Online you or offline you?

[Desperado]

I'm curious to see how many think there is a definite and acceptable difference between your behavior online and offline. I've been accused of being too black and white in the past, so perhaps it is just me, but I see this all over the net.

A certain freedom of anonymity or lack of inhibition granted by only being a name on a screen can explain it, perhaps. I personally don't believe I behave much differently online than I do offline. But I watch some who "walk" into a room and grope, fondle and otherwise molest everyone they see and I wonder, would this person do this if we were sitting in a lounge or restaurant for a munch or some get together? I wonder if I take online too seriously or not seriously enough.

Some things seem to really matter online, but other things are blown off as just being online. You'd think after chatting off and on for over 20 years I'd have some better handle on this, but I truly don't.

I'm curious what others think about this, or am I the only one even concerning myself with such things?

Thanks,

D

[Kuve {Sett}]

it's been My experience that different sites have different behavioral norms and that if one doesn't care for the ones at a particular site one simply looks elsewhere. It's My own practice to act in a chat room pretty much the same way I'd act in a r/l gathering since r/l is My back ground and is thus the etiquette with which I'm most familiar but I wouldn't expect other people to change their behavior to suit Me any more than I would to suit them as long as the specific rules of the site are being observed

[jinx]

I know what you mean, and it used to freak me out a bit. Mainly because in real life, if a guy I barely knew (or really anyone for that matter) just came up touched me, I'd lose seven kinds of my shit right there and the results would be ... a bit destructive. Even online, I found it made me uncomfortable when guys in chat would come on to me or get a bit ... you know ... grabby.

Over the years I've gotten a thicker skin, and unless they really go too far, I just laugh it off and take it as part of goofing around in the room. And, of course, unlike real life I can easily ignore anyone who's stepping over a line.

That's for general hanging around and chatting though. In a more ... intimate relationship with someone oneline, I can, and very much have, felt as much of a real connection and real 'feeling' with them as I have with someone in real life. Obviously it's not exactly the same, and couldn't hope to be, but it's real enough that I can both be taken out of myself mentally and even physically, and be hurt emotionally in ways I'd just as soon not talk about.

I guess it's just a case of having to choose how much of yourself to put into a given situation.

[Mrs-Sett {Kuve}]

I think perhaps I act the same whether I am o/l or in r/l, as per your question do others, I am unsure. If I were to meet a person that attempted to ‘grope’ or generally be over-familiar with me, without actually knowing me, it would not matter if this was o/l or r/l I would react in the same manner, with complete distaste and disapproval and make my actions extremely clear. It is after all my choice how much I give of myself and to whom.

As mentioned above there are certainly different levels of what is deemed to be acceptable within other sites, those that I personally choose not to visit, I choose or/not choose to log in. This is no different to avoiding a bar or meeting place where I had experienced a level of discourtesy or action that I found inappropriate. I simply would be wary or decline to return there.

O/l can be a method of perhaps being a little more playful I suppose as there is an element of seclusion held within anonymity. But personally again, I am as courteous and mindful of the thoughts and feelings of others regardless of the location o/l or r/l. An apology o/l would mean the same as an apology in r/l for me.

Personally I find curtsey and good manners determine a lot about another person. If I did not find a person to have these qualities, I would simply give them a wide berth, o/l or r/l my action(s) would not differ. Again this is a personal choice of what I admire in another, I would not wish to change or alter their behaviour to suit mine. Merely seek those that I consider are demonstrating that which I personally like.

Sett

[jules]

i have a similar view to those already expressed. i certainly wouldn't expect someone who i do not now, or know very little to grope, fondle or play in any other way.
Online however, there is light hearted play i would indulge in with those i know well, and have done for some time. I do however, draw a distinction between Doms and subs. When in a relationship i would not play in any way with another Dom - same online and in real life. i may joke and laugh with them but i do draw lines. i will however, hug a close friend who may be Dom, and as i am tactile in real life, and would do this in real life, i also do online.
So i guess i am saying i behave much the same in both situations.

