ok. The end is nigh

Voice in SL IS more intimate that talking on the phone because of the visual element, the "illusion" of physical presence that SL creates. If this were NOT true, none of us would bother with SL at all, would we?

And even if it WERE the same as using the phone, it would still be more intimacy than I want to introduce into my experience of SL, at least outside of those very few with whom I actually desire more intimacy. I don't have telephone chats with mostly casual acquaintances, just with very close friends.


I don't think you are confused at all: I think you know PRECISELY what I mean. But I am not speaking here primarily about romantic relationships: this was an analogy, not an exact parallel.

What I am saying is that it is unfair to demand of someone that they undertake an action with which they are clearly uncomfortable if they don't want to be "excluded" from a community. There is NO practical reason why those who don't use voice should be excluded from conversations or communities that employ voice extensively; yet, in practice, they frequently are. So, there exists a kind of peer pressure mechanism that comes to bear on the person not using voice. If you don't like the "If you want this relationship to continue or grow, you'll have sex with me" analogy, then use the kind of peer pressure dynamic that exists in teen groups, in which wearing certain kinds of clothes, or listening to a particular sort of music, becomes one's ticket to acceptance.


See my reference to the "If you want this relationship to continue or grow, you'll have sex with me" dynamic cited above.

I don't disagree Mickey. But when I said "intimacy," I wasn't really referencing "romantic" or "sexual": I meant, more generally, the blurring of the lines between SL and RL.

I can see -- and HAVE seen -- many instances where voice was the preferred route for communication. But those have all been one-on-one. My complaint about the culture of voice don't really apply to individual communications (although I would, for all of the reasons I've already stated, not voice with someone I didn't already feel fairly close to), but rather to group dynamics.

Again, what makes this whole issue different from something similar in RL -- say, using voice on Skype, for instance -- is the immersive and "fantasy" element of SL.

Bingo! (oops, is that gambling?)

Well, I have been speaking in generalizations largely; I just wanted to make it clear that I knew that they WERE generalizations, and that there are always exceptions.

The difference between being ignored in a club where everyone is texting, and being ignored because one isn't in voice, lies in the REASON that one is being ignored. Neither instance would be very pleasant, but in the latter case, one is being ignored not because of what one is saying, but because of the medium of communication one has chosen or (as spinster has pointed out) finds it necessary to use.

People who ignore others in clubs are frequently cliquey assholes; that's nasty too, but the causes are different.


You can refuse all you wish, but with everything you say you reinforce your adherence to one particular end of that spectrum.

If you weren't so sociable and charming, I'd give up on you entirely, you . . . you . . . AUGMENTATIONIST!!!

How does an illusion contribute to intimacy? Imaginary intimacy??



Same here. Why are we arguing? Then again I don't hang out in large groups texting very often neither. (I guess I exclude myself from that. And there must be a culture of people who like to stand around texting in large groups as a result?)



Yes, I was confused. And now I am even more confused at your clarification of it not pertaining to romantic relationships.



I don't know of any places that will kick you out for not having voice on. Therefore, you are excluding yourself.



I don't like either of these arguments. A wise person inoculates their kids against peer pressure, and adults should recognize manipulators and kick them to the curb. (That is not to say that sex should not naturally be a part of a romantic relationship's growth and sustenance.) If you don't wanna voice, don't do it. That doesn't mean there is actually some big cultural divide though. That doesn't mean you can't hang out at places where people are voicing. It doesn't mean you might not have more fun if you tried it neither.

I can understand that, concerning the "fantasy" element....but I'm addressing the potential it has for you to communicate more effectively with your "causes." I had assumed that you use SL for more than fantasy, from reading some of your earlier forum postings.

I just want to make sure that I put a bug in someone's ear to actually try it for a bit....before discounting it. It opens up another dimension of communication, that I would hate for someone to miss out on.....based on fear or mistrust....that is related to it being solely used for a particular type of intimacy.....because that's just not always the case.

OK but what does the reason matter really? I would just go somewhere else if it was me! Of course, I am pretty resilient about these matters.



Is that your way of saying "yes dear" without removing your nose from a romance novel?



But could you tell me that on voice? (I kid!!! )



Despite what my "Location" says, I prefer natural boobies )))))

No, that's fair. And to give an instance, I have the opportunity to deliver a paper in voice on representations of violence against women in SL at an upcoming in-world conference (called Virtual Praxis II, for anyone interested . . .) that I may well take up for precisely the reasons you suggest.

There is a sort of paradox here, however. Many feminists in SL deliberately resist the use of voice precisely because it has come, for some, to seem part of a mechanism for emotional blackmail within relationships. So feminists tend, on the whole, to be much more tolerant of those who choose not to voice.

