ORIGINAL PAPER

Love 2.0: A Quantitative Exploration of Sex and Relationshipsin the Virtual World Second Life

Ashley John Craft

Received: 22 January 2010 / Revised: 15 January 2012 / Accepted: 21 January 2012 / Published online: 28 April 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract This study presents the quantitative results of a

web-based survey exploring the experiences of those who

seek sex and relationships in the virtual world of Second Life.

Thesurveygathereddataondemographics, relationships,and

sexual behaviors from 235 Second Life residents to compare

with U.S.General Social Survey data on Internetusers and the

generalpopulation.TheSecondLife surveyalsogathereddata

on interests in and experiences with a number of sexual prac-

tices inbothofflineandonlineenvironments.Comparativeanal-

ysisfoundthatsurveyparticipantsweresignificantlyolder,more

educated, and less religious than a wider group of Internet users,

andincertainagegroupswerefarlesslikelytobemarriedorhave

children. Motivations for engaging in cybersex were presented.

Analysis of interest and experience of different sexual practices

supportedfindingsbyotherresearchersthatonlineenvironments

facilitatedaccess,butalsoindicatedthat interest incertainsexual

practices could differ between offline and online environments.

Keywords Sex � Cybersex � Internet � Virtual worlds �Online relationships � Love � Second Life

Introduction

OnNovember14,2008,theBritishnewspaperTheGuardianran

the headline,‘‘Second Life Affair Leads to Couple’s Real-life

Divorce.’’AmyTaylor,whometherhusbandDavidPollardinan

Internet chat room and until recently lived with him in a flat in

Cornwall, in the United Kingdom, decided to file for divorce

whenshefoundthatherhusbandwas‘‘chattingandhangingout’’

with an American woman in the online virtual world of Second

Life (Morris, 2008). Taylor believed that ‘‘her husband…was

havingarealrelationshipwiththehumancontrollingherrival.‘It

may have started online but it existed entirely in the real world

and it hurts just as much,’ [Taylor] said. ‘His was the ultimate

betrayal. He had been lying to me’’’(Morris, 2008).

Whether in virtual worlds or through Internet dating sites, in

2008 nearly one-third of Britons like Taylor were looking for

love online (Gunter, 2008). Many of the people who live a Sec-

ond Life have good educations and salaries, most have had a

variety of experiences with offline sex and relationships, and a

number are married in their first lives. What, then, drives these

individuals to seek second sexualities online?

Technological changes bring with them changes in the pat-

ternsofsociety,andevenloveisnotimpervioustoitseffects.The

notion of modern, or romantic, love featured prominently in the

works of sociologists Giddens (1992) and Beck and Beck-Gern-

sheim (1995, 2006). Broadly sketched, their theory of modern

love identified an increasing emphasis on self-definition and in-

dividualism in Western society, brought about to fill the exis-

tential void left by the diminishing importance of traditional

religious and cultural values. Giddens and Beck and Beck-

Gernsheim viewed the notion of a romantic relationship—the

personal choice of one’s partner—as central to this self-defini-

tion, and saw the search for a suitable partner ultimately as a

search for the self.

Newtechnologies like theInternetandeven theairplanehave

accelerated this propensity towards individualistic love. Ther-

born (2004) noted this in the changing landscape of families, as

individuals started gravitating towards cities and spending sig-

nificant stretches of time on the road or overseas. Individuals’

physical absence from their communities of origin, first facili-

A. J. Craft

Department of Politics, Psychology, Sociology and International

Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

A. J. Craft (&)

1 Palace Street, London SW1E 5HE, UK

e-mail: ashley.craft@cantab.net

123

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:939–947

DOI 10.1007/s10508-012-9933-7

tated and prolonged by technologies such as the telephone and

the automobile, and later by the Internet and the airplane, atten-

uatedkinshiptiesandtraditionalvaluesevenastheseindividuals

sought to maintain a virtual presence within their original peer

and family groups. This movement reconfigured traditional

socialgeography,makingitmoredecentralizedandfragmented,

and giving rise to what Castells (1996) called the‘‘network soci-

ety’’of mediated communities. The forms of this network also

affected the nature of interpersonal communication. Bauman

(2003) wrote, ‘‘the advent of virtual proximity renders human

connections simultaneously more frequent and more shallow,

more intense and more brief’’(p. 61). A new generation of media

applications has now emerged to facilitate these fragile webs of

human interaction.ThevirtualenvironmentofSecondLife isone.

Earlystudiesofonlineromancewereusuallyconductedwith-

in the field of psychology and tended to focus on so-called

‘‘online sexual activities’’ and the deviance and compulsivity

of practitioners (see Cooper, Delmonico, & Burg, 2000; Coo-

per, Scherer, Boies, & Gordon, 1999; DiMarco, 2003; Griffiths,

2001). By contrast, the present sociological study sought to

explore online sexual activities as a regular part of emerging

online culture in the virtual world of Second Life, and to gather

quantitative data that might suggest potential explanations for

behaviorandareas for further research.Whilesex inSecondLife

has generated excitement within the popular and online press

(Au, 2008; Ludlow & Wallace, 2007), only a few academic

studies have devoted themselves to the subject and these have

been largely qualitative (Bardzell & Bardzell, 2007; Brookey &

Cannon, 2009; Boellstorff, 2008; Salter, 2011). Gilbert, Gonz-

alez,andMurphy’s(2011)studyistheonlyotherknowntoreport

quantitative data on online sexual activities in Second Life.