[gracieflower]

I am an affectionate person in real life, and online i act much the same way. I will walk into chat and huggle, lick, grope, kiss and be playful with most folks. In real life i hug and kiss the people i know when greeting them. But i also feel that over the last year or so online i have come to know these people enough to feel comfortable being the more kinky playful person i am. I have not thought that perhaps my actions would be taken offensively as i am not directly scening with anyone. If i meet someone for the first time, i greet them respectfully, no matter o/l or r/l. However, after reading others opinions, i wonder if my actions are bothersome or offensive to others. I wont change who i am, but this makes me hesitate and wonder how many people have thought poorly of me for my behavior. I love being the girl that in some small way is able to help people laugh, smile, and not take life so seriously and enjoy it. But in doing so, i may perceived as disrespectful. In real life, or online, if i am acting in a manner which others do not approve, i take the feedback very personally, and hope that if they feel strongly about it, that they would tell me. It took me a long time to feel confident and sure of myself to show the less reserved side, and that is what i thought i found here too. I leave each time from chat with "Huggles, licks, gropes to A/all you kinky folks" and have never meant to be offensive in doing so.

[jules]

gracie... i don't think anyone could be offended with you sweetie. Anyone with a grain of intelligence will see you for what you are - a sweet, bubbly, playful person who enjoys herself and interacting with others. Don't ever change, please! ~huggles and stuff~

[jinx]

I'm with jules on this one

[denuseri]

Like when I'm at work I behave quite differently then when I am in the middle of a gangbang etc or at a party.

[denuseri]

Well. Personally I just go with what the rules of the place I am in are...when in Rome and all that.

[Miss_Red]

Personally, I am a "what you see is what you get" type of person. I do not "act" any way in particular. I am who I am. Some days I am playful and a little cheeky. Some days I am very serious. But how I am online, is pretty much the person I am in real life. I am friendly, outgoing, and will talk to most anyone. I am non discriminatory, and just generally like most everyone. I see no reason to put up a "fake" front and try to act like something or someone I am not.
There are those who do, however, and for those people I say do as you will. As long as it hurts no one. And as for you Cowboy, I can tell you are pretty darn genuine. And I like that in a person. I don't think you take online too seriously...I think like many of us, you just want to know the real person behind the keyboard.

Red

[Desperado]

This post and the questions I posed were not in ANY way meant to chastise, question or call out anyone in particular or even attempt to modify anyone's behavior. I suspect we've all noticed someone in a chat room and scratched our heads wondering what that person could be thinking. My goal was more to maybe give some food for thought.

I personally am not overly affectionate with my friends. That is to say I'm not a hug hugger. I don't mind hugging but I don't usually initiate them. I am quite different when I am in a relationship with a woman. I am much more hands on, so to speak. I think that is reflected in my behavior online. I put a high standard on manners and good behavior. I highly value respect and try to behave in a way that reflects those beliefs.

I also recognize that a familiarity with people in a group leads to behavior such as what gracie described and I can certainly see her point. I personally do not take offense at anything I've seen her do. We each have our own "lines" that we don't want crossed but so far no one has come close to that with me. Maybe I view things enough differently that I'm in the minority as far as my behavior online. I have pretty much always held to the concept of being me, and doing the things online that I would do in person. My expectations of behavior online are reserved for me and the girl who does or will serve me.

[Miss_Red]

I'm sure no one has taken it this way, Cowboy. After all, people do not have to post on any thread they don't wish to reply to. I am sure those who have answered only mean well....and perhaps while posting have questioned their actions. I will reiterate what I said before. You are a very genuine person. And I for one am enjoying your company here at the Library. I think you're a very smart guy and have a lot to offer. And I enjoy being in your company.

Red

[Desperado]

Thank you, Red. I just wanted to clarify I wasn't trying to point a finger at anyone in particular. Agreed, no one has to post or reply if they don't wish to, and I've appreciated all who have replied. I enjoy reading other perspectives and points of view.

I have enjoyed your company as well, and I appreciate your kind words.

D

[sub_sequent]

I have been different here than in RL. In RL I have always been very shy, introverted and lost in a crowd. I often feel totally disconnected from other people. OL affords me the possibility of being more outgoing, to speak my mind without falling over my words.

But being here and other sites I visit, and the interaction it affords me has taught me in RL to be more relaxed and have really had a positive influence on my shyness.

So... yes, I am different. But recently, less so.


Also, here I would type words that I would never say in RL what can I say... I'm a good girl

[M4sterG]

I have always viewed my actions as something I should be held accountable for, whether that be offline or online. However I am a lot more shy in real life than my online self is, so I guess there is a large discrepancy. I would like to think my actions online are still a reflection of what I consider the ideal me to be, rather than the real me.