Yes, it IS somewhat imaginary. Because, as I have noted, there are always going to be real limits to the amount of intimacy you can ACTUALLY muster up with someone who is probably only accessible online, and may live thousands of miles away.

Yes, a few people have created lasting RL relationships from SL ones. But they are far and away the exceptions.


I dunno. Cause it's fun?


Well, I think I clarified what I meant below . . .


Oh, puh-LEAZE!! Like, the only way of excluding someone is physically banning them from a place? You understand group dynamics better than THAT, I'm sure.


You can be "innoculated" against feeling bad about being excluded, but that doesn't address the reality of the exclusion. And there are no "adults" in SL to curb the manipulators.

As for the existence of a divide . . . I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Think of it as a prim, with a "transparent" texture on one side, and a brushed steel texture on the other. Can't see anything at all from one side, but from the other . . .

You really, really, really should use your voice for that presentation. I'm not sure how to describe in words how it will enhance your presentation....but it will. You might want to get used to using it casually, first.....so you can work into it.

Practice on Smith.

I would be pissed at those feminists if they are labeling the use of voice used between the opposite sex, one-on-one....as being solely for a relationship/intimacy type thing....just one more step backwards.

LOL! I'm guessing you don't have kids, otherwise you'd know how impossible this is.


There is, though, whether it's self-imposed or not. In effect, voice and text are different languages: even if those on voice don't exclude you, you won't be able to keep up with a primarily voice-based conversation using text. Text is slower and more considered. That's part of why I prefer it.

Just out of interest, is there anybody out there who _never_ uses voice and who also doesn't think there is a divide?

Also, here's a thought ... doesn't the slowness of text have something to offer for women in sexual situations?

I use voice because my words sound much sexier when you hear them . . .

Pep ( . . . than the way you read them.)

Well, in practice, that is what one has to do. I've stopped hanging out at The Cove for precisely that reason. But to do so is ultimately to not merely acknowledge but actually reinforce the divide, which I see as a bad thing. But then, I dislike ANY kind of segregation.



LOL, yeah, maybe. Except that it isn't a romance novel (yech!); I am currently rereading Jeanette Winterson's The Powerbook, which (coincidentally) contains all sorts of analogies to what we have been discussing.

(Winterson writes very high-quality feminist/lesbian stuff in a postmodern vein, but she far transcends merely that readership. You should try her . . .)


If we ever became close enough, yes.


And I prefer "natural" . . . um, other things. Which is, AGAIN, why I'm not much interested in that side of SL.

LOL

Only if he doesn't mind me doing rehearsed read-throughs of the paper . . .


No, they don't see it that way, I think. Most of them, anyway. But they naturally enough focus on this one particular misuse of the tool.

YESSSSS!

Actually . . .

No, TMI. Forget it . . .

If only you could find a way to capture that Welsh lilt in text, eh?

I'm still at a loss to understand why extending choice is such a bad thing.

Well, again, it's not the addition of choice, nor the availability of the technology that is the problem, I think.

It's the way that the tool is actually EMPLOYED by a great many who chose to use it.

That's what choice is all about. There are people who prefer voice, who came to Sl after voice was introduced because voice was an option.

Certainly. But if they are CHOOSING to exclude others, then I think they are making a very poor choice, even if that is their right.

There is a fine line between a community that is defined by its diversity, and one that is fractured. The way that voice culture has too often evolved has steered us away from the former, and towards the latter. We have developed (as we might say in Canada) "two solitudes."

They can't type well, you're calling for those who can't type so well but like voice to be excluded.

That doesn't help the communities that were shattered (yes, shattered) by the introduction of voice.

In other words, what you're saying is that you do actually understand the voice divide. Recognizing there is a voice divide doesn't mean you have to blame the people who use voice. Or for that matter the ones who don't. It's simply that social behavour is complex and sometimes paradoxical, and sometimes giving people more choices has negative macro effects.

Nothing is free, even when it comes at no additional charge.

I hope you're not implying that people who don't use voice are transpostites.

How so? I am not suggesting that voice should be banned or disabled; I am suggesting that it should not be used to exclude.

I have NO problems communicating with via text with people using voice. The difficulty arises when they ignore what I am saying to them in text chat.

I think this is generally true and insightful, BUT I would suggest that, in my experience, the exclusion is usually pretty one-sided. Certainly there are people who disable voice, but that is usually because they either can't use the technology properly (and it adds enormously to lag sometimes too), or are already feeling excluded from the voice conversation, and find it annoying to listen to for that reason.

People who use text chat, I find, generally are quite happy to communicate with those in voice.

You've been pretty consistent in saying voice damages communities but haven't given one iota of consideration to people with say RSI or carpal tunnel syndrome who find voice easier.

All voice does is extend choice.