334.53) LI. .2...» .E. ; .. 2.: w z: A 3.5.: ‘ , .. .. . . 11.77.: 2 1%. . is...» n .1». , 1 L... use , , 49.33... .. ‘ :39. 13.32 .9“ JD... ~ ‘3m E .. invtiz: . x .. :3? .7 . e... hollrc‘fwfim... :4... 3.0 (:6. 1:17. i: r a: x. ‘ xw.¥...vnu1 4.3.1.3: ‘ E: . . .5: r . ‘ , . A , . . . . . 3:2»! .3. . .1 .5... ._ ... 1. J5; 5:17. 3...: Ls... S 7 -5: Av .VIg N \L . t . :slxl .Eti x. . .3. .‘r;\ glib?! LFyn«O.ll.!€ I.n|| 7 v , 1 E y .n v-. . . . »V . .3...» . [.1 r)...» 51. .3... Thesis 100’” This is to certify that the thesis entitled ONLINE INF IDELITY: SEX DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS AND USAGE presented by Shanna R. Speakman-Spickard has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MA. degree hpommunication QC Cq M CIA,LO(TY\ Major professor Date MOM (9‘: 330$ ._) 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE M123" 2095 35' .’ 01203 106%ng 9639 6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuepGS—sz __ ONLINE INFIDELITY: SEX DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS AND USAGE By Shanna R. Speakman-Spickard A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fiilfillment of requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS AND SCIENCE Department of Communication 2002 ABSTRACT ONLINE INFIDELITY: SEX DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS AND USAGE By Shanna R. Speakman—Spickard Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) is a controversial medium that has been described as both impersonal and interpersonal. The differences in online and offline relationships were evaluated and compared. In addition, past gender research that illustrates gender differences with infidelity was compared to why different genders seek out online relationships while in committed offline relationships. Traditionally, men’s infidelity is explained as being due to sexual gratification or fulfillment while research states that women’s infidelity is due to needing emotional gratification or fiilfillment. It was hypothesized that these gender explanations would remain consistent in reasons for infidelity in online relationships. However, this was not true. There was no significant difference between men and women in their reasons for taking part in these online relationships while committed to offline partners. In addition to examining these gender differences, two research questions were addressed: how did the sample define cybersex and how did they define infidelity. Copyright by SHANNA R. SPEAKMAN-SPICKARD 2002 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks go out to my advisor, Dr. Kelly Morrison, for all her help and support. It would have never been possible to accomplish this research without the guidance and advice from her. Thank you for getting me through this process, Dr. Morrison! Other committee members, Dr. Steve McComack and Dr. Dagmar Herzog, have been a great help as well. Thanks go to Herzog for all her inspiration in class and giving me the opportunity to explore my interests with CMC and interpersonal relationships. The data collection would have never been possible without the help of several undergraduate research assistants at Michigan State University. Along with all my professors and academic support groups, I need to recognize my family. My husband, Mack, has been very supportive and motivating over the last three years of my studies. My parents deserve all the gratitude in the world for instilling me with love, the means for fiirthering my education, and the desire to always do my best in life. Words of praise and encouragement were always present to keep my dreams brightly lit. Without the help on my loving family, I would not be where I am today. Lastly, I would like to thank my students at Fowlerville High School for making me realize that I always have something to learn. They have taught me many great lessons that I will cherish for a lifetime. With the love and guidance of God and so many others, I have accomplished another notch in my ladder to success. Thank You! iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Literature Review ........................................................................................... 1 The Internet ..................................................................................................... 2 Infidelity .......................................................................................................... 6 Sex Differences .............................................................................................. 10 Definitions and Variables ............................................................................... 13 Hypothesis and Research Questions ............................................................... 16 Chapter 2: Method ......................................................................................................... l7 Participants ................................................................................................... 17 Procedure ...................................................................................................... 1 8 Measurements ............................................................................................... 19 Coding .......................................................................................................... 20 Scale Reliability ............................................................................................. 22 Chapter 3: Results .......................................................................................................... 24 Preliminary Analyses ...................................................................................... 