The present study explored experiences of romantic rela-

tionships and cybersex within Second Life. A web-based survey

was used to gather data on demographics, relationships, and

sexual and cybersexual behaviors from 235 residents of the

virtualworldSecondLifeandcompare the resultswithdata from

the U.S. General Social Survey (GSS) (Smith, Marsden, Hout,

& Kim, 2011). The results showed substantial differences in

demographics and relationships between Second Life survey

participants and U.S. Internet users. Data on possible motiva-

tions for engaging in cybersex and online relationships were

gatheredandpresented,anddataononeofthesemotivations—

interest and experience in a series of sexual practices both

offline and online—was used to support a theoretical expla-

nation of accessibility, disinhibition, and adoption developed

from the‘‘triple-A engine’’of Cooper et al. (1999) and Cooper

and Griffin-Shelley (2002).

Second Life Explained

Second Life is a virtual world, a 3-D environment populated by

individuals who connect from computers all over the world via

theInternet.SecondLife isaninteractiveonlinecommunity,par-

ticipation in which often features prominently in the lives of its

participants. Since its launch in 2003, Second Life has grown

exponentially inmembership;populationestimatesrangedfrom

200,000 active to 2,000,000 registered users (Terdiman, 2007).

IndividualsinSecondLiferefertothemselvesas‘‘residents,’’a

term which implies a permanent presence in this second world.

Manyresidentsspendat leastasmuchtimeinSecondLifeasthey

do fulfilling real-world obligations.

Second Life is also unusual among virtual worlds in that it

allows residents to customize their virtual appearances and

environments and provides a dedicated scripting language to

animate these creations. Ondrejka (2004) estimated that 99%

of the objects in Second Life were user-created; counting among

these objects were graphical representations of fanciful hairdos,

custom-made leather jackets, strap-on dildos, and recreations

of theParthenon.Whilemuchof the interactionbetweenSecond

Life residents occurs through textual chat, graphical represen-

tations of anatomically correct human beings (and other anthro-

pomorphic species) can be surprisingly lifelike.

Asintheofflineworld,someofthemostintenseandevocative

online relationships are romantic or sexual in nature.Thebehav-

ior of‘‘cybersex,’’conventionally understood to describe two or

more individuals engaged in masturbation or other sexual stim-

ulation while communicating using text, audio or video, is the

focusofmuchpopularandacademicattention.Althoughthepre-

sent study asked participants about online relationships and sex-

ual behaviors in more expansive terms, the aim was to gain an

understanding of the kinds of online sexual activities that par-

ticipants experienced. Understanding what kinds of individuals

aredrawntosexandromantic relationshipsonlineandwhat they

makeof theirexperiencesdoesmore thanprovidean insight into

the social fabric of virtual worlds like Second Life. It also serves

to illustrate how new forms of media and ideas of modern love

are transforming the patterns of interpersonal relationships in

communities both offline and online.

Method

Participants

Data in the study were drawn from 235 responses gathered from

an online survey conducted in April 2009. To strengthen the

comparisontodatafromtheGSS,thesedatawerere-weightedto

matchthecompositionoftheonlinesurveysamplewithregardto

the demographic elements that differed significantly: race, reli-

gious affiliation, highest level of education attained, and age

group. To account for the effects of nationality—as GSS partici-

pantswereonlyfromtheU.S.—comparisonsweredrawnbetween

both the full online survey sample (N= 235) and a survey sub-

sample of U.S. residents (n = 139).

940 Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:939–947

123

Sex is a sensitive survey subject which warrants special pro-

tective measures. After initial recruitment, all participants were

informedthat thesurveycontainedquestionsaboutrelationships

and sexual preferences and instructed to skip any questions they

felt were uncomfortable. They were further informed that they

could discontinue the survey at any time. All participants were

assured of their confidentiality. Participants who reported their

age as under 18 were not allowed to continue.

Procedure

The survey was pilot-tested with two in-world groups. Partici-

pants were then recruited through advertisements placed within

Second Life and through associated channels, including Second

Life events listings, classified ads, forums and message boards,

and word-of-mouth, to takea web-basedsurvey on‘‘identity and

intimacy.’’This language was chosen to downplay the survey’s

sexualandcybersexual content.As itwas thought thataffiliation

with a well-known university would generate substantial interest

and promote legitimacy, participants were not offered additional

compensation. The 100-item web-based survey gathered infor-

mationaboutparticipants’demographics,experiencewithoffline

relationships and sexual practices, experience with online rela-

tionshipsandsexualpractices,andattitudesandopinions towards

offline and online sex and relationships. It attained a 78% com-

pletion rate.

Measures

Thesurveywasdesignedtocollectdatathatcouldbecomparedto

the GSS, a nationally representative survey of the U.S. popula-

tion which collects data on participants’ demographics, behav-

iorsandopinionsandincludesasubsampleofU.S.Internetusers.

Results

To strengthen comparison with the GSS and control for U.S. res-

idence,thesectionsondemographicsandrelationships(Tables 1,

2) used the subsample of survey participants who indicated that

theylivedintheU.S.(n = 139,59.1%oftotal)asabaseline.There

wasnosignificantdifferencebetweentheSecondLifesurveysub-

sampleandthesurveysampleonanyofthevariablesreportedand

all significant differences between the survey subsample and the

GSS data held also between the full survey sample and the GSS

data.Tofurther strengthen thecomparison,data fromtheSecond

Life sample were compared with the GSS subsample of U.S.