Now I'm getting a little confused as to what is real and what isn't so I should probably stop :P

[sub_sequent]

^*chuckles*

Yes. That is an important thing that IS the same both OL and RL... I take responsibility for what I do or say.

[gracieflower]

I also recognize that a familiarity with people in a group leads to behavior such as what gracie described and I can certainly see her point. I personally do not take offense at anything I've seen her do. We each have our own "lines" that we don't want crossed but so far no one has come close to that with me. Maybe I view things enough differently that I'm in the minority as far as my behavior online. I have pretty much always held to the concept of being me, and doing the things online that I would do in person. My expectations of behavior online are reserved for me and the girl who does or will serve me.

I did not mean for my post to be construed as taking direct criticism for what Desperado posted. It is merely a reflection on my own behavior. I act very similarly o/l or r/l, and believe that my actions vary depending on the person or group i am with. If i am unfamiliar with someone, i will make every effort to be respectful upon meeting them. But those i know and feel comfortable with, i will be more open and free with how i express myself. Bottom line is i am also a people pleaser and would hope to not be a disappointment to myself or my One with my actions. I trust most of the people here and r/l to call me on it if i am stepping out of line, because in general it is not in my character to act that way.

All of that said, i believe it doesn't matter where you are. Be yourself in whatever way makes you comfortable, but be cognizant that there are always eyes watching whether you realize it or not ... and often, judgement on character or personality are made during that time.

Hugs to A/all who want them from this gracie girl.

[jules]

Just to add my thoughts again (wow.. two on one thread!) , i think this is a great thread Deperado...
It gives us all a chance to consider our own behaviour and that of others.. and i do not mean that in a negative way.. simply in a thoughtful way.
It also gives us chance to see other people's opinions. I would also add, the people adding to this thread are all people who i consider genuine and my friends and in my opinion all behave genuinely online.

Alex and Vic, I don't think it is at all unusual for those who have a shy side find it easier to come out of that shell online and i truly believe it helps in real life too... i am certainly not the shy person (with regards to lifestyle topics) i was 18 months ago now, although that pesky shyness does makes its appearance with annoying regularity in real life situations still - but at least it makes Sir smile.

[alwayscurious]

I would like to think that those who you know o/l would act the same in r/l if you were to meet. I have mostly r/l experience so I act the same in both worlds. I have had the opportunity to meet more than a few friends right from this site as a matter of fact. I found that they have all acted the same in r/l as the do o/l.

I would not allow anyone to grope me without my permission o/l or in r/l. I think for some people playing o/l is just an outlet and a place they can be anyone they want to be.


XO,
AC

[thir]

I'm curious to see how many think there is a definite and acceptable difference between your behavior online and offline. I've been accused of being too black and white in the past, so perhaps it is just me, but I see this all over the net.

A certain freedom of anonymity or lack of inhibition granted by only being a name on a screen can explain it, perhaps. I personally don't believe I behave much differently online than I do offline. But I watch some who "walk" into a room and grope, fondle and otherwise molest everyone they see and I wonder, would this person do this if we were sitting in a lounge or restaurant for a munch or some get together? I wonder if I take online too seriously or not seriously enough.

Some things seem to really matter online, but other things are blown off as just being online. You'd think after chatting off and on for over 20 years I'd have some better handle on this, but I truly don't.

I'm curious what others think about this, or am I the only one even concerning myself with such things?

Thanks,

D

I have also wondered about this. I think the anonymity means that people show some true colors. You can say what you like, and what many people like can be quite horrible to read - they do not seem to feel responsible for what they say, and often seem to disconnect their heads before they talk as well. They show who they are that way, as I see it, even if they may act differently in real life.

I do not believe that the idea that it is 'just' online is valid, the online world is real in the sense of being head to head between vast amounts of people, and what is said has influence, for good or bad.

I really hope that there will be a bigger sense of responsibility coming on in all areas on on-line conversations, whatever they may be, that people realize that what you say has as much influence as if said face to face, and on many cases a lot more, seeing how you often talk to a lot more people.

[denuseri]

Taps my computer screen...its quite impossible to actually do some things like hug or kiss or even spank someone online...all of which one would assume should be taken metaphorically.