24 Research Questions ....................................................................................... 25 Subsidiary Analyses ....................................................................................... 26 Chapter 4: Discussion ..................................................................................................... 29 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 35 Appendices .................................................................................................................... 39 Appendix A: Tables ....................................................................................... 40 Appendix B: Figures ...................................................................................... 45 Appendix C: Survey ....................................................................................... 49 Appendix D: Advertisement and Consent Form .............................................. 55 Appendix E: Listing of Web Sites .................................................................. 58 Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: LIST OF TABLES Categories to define cybersex Categories to define infidelity T-test results of Emotional Involvement T-test results of Sexual Involvement vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Frequencies of participant’s ages Figure 2: Frequencies of online emotional involvement Figure 3: Frequencies of online sexual involvement vii Chapter 1 Literature Review More than 20 million adults living in the United States have expressed that the Internet is an indispensable part of their lives (Miller & Clemente, 1997). In 1999 over 100 million Americans had Internet access while almost 64 million were active users (Dormen, 2000). People report both personal and professional reasons for using the Internet, and this ever expanding usage has led to many questions about how the Internet influences people’s lives. Because it is a newer medium, research in these areas is relatively limited, and the findings that do exist often conflict. One Internet area that is the subject of both frequent “hits” (site visits) and much media debate is the area of cybersex. Although a true academic definition does not exist yet, Cybersex can be described as sexual conversation online to stimulate arousal. One reason for the popularity of this area is that the Internet provides an anonymous arena for individuals to explore their feelings and fantasies. Pe0ple who may never have had a close interpersonal or physical relationship face to face or people who have had problems regarding these face-to-face relationships can now experience these relationships online. In order to better understand these types of relationships, researchers must examine both cybersex and face-to-face relationships. Specifically, researchers must explore whether the face-to-face relationship research applies to cyber relationships. The goal of this research is to examine the prevalence and perceptions of cybersex relationships. To accomplish this, relevant research on online relationships and interpersonal face-to-face relationships will be reviewed. Perceptions of cybersex and infidelity will be explored as well as relevant sex differences between men and women. To begin, research on online relationships will be reviewed. The Internet A significant amount of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) research has been devoted to establishing the degree to which online relationships can be categorized as interpersonal. Many of the findings in this area are contradictory. For example, early Internet research suggests that CMC is impersonal and less social than face-to-face communication (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991; Garton & Wellman, 1995; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986). However, more recent Internet research stresses a great potential for interpersonal relationships, rich communication, and a sense of community (Parks, 1996, 1998; Walther, 1992, 1996; Walther, Anderson, & Parks, 1994). Not only does new research indicate that personal relationships do exist online, but it also indicates that romantic, sexual, and erotic relationships exist as well (Collins, 1999; Hamilton, 1999; Quittner, 1998). One reason that online relationships have been classified as impersonal is because of the lack of nonverbal cues available online (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991). However, people report compensating for this lack of nonverbal cues by using symbols and text that display what they are feeling (Kerr & Hiltz, 1982; Levine, 1998; Rintel & Pittan, 1997). For example, people who chat online have been able to manipulate symbols, letters, and numbers to represent pictures of happy and sad faces, roses, and other symbols of emotions. Some email providers, chat services, and Internet bulletins have added these graphics into their programs. Users can click on a box and insert the appropriate symbol that reflects the mood of the message. These symbols can accompany a message or be sent individually as a response or feedback to the other person in the chat. For example, if someone were telling her chat partner about her bad day at work, the other person could send her a sad face or even a hug which in turn could demonstrate that he was not only listening, but he was listening with empathy. Several studies indicated that online relationships can exceed face-to-face relationships on many levels. Walther (1996) suggested that CMC can be hyperpersonal, such that interactions that take place online can surpass the emotional and affectionate levels of compatible face-to-face interactions. Bruckman’s (1992) research additionally reported that online relationships were deeper and of better quality than offline relationships. Furthermore, hyperpersonal communication has been labeled more socially desirable, for this interaction takes on characteristics of a fantasy for the users (Collins, 1999; Walther, 1996). In particular, senders exaggerate their strengths, minimize their weaknesses, and even lie. Receivers then engage in their own fantasies, interpreting and stereotyping what they want to believe the other person is like (Walther, 1996). And finally, the anonymity of CMC also appears to enhance perceptions of online relationships. Recent research by Heywood (1999) suggested that participants even felt more comfortable saying things to people whom they could not see. When online relationships become sexual, the complexity of the relationships and problems associated with them increases as well. Some research examining sex online does exist, and the findings are contradictory as to its benefits and shortcomings. Hamilton (1999) commented on the debate of whether the Internet is a step forward for human relations or the end of romance by pointing out support for both sides. She stated that cybersex indeed invades the workplace, for 20% of people reported going online at work for sexual material or logging onto hard-core porn sites during coffee breaks (1999). Other problems include the increase of marriage counseling due to spouses cheating with online lovers (Brophy, 1997 ; Edmonds, 1998; Enfield, 1998; Hamilton, 1999; Heywood, 1999; Shaw, 1997); adults persuading young teens to meet them for sex (Alexander, 1998); people being deceptive about age, sex, physical appearance, and marital status; children having access to sex online (Cate, 1996; Lamb, 1998); cybersex leading to harassment, obscenity, frauds, stalking (Enfield, 1998); rape (Heywood, 1999); and its addictive nature (Susman, 1998). Given the range of problems associated with cybersex, it is perhaps not surprising that cybersex has gained the attention of mental health professionals (Bingham & Piwtrowski, 1996). In contrast to these problems, online relationships can benefit many people who may not have experienced such closeness or who have had difficulty with relationships in the past. Online relationships reduce restrictions that once existed; such as limitations of proximity, disabilities, and physical appearance (Heywood, 1999; Parks, 1996; Walther, 1996). The Internet provides a means for meeting people and for establishing meaningfirl relationships, some of which may result in marriage (Bloomington & Lynch, 1999; Financial Post, 1996; Hamilton, 1999; Montgomery; 1999; Sprout, 1997). However, not every meeting online turns out to be a match made in cyberspace heaven. Several of these sex partners and relationships dissolve before a first face-to-face meeting (Hamilton, 1999). Some of the meetings even turn out to be quite a surprise for one or both of the individuals involved, especially if deception and/or exaggeration were involved. However, these issues are also possibilities in several aspects of blind dating. This does not mean that the potential for closeness and intimacy cannot be present. Participants in online chatting have experienced benefits on a personal level as well. One participant in Heywood’s (1999) study stated, “The most amazing thing about having a relationship on the Internet is that you can see inside the person you are talking with. Online, you are talking with your soul and brains, not your body and words from your lips” (p. 8). Levine (1998) stated in her creative lovers cybersex guide that the Internet is a very positive atmosphere to meet someone and to seek out sex information because “it offers a level of honesty that is hard to get from your friends, lovers, or doctors” (p. 2-3). Levine (1998) pointed out that these are all benefits that you can acquire from the privacy of your own home. Additional research has found that the anonymity allows users to safely and freely experiment with their multiple selves (Hamman, 1996; Levine, 1998). The medium provides a means of safe sex without the possibilities of STDs/AIDS and unwanted pregnancy, and it also allows people to get to know each other on a more intimate level (Bruckman, 1992; Heywood, 1999). Levine (1998) even illustrated in her book how monogamous couples can spice up their love lives with erotic chats and e-mails. Even though cybersex can be beneficial to some, the disadvantages can cause a lot of harm to others, especially those who are in committed relationships. When another individual is involved, there are many issues to consider; such as trust, secrecy, and infidelity. Even though the literature illustrates a variety of information on cybersex, the main goal of the present study is to see how if affects the parties involved in committed, romantic, offline relationships. Is it possible that cybersex serves as a new technological way to commit an old sin? Research on infidelity may help to answer this question. Infidelity Online infidelity. Is taking part in cybersex when a person is involved with someone else really cheating? Depending on how seriously one takes his or her relationship, it most certainly can be seen that way. Dormen (2000) described chat-room cheating as “ultramodern infidelity” and possibly a “new way to commit an old sin” (p. 44). Even though cybersex is not the physical act or physically taking part in an affair, it is a form of “Internet infidelity” which has been described as “sexual energy drained from a committed relationship and transferred to others by thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and denied