Internetusers,definedas thoseparticipantswhoindicated they

had the Internet at home.

Comparing Demographics

Table 1 compares the demographic profiles of the baseline

Second Life survey U.S. subsample and the full survey sample

againsttheGSSsubsampleofU.S.InternetusersandthefullGSS

sample.Therewasnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetween

survey participants and U.S. Internet users or the U.S. general

population with respect to gender or income, but survey par-

ticipants were more likely to be white, older, more educated,

and of non-Christian, atheist or agnostic religious belief.

Participants had higher education levels than the general pop-

ulation and the Internet user subsample. In particular, every par-

ticipant reported completing high school, and participants were

about1.2timesaslikelytohavehadsomeuniversityeducationand

1.8timesmorelikelytoholdagraduatedegreethanInternetusers.

Participantsalsodiffered in their religiousaffiliation fromthe

U.S. general population, as well as U.S. Internet users. Partic-

ipantswereabouthalfaslikelytoidentifyaseitherProtestantor

Catholic and nearly twice as likely to claim no religious affil-

iation as either population.

Surveyparticipants tendedtobeolder (M = 52.0 years)when

compared to the U.S. general or Internet populations (M = 47.7

and M = 45.6 years, respectively). They were about 1.4 times as

likely to fall in the 46–65 age category as the U.S. general or

Internetpopulationsand1.5 timesas likely tobeover65 than the

U.S. Internet population.

Comparing Relationships

Asubstantialpercentageofparticipants indicatedexperience

with both offline and online relationships. Almost 90% reported

offline relationship experience; half of these participants were

currently in a relationship, and the remainder had, on average,

been single for less than a year (M = 11.8 months). Likewise,

over 80% of participants reported online relationship experi-

ence; nearly 60% were currently involved, while the remainder

had been single online for, on average, 6.5 months. Over 65% of

participants who were currently in offline relationships reported

also being in online relationships.

Comparison with the U.S. general population and U.S. Inter-

net users revealed some substantial differences in rates of mar-

riage and children. Table 2 sets out a baseline figure for U.S.

surveyparticipantsandcomparesit tothefullsurveysample,and

against a GSS subsample of U.S. Internet users and the full GSS

sample. The GSS data were re-weighted to match the compo-

sition of the full survey sample with respect to race, education

level, age groups, and religious affiliation. After re-weighting,

there was a significant difference between the proportion of

survey participants who were currently married and those in the

overall U.S. population. This difference was even more pro-

nounced when compared with U.S. Internet users. Internet users

in general were about twice as likely to be married than survey

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:939–947 941

123

participants. Although the difference was not significant for the

26–45 age band, 46–65 year old Internet users were 2.4 times

more likely to be married than survey participants, and those

over 65 were nearly 7 times more likely to be married.

Moreover, participants fromtheU.S. population and the U.S.

Internetsubgroupweremorethantwiceaslikelytohavechildren

as participants from the Second Life survey sample. Again, this

discrepancyincreasedwithage:Althoughthedifferencewasnot

significant in the 26–45 age band, 46–65 year old Internet users

were 2.8 times more likely to have children than survey partic-

ipants,andthoseover65werenearly20timesmorelikely.Over-

all, two-thirdsofSecondLife surveyparticipantshadnochildren

(Median = 0), compared with less than one-third of the U.S.

population and the U.S. Internet user subpopulation (Median

= 2).

Online Sexual Activities: Frequency and Motivation

Nearly all participants (n = 177, 90.8% of total) reported some

experience of cybersex. Participants estimated they spent, on

average, over 4 h per week (M = 4.37) engaged in cybersex, or

about one in every ten hours spent per week in Second Life

(M = 35.1). The reported figure was higher for those currently

in an online relationship (M = 5.81, n = 103) than those who

had recently been in an online relationship (M = 2.95, n = 39)

or thosewhohadneverbeeninanonlinerelationship(M = 1.6,

n = 34). The median number of annual online sexual partners

reported was three (IQR 1–10); this compares with a median

number of one reported annual offline sexual partner (IQR 0–2).

Participants did not generally use Second Life to present

themselves differently from who they were offline with respect

Table 1 Comparison of demographic variables, Second Life survey and GSS (2008) fata

Second Life survey sample (U.S.) Second Life survey sample (All) U.S. Internet usersa,b U.S. populationa

n (%) n (%) v2 n (%) v2 n (%) v2

Gender

Males 61 (46.6) 91 (47.6) .04 491 (47.6) .05 930 (46.0) .02

Females 70 (53.4) 100 (52.4) 540 (54.2) 1093 (54.0)

Race

White 128 (92.8) 177 (88.5) 1.67 834 (80.9) 11.75*** 1559 (77.1) 18.57***

Non-white 10 (7.2) 23 (11.5) 197 (19.1) 464 (22.9)

Education

Less than high school 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1.54 74 (7.2) 31.80*** 293 (14.5) 64.52***

High school 19 (13.8) 34 (17.0) 281 (27.3) 632 (31.3)

Some universityc 56 (40.6) 71 (35.5) 319 (31.0) 544 (27.0)

Batchelor’s 32 (23.2) 53 (26.5) 230 (22.4) 355 (17.6)

