Effects of Cyber Sex on Human Sexuality

Cybersex

Schneider (2000a) quotes one of her many survey respondents on the subject of cybersex: "I resented the computer for years, until I finally accepted the fact that it was the user, not the machine that was causing the problem" (p. 32). Although the general drift of Schneider's commentary validates the opinion of this nameless female survey-respondent, it is worth asking the question of whether or not this is actually true. When it comes to psychological issues related to the subject of cybersex, is it really the users and not the machines that cause the problem? Most psychologists who deal with cybersex wish to make it clear that they are not trying to stigmatize the Internet: Schwartz and Southern (2000) follow Schneider's lead here, agreeing "the medium of the Internet is essentially neutral or value-free. The burgeoning Internet and the technologies which reach out to foster a global information community are not the culprits in compulsive cybersex." (p.135). Yet researchers who have examined the effect that cybersex has on human sexuality are in a difficult position. The progress of the Internet in human life has been so remorselessly rapid that research barely a decade old is already, in many ways, out of date. As Ferree (2003) states frankly, "professional, theoretical, investigational, and moral discourse has not caught up with the Internet's explosion onto the cultural landscape. No one could have predicted the accelerated result of combining the inherent power of sexuality with the velocity of the Internet, and many lack a frame of reference for considering these 'turbo-charged' sexual interactions" (p.386). Through a survey of psychological research done on the topic of cybersex during the past decade -- concentrating specifically on the issues of how cybersex has been understood in terms of addiction, gender, and criminality -- I hope to address the question of whether or not much of the research may in fact be missing the point. I will suggest that Ferree is correct that many researchers may "lack a frame of reference" for the subject of cybersex, but note that in many cases the phenomenon may in fact be several steps ahead of the researchers.

We must begin with a definition of the term "cybersex." Schneider (2000b) defines it as broadly as possible: "Cybersex can be defined as the use of digitized sexual content (visual, auditory, or written) obtained either over the Internet or as data retrieved by a computer, for the purpose of sexual arousal and stimulation. Cybersex, any form of sexual expression that is accessed through the computer, is a phenomenon unknown before the mid 1980s" (p. 250). In other words, we are dealing with a phenomenon that cannot pre-date the proliferation of personal computers in the mid 1980s, although it is important to note that Internet usage did not become common until later -- the formal proposal establishing what would become the World Wide Web dates from 1990. This is important because, as Doring (2000) concedes, "this broad term "cybersex" covers so many different activities and contents that it is of practically no use for the social scientific discourse as long as individual phenomena are not differentiated from one another." (p. 864). If, as Schneider wishes to establish, something like "cybersex" was occurring in the mid 1980s, it was definitely nothing like what occurs today, either in terms of the actual activities involved or in terms of frequency and availability. This is where the notion promoted by Cooper et al. (2000) of "three primary factors which 'turbocharge' online sexuality…called….the 'Triple -- A Engine" defined by "accessibility (i.e., millions of sites available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week), affordability (i.e., competition on the WWW keeps all prices low and there are a host of ways to get 'free' sex), and anonymity (i.e., people perceive their communications to be anonymous)." (p. 6). Contrary to what Schneider (2000b) suggests, it was only in the 1990s that all three of these conditions were genuinely met. Therefore it seems crucial to state at the outset that the phenomenon of cybersex, as it is being studied, is less than twenty years old: it parallels the rise of the Internet, not the earlier rise of the personal computer. Indeed, Grov, Bramonte et al. (2008) found that the gay men they studied, who had experienced some form of compulsivity in relation to cybersex, were inclined to blame the medium itself: "in some cases, men connected their onset of uncontrollable impulses and behaviours to their internet use and the growth of the internet as a new medium for finding partners" (p. 114). Although the reasons for this may be specific to the population surveyed by Grov, Bramonte et al. -- a point to which I will return later -- it is worth noting that the phenomenon is one of a rapidly changing technology, which itself is reflected in the rapidly changing phenomenon of cybersex.