by the practitioner” (Shaw, 1997, p. 29). Shaw (1997) continues to claim that one who is engaged in online sex is an escapee that avoids commitment and is ultimately alienating and self defeating. One of Dorrnen’s (2000) participants felt her marriage was in crisis due to her husband’s online relationship and stated, “he [her husband] was preoccupied with her [a woman that he met on the Internet]. And that meant he was cheating, even if nothing physical happened” (p. 44). The controversy around cybersex and the question of it being either innocent fun or emotional adultery will most likely never be settled. Many different, ambiguous definitions of cybersex exist; however, no one conceptual or operational definition has been developed. Many people do not understand the concept or know how to define it. Some consider intimate chatting a form of cybersex while others state that masturbation with the intent to arouse must be present. Whether or not actual masturbation and orgasm exist between the chatters online, many researchers have pointed out that emotional infidelity can take place online and be just as damaging to an offline, committed relationship as a physical affair (Brohpy, 1997; Edmonds, 1998; Enfield, 1998; Hamilton, 1999; Heywood, 1999; Shaw, 1997). To better understand and compare cybersex to infidelity, a better definition needs to be formed to be both inclusive and exhaustive of all the elements involved. Cybersex and/or masturbating to porn online can both be destructive to relationships. These distinctions are blurred, for no one has really tried to clarify this issue, except Hamman (1996), who stated that a “real” person (i.e., not just Internet porn) needs to be involved in the chat for it to be considered cybersex. Levine (1998) used the term, cybersex, very loosely in her guide for creative lovers; Cybersex includes flirting and intimate chat with others, as well as a variety of methods to just locate sex advice. Collins (1999) stated, “virtual relationships should not be regarded as having the same significance as body-based relationships” (243). Collins (1999) explored the question of emotional adultery from a feminist perspective: she believes that online relationships lack characteristics of offline relationships. She concluded that communication online has been reported as being very intimate. However, Collins (1999) cautioned that feminists who concern themselves with evaluating cybersex as a sexual or emotional fidelity should be more concerned with practical fidelity which “emphasizes interaction between individuals conducted in physical space” (p. 243). On the other hand, other researchers have reported that these online relationships can go beyond face-to-face relationships by being very emotional, in—depth, and a way to act out many of their secret fantasies (Bruckman, 1992; Heywood, 1999; Levine, 1999; Walther, 1996). Infidelity obviously takes place for numerous reasons, yet some sort of attraction usually sets off the affair, whether it is physical or emotional. Johnson (1970) explained that infidelity is one of the most cited reasons for couples with problems and in “every state in the United States and all western European nations which permit divorce, adultery is given as grounds for divorce” (p. 279). With the prevalence of infidelity, it is important to see how technology influences infidelity. Since the Internet has been introduced, people have been meeting people online and establishing relationships. It is important to explore how this new technology is adding to or mirroring the troubles that couples today face concerning infidelity. Offline infidelity. Singh, Walton, and Williams (1976) stated that the best predictor of extramarital sex is premarital sexual perrnissiveness, meaning that if one was more likely to take part in premarital sex, he or she would be more likely to take part in infidelity. Glass and Wright (1985) found that male and female participants who took part in combined sexual and emotional involvement expressed the greatest amount of marital dissatisfaction; they reported that this dissatisfaction can lead to infidelity. Estimates of Extramarital Sex (EMS) in past and present research for American couples have ranged from 26% to 70% for women and 33%-77% for men (Shackelford & Buss, 1997). Although there is a great deal of research on infidelity, it is difficult to find consistency in the reasons why people take part in EMS. Part of the problem lies in the fact that few studies have been replicated. Other inconsistencies exist because of the difficulty in conceptually and operationally defining the constructs involved (i.e., infidelity). Thompson (1983) suggested that there were several definitional issues in defining extramarital involvement, and he argued that these definitions are ambiguous and far from being exhaustive and exclusive. Much infidelity research focuses solely on married couples and disregards other nontraditional, long-term, committed relationships. It is also important to evaluate the amount and strength of involvement of the couple. Prior to the mid eighties and early nineties, little research had focused on the intensity of emotional involvement and centered mostly on the sexual involvement (Thompson, 1983). More researchers are considering and defining both sexual and emotional infidelity (Collins, 1999; Glass & Wright, 1985; Thompson, 1983). Thompson (1983) illustrated how definitions are evolving and becoming more inclusive: the definitions have been expanded to include non married couples who are cohabiting and involved in long-term relationships. The definitions have also been expanded to include non-sexual relations such as