Graduate 31 (22.5) 42 (21.0) 125 (12.1) 194 (9.6)

Income

\$20,000 21 (15.6) 33 (16.4) .05 108 (11.9) 1.48 380 (21.4) 2.60

$20,000? 114 (84.4) 168 (83.6) 802 (88.1) 1394 (78.6)

Religion

Catholic 17 (12.3) 26 (13.3) .84 236 (23.0) 102.19*** 470 (23.3) 140.05***

Protestant 31 (22.3) 47 (24.0) 513 (50.1) 1040 (51.6)

Other 51 (36.9) 63 (32.1) 102 (10.0) 172 (8.5)

Atheist/Agnostic 39 (28.5) 60 (30.6) 173 (16.9) 332 (16.5)

Age

18–25 2 (1.4) 3 (1.4) .02 110 (10.7) 25.12*** 210 (10.4) 22.36***

26–45 40 (28.8) 64 (29.5) 411 (40.1) 734 (36.5)

46–65 73 (52.5) 113 (52.1) 387 (37.7) 725 (36.0)

66? 24 (17.3) 37 (17.1) 118 (11.5) 344 (17.1)

Chi-square value for column data compared to baseline survey sample (U.S.) dataa U.S. Internet users and U.S. population data from GSS 2008 (Smith et al., 2011)b U.S. Internet users data filtered by participants indicating they had the Internet at homec ’’Some university’’was calculated by adding the number of respondents indicating‘‘junior college’’as the highest level of education to those indicating

‘‘high school’’as the highest level of education but recording thirteen or more years in school, indicating that the respondent had‘‘complete[d] one or more

years of college for credit’’(Smith et al., 2011)

*** p\.001

942 Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:939–947

123

to race, age or gender. Over half of survey participants indicated

that they‘‘always’’represented themselves as the same race, age

andgenderandaround80percent indicatedthat they‘‘always’’or

‘‘often’’represented themselves the same in Second Life as they

did offline.

Tables 3, 4, and 5 show data related to motivations for and

attitudes towardsengaging incybersex.Table 3showsmostpar-

ticipants agreed they were motivated by a desire for sexual

stimulationorrelease, forminganemotionalbondwithsomeone

else, experimentation in a safe environment, and looking for an

online relationship, and most disagreed that they were looking

foranofflinerelationshiporsexualpartner.Table 4illustratesthe

strengthparticipantsattributedtoonlinerelationships:Mostpar-

ticipants strongly agreed that emotional bonds are as strong in

SecondLifeastheyareinthephysicalworldandmostalsoagreed

thatcybersexcanbeasmeaningful, intenseanderoticasphysical

sex. Participants expressed ambivalent attitudes towards cyber-

sexas‘‘cheating’’inTable 4andmorepermissiveattitudestowards

cybersex without love, monogamy or emotional attachment than

physical sex in Table 5.

Online Sexual Experiences: Accessibility, Inhibition,

and Adoption

DiMarco(2003)suggestedthatvirtualenvironmentslikeSecond

Life may attract residents who have difficulty expressing them-

selves, sexually and otherwise, in their offline lives. However,

the picture presented by participants suggested a more complex

pictureofaccessibility,disinhibition,andadoption.Whereas90%

ofparticipantsreportedsomeexperienceofcybersex,nearlyafifth

(19.1%, n = 31) reported no cybersexual activity over the past

week,andnearlyathird(32.1%,n = 52)reportedtwohoursorless

over the past week. These figures suggest a range of participants

includinga numberwhomay beminimaladoptersor non-ado-

pters.

Tables 6 and 7 present data from the entire survey sample

(N = 180) about their interest and experience offline and online

with 13 listed types of sexual practices. The survey sample was

not robust enough to conduct full loglinear analysis on inter-

Table 2 Comparison of relationship variables, Second Life survey and GSS (2008) data

Survey sample (U.S.) Survey sample (All) U.S. Internet usersa,b U.S. populationa

n (%) n (%) v2 n (%) v2 n (%) v2

Currently married

All 41 (30.6) 59 (29.2) .07 621.8 (60.6) 43.45*** 1153.6 (56.7) 34.31***

Males 17 (29.3) 24 (26.1) 293.8 (60.2) 557.8 (59.1)

Females 21 (30.4) 30 (30.3) 328.0 (60.9) 595.8 (54.6)

26–45 18 (46.2) 26 (44.1) 236.8 (57.8) 401.8 (54.6)

46–65 20 (27.8) 30 (27.8) 251.4 (65.4) 445.1 (60.7)

66? 2 (9.5) 2 (6.5) 67.2 (54.7) 180.9 (51.4)

One or more children

All 45 (34.6) 69 (35.6) .03 752.2 (74.8) 88.66*** 1375.3 (71.2) 76.25***

Males 13 (22.8) 21 (23.6) 352.5 (70.8) 751.3 (75.1)

Females 36 (54.5) 44 (46.3) 449.8 (80.9) 1027.8 (84.4)

26–45 21 (56.8) 35 (61.4) 266.7 (64.5) 452.3 (62.4)

46–65 21 (29.6) 31 (29.5) 313.8 (82.4) 637.9 (83.7)

66? 1 (5.0) 1 (3.4) 110.1 (91.4) 342.3 (90.7)