Especially when greeting each other in the non-role play orientated colloquial setting of oh say...the bdsm library's chat room's lobby.

You will notice online its quite common for people to greet each other in ways that they simply do not do in real as well such as run around kissing or grouping or being sparkly or flying or being an actual animal in their head all the time.

You may also notice that in real life at any gathering of the actual community, at a munch or some such, the people act far more subdued than online.

They are far less talkative in general especially the submissives.

For instance I just typed all this without saying a single word out loud.

Additionally in an actual session or in high protocol venues there may be no talking at all going on between anyone but the dominants since we submissives have a tendency not to do such without permission or even respond in those cases to the inquires of others that are made too us without first looking to our dominant for permission etc.

Though imho its rather poor form to act like that at a munch since your bound to be still amongst the uninitiated and using a third person mode of speech there should get just as many strange looks as when people do it in a chat where they are "out of scene".

In other words a chat room lobby has its commonalities that do involve some metaphorical physical actions being pantomimed via text that are perfectly acceptable in that environment.

Its been my observation that the people who get the most bent about submissives in particular or anyone else speaking their minds in chat or following what have become normal forms of colloquial chat room behaviors are the kind of people who bring their fantasy world into a chat room or some other such venue with them and then get miffed when everyone else present doesn't play along with said fantasy. Its like they expect to be roleplaying the minute they log in to any given place and take anything typed around them as if its real and physically present. Which it isn't and (again taps my computer screen) cant be. Its also rather rude imho to think its acceptable to force everyone present in a chat room to adhere to any such condition that one brought with them.

Ironic since we are all really just sitting on our butts and typing a lot.

[Solis]

It might be interesting for folks to look at John Suler's writing on "online disinhibition effects." Suler starts with what we all observe (that folks tend to act differently IRL than OL) and tries to pick apart the threads that lead us there. In general, all effective communication is built on a combination of unconscious rules and social cues, or signals from those we're interacting with. If I know that the lovely and loquacious denuseri believes she should not speak first, then I know that I must. If I say something and her face twitches, I know that I've hit a nerve and need to proceed with extra care.

The ability to do those two things (grasp the rules, grasp the cues) is so central to our functioning, that we recognize those who lack them as possessing a form of mental disorder (in this case, to a greater or lesser degree, Asperger Syndrome).

The point that Suler makes is that exchanges OL mess with our understanding of the rules and deprive us of many of the cues we'd naturally receive in face-to-face exchanges. We tend to press ahead too vigorously, say too much, demand too much, misunderstand too much, recoil too much. In effect, we accelerate the development (and decay) of our relationships. IRL, even at a gathering of like-minded souls, there's better social enforcement of norms and richer symbolic environments. In consequence, we're able to play nice.

I'd guess that the folks who thrive in such virtual environments are more verbal, more attentive, and more accepting than others: they're the people who are able to deduce the shape of the rules, however faintly they might be visible, and to begin to compensate for the reduced number of cues this environment naturally offers. That might account for my (subjective, one-sided, biased, admiring) observation that there's a real imbalance between the number of thoughtful, engaging, sweet-spirited subs and the number of doms capable of earning their devotion.

For what it's worth,

S.

[thir]

It might be interesting for folks to look at John Suler's writing

Interesting, thanks. I have skimmed it, and there are more articles that worth reading. It is an interesting topic.

Suler starts with what we all observe (that folks tend to act differently IRL than OL) and tries to pick apart the threads that lead us there. In general, all effective communication is built on a combination of unconscious rules and social cues, or signals from those we're interacting with. If I know that the lovely and loquacious denuseri believes she should not speak first, then I know that I must. If I say something and her face twitches, I know that I've hit a nerve and need to proceed with extra care.

The ability to do those two things (grasp the rules, grasp the cues) is so central to our functioning, that we recognize those who lack them as possessing a form of mental disorder (in this case, to a greater or lesser degree, Asperger Syndrome).

The point that Suler makes is that exchanges OL mess with our understanding of the rules and deprive us of many of the cues we'd naturally receive in face-to-face exchanges.

Many have commenting on that, calling this 'the flat media'. We are aware that we are missing clues that we rely on in RL - I believe some researchers claim that 90% of our communication is mimic and body language. That is why 'mimic' is added on - :-))

I think one should not underestimate the mix of cultural norms either, which even in f2f communication often cause problems until get to know each other better. I have a feeling that this is less clear to people in general, at least it is not much discussed.