those that fiilfill emotional and psychological needs. In addition, sexual involvement has been expanded to include a variety of sexual activities which range from flirting to intercourse. Thompson (1983) even distinguished between adultery and infidelity: “adultery, defined as sexual relations with anyone other than one’s spouse, arises from legal usage. Infidelity is...the violation of a promise or vow” (p. 2). Gordon and Miller (2000) and Shackelford and Buss (1997) defined sexual and emotional adultery in a very parsimonious way: sexual infidelity refers to the partner having sexual intercourse with someone else while emotional infidelity refers to the partner spending time with and forming deep, emotional attachments to someone else. Thompson (1983) coined the term extradyadic relations to include both married and cohabiting couples and included three types of specifications: sanction descriptors, relationship descriptors, and behavior. Sanction descriptors refer to the extradyadic relations/infidelity as being consensual or nonconsensual; relationship descriptors refer to the couple’s status as married, cohabiting, or other forms of long-term relationships; and the behavior refers to the act taking place, such as, intercourse, petting, homosexual acts, misplaced affection, love, and/or emotions. Evaluating relationships under these three sanction criteria would lead to better clarity and understanding of the infidelity that occurs in relationships. Thompson (1983) summarized other characteristics that have been empirically tested as being correlated with infidelity: political and geographic location were significantly related to women’s extramarital intercourse; age was negatively related to extramarital intercourse for men; higher education and lower church attendance were more likely to lead to EMS. However, Thompson argued that many of these correlations seem unwarranted. Marital variables that have an effect on EMS consist of dominance structure of the couple; the type of marriage; the length of the marriage; any divorce history; number and age of children; perceived decline in love for partner; partner threats of leaving; marital satisfaction; romanticism; fiequency of intercourse with partner and quality of that intercourse; and space and time apart from the partner (Thompson, 1983). Thompson (1983) grouped his second set of characteristics that influence infidelity in past research as personal readiness for EMS, and the last set of characteristics as sex and gender. Buss’s (2000) highlighted that costs associated with spouse’s personality, “mate guarding,” (defined as proprietary behaviors), and susceptibility to infidelity, negatively correlate with martial dissatisfaction. Sex Differences. Glass and Wright (1977, 1985) evaluated extramarital involvement and relationship satisfaction. Glass and Wright (1977)suggested that EMS can and does take place in happy and healthy marriages but can still be related to dissatisfaction. Wiederrnan and LaMar (1998) suggested that not only are there sex 10 differences in the repercussions of the type of infidelity that men versus women take part in, but there are differences between the sexes in the type of infidelity that men and women practice. “Women’s involvement in an extramarital affair is more likely to reflect marital unhappiness, but men’s involvement seems relatively unrelated to how happy there are with their marriage” (Brehm, 1985). Reiss, Anderson, and Sponagle (1980) discussed two different types of approaches men and women take when they become involved with '- someone other than their long-term partners. Men take more of a pleasure-oriented approach while women take a more afl'ection-oriented approach. Thus, men seek sex, and women seek affection ( Brehm, 1985; Glass & Wright, 1977, 1985; Reiss, Anderson, & ‘ Sponagle, 1980). Moreover, men and women tend to seek EMS according to traditional sex roles (Glass & Wright, 1985). Glass and Wright (1985) evaluated sex differences on marital dissatisfaction and extramarital involvement, both sexual and emotional. They found that women’s extramarital involvement was more emotional while men’s was more sexual, and “traditional sex roles that influence the expressions of sexuality and emotionality in premarital and marital relationships also appear to operate in extramarital relationships” (p. 1101). This means that women will seek out emotional fulfillment in premarital, marital, and extramarital relationships while men will seek out sexual fiilfillment in these relationships. Gross (1978) claimed that men are socialized to be more sexual while women are socialized for love. Research illustrates that men react more negatively to sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity while the reverse is true for women (Gordon & Miller, 2000; Shackelford & Buss, 1979). Woman can feel even more betrayed by an Internet affair because there is more involved than just sex (Dormen, 2000). ll Other variables, such as equality in a relationship and morals of a committed relationship, were also evaluated in regards to extramarital involvement. Prins, Buunk, and Vaaneren (1993) reported in their marital satisfaction study that inequity was associated with extramarital involvement for women. They also discovered men had a stronger desire for extramarital involvement; however, men and women did not differ in the actual infidelity act (Prins, Buunk, & Vaaneren, 1993). This is one of few studies that reported no significant difference between men and women’s involvement. Is it possible that these gender roles are changing and becoming more blurred? The Internet is just another variable to add in the equation of possible