Tiny Sex and Gender Swapping

Sherry Turkle's, Life on the Screen, talks of identities in virtual communities. This topic is very controversial, because many people can not cope with the fact that people want to be the opposite gender. Honestly it is hard for me to understand this as well. Why would people want to pose as a man when they are a woman (and vice versa)? Shouldn't we be happy with who we are, and not be someone we are not? However, Turkle talks of the positives of changing identities in these MUDs. She explains that people can learn about themselves by posing as the opposite gender. "One strong motivation to gender-swap in virtual space is to have TinySex as a creature of another gender, something that suggests more than an emotionally neutral activity. Gender swapping is an opportunity to explore conflicts raised by one's biological gender." Another possible positive with gender swapping is the fact that people want to see how it feels to be the opposite gender in order to understand each other or the opposite sex. This can be controversial, because I do not understand how people can say they "feel" something when it is virtual. However, after reading the article there may not be physical feeling but emotional and psychological feeling. Those that play in these MUDs or MOOs get so caught up with their character and get so involved that it is hard not to get emotionally involved. I see where Turkle is coming from, but it is still hard for me to understand this. We talked in class, and I believe a lot of us were confused of how people can get so caught up when it is not "real" but I guess one has to actually experience it to feel it.

Another argument that was brought about in the article was about loyalty. There was a couple cases that described a married couple with their significant other participating in these MUDs where they do gender swap and have tiny sex. One woman was very distraught and hurt by the situation; mostly just confused with what and why her husband was doing what he was doing. It poses some questions such as: Are you gay? Are you not happy with me/our marriage? MUDs can definitely be very emotional for the one involved and for the one who is not. This is a very touchy topic for myself as well, because I do not understand people who deliberately get involved with these virtual communities looking to have a relationship and tiny sex with someone other than their partner! Is it cheating? What does that mean? I honestly think it depends on people. So many people do not know if it would be considered a form of cheating, so I think it comes down to the individual and how they feel. if one feels hurt by the situation and they do not agree with it then that is how they feel, and one can not change that. Maybe they should not be with the person who is performing these sexual acts in MUDs. I think another fear is that this tinysex can lead to more, whether they think they would go further than virtual communities or not.

The example I found is an article describing MUDs and first-hand explainations of why these people gender-swap. The author of the article started out saying that talking to people that had no assigned gender gave her a bit unease. However she asked herself, "What does it matter what gender they are"? I think that is a very good point, because we can relate to all people whether they are a male or female. Another participant described her gender-swapping experience. She claims that when she is a female she is constantly offered help, and in return for the help a male expects sexual favors. It definitely is different being a male or female in these virtual communities from what I got out of the readings. At the same time gender swapping can be difficult and takes practice.

In conclusion, after doing the readings I am beginning to understand a little better where people are coming from and their reasoning for gender swapping. However I will never fully understand it unless I maybe experience it on my own. I do not think I will ever experience it though. Although I am trying to be open about the whole situation I am still bias. I believe that gender swapping and tiny sex in these virtual communities is one's own choice. If it is for them, and they are wanting to learn more about themselves in that way then great for them. When it comes to an individual who is in a relationship with someone who does this and they do not agree I am lost on that. I have been in a similar situation, and I just think one should go with how they feel and try to keep an open mind, but if it is hurting them it is not worth it!

http://www.mith2.umd.edu/WomensStudies/Computing/Articles%2BResearchPapers/gender-swapping

MUDs

In Reingold's article he talks of MUDS being the wild side of cyberspace culture where magic is real and identity is fluid. This class has really opened my eyes to the cyberlife that I had no clue of. MUDs, Multi-User Dungeons, is a computer database where "people use worlds and all the objects in them, solve puzzles, invent imusements and tools, compete for prestige and power, gain wisdom, seek revenge, indulge greed and lust violent impulses." MUDs are very powerful; it is just a different world. MUDs allow a person to choose their own identity and role-play in order to come off a certain way. Some positive effects of MUDs would be getting to know yourself better, interacting socially (on the internet), and learning through different people. With the positive effects there are always negative effects. In this case the positive in MUDs actually become the negatives and backfires. MUDs come off as a source of communication and entertainment, but can also pose many threats, where even MUDs have been banned from campuses (said in Reingold's article). Some people may think they are learning more about themselves through these virtual lives, but in the end they could actually be losing themselves and what they believe. With MUDs, allowing one to pose as various and multiple persons, people can make things up and not tell the truth. In reality what one may think they are learning from other people may full-openly be a lie. Another negative effect of MUD's is that people can talk sexually and etc. where things can get serious and lead to emotional hurt. The scary thing is people may not think they could actually let this happen, but they could get so caught up with this virtual life that they fall for these "false" people or possibly meet up and things could get very sketchy and dangerous. Speaking of getting caught up, one of the biggest reasons for MUDs banning from campuses was, because some people were spending 80 hours a week on it leading to a distraction from school. Believe it or not, addiction can occur from these MUDs. I was exploring youtube and i typed multi-user dungeons in. It brought me to a page where 12 videos popped up of how to use these MUDs and what to do. The specific video I clicked on was twenty minutes long! I was so shocked that there were so many videos of MUDs. I feel like I am in a culture-shock! Reingold's article has really allowed me to understand virtual communities and the use of MUD's. I believe MUDs pose dangers and takes people away from the "real world," but it is hard to distinguish what is right in our liberal pop cultural world. In the end one has to stick with their values and their beliefs of whether to pursue in these virtual communities and take on multiple identities!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1TaqB0ANfk

