Ask A Darkening Dawn and Datalisk

Is rape possible in cyberspace? By its very definition, one has no body, nor any real gender. So how can a sexual violation of the body take place when there is none? Either no rape has occurred, or there is some element of the crime takes place in the mind.

On the Internet, or in similar sectors of cyberspace, there is no set identity for anyone. We create who we are from the ground up. Just ask “Datalisk” or “A Darkening Dawn,” both of whom are (in some way) sitting at this keyboard right now. I can say that I have chosen these two names to be my digital avatars, one for the “typed, forum based world” and the other for the “game world.” Yet, they are not exactly Robert Tolley. The two cyber personalities exist within the mind, but they also rely upon the freedom of motion and expression of the Internet. At the same time, Robert Tolley feels the emotions and effects of the actions of both Datalisk and A Darkening Dawn. Confusing, isn’t it?

When one says that there is no crime against the characters, because they are not a part of the real world, that ignores the fact that the identities of the gamer and their character are intimately linked. I suffer the same slings and arrows that Datalisk does on the forum, and any flame sent against that personality is bound to hit me.

So is rape possible in a digital environment?

I would have to argue that it is.

Not in any sense of physical violation, that is sure. No one can reach out from the monitor and wrap their hands around your physical body. But there is something far more intimately connected to you than your body. Your mind, the very essence of “Who You Are” is being violated in this sense. If there is a part of you that is more intimate and personal than your own personality I know not of it. If the digital self is the projection of the personality into the outside world, then the violation of that self is still a violation of the self in the “Real World.”

That is one handicap of the digital world. It does not seem to happen in any one place, and the results are often left as only series of ones and zeroes somewhere on magnetic media. But the damage done to the selves is still there. Note that the noun is plural. There is definitely an effect on the “digital world” self, but there is also an impact on the “physical world” self. Violation of the digital world self may not leave physical marks on the self in the real world, but it definitely leaves psychological effects.

Looking at how the characters in the MOO reacted to “the Bungle affair,” there really isn’t much doubt that something occurred. While the digital world is undoubtedly different from the physical world, people are still the same. Since it is personalities that are projected into the ether, people are largely the same. They still want and desire prestige and a sense of community. There are also urges that cannot be acted out without consent.

That is another effect of the digital community. Digital entities can act without direct physical repercussions on the real world body. But a majority of the actions that are polite or permissible in the digital world hinge upon the idea of consenting parties. Take for example, killing and death. Entering a FPS game (a first person shooter, where the player looks out from the eyes of their character, often with the goal of killing other players for points, or some other activity requiring something similar) implies a level of consent. In a MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game), there are designated PvP (Player Vs Player) servers for many games. Entering one implies that your personality is prepared for a certain extent of combat between characters and the potential of dying in the process. At the same time, dying in these worlds is far from permanent. Generally in FPS or MMORPG games, when one dies, that is not the end of that character. Characters are respawned, or reincarnated which makes their death more of a pause in existence.

Getting an account removed, however, is a significant problem. It is analogous to dying in the real world. While the player can in effect come back and create another character, it has a different effect on the mind than “dying” in the game.

The same goes for having an account stolen (or violated, in the case of the Bungle incident). It is akin to a sort of possession, where one is not in control of their body anymore. When the mind is the body (think of it, we’re talking digital self here), that sort of possession is incredibly disturbing. No matter how heated forum conflicts can become, having someone else post under your name is even more disturbing.

So what I would argue is that there is an inadequate metaphor for the digital self. Rape in the digital world may not be possible in the same exact sense as the physical. Taking control of another character is a sort of crime against them, no matter what is done with it. Even if the offence is not directly sexual in nature, it is still a sort of rape of the personality. We cannot send our physical self into the void, but we can create our own archetype of our self. When that archetype is violated, we feel that violation in the same way. Coming from a proud denizen of the digital plane, I would like to make it clear that there is much at stake. Just ask A Darkening Dawn or Datalisk. They’ll tell you.



 

Speaking of Speaking

I know that I speak in different ways to different sets of people. I am going to use a couple of examples here, just to make my point. The first example is what I am writing right now. I would probably not say all of this if I was speaking to someone else in person. That is partly because that here I have to state everything and make it completely clear. That is because no one can really say “wait, back up, I didn’t quite get that last part” on a forum or posting. In spoken language, I would say a lot less, and still be assured that my meaning was coming across. That, and here I can talk for as long as I want to. There is really no limit to how much text I can put down. But if I were talking, then there would be a logical time limit to whatever I was saying. So I naturally have to communicate differently in spoken and written mediums, even if I am using the same language.

But not all written languages are the same. I know that many people are into IM’ing. This kind of truncated speech is used because of the time constraints involved. Also, because one is in direct communication with another, they don’t necessarily have to get out every thought in a complete sentence. This leads to all sorts of “IM”lish where you’ll see spelling and grammatical errors, and even stylized misspellings. Now I don’t IM, so you’re probably wondering why I’m talking about this. I don’t IM, but I do play first person shooter (FPS) computer games. Without a VOIP support, typing is the only way to communicate to another player in the game. But when one is typing, one is not moving- which makes one into a sitting duck… which is bad. One might say that FPS-speak is similar to IMlish, but I would have to argue. I won’t say I’m fluent, but when someone types “gs,” I can translate that to “good shot!” or “ty” for “thank you.” Clearly, such a language leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation problems. It is a special purpose language- used in special circumstances.

These are extreme examples, I know, but sometimes the best examples can be found in the extremes. I will also say that my normal speaking language does change slightly depending on whom I am talking to. Having taken Japanese for 4 (going on 5 now) years, I am familiar with the concept of an “in group” and “out group” languages (although I still get them confused now and then). The whole idea is that there is a way of talking to people who you are comfortable with- a way that allows for more close communication, while also having a different language set that allows for greater diplomacy. I would argue that we do this in our everyday life as well without realizing it. There is a way that we talk around our friends, and a way that we talk around those who are above us in “status” level. There are many, many different ways of speaking, and we use them daily. But there are also many different special application languages that we have learned over the course of our life. Especially with the different means of communication available to us, there are definitely different languages that are used for different purposes. I would say that what is truly myself would not be described by any of these languages in particular. Each way of speaking reveals a certain aspect of who I am, which is not necessarily the same as being different from myself. It’s the odd sort of thing which is often difficult to describe- every shard that is portrayed in a language is me. Each individual view is distinct and somewhat different. At the same time, all of the shards AND the sum total of the shards is what I use to define myself. (that’s way complicated, and I can’t even explain it satisfactorily to myself without resorting to poetry which is another language….. *sigh*). But in response to the last question, as to whether the parts of yourself represented to another group are truly you. Since when have we laid bare the inner, deepest workings of our personality to another person or group? It wakes a lot of trust, and isn’t something that is going to happen easily. And so I would argue that we aren’t ever really showing the “true self” to another person- that’s not hiding behind a mode of speaking, it’s just that our emotional barriers close us off just enough to give us some modicum of privacy and self containment. It’s not a defensive thing, it’s just a human thing. Which is all that our languages are anyways.