We tend to press ahead too vigorously, say too much, demand too much, misunderstand too much, recoil too much. In effect, we accelerate the development (and decay) of our relationships. IRL, even at a gathering of like-minded souls, there's better social enforcement of norms and richer symbolic environments. In consequence, we're able to play nice.

This may be too much of a generalization. Many people hold back, express themselves carefully, or are content with reading alone.

It may also be an idea to take into consideration that a great many topics are discussed which are quite sensitive, while RL conversation is perhaps less so much of the time.

It is also not true that there are no rules. IME very few lists have no rules, and they are sought upheld. The rules are basically the same all over, play nice, go after the topic not the person, sober language.

But truly some people can be consistently viscous online, to a quite hair raising extent. The only explanation I can find for that is that they use other (unknown) people as scratching posts for their own inner frustrations - anonymously. The phenomena is known and warned against.

But if you are getting to know a list or whatever and some people on it, I believe that many of that same rules from RL will come into play. I do not think we all see others as just disembodied ghosts floating into space, rather it can be seen as a mind to mind contact where you get to know people and appreciate them, even make friends or fall in love. A surprising number of people move countries because they fell in love over the net - a dangerous place ;-))

[Solis]

Good evening, thir. It's good to make your acquaintance and I'm honored by the close attention you gave to, and the thoughtful response you crafted to, my note. Three quick thoughts, two somewhat nerdish.

1. The 90% study you allude to was really poorly done. It's usually cited as 93% and derives from a series of little studies done by Albert Mehrabian in 1972. He had, among other things, subjects look at a series of photographs of faces and then just whether the word "maybe" was meant positively, negatively or neutrally. (Why yes, that is a bit loony.) In another, he tested reactions to an unhappy-looking person saying "you did a good job" and a happy-looking one say "you did a bad job." But it's such a fun fact to toss about that it's pretty much unstoppable.

2. Falling in love over the net is nothing new. Tom Standage's book, The Victorian Internet, tells the story of the transformative powers of the electric telegraph in the late 19th century. And yes, people fell in love over the telegraph (operators listened for the special rhythm of their beloved's dots and dashes) and, in at least one case, got married by telegraph -- without ever having met in person.

3. There's a pretty consistent body of research that says folks do act differently OL than IRL. Not that they're schizophrenic and have completely different personalities OL, but that we're - on whole - more "out there" OL than IRL. Some folks negotiate that new environment beautifully: they grasp the implied rules quickly and adjust well to the lack of normal cues. Many struggle a bit more here than there. I was mostly trying to offer some reasons for how we might understand those differences.

As ever,

S.

[thir]

Good morning :-)

I keep wondering what exactly the researchers have compared to what..I mean, what situations online compared to what situations RL?

It is an interesting topic and I have printed some of the articles to read on a journey in a couple of days - hard to find time otherwise.

[Solis]

Good morning, thir.

The topic is interesting but the research, I fear, is incredibly boring (even to other researchers). Disinhibition can be good, called "benign disinhibition," and it tends to be studied in settings like on-line support groups for the survivors of cancer or domestic abuse. Researchers look at how quickly and how extensively participants open themselves up there, compared with their experience in in-person group therapy. Disinhibition can be bad, normally just labeled "aggression," and it tends to be studied in online discussion groups, chatrooms and Facebook. A lot of this comes up in older discussions of "flame wars" and newer ones of cyberbullying.

Most of what's easily available online either just summarizes Suler's essay, is not very good (there's a bad Wikipedia article on the topic) or is really technical. Adam Joinson wrote a pretty readable book chapter that actually looks at the individual threads of the research ("Disinhibition and the Internet" in a book entitled Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications (2007). I could probably track down a .pdf of that if you're really curious.

S.

[Crushers Rose]

This was such a fascinating thread to read. I do know that I've often taken part in chat conversations online and wondered if some would act the same way if it was in-person. Or, when I see someone say smh, I do catch myself wondering if they're really smacking their head, lol.

[denuseri]

fyi...smh usually stands for "shaking my head" as in back and forth .

[Crushers Rose]

lol.. that's hilarious. Yeah, I thought they were smacking their head. Thanks, denu