Chi-square value for column data compared to baseline survey sample (U.S.) dataa U.S. Internet users and U.S. population data from GSS 2008 (Smith et al., 2011). All GSS data were re-weighted to match the demographic profile of

the Second Life survey data according to race, religion, education, and ageb U.S. Internet users data filtered by participants indicating they had the Internet at home

*** p\.001

Table 3 Motivations for engaging in cybersex

Motivation M SD Mode

Sexual stimulation or release 3.8 1.19 4

Emotional bond with someone else 3.6 1.29 4

Experimentation in a safe environment 3.6 1.31 4

Looking for online relationship 2.9 1.34 4

Looking for offline relationship 2.5 1.50 1

Boredom 2.4 1.32 1

Looking for offline sexual partner 2.4 1.44 1

Worry about getting STDs 2.2 1.36 1

Addiction 2.0 1.14 1

Making money 1.5 1.06 1

Values reported on a five-point Likert scale with 1 as Strongly disagree,

3 as Neutral, and 5 as Strongly agree. Data are from the Second Lifesurvey sample

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:939–947 943

123

active effects, so these were broken down into analyzable one-

and two-way effects.

For all offline sexual practices, all odds ratios were greater

than 1, meaning more participants expressed interest than act-

ual engagement. Several practices displayed a sizable dispar-

ity in interest versus experience: For Group practice, Bond-

age/BDSM, and Watching others the odds ratio approached

1.5:1,suggestingoneofeverythreeparticipantswhoexpressedan

interest in these practices offline had never experienced it, while

for costume play the ratio approached 2.5:1, suggesting three of

every five with an offline interest lacked actual experience.

By contrast, for most online practices, most odds ratios were

less than1,meaningmoreparticipantsexpressedactualengage-

ment than continuing interest. The differences used to calculate

the odds ratios greater than 1 were significant, with odds ratios

forpractices likeGrouppracticeandWatchingothersapproach-

ing 1.25:1.

Oddsratios illustrate thedifferenceintermsofproportionsof

all participants, while phi (u) indicates the strength of associa-

tion.The greater the valueofphi, themoreparticipantshadboth

interest in and experience with, or neither interest in nor expe-

rience with, a practice.

Table 4 Responses to

attitudinal questions about online

sex and relationships

Values reported on a five-point

Likert scale with 1 as Stronglydisagree, 3 as Neutral, and 5 as

Strongly agree. Data are from the

Second Life survey sample

Attitude M SD Mode

Emotional bonds as strong in SL as in first life 4.3 0.92 5

Would consider meeting serious SL romance offline 3.9 1.18 5

Cybersex can be as intense and erotic as physical sex 3.4 1.34 4

Cybersex is as emotionally and socially meaningful as physical sex 3.3 1.33 4

Would consider cybersex‘‘cheating’’on offline relationship 3.0 1.38 2

Table 5 Differences in response to selected attitudinal questions about sex and cybersex

Sex Cybersex t df

n M(SD) n M(SD)

OK without love 175 3.29 (1.27) 174 3.66(1.22) -6.072*** 173

OK w/different partners 172 2.89 (1.29) 174 3.38(1.28) -5.941*** 170

OK w/o emotional attachment 176 2.43 (1.25) 176 3.04(1.36) -6.262*** 175

Values reported on a five-point Likert scale with 1 as Strongly disagree, 3 as Neutral, and 5 as Strongly agree. Data are from the Second Life survey

sample

*** p\.001

Table 6 Odds ratios for offline

and online interest and

experience in selected sexual

practices

Significance levels were

calculated using Fisher’s exact

test for disproportionately

distributed data (Foreplay

through Oral-genital contact) and

Chi-square for proportionately

distributed data (Oral-anal

contact through Observing

others). Odds ratios in bold face

are greater than 1.5 or less than

0.66. Data are from the SecondLife survey sample

* p\.05, ** p\.01, *** p\.001

OffInt OnInt OnExp OnInt OffExp OnExp

OffExp OnExp OffExp OffInt OnInt OffInt

Practice

Foreplay 1.03 0.95*** 0.94 0.87 1.11 0.91

Manual stimulation 1.03 0.96*** 0.94 0.87 1.12 0.90

Vaginal intercourse 1.04*** 1.04*** 0.96 0.87 1.10 0.91***

Oral-genital contact 1.07 0.96*** 0.95 0.84** 1.11 0.88*

Oral-anal contact 1.10*** 0.96*** 1.15*** 1.00*** 0.90** 1.04***

Anal penetration 1.09*** 0.98*** 1.15*** 1.03*** 0.89** 1.06***

Object insertion 1.14*** 1.07*** 0.93*** 0.88*** 1.00 0.82***

Costume play 2.29*** 1.01*** 3.03*** 1.34*** 0.33* 1.32***

Bondage/BDSM 1.49*** 1.04*** 1.49*** 1.05*** 0.64 1.00***

Same-sex contact 1.26*** 1.01*** 1.21*** 0.97*** 0.81 0.96***

Public practice 1.37*** 0.98*** 1.39 1.00*** 0.73* 1.02***

Group practice 1.72*** 1.16*** 1.44** 0.97*** 0.60 0.84

Observing others 1.55*** 1.11*** 1.44*** 0.94*** 0.69** 0.85***

Foreplay 1.03 0.95*** 0.94 0.87 1.11 0.91

944 Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:939–947

123

Table 7 illustrates the strength of association among selected

sexualpractices. Foronline interest andexperience, all values of

phiweresignificantwitharangefrom.60to .76(M = .68).How-

ever, for offline interest and experience, phi was not significant

for three cases and ranged from .27 to .63 (M = .43) for the rest,

with only Same-sex contact above .60.