outlets for extramarital involvement. In the past as well as the present, men and women alike have many outlets and opportunities to take part in affairs. Not only are prostitutes used, but friends, family members, and acquaintances of the couple are possible people to have an affair with right along with an absolute stranger. A more recent notion in today’s society is the acceptance of open marriages. Alternatives to the traditional monogamous marriage are open marriages, swing marriages, multilateral relations, and group marriages (Thompson, 1983). Thompson (1983) clarified the difference between a partner approving the actions of an affair versus a partner not being aware of an affair: Extramarital sex most frequently occurs without the awareness or sanction of both spouses. . . .Co-marital (consensual) sex is frequently a basis for alternatives to monogamous marriage, such as sexually open marriage, swinging, multilateral relations, and group marriage (p. 3). With this variety of open/closed marriages, defining infidelity becomes even more difficult. 12 In today’s society, same-sex relationships are becoming more open, exposed in the media, and acceptable. Wiederman and LaMar (1998) took their sexual infidelity research a step further in evaluating how the sex of the infidelity partner influenced how upset the committed partner would be if he or she found out about the affair. Men found that opposite sex partners of their female partner most upsetting while women rated their male partner with another male most upsetting. Dr. Pam (a marriage and family therapist) stated in her interview with Dormen (2000) that the “Internet plays perfectly into male fantasies and female desires. Women love language and words...men hate party talk, getting dressed up and being judged by their looks or the size of their income” (p. 48). Now with the introduction of new technology, meeting people becomes easier. Experimenting with sexual fantasies in a variety of relationships opens up many more opportunities to test new possibilities. However, this opens up more resources for infidelity as well. Phone sex, dating services, and newer versions of computer sexual services have added to the existing outlets for people seeking relationships outside their committed relationships. Dormen (2000) did point out, however, that many cases of electronic adultery seem to stem from innocent conversing online without an intension to seek out sex, love, or romance. Definitions and Vagiables Considering past research in the areas of the Internet, cybersex, and infidelity, definitions for the present study were developed. The type of online relationship evaluated were relationships that used CMC that was Internet Relay Chat (IRC). Rintel and Pittam’s (1997) definition of IRC best describes this form of chatting: 13 [RC is one of a group of electronic interaction media that combine orthographic form with the ephemerally of real-time, virtually synchronous transmission in an unregulated, global, multiuser environment. IRC is essentially a low-bandwidth medium. . . . that fosters casual chat, in that all users are present in the same real- time fiame. . . . and messages are usually answered with little time delay. (p. 508- 9). Face to Face interactions (F tF) are communication occurrences between people when all parties in the conversation are physically present. Online relationships are involvements with people on the Internet who have never met or seldom meet. Offline or FtF relationships are those in which people can associate with their fiiends, partners, and other relationships in a face-to-face manner where all channels of communication have the opportunity to be used and expressed. It is important to distinguish between on and offline relationships without referring to offline as “real” and online as “virtual.” While online relationships are indeed virtual, many of the participants also consider them very real. Cybersex is a very difficult variable to describe, for it is a newer concept with many different connotations. Cybersex will be defined as sexual relations online which include erotic chat with intent to sexually gratify one or more parties involved in that chat. Other important variables include participant’s sex, time online, length and type of both online and offline relationships, and perceptions of those relationships. Participants will self-report their sex, estimated number of hours spent online in the average week, estimated an amount of time spent online with their partner, as well as their perceptions of type and duration of their online and offline relationships. 14 Emotional and sexual needs are important to the present study as well as traditional sex roles of these needs. Traditionally, women have sought out emotional fulfillment while men have sought out sexual fiilfillment, and this process has been explained by social conditioning (Glass & Wright, 1977, 1985: Reiss, Anderson, and Sponaugle, 1980). In addition to the differences in needs between the sexes, the types of involvement will be evaluated. Involvement for online couples will be evaluated on a continuum from no physical involvement to sexual intercourse (Ehrmann, 1959) and no emotional involvement to extremely deep emotional involvement (Sprey, 1972; Kirkendall, 1961). Spanier’s (1976) dyadic satisfaction items will be used to measure both online and offline dyadic satisfaction. Spanier (1976) used ten likert—type items to measure dyadic satisfaction and found that the measure was reliable (alpha = .94). Six of these items were slightly adapted to fit the study. Participant’s satisfaction will be measured by a self report rating of how often the individuals