person.
Sure, it doesn’t always work out. That’s part of life. Sure, you can lie to each other. Hell, we also lie to ourselves a lot on a bad day. BUT in the virtual context there is this tendency to verbalize and share ideas and feelings and thoughts in ways that are often clearer and more thoroughly expressed than they are in “real life.”
Once you have done that–if the two people have been at all honest with one another–you have a foundation of mutuual understanding and empathy that potentially can lead to building trust and further on-going communication.
Yeah, sooner or later you probably need to actually meet in a phsycial context if you want to take it any further.
But really, how different is it from being introduced to somebody and then you build the relationship through an exchange of letters (you know, those paper things people used to send to each other), and finally you hook up and go off together into the sunset?
I’ll grant you, this probably doesn’t apply as much in things like Twitter, where the extent of what you can express is severely limited by the nature of the medium. But in something like SL, where people do actually communicate a great deal, it isn’t impossible that you might end up having a better chance of meeting and getting to know an agreeable, compatible person than you do chatting up someone in a bar or trying to hook up with that good-looking somebody in line at Starbucks.
It’s very easy to write off relationships that are initiated in virtual contexts as being somehow more dishonest, dangerous or flawed–or less “real”–than seeing a person in meatspace where you can get a faceful of pheromones and try to communicate in the more physical sorts of ways.
The thing is, I’ve certainly seen it work for people who start their relationship in virtual space, just like I have seen plenty of people make an utter mess of relationships that originate in a physical context.
Yeah but Dio, it’s nice to be able to quickly tick off the most obvious box ‘physical attraction’ before spending three months figuring out whether you both enjoy ‘The Simpsons’ and if you ever leave the toilet seat up.
@ Dio. Yes, very well said. I “talk” more to my SL friends than I email or phone my RL friends and I feel I know more about my inworld friends because of that
.
I think that SL will be seen more and more as a complicated ‘telephone’ in years to come, just one more communication device, probably the best.
I know there are people who feel they should be sitting next to their RL partners watching TV rather than actually talking to people in SL …. that the RL relationship is superior … well, that obviously depends.
I talk to far more people about interesting topics inworld than I do at work or home, confirming your point Dio.
[...] When a client asks me about sex in SL I tell them – “OH! Then you KNOW about that! That’s … [...]
Hey Barry,
two things:
First of all, not everyone considers physical appearance the key factor–things like intelligence, sense of humor, empathy, and shared values are more important to some people. Oh…and sanity. Sanity is good feature that many people prize in a potential partner. And that’s the kind of people I’m talking about here.
But you’re right: not everyone is like that. Some poeple–apparently including you–place a higher priority on the physical. And that’s fine. Everyone’s brain works differently. If you really have to have a certain sort of physical type to get your boat afloat, then no, don’t waste time talking to people who might not fit your requirements. They’ll probably be just as glad that you skipped them.
Of course, if the physical look of a person is your priority, I can kind of guarantee that there’s a pretty good chance that you’re going to end up disappointed at some point down the road. Either that, or you’re going to get lumpy, fat and bald and disappoint the other party. The fact is that physical appearance is the most transient and fragile of qualities. So when that physical appearance changes or deteriorates, do you just dump that person and go find a new partner who fits the bill?
Second point: If it takes you three months to figure out if the other person likes the Simpsons and leaves the toilet seat in the wrong position, then you really are struggling with this whole idea of communication. Most people can figure out minor crap like that in the first 15 minutes. But you know, there are people who actually don’t like talking to the person that they’re involved with. That’s cool too–it’s just it’s a different kind of relationship from what I’m talking about here.
I think you’re spot on about love and relationships being the heart of SL and for that matter most virtual worlds.
The previous SL homepage which highlighted all the different things you could experience in world – learn, love etc I thought did a good job on showing that potential.. wonder why they de-emphasized it
Barry is bringing up a really valid point. His conclusion in relating the “problem” with SL being anonymous is where I think he might be a bit misguided.
Let’s face it – physical chemistry can count in a physical relationship. It can count more or less depending on the person. There’s all that stuff about pheremones and who knows what else, and our bodies are hard wired to seek a compatible mate who will increase our chances of creating offspring who survive.
Virtual worlds present, therefore, some intriguing notions: in the modern world, making sure we have a son who can hunt and survive is hardly an evolutionary imperative. So, are virtual worlds facilitating a longer evolutionary trend towards love and procreation being based on intelligence, wit, and the ability to survive in the jungles of code rather than the jungle? And what about people who are gay, transgendered, pansexual or assexual? Are they finding a new place in the evolution of man when there are so many reasons why we don’t NEED the population to grow?