Overall, Ferree (2003) is correct in asserting that "this new technology can also give rise to significant problems with both human relating and sexual activity. Some, in fact, assert that sexuality is the biggest problem with the Internet, as well as its biggest product" (p.386). But in considering the rapid pace of change associated with the Internet, it is possible to observe psychologists in a seeming struggle to keep up with the phenomenon. A poignant example comes when Doring (2000) discusses the possibility of cybersex becoming a physical act: claiming that "computer-mediated remote control of sex toys that simulate the penis, mouth, or vagina is possible, however. These devices are marketed as teledildonics or cyberdildonics. Systematic studies or descriptions of actual experiences with these devices unfortunately are not yet available." (p.864). (The fact that, a dozen years later, "cyberdildonics" is not a household word while "Facebook" is should indicate that it is difficult to keep up with what is actually happening.) But the chief approach to cybersex is an attempt to establish some sort of paradigm. This accounts for the rhetoric of addiction and compulsion that runs throughout discussion of cybersex, despite the fact that it is not always clear what a person is addicted to. Certainly many people before the 1990s knew how to type, and many knew how to masturbate. So what is going on with the explosion in "compulsive cybersex" activities?

Ross et al. (2004) offer a useful distinction between different types of effects observed in the introduction of computers and the Internet into human sexuality: they distinguish between "first-level effects" which "are the efficiency effects of the technology" and "second-level effects" which are "unanticipated deviance-amplifying changes in the social and organizational systems of users of the technology." (p. 1003). In their words, "the important effects of a new technology may be not to let people do old things more efficiently but instead do new things that were not possible or feasible with old technology" (Ross et al., 2003, p. 1003). Most of those who discuss cybersex according to an addiction model are emphazing the first-level effects, but in many cases not even exploring the second-level effects. For Schwartz and Southern (2000), "Compulsive cybersex users try to control alien and unwanted feelings by spending hours on the computer without regard for negative consequences, becoming utterly out of control in the process. They seek intense, immediate experiences through a medium that will insure depersonalization and objectification. Eventually compulsive cybersex participants experience the "bottoming out" process in which powerlessness and unmanageability confront the illusions of the addictive lifestyle. They can become involved in a recovery process truly dedicated to finding lost parts of oneself by abstaining from compulsive reenactments and reconstructing the vulnerable self." (p.131). This applies a standard paradigm for addiction to the phenomenon of cybersex, but it still does not explain the novel strangeness of the phenomenon. There is also a difference between "cybersex" defined as obsessive pursuit of online pornography, for example, and encounters which require another active participant. As Doring (2000) points out "Net encounters and Net relationships do not exist in and of themselves. They are dependent not only on internal events, but also become a more or less central component of a person's already existing social network. They are often especially relevant to existing partnerships and friendships." (p. 868). This seems to contradict the grand claims for "depersonalization" made by Schwartz and Southern.

It is worth understanding those claims, however, in light of a larger debate -- still being waged -- over the inclusion of "Internet addiction" as a valid diagnosis in the update of the psychiatric DSM. Cooper et al. (2000) offer a preliminary report on those arguing for this, noting "researchers investigating the addictive potential of the Internet -- with regard to both sexual and non-sexual use -- have noted correlations between time spent online and negative consequences reported by users" (p.7) Schwartz and Southern (2000) are clearly of the opinion that Internet usage itself can be addictive: "some depressed, socially isolated individuals develop a psychological dependence on the Internet that is characterized by increasing time online, unpleasant feelings when offline, and denial of problematic behavior. Internet addicts, whom Young compared to pathological gamblers, tend to seek sexual and relational fulfillment through fantasy-oriented Internet encounters." (p.136) This is important because it gets at the heart of the confusion -- that, to a certain degree, what is addictive in cybersex is the element of fantasy, and the potential of high-speed Internet to make such fantasies easily acted upon. For Schwartz and Southern (2000), the "fantasy world of cybersex is a dissociative experience in which a person escapes the demands of daily life, as well as the pain and shame of past trauma."(p.127). Obviously many normal activities can be seen as pathological when done compulsively; in terms of cybersex, Grov, Gillespie et al. (2011) suggest a time indicator of compulsivity, defining "compulsive cybersex use as that exceeding 11 h per week" (p. 430). Yet the addictive nature can be overstated in such a way that makes the researcher seem foolish; if what we are largely talking about is fantasy and masturbation, it is hard to take it seriously when Schneider (2003) claims that for some individuals "cybersex is the first expression of an addictive sexual disorder, one that lends itself to rapid progression, similar to the effect of crack cocaine on the previously occasional cocaine user" (p. 331).