Virtual Community

Howard Reingold’s, “The Virtual Community” informs us of WELL which is the Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link. WELL allows people around the world to interact via email and carry on public conversations. The virtual communities through WELL are like “real life” with WELL marriages, birth, and funerals. It all seems so strange, but the reality of it all, it is really not. Virtual communities enable us to do the same thing in real life except “leaving our bodies behind.” Virtual communities can be used as a form of psychotherapy, but some tend to get addicted spending 80 hours a week pretending to be someone else. These “MUDS” are getting banned at colleges. Reingold argues that CMC, computer-mediated communications, has the potential to change our lives on three different levels. The first level is that individuals with our thoughts, perceptions, and personalities are affected by the ways we use the medium. The second level is the possible change of person-to-person interaction, such as relationships between others occurs. The third level is the possible change in our lives through politics. CMC and WELLS have a strong effect on our lives whether we know it or not. An example I found on YouTube is a first hand perspective of virtual communities. One individual spoke of being apart of virtual communities, because it is a feeling of not being alone. He said, “I can just turn off the computer when I want to.” Being apart of a virtual community is a sense of control that a lot of people thrive on. Many people said it is a means of relating with others, and feeling a closeness that some real life people in their lives do not share with them. I do agree with Reingold’s argument of the effects and levels that CMC provides. However, I feel that being apart of a virtual community is losing one’s own privacy. I also feel that it can get very addicting and allow some to stray away from “real life” and be strapped down to their computer. I feel that people have a right to do what they want and spend their time freely, but I really think people should consider virtual community as a means of isolation that can take a toll on their real-life social skills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHKt1IkxqA

Keen's Noble Amateur

In the "Noble Amateur" Keen argues that Web 2.0 is changing cultural landscape but not for the better. Web 2.0 such as Youtube, facebook, and myspace is taking over our culture. Keen states, "This is what happens when ignorance meets egoism meets bad taste meet mob rule." Keen is implying that our generation is filled with tastless, useless information that is only means for entertainment. I agree with Keen, but is it not what our society wants and craves? We are a world of expression now and free-will; we thrive on thrills and celebrity gossip. Keen also writes of fact and one's opinion tied in with expertise and amateurism. This is very true, and our class on Colbert and Wikipedia proves that. I had no clue people could type or change the definition of a term. To me that sounds unreal and maybe our society is becoming too expressive. Where Keen was coming from when he talked of Web 2.0 changing cultural lansdscape for not the better, was that people anymore go for sites that our most popular, but not necessarily relevant. It is a vicious cycle and it is so easy to get things turned around on cyberspace, but people just need to be smart about these things and trust their judgements and instincts. An example I found of this is from Youtube. This video talks of the internet spreading lies. It talks of Wikipedia again being a place for possible irrelevance. The pictures displayed on the video were pictures that were photoshopped to preceive a particular person or object falsly. Keen also argues that these so called free websites are not really so free after all. So many people are putting out in cyberspace their information. Privacy seems to be no longer such a thing. These website producers are giving us a share of their creation and with that in return we are giving them some of our information as sourses of entertainment! I agree with Keen in his article about our culture and Web 2.0 being a harm to our society. With the good always comes the bad. In conclusion it is life, so we have to be careful and take information posted online like a grain of salt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnWI2oStmdw

The Chase in Transmedia Storytelling

Henry Jenkin’s Transmedia Storytelling 101, “represents a process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience.” Transmedia storytelling is based more on words and word-building instead of specific characters or plots. Words can go a long way. The more marketing, the more people are going to know about the product and talk about the product, which equals more business. This new tool is a creative mechanism that keeps the audience wanting more. Instead of the audience knowing everything about a movie through previews, this transmedia storytelling only gives hints to what the story may lead to. The audience is forced to find other sources that may fill in more pieces of the puzzle just as Cloverfield was potrayed. Many movies are starting to use transmedia storytelling as money builders. The more items, the more money. Tomb Raider is an excellent example of transmedia storytelling. A fan can read Tomb Raider in a book, watch the movie, play the video game, buy the dolls, or even see the character Lara in pictures of what she would look like in “real life.” Transmedia storytelling allows the audience to get involved on a more personable level. Lara is a very adventurous and intriguing character that really keeps the audience coming back for more. An audience wants suspense and yearns to see what is up the producer’s sleeve next. The more options an audience has to a particular program the better. Businesses that use transmedia storytelling everywhere, such as in television, the internet, comic books, etc. will do better than those businesses that leave no chase and no imagination. Transmedia storytelling is a clever tool that I think Jenkins did a good job getting the message out there. Everyone wants a little bit of word fiction and creative gestures that keeps them wanting more, because in the end when we figure everything out it is the best reward and satisfaction!