Virtual worlds might be suggesting that there’s a post-physical thread to our traditional evolutionary imperatives.
In this post-physical world, it also forces us to ask the question: will there increasingly be a role for forms of life that exclude the physical entirely? As the technologies improve, as we get Wiis and haptics and who knows what else, we could be moving into an era where we can pretty much cover off the basic physical needs without ever meeting. This is a pretty frightening concept, very Matrix like, or maybe more like Huxley.
However, it creates a false dichotomy between “physical and virtual” just as its a false dichotomy to say “married or unmarried”. Our lives include both digital and physical spaces, those we marry and those we partner with, those we have deep friendships with and those who become life partners. Any of these things at the extremes can be unhealthy and unwise, but some us believe that there’s joy across the spectrum and that the richness of experience across physical and virtual domains is what makes us creative, sentient and contributing members of, well, LIFE.
But none of this negates the challenge of falling in love in virtuality only to discover that you have ascribed all kinds of things to the other person that aren’t true: they aren’t the gender they said they were and they aren’t 8 feet tall.
But it’s another false dichotomy to say that anonymity is therefore a barrier to ALL of it, to all of love or friendship or deep passions. Anonymity is a trade-off. The trade-off is that you CAN project, and the tools for doing so are vibrant and far-ranging and creative. But the trade-off is that the projection may be distant from ‘reality’ once the masks are stripped off.
Jung says that we seek our shadow selves. In physical life, we project on someone else in non-physical ways – they seem charming, or bright, or caring (but might be superficial, fake, or using)….and over time we come to see that what we projected on that person was because of something interior to ourselves.
In virtuality, we project physical characteristics and can even go so far as to tweak that physicality through avatar modification. But because, as Dio points out, the bandwidth for OTHER forms of communication is so wide, we’re able to learn in which ways our emotional, mental and spiritual projections are reflected back through other non-physical manifestations.
Like everything in life, virtuality poses trade-offs but also provides opportunities for self discovery. We may find that we’re attracted to the same type of person over and over again, just as in life we may be attracted to those who are wounded or abusive, and then rinse/repeat. Virtuality might actually provide a therapeutic benefit in some cases as we watch our own patterns repeat themselves.
I don’t argue that the barrier caused by anonymity can provide a downside if physical attraction is a significant part of the experience in life that you want to fulfill, but virtuality and anonymity can provide a venue for increasing the richness of our lives and our self-understanding when, like all things in life, we enter it with open hearts and eyes, and stay centered in gratitude for the creation that was the gift to us, and which can be our gift back to whichever higher purpose we undertake to join.
+2 for Dio!
And here’s another point: I can’t find any line in Dusan’s post where he talks about dating outside of SL. Sure, it might be nice to translate a love you and another have discovered in-world out into the rest of the universe… but is it necessary?
I know devoted SL couples who live hundreds or thousands of miles apart (many with an ocean between them), who may never meet in physical space. That doesn’t seem to matter much to them.
Folks like Barry, who see the phrase “dating site” and take it to mean a sort of match.com to hook up in RL… well, good luck with that.
By the way: I grabbed a copy of Second Love last night, after reading this blog. Tried it out, immediately found a bug, emailed the developer per his instructions in the notecard… and found a reply this morning saying he’d fixed it. So if you already have one, you might want to get a newer copy.
Lalo I do mention in the latter part of the post that if we’re going to link SL to anything ‘real’ (I hate that word) then why not to a dating site.
But you’re right, my main point was that what keeps a virtual world tick are the friendships, passions, loves and other adventures INSIDE the world.
I did want to mention again that Second Love is in Beta…part of the reason for this post is to encourage some early adoption so they can….are you ready for it?…..work the kinks out.
*groan*
If only Linden Lab would do some marketing/advertising to counter this social perception issue with regards to business use. So far marketing to business seems to be limited to SL solution providers filling out Linden Lab surveys.
Well falling in love with a virtual puppet is always going to be a minority thing. And if Linden Lab wants to go mass market then they shouldn’t be promoting their product with minority activities like furry sex etc.
I think the problem Linden Lab had is that a lot of the Lindens themselves have found love through Second Life. But there’s a big difference between finding love though Second Life and seeking love through Second Life. The Linden employees stumbled upon their love, they didn’t seek it.
Again, the subject is about seeking love in virtual worlds. For the majority of people on the planet it just isn’t practical or efficient.
