The real question is, "should fantasy be policed in the digital age?" When fantasies are solely inside people heads how can they be? But there is a real difference between a head fantasy and a second life fantasy. There is a difference of degree and also over what the fantasy occasions. Role playing games amongst adults explore the possibility of certain ways of being with more than one adult sharing that fantasy. Does this not legitimate the fantasy in a more powerful way than if it were confined to a person's daydreams? If those ways of being are deemed illegal in the societies to which those people belong, doesn't it behoove the society to sanction that behaviour in the digital realm, or do we allow certain virtual contexts for fantasies that would be deemed abhorrent in the real world in the name of freedom? I don't want to come down on one side or the other in this debate but it is really interesting. But as other posters have said, this is an area that needs to be studied as well as talked about.
This is interesting because it infers that there is not such thing as a virtual experience, or at least that virtual experiences cannot be dismissed as inherently less important than an actual one. For if it were otherwise, and if Second Life were just a game, then there would be no problem with this. The fact that there is a problem means the distinction between the virtual and the actual is problematic
Of course it could be argued that murder is forbidden in the real world and yet is a common occurrence in the game world. Why the discrepancy? I think it has a lot to do with context and also cultural conventions. But this is only the most glancing analysis of the problem which is very complex and goes to the heart of belief and habit formation underscoring human behaviour.
Slashdot Mirror
The real question is, "should fantasy be policed in the digital age?" When fantasies are solely inside people heads how can they be? But there is a real difference between a head fantasy and a second life fantasy. There is a difference of degree and also over what the fantasy occasions. Role playing games amongst adults explore the possibility of certain ways of being with more than one adult sharing that fantasy. Does this not legitimate the fantasy in a more powerful way than if it were confined to a person's daydreams? If those ways of being are deemed illegal in the societies to which those people belong, doesn't it behoove the society to sanction that behaviour in the digital realm, or do we allow certain virtual contexts for fantasies that would be deemed abhorrent in the real world in the name of freedom? I don't want to come down on one side or the other in this debate but it is really interesting. But as other posters have said, this is an area that needs to be studied as well as talked about.
This is interesting because it infers that there is not such thing as a virtual experience, or at least that virtual experiences cannot be dismissed as inherently less important than an actual one. For if it were otherwise, and if Second Life were just a game, then there would be no problem with this. The fact that there is a problem means the distinction between the virtual and the actual is problematic Of course it could be argued that murder is forbidden in the real world and yet is a common occurrence in the game world. Why the discrepancy? I think it has a lot to do with context and also cultural conventions. But this is only the most glancing analysis of the problem which is very complex and goes to the heart of belief and habit formation underscoring human behaviour.