Several practices stand out for their consistently high phi val-

ues: same-sex contact, with phi values for all interactive dimen-

sionsinthetopthree;Bondage/BDSM,withfourvaluesinthetop

three; and Object insertionand Observing others, each with four

values in the top five.

Discussion

Workdoneontheimpactofvolunteerbiasonself-administered

surveys about online sexual behavior shows that volunteer bias

can have a demonstrable effect on survey results. Saunders,

Fisher, Hewitt, and Clayton (1985) and Bogaert (1996) both

found that advertising a survey as being about sexuality and

eroticacouldresult involunteerswhoreportedmoreerotophilic

personality traits and behaviors. Wiederman (1999) found that

participantswhoindicated theywouldparticipate inhypothetical

video or interview-based follow-up surveys on sexuality were

more likely tobemoresexuallyexperienced,hold less traditional

sexual attitudes, and express more of a desire for sexual sensa-

tion seeking. However, nearly all participants (94% men, 98%

women) indicated they would participate in a questionnaire-

based follow-up survey on sexuality and Weiderman was

unable to collect enough data about non-volunteers to identify

any significant differences between potential participants and

non-participants. Cooper, Scherer, and Mathay (2001) compared

demographic information between convenience and systematic

random samples of people engaged in onlinesexual activities and

found that in only two of 16 measures were small differences, of

around 2%, statistically significant. Cooper et al. (2001) did find

that participants from the convenience sample were significantly

more likely to report compulsive online sexual activity.

Althoughtheformatofthesurveyandits initialadvertisement

were chosen to minimize self-selection bias, participants were

effectivelyself-selectedthroughconvenienceandsnowballsam-

pling methods. The survey sample, therefore, does not neces-

sarily represent the entire Second Life population, and volunteer

biasmay influence someof thedata presented. Nevertheless, the

sampling methodology chosen was comparable to those used in

other recent studies of online sexual behavior (see Daneback,

Cooper, & Mansson 2005; de Nood & Attema, 2006; Gilbert

et al. 2011; Griffiths, 2001; Ortiz de Gortari, 2007; Ross, Dane-

back, Mansson, Tikkanen, & Cooper, 2003).

SecondLifesurveyparticipantsdifferednotablyfromboththe

general U.S. population and U.S. Internet users in certain res-

pects. After adjusting for demographic differences, including

religion,SecondLifesurveyparticipantswere,onaverage,about

halfas likely tobemarriedorhavechildrenas theirpeersand this

discrepancy increased with age. It is interesting to note that reli-

gion,marriage,andchildren—threeareaswhereSecondLifesur-

vey participants differed most from U.S. Internet users—were

the three areas which Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (1995, 2006)

identifiedasgivingmeaningandpurposeinmodernlife.Thereis

Table 7 Phi values for offline and online interest and experience in selected sexual practices

OffInt 9 OffExp OnInt 9 OnExp OnExp 9 OffExp OnInt 9 OffInt OffExp 9 OnInt OnExp 9 OffInt

Practice

Foreplay 0.163 0.733*** 0.003 0.069 -0.230 0.096

Manual stimulation 0.139 0.623*** -0.005 0.042 -0.026 0.180

Vaginal intercourse 0.321*** 0.774*** 0.121 0.437*** 0.155 0.354***

Oral-genital contact -0.039 0.600*** 0.116 0.291** -0.030 0.203*

Oral-anal contact 0.526*** 0.661*** 0.303*** 0.576*** 0.260** 0.472***

Anal penetration 0.373*** 0.613*** 0.303*** 0.564*** 0.244** 0.411***

Object insertion 0.598*** 0.739*** 0.405*** 0.571*** 0.411 0.501***

Costume play 0.383*** 0.717*** 0.348*** 0.576*** 0.192* 0.514***

Bondage/BDSM 0.439*** 0.638*** 0.399*** 0.713*** 0.437 0.640***

Same-sex contact 0.628*** 0.764*** 0.412*** 0.617*** 0.402 0.534***

Public practice 0.351*** 0.694*** 0.142 0.486*** 0.153* 0.341***

Group practice 0.268*** 0.657*** 0.215** 0.524*** 0.124 0.328

Observing others 0.386*** 0.624*** 0.372*** 0.636*** 0.221** 0.484***

Significance levels were calculated using Fisher’s exact test for disproportionately distributed data (Foreplay through Oral-genital contact) and Chi-

square for proportionately distributed data (Oral-anal contact through Observing others). Phi values in bold face are strong at 0.6 or greater. Data are

from the Second Life survey sample

* p\.05, ** p\.01, *** p\.001

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:939–947 945

123

no immediate explanation for this substantial discrepancy from

the data gathered and it therefore warrants further investigation.

The motivations given for engaging in cybersex in Second

Life can be read against the psychological drivers identified by

Partala (2011) for participating in Second Life in general: self-

therapy, a source of instant pleasures, liberation from social

norms, a tool for self-expression, and exploration and novelty.

Here, reported motivations of sexual release and closeness of

emotionalbonds,alongwithstrongagreement thatcybersexcan

beasintense,meaningful,anderoticasphysicalsex,suggestthat,

as Turkle (2011) argues, cybersex and online relationships are

‘‘realenough’’for theirparticipants,or inotherwords, asGilbert,

Murphy, and Avalos (2011) have found, participants may view

cybersexual relationships as substitutes for offline relationships.