Barry,
I think you have an excellent point there about the difference between seeking love and simply finding it. The curious fact of the matter is that love is probably one of those things that you are most likely to find when you aren’t looking for it.
And yes, “falling in love with a virtual puppet,” ie, someone’s avatar, would be something problematic, of course. But then I think you and I may be defining “love” in a different way. I was speaking about the possibility (and I emphasize POSSIBILITY, not implying any guarantees) of genuine love developing out of the intense on-going communication that many people in world have with one another.
That’s very different from getting entranced by a superficial.
Becoming infatuated with someone’s avatar/fabricated online persona is like becoming infatuated with a person based upon their physical attributes and appearance when they are all dressed up for a night on the town–understandable, but ultimately you have to get beyond that outer shell if it’s actually going to develop into love.
That said, I think we may agree on the idea that it would be a poor idea for LL to try to market SL as a place to fall in love. Yes, it can happen but as you say, finding love in a virtual world is a “minority thing.” Sadly it is also a minority thing in the physical world as well, where so many people don’t develop anything beyond their intitial infatuation or simple lust, and then when that wears off, there’s nothing there.
Yet that doesn’t stop people from trying in either context. For the majority of people on the planet, seeking love in any context has nothing to do with practicality or efficiency. The evolution of human emotions tend to be neither.
But yes, again, I will say I agree with you that it probably would be best if LL didn’t heavily promote the idea of their virtual world as place to pursue romantic relationships. When you look at in-world profiles of so many of us which baldly state something like “I am not looking for romance or pixel sex, so don’t even think about it” that is an indication of where a lot of people are coming down on this.
Just out of curiosity, what’s this thing you have about furry sex? Totally aside from the fact that I can’t say as I have seen LL ads anywhere saying “come to Second Life and shtup a furry”(or Vampire, or Gorean, or Ice Road Trucker, etc), it’s not what this convesation is about, unless, as I said before you and I define love in very different ways.
Is what you’re really talking about here: sex, rather than love?
And Dusan,
I really like your speculation about about how this may all fit into a larger picture when you ask the following:
“Virtual worlds present, therefore, some intriguing notions: in the modern world, making sure we have a son who can hunt and survive is hardly an evolutionary imperative. So, are virtual worlds facilitating a longer evolutionary trend towards love and procreation being based on intelligence, wit, and the ability to survive in the jungles of code rather than the jungle?”
Elegantly put.
But going back to your original post, I do want to say I really like your idea of the virtual dating service being perhaps too limited in focus–after all, as I said, an awful lot of us just aren’t looking for romance, sex, or even”friends” in SL.
It might be more useful if it also served as a means of finding others who share similar interests whether it’s virtual museums or storytelling or sailing, or building recreations of period clothing and furniture, or science fiction or writing or poetry or music, and so on. It can be kind of hard to find like-minded people working on stuff we have interest in–usually most of the people I have come across who fit that bill I have located by chance or by bien introduced by a mutual acquaintance.
So let’s say this expanded notion of a “dating service” does help us connect with more folks who are doing those sorts of things we’re interested in. Then, if in the course of the on-going communication about those things, one or two people happen to make some real friendships or perhaps even genuinely fall in love…that’s not a bad thing, right?
Maybe instead of being called a “dating service” it could be called something like a “connections service?”
My point about furry sex was that Linden Lab wouldn’t try to promote it because they know that it’s a minority thing. But what they never seemed to understand was that avatar sex/love is also a minority thing. And this is why they went through a perioud of promoting dating (love/flirting/dancing) on their website. Their own experiences with finding love in Second Life had clouded their judgement and ultimately risked turning their 3D world into a mockery.
Linden Lab needs to promote Second Life as a place to explore, create and to make lots of money – healthy activities. But if you happen to find anything else in Second Life (like love) then that’s just a bonus.
People at large are sensitive to the image Second Life has. Nobody wants to be associated with sadville. Whether the label is justified is beside the point.
Second Life badly needs to work on earning the label ‘Coolville’. It remains to be seen whether the people running Second Life are cool enough to aquire such a label. You can’t fake cool.
Being cool and running a business is very tricky thing to do. But Google and Apple seems to manage just fine.
Don’t get desperate, Linden Lab.
Barry,
Thank you for clarifying that, I understand what you were trying to convey much better now. And especially this bit:
“Linden Lab needs to promote Second Life as a place to explore, create and to make lots of money – healthy activities. But if you happen to find anything else in Second Life (like love) then that’s just a bonus.”
Pard, I think that was very well said.