"Get A Life!"

In Henry Jenkins article, Trekkies or fans were stereotyped as "social misfits, unable to separate fantasy from reality, are desexualized, and are brainless consumers". I think the question is are these really stereotypes or are they real characteristics, not just what people think? Who gets to call these Trekkies social misfits or brainless consumers? Who is the one to judge? These Trekkies are only considered social misfits, because it strays away from the norm or mainstream America. There are many people out there that do not like what is different, therefore they give these "different" people bad names, like misfits. I honestly have never seen Star Trek, Star Wars, or even all the Harry Potter movies. It just is not my thing, but I am open to new things and would not be opposed to seeing the movies. I, like many people do tend to think these Trekkies may be weird just because they dress up like the characters or do anything and everything that relates to that specific movie. However, after Jenkins article and our discussions in class it really allowed me to think. Who am I to call these people weird? I may be considered weird to them, because I am obsessed with coffee or have to smell the perfumes anytime I go to the mall. The same idea goes for the stereotype of brainless consumers and desexualized. To be honest I do not think these are nice terms to use and obviously could be taken offensively. To make fun of person, because of a passion is hurtful. Who wants to be called brainless or less of a man or a woman because we are into something we really like? The stereotype, brainless consumer was such a controversial topic in our class. I do not quite understand why they would be considered brainless, because obviously they have a brain and most likely a really smart one at that. Just because these fans have to buy every shirt, movie, poster, or whatever it may be does not make them mindless consumers. They are spending their money and consuming things, what does it matter what they purchase? If a person wants to buy something they like then so be it. It is none of our business if it is their money and their life.

While browsing Youtube, I came across a video of a StarTrek fanatic (the link posted below). This young man, being the age of at least 20 had been a dier fan of Star Trek since the age of three. He has had many so called "commander" uniforms along with books, posters, and even a framed photo of one of the Star Trek characters, Spok and himself. His friends and even his mother did not realize how obsessed he was hence the taping to prove their point in his obsession. This Trekkie can relate to Jenkins articles, when discussing the stereotypes of a fan. He was obviously a fan, but what was really mind-bottling was the fact he seem to be in that stereoptype of not being able to separate fantasy from reality. The person taping him asks questions of the spacecraft, his uniform, and the character Spok. When he answered the questions he was so into and believed that Spok was real and he was the commander of the spacecraft. Maybe he was not being serious, but he looked serious to me. Another question that the video taper asked was if there were any cute girls on the spacecraft. The Trekkie just embarrasingly laughed it off. I could see where Jenkins was coming from when he referred to fans as being desexualized and unable to separate fantasy from reality.

Whether the stereotypes are true or not, it does not matter. People are going to live their life without people telling them what to do. They may have been considered "social misfits", but hey they found a niche and seem to be happy with it! I think it is great these people found a passion as long as they have their priorities in the right place and are not ruining their lives to this obsession. If it does not make them a worse person then yayy for Trekkies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul5q4PTME-M

Flickr Project

I felt the Flickr Project was a great experience in terms of trying out new things. I had never used Flickr let alone known about Flickr till this project. I feel that I am a little sheltered when it comes to advanced or new technology, so I am glad I did this project. I feel that Flickr is a pretty basic tool that is easy to use after a bit of practice. The preparation for the project was easy for the most part. My group and I basically picked a place and storyline and everything was easy-going from there. I thought the project we did was a bit childish; like a child's story book. For example, See Spot run. See Spot eat....I kind of felt like that was going on; however I am sure Flickr can be used for more important, intense story lines such as the riots or bombing we saw in class. I think Flickr is a good tool that can be put into good use. Although right now it seems pretty boring or simple, it could definitely be used in a very moving way. Pictures without words can say a lot. Many people can translate a picture in many different ways. I remember a Drug class I was in, when we watched a video that reminded me of the use of Flickr. Before there was any dialogue, there were slide pictures shown that were really moving. These pictures were of people crying, 9/11, and school shootings. This use of Flickr made the topic more dramatic and very emotional, especially when music is involved. I think Flickr can be a good tool personally and publicly. If people have a lot of pictures they want to save, they can use Flickr to organize and have a place to hold their personal pictures. Also, if a person wanted to get their point across for a project with pictures, Flickr would be a good tool as well. Overall, I thought this project was beneficial. It allowed us to interact on a personal level instead of impersonally through twitter. Having a group project in person also allowed me to get to know some of my classmates, which is always a good thing. On top of those two things, learning the use of Flickr was a good introduction of a new technology for me. I feel like I learned something out of this project, whether I am an expert with Flickr or not. I honestly do not think I will use Flickr, because I do not have a camera right now, but it is great that I know about it if I ever needed to use it for future purposes.

http://tinyurl.com/357yhq