Cybersexual relationships are also more numerous: With a

reported median of three online sexual partners to one offline

sexual partner per year, Second Life seems to facilitate more of

the of frequent, shallow, intense and brief relationships Bauman

(2003, p. 66) identified as characteristic of virtual interaction.

ParticipantsdidnotreportusingSecondLife toroutinelyexper-

iment with observable aspects of their offline identities such as

gender, race,andage,but theydidreportexperimentingwithrela-

tionships and sexual practices. Analysis of data on participants’

access toandinterest invarioussexualpracticesofflineandonline

illustrates that participants may turn to online environments to

experiencesomepracticeswhichtheyhavedifficultyaccessingin

offline environments.

The view of Second Life as an environment for the pursuit of

self-exploration, liberation from social norms, and novelty was

supported by data on interest and experience with a variety of

sexualpracticesbothofflineandonline.Manyofthesexualprac-

tices listed as survey items—from oral and anal intercourse to

bondage, same-sex contact and costume play—were chosen

because they were thought to carry some degree of social stigma-

tization. Cooper et al. (1999) and Cooper and Griffin-Shelley

(2002)deployedthe‘‘triple-A’’modelofanonymity,affordability,

and accessibility to explain how the medium of the Internet low-

ered barriers for participation in certain sexual activities and mit-

igated risks of engagement, which range from social stigmatiza-

tion to disease transmission.

As the odds ratios in Table 6 illustrate, survey participants

reported encountering problems of offline access for every listed

sexual practice. Of note, those practices having odds ratios of

1.5:1 or more—Group practice, Bondage/BDSM, Observing

others and Costume play—each represent sub-communities

which may be stigmatized in the general population but, in Sec-

ond Life, maintain a flamboyant virtual presence. Popular print

and online journalism have often portrayed the Second Life

BDSM, Gorean, hentai, furry, and age-play sub-communities

as sexual and even predatory in nature, whereas Second Life res-

idents’perceptionsofthesecommunitiesmaydiffersubstantially.

By contrast, survey participants expressed fewer problems of

online access for every listed sexual practice, and all but three

practices were within .05 of a 1:1 odds ratio, suggesting that

nearly every participant who expressed online interest in a par-

ticular practice also had online experience. Any persisting prob-

lems with access—represented by Watching others and Group

practice, the two practices which had odds ratios of more than

1.10:1—may suggest that public sexual practices may be the

most inaccessible within the online community of Second Life.

Correlation between participants’ expressed interest in vari-

ous practices in offline versus online environments introduced a

further complication. Significant values of phi (M = .54) ranged

from .29 for Oral-genital contact to .71 for Bondage/BDSM,

with Same-sex contact and Observing others showing values

above.60.Onanindividualbasis,participantswhoexpressedthe

same sexual interests online as they did offline may have been

looking to experiment with a practice they had not experienced

offline, or they may have been seeking to identify with an online

sexual community.

Takentogether,thesefiguressupportageneralmodelofsocio-

sexual identity-seeking whereby some participants interested

in practices which, due to social stigmatization, are not readily

accessible offline turn to online environments likeSecond Life

where access is easier and the anonymous environmentallows

sub-communities to express themselves more prominently.

Conclusions

The quantitative research presented here offers a broad socio-

logical sketch of the demographics, relationships, cybersexual

behaviors and motivations of selected Second Life residents,

along with an exploration of participants’ access, (dis)inhibi-

tions, and adoptions of certain sexual practices online.

The research could be strengthened in several ways. First, it

could be replicated using representative sampling methods for

the Second Life population, so as to minimize the effects of vol-

unteer bias. Although similar in other respects, the demographic

profile of the sample in Gilbert et al. (2011) was considerably

younger and this discrepancy warrants further investigation.

Second, exploration of interactive effects could be bolstered

bygreaternumbersof responses inboth theSecondLife survey

and the comparative surveys; although the samples were robust

enough to conduct simple comparisons, more data would be

needed to conduct multivariate loglinear or factor analyses.

Third, findings here could be replicated for online relationships

in different environments, such as Internet dating sites, to see

whether these phenomena are specific to the Second Life vir-

tual environment or are indicative of wider trends. Fourth, spe-

cific hypotheses could be tested using pre-defined predictor and

outcome variables.

Aggregated survey responses provide a broad context for

interpreting participants’ motivations for exploring their sexu-

alities online as well as offline, but numbers alone can offer lim-

ited explanatory detail. The data and analysis reported here was

946 Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:939–947

123

supported and developed through in-depth interviews with

selected survey participants, which will be reported elsewhere.

The data gathered in the present study sketch a broad picture

of Second Life participants and their experiences with modern

sex and romance, both offline and online. Preliminary analysis

suggests that participants were using the network society to sub-

stitute or supplement offline romantic and sexual relationships

with online ones. As network technologies become ever more

central to our lives, so too will simultaneous offline and online

cultures, relationships,andsexualitiesbecomenecessary toneg-

otiate.

Acknowledgments This researchwasundertakeninpartial fulfillment

of the M.Phil. in Modern Society and Global Transformations at the

UniversityofCambridge in2008–2009.Theauthor isnowaStatisticsand

Policy Analyst at the Department for International Development but is

publishing this research independently ofhis professional affiliation. The

views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the Depart-

ment for InternationalDevelopment, theGovernmentStatisticalService,

or the UK Civil Service.

