Observation: Every SL user (quite a few now) I’ve met offline has been exactly the same as the person I already knew online in every way that mattered. I do not find this surprising.

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.

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!

“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.

It would be great if the people creating the service would also provide educational resources.

“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.

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.

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?”