think things are going well with their offline and online partners, how ofien they confide in their offline and online partners, how ofien they consider terminating their offline and online relationships, how ofien they quarrel with their offline and online partners, how often they regret their offline and online relationships, and how they feel about the fixture of their offline and online relationships. Infidelity is one of the most important concepts to the present study. Thompson (1983) coined the term extradyadic relations to include both married and cohabiting couples. In this study Thompson’s definition will be used as well as his three types of specifications: sanction descriptors, relationship descriptors, and behavior. Sanction descriptors refer to the consent regarding extradyadic relations/infidelity (i.e., consensual or nonconsensual); relationship descriptors refer to the couple’s relationship status (i.e., 15 married, cohabiting, or some other long-term relationship); and the behavior refers to the act taking place (i.e., intercourse, petting, homosexual acts, misplaced affection, love, and/or emotions). The type of infidelity practiced will be evaluated according to these three sanctions and will be measured by a self report method in survey questions. The present study is designed to extend infidelity research by determining if current explanations can account for how the different sexes form intimate online relationships. Thus, it is predicted that: H1 : Women will report significantly greater emotional involvement in their online relationships compared to men. H2: Men will report significantly greater sexual involvement in their online relationships compared to women. H3: For women, there will be a negative correlation between offline satisfaction and online participation. Additionally, because this study is exploratory in nature, two research questions are posed. RQl: How do Internet users define Cybersex? RQ2: How do Internet users define infidelity? l6 Chapter 2 Methods Participants Ninety-five people in committed, romantic, offline relationships who were also involved with an online partner volunteered to participate. All participants live in the United States. Participants were 41% male (n=39) and 59% female (n=56). The age of the participants ranged from 21 to 65 years of age (l_\/I_=38.07, S_D=8.78). Figure 1 displays ages by percentage (21-25, 5%; 26-30, 16%; 31-35, 16%; 36-40, 26%; 41-45, 16%; 46—50, 13%; 51-55, 4%; 56-60, 2%; and 61-65, 1%). More Caucasians volunteered to complete the survey than any other race (86% white, 6% Afiican American, 2% Asian, 1% Hispanic, 1% other, and 3% reserved the right not to answer). All of the relationships evaluated were heterosexual relationships. / All subjects voluntarily participated by clicking an acceptance link which served as a consentfiforrrrj Once the agree link was pressed, the survey appeared for the subject to complete. No benefits were offered for completion of _.___».._...._.‘__‘. . - j,“ --o--...-._..__..-._m-w-w<-aw -Is-wvfl.“9w”tn“lw -Hons the 593736,! Participants described their offline relationships by placing them into categories: married, 70%; separated, 4%; cohabitating, 15%; engaged and not cohabitating, 2%; engaged and cohabitating, 4%; dating and seeing other people, 4%; and refused to answer 1%. Length of these offline relationships ranged from six months to 35 years (less than a year 5%; 1-5, 24%; 6-10, 20%; 11-15, 19%; 16-20, 13%; 21-25, 11%; 26-30, 3%; and 31-35, 2%, M=11.4 years, S_D=8.33). Participants also reported how much time they spent online per week (M=23.03 hours, §Q=14.28) and how much of that time was spent 17 with their online partner (_I\_/I=10.67, SQ=10.87). Volunteers completed an online survey that was advertised on and linked from various web sites. Procedure Several preliminary steps were necessary before data collection was possible. A web page was designed and posted with a consent form and the survey about relationships . . . . . V . for the partrcrpants. To be able to attract partrcrpants to 121115 survey, advertisements were __‘4_ posted with several Internet chat providers (i.e., ICQ, Yahoo, and Hotmail). See “07...”; 41.“..3 - F ~ .. '- r-rz- war. ...,q;,.mmw 1191-05» Appendices D and E for a sample of this advertisement and for a list of all web sites where “339395.??9‘119951’5’?13.9.8164 The consent form asked for volunteers who “have an intimate relationship online with someone while in a committed, romantic, face-to-face offline relationship with someone else.” Participants used their own discretion in determining if their online relationship was indeed intimate (this could range from personal conversation to cybersex encounters and even meeting and having intercourse). Participants then completed a 31- item survey (described below). The directions indicated that participants may leave any question blank that was offensive or private. All answers were assured confidentiality. Once participants completed the survey, they clicked a submit button at the end of the survey. All responses were sent to an email account that was set up for data collection purposes only. Data arrived at the account in html (hyper text media language). Data were printed out from the account and then transferred to hard-copy surveys. Hard c0pies were randomly selected to assure that the data were free of error. Once hard-copy surveys were completed, data were entered into SPSS for analysis. 