References

Au, W. J. (2008). The making of Second Life: Notes from the new world.

New York: Harper Collins.

Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2007). Docile avatars: Aesthetics, experience

and sexual interaction in Second Life. In Proceedings of the 21st Brit-ish HCI group annual conference on people and computers (Vol. 1).

Swinton, UK: British Computer Society.

Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. Cambridge,

England: Polity Press.

Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995). The normal chaos of love (M. Rit-

ter & J. Wiebel, Trans.). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2006). Individualization (P. Camiller,

Trans.). London: Sage.

Boellstorff, T. (2008). Coming of age in Second Life: An anthropologistexplores thevirtuallyhuman.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Bogaert,A.F. (1996).Volunteerbias inhumansexuality research:Evidence

for both sexuality and personality differences in males. Archives ofSexual Behavior, 25, 125–140.

Brookey, R. A., & Cannon, K. L. (2009). Sex lives in Second Life. CriticalStudies in Media Communication, 26, 145–164.

Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society and culture(Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell.

Cooper,A.,Delmonico,D.,&Burg,R. (2000).Cybersexusers,abusers, and

compulsives: New findings and implications. In A. Cooper (Ed.), Cy-bersex: The dark side of the force (pp. 5–29). Philadelphia: Brunner

Routledge.

Cooper, A., & Griffin-Shelley, E. (2002). The internet: The next sexual

revolution. In A. Cooper (Ed.), Sex and the internet: A guidebook forclinicians (pp. 1–15). New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Cooper, A., Scherer, C., Boies, S., & Gordon, B. (1999). Sexuality on the

Internet: From sexual exploration to pathological expression. Profes-sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 154–164.

Cooper, A., Scherer, C., & Mathay, R. (2001). Overcoming methodological

concerns in the investigation of online sexual activities. CyberPsy-chology and Behavior, 4, 437–447.

Daneback, K., Cooper, A., & Mansson, S. (2005). An Internet study of

cybersex participants. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 321–328.

de Nood, D., & Attema, J. (2006, December 1). Second Life, the second lifeof virtual reality (S. van Everdingen, Trans.). Paper presented at the

electronic highway platform (EPN). Retrieved from http://www.ecp.

nl/sites/default/files/EPN_report_-The_Second_Life_of_Virtual_Rea

lity_-_2006_October.pdf

DiMarco, H. (2003). The electronic cloak: Secret sexual deviance in cyb-

ersociety. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Dot.cons: Crime, deviance and identityon the Internet (pp. 53–67). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.

Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love anderoticism in modern societies. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Gilbert, R. L., Gonzalez, M. A., & Murphy, N. A. (2011a). Sexuality in the

3D Internet and its relationship to real-life sexuality. Psychology &Sexuality, 2, 107–122.

Gilbert, R. L., Murphy, N. A., & Avalos, M. (2011b). Communication pat-

terns and satisfaction levels in 3D versus real life intimate relation-

ships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 585–

589.

Griffiths, M. (2001). Sex on the Internet: Observations and implications for

Internet sex addiction. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 333–342.

Gunter, B. (2008). Internet dating: A British survey. Aslib Proceedings:New Information Perspectives, 60(2), 88–98.

Ludlow, P., & Wallace, M. (2007). The Second Life Herald: The virtualtabloid that witnessed the dawn of the metaverse. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Morris, S. (2008, 14 November). Second Life affair leads to couple’s real-

life divorce. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.

uk/technology/2008/nov/14/second-life-virtual-worlds-divorce

Ondrejka, C. (2004). Escaping the gilded cage: User created content and

building the Metaverse. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved

from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=538362

Ortiz de Gortari, A. (2007, September). Second Life survey: User profile forpsychological engagement & gambling. Paper presented at the virtual

2007 conference, Stockholm, Sweden.

Partala, T. (2011). Psychological needs and virtual worlds: Case Second

Life. InternationalJournalofHuman-ComputerStudies,69,787–800.

Ross, M., Daneback, K., Mansson, S.-A., Tikkanen, R., & Cooper, A.

(2003). Characteristics of men and women who complete or exit from

on-line Internet sexualityquestionnaire:Astudyof instrumentdropout

biases. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 396–402.

Salter, A. (2011). Virtually yours:Desire and fulfillment in virtual worlds.

Journal of Popular Culture, 44, 1120–1137.

Saunders, D. M., Fisher, W. A., Hewitt, E. C., & Clayton, I. P. (1985). A

method for empirically assessing volunteer selection effects: Recruit-

ment procedures and responses to erotica. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 49, 1703–1712.

Smith, T.W., P. Marsden, M. Hout, & J. Kim. (2011). General socialsurveys, 1972–2010 [Data file and code book]. Retrieved from http://

www3.norc.org/GSS?Website

Terdiman, D. (2007, January 3). Counting the ‘real’ Second Life population.

CNet.Retrievedfromhttp://news.cnet.com/Counting-the-real-Second-

Life-population/2100-1043_3-6146943.html

Therborn, G. (2004). Between sex and power: Family in the world. London:

Routledge.

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together. New York: Basic Books.

Weiderman, M. W. (1999). Volunteer bias in sexuality research using col-

lege student participants. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 59–66.

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:939–947 947

123