The difficulty is that, unlike crack cocaine (which surely cannot be demonstrated to have any positive application in daily life), the cybersex phenomenon has a positive side. Grov, Gillespie et al. (2011) note that those elements which "turbocharge" sexuality on the Internet are also of particular use to certain populations, such as the gay men examined in their study: they note "the anonymous nature of the Internet, as well as the variety of sexual expression depicted online, provides an ideal atmosphere to explore sexuality (p. 429). Ferree (2003) notes virtually the same thing about female sexuality as expressed through cybersex means, noting that "the Internet also allows a woman to be in total control of her sexual activity and relationships. Without the element of physical dominance, the playing field is level online and women possess equal clout, which they lack in most real-world stadiums." (p.389). And Gauthier and Chaudoir (2004) examine the role that computer and internet usage plays in the lives of female-to-male transsexuals (FTMs). They note that without the mediation of the internet in sexuality, there would not even be a community to speak of: "the FTM individual perceives his existence as a relatively solitary one, and there appears to be a felt need for connection with others in similar circumstances. Prior to the Internet, these individuals would have likely con- tinued to live in isolation from others with comparable experiences. Today, they can enjoy feelings of solidarity with the virtual community of FTMs that were not available to transsexuals even in the recent past." (p.393). In all of these cases, the authors are quick to point out that cybersex can have a useful effect for certain groups. Indeed, Grov Gillespie et al. (2001) want to point out that for ordinary heterosexual couples, cybersex "yielded tangible relational benefits" in "both men and women who identified as light or moderate users," who "credited their online sexual activities with subsequent increases in the quality and frequency of sex with their real life partners" and believed that cybersex "improved their relationships because it enhanced their sense of intimacy with their partners." (p.435-6). The goal here is not to pathologize cybersex activity tout court, but to identify its potential for addictive abuse.

But in terms of compulsive activity, what is most fascinating is that gender barriers break down. As Cooper et al. (2000) report in their study, comparing cybersex compulsives with other sexual compulsives, "a significant gender shift was noted in the cybersex compulsive group in that women were more likely to be included in this group." (p. 11). Why should this be the case? First it must be understood in terms of the standard psychological terminology. As Schwartz and Southern (2000) define it, "compulsive cybersex represents a courtship disorder in which the 'high' of being wanted by someone for sex regulates affect and bolsters a fragile self." (p. 127). For Ferree, this particular designation is the key to the gender difference: "the concept of courtship is still useful in providing a foundation for understanding why women disproportionately turn to the Internet as a relationship vehicle. Courtship is a process of creating and building relationships, and the Internet profoundly changes the way we relate to others." (p.388). Yet for Ferree the pathology steps in not because of the personal psychology, but because of the technology itself: "because of their lack of authenticity and genuine intimacy, online relationships are deficient in the true commitment necessary for meaningful human bonding. In sum, the Internet short- circuits most components of human courtship, such as noticing, attraction, touching, creating intimacy, and commitment." (p.389). In other words, the very means that permit a greater level of fantasy involvement are also a limitation to the formation of actual relationships. But it is surely the fantasy element which erases a gender divide, and makes compulsive cybersex an equal-opportunity disorder. The only real difference, as Schwartz and Southern (2000) note, is that "female cybersex addicts may be referred for treatment earlier than the middle-aged male cybersex addicts, possibly because the sexual conduct is so far outside the limits of stereotypical feminine behavior." (p.137). But at the same time, this contradiction of stereotypical feminine behavior is potentially viewed as a liberation potential inherent in non-pathological cybersex experience: Doring (2000) notes a conflict between the "victimization" and "liberalization" models for thinking about female cybersex experience, stating that "while the victimization model conceives of female Net users as victims of men's dominance and sexual wishes, the liberalization model conceives of them as actors with their own sexual desires" (p.870). This is why Doring (2000) ultimately concludes that "cybersex does not supply an all-purpose recipe for understanding self-determined, gratifying and socially compatible sexualities. It can, however, support empowerment on an intellectual and experiential level through the negotiation of boundaries and the critical exploration of desires." (p.874).