18 Measurement The survey consisted of 31 scale, multiple choice, and open-ended questions. Participants were instructed to check the appropriate response and/or to answer open- ended questions. The first sections of the survey asked participants to assess their committed offline, face-to-face relationship. Participants were asked to categorize the degree of commitment of their offline relationship and list its duration in years and months. Participants then rated how their offline relationship made them feel on a semantic differential scale, ranging from 1-7 and anchored by unsatisfactory/satisfactory; unhappy/happy; bad/ good; not emotionally fiilfilling/very emotionally fulfilling; and not sexually fulfilling/very sexually fulfilling. Participants then completed five Likert-type items (1-6 range, all of the time-never) rating how often: they thought things were going well, they confided in, they considered terminating, they regretted they were with, and they quarreled‘. The last item of this section asked them to rate how they felt about the future of their offline relationship (1-6 range, I want desperately for it to succeed-My relationship can never succeed). These six items were taken from Spanier’s (1976) study to determine dyadic satisfaction. Participants then were asked to indicate how many hours they spent online in an average week and how many hours per week they spent chatting online with the online partner. Participants then completed the same relationship rating items (described above) l The terminating, regretting, and quarreling items were reverse coded to ensure that all high scores represented were happy and satisfied. However, only going well, confiding, and feelings could be used to measure online satisfaction. Understandably, the scale was not reliable with regretting, quarreling, and terminating, for if someone thought that he/she were cheating or possibly hurting his/her partner, his/her ratings could be high in these areas as well. 19 in terms of their online partner and relationship. Additionally, participants rated their degree of emotional involvement (1-5 range, no emotional involvement - extremely deep emotional involvement), and their degree of sexual involvement (1-5 range, flirting - have met and had intercourse). These two items were adapted fiom Glass and Wright’s (1985) study on extramarital involvement. Alterations were made so these items could rate online involvement. Next, participants rated the degree to which their online relationship fulfilled sexual, emotional, companionship, and intellectual needs (all 1-7 range). Participants then indicated whether or not their offline partner knew about their online partner, and whether or not their offline partner approved of their online partner. The last section of the survey asked about their perceptions of online relationships in general. Participants indicated the acceptability of using the Internet for cybersex relationships, both for people who are in committed offline relationships and for people who are not in committed offline relationships (1-7 range, acceptable-not acceptable). For both of these items participants were asked to explain their answers. Also, participants rated the acceptability of cybersex relationships if a committed offline partner approves of it (same range and anchors as described above). The last two items asked participants to define, describe, and give examples of cybersex and infidelity. Mg In coding the open-ended questions designed to answer research questions one and two, an inductive coding process was used where the coding categories were allowed to emerge from the data. Many of the responses had several levels of responses within them. The unit of analysis was their entire written response. The whole unit was analyzed; however, the lowest level of intimacy that was reported was coded as the 20 answer for each survey. This method of the lowest level reported was used for both of the research questions. To obtain intercoder reliability, thirty surveys were selected by taking every third survey from the initial stack. Thirty percent of the surveys were then checked by running analysis of comparison. For research question one (How do Internet users define cybersex?), a simple correlation for percentage agreement revealed a 98.5% agreement between coders. For research questions number two (How do Internet users define infidelity?), a simple correlation for percentage agreement revealed a 98% agreement between coders. Any disagreements in coding were resolved by discussion. The coding categories will be described below and are illustrated in Tables 3 and 4. The data revealed eight categories to classify cybersex: (1) sexual gratification with masturbation while chatting online (i.e., “mutual gratification through masturbation while chatting online.” ; (2) anything that leads to climax (not specifically and orgasm); (3) arousal that could include but does not have to include masturbation; (4) giving sexual pleasure to someone online (describing sexual acts, i.e., “dirty talk”; “describing to the other party what you are doing to him/her. . .sexually arousing the person”; “sharing of sexual experiences and fantasies”; “Cybersex is like phone sex....you have to be able to write visually”); (5) anything involving porn on the Internet (i.e., “Anything on the Internet remotely related to the search word porn. Whether it be voyeurism, pics, mail order videos, mags. personal contact.” and “...erotic stories, chat rooms, photos that in one way or another excites the person(s).”); (6) anything more than chatting (i.e., “Cybersex is not just chatting”); (7) other; (8) none (see Table 1). The data revealed thirteen categories to classify infidelity: (1) physically taking part in the sexual act (i.e., “actually going out and having sex with someone”); (2) 21 anything stimulating/arousing (i.e., “Cheating is touching another person in an