Despite my long history of writing posts about the dangers of romantic relationships in Second Life, I really love the idea of an actual dating service. I think if it’s done well it could promote more of an eyes-wide-open approach and maybe save participants from some of the problems caused by more random hook-ups.
It would be great if the people creating the service would also provide educational resources.
Dusan. Great post! Was easy to find the “priceless Philip moment” on youtube, I hope it’s the one you where thinking of.
SLCC2009 Philip Rosedale responding to the Sex Question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw0-s3y9tEA
HAHAHA if only he had stopped at about 1:24.
“So you can have a business meeting and you can also have sex” is the classic line – whether you’re supposed to do that at the same time was left unanswered.
I have a bit to say on the topic of love in second life. I understand Barry’s comments, and agree to a point. Specifically, most people are not looking for love IN second life.
It seems to me that most who purport to be looking for love in SL are actually either looking for cybersex with no actual love, or are interested in connecting in meatspace, in some fashion, with the object of their affection. The first case is perhaps a developing form of porn. The second is more complex, ranging from a sort of pen-pal locating service to a competitor to Match.com and its ilk.
However, there is a minority version of love in SL that fits neither description. As I am a part of that minority, I am watchful for the topic, but sadly find that discussions of virtual world love often gloss over or entirely ignore it.
I am referring, of course, to love that is entirely or nearly entirely confined to the virtual world and its adjuncts. Every relationship is unique, in my opinion, and may or may not fall neatly into my definitions, but I find it interesting to discuss archetypes.
The definition:
Two (or more?) avatar people who describe themselves as loving each other. They do not know, or particularly care, what the person at the keyboard looks like. The relationship does not, and never will, become a relationship between the people at the keyboards. It is solely between the virtual people they become when they log in.
I know that many find such a relationship to be incomprehensible, and I’ve heard some flatly call it a lie. Notwithstanding, such relationships do exist, just as other sorts of relationships exist which are uncommon and unfamiliar to most.
Case in point: me.
I (the SL avatar) met my partner in the common way, through mutual friends. We dated a bit, and discovered an unmistakable compatibility, and a joy for being together. Over time we saw more of each other, and before long admitted to each other that we had fallen in love. We gradually ceased to be separate people, and became a couple, inseparable at some level, as each of us defines a large part of the other. We eventually acquired a home together, and share many of the same friends, and certainly a large common social circle. We recently celebrated our first anniversary as a couple, by finally officially becoming SL partners. (And by throwing a big party in our home.)
I (the person at the keyboard) do not know the person behind my avatar’s partner. We do talk about things in our “first lives”, but we are careful to avoid too much detail or identifying information. I’m fairly confident of the person’s gender, but not interested in absolute confirmation. I am aware of the person’s profession and interests, and to some extent the daily activities that affect when my partner will be in SL. Beyond that, we keep it anonymous. We will never meet, no matter how long our relationship lasts. No phone calls, no video chat, no photographs, not even voice chat. A relationship entirely composed of text and 3d graphics.
Why do we do it this way?
Because it makes us happy.
I want to point out that this only works when both parties are in agreement on the terms. Of course, the same goes for any relationship.
What makes this tiny minority worth talking about?
Other than my obvious personal interest, what makes this sort of relationship interesting is that it is completely dependent on the technological platform. We could not do this without Second Life, or an equivalent.
I don’t know that there would ever be enough interest in this sort of thing to support a venture like SL on its own. Linden Labs will certainly need to focus elsewhere for the large majority of revenues. I do find it sad that “make lots of money” is given equal weight in Barry’s view alongside exploring and creating, but the realist in me admits that many people wouldn’t bother to explore or create without the potential to make lots of money. A shame, but a reality.
Dusan, I enjoyed your article, and even more so the discussion that it has engendered. Blessings on you all!
The “press” grasps for news, just as it always has throughout history. If there is no news, turn something unimportant into a headline. If there is nothing important to focus on, make something up.
Because RL news outlets have no credible sources for any news unless us SLers give it to them, they can only create something that’s mildly interesting into something profoundly interesting.
But also, us RLers do seem to overlook and under appreciate the multitude of worthy SL news articles over the years. It’s the worthy positive news that our community finds valid and worthwhile. Anshe makes a million, Drew Carey visits SL and does a story, NYTines does a fashion article, and there’s many more.
Focus on the negative, and that’s all we’ll see, or rather, that’s all they (the RLers) will see.
[...] the announcement (and such an appropriate topic considering my last post): Can a love affair blossom in a virtual world? Are we seeing the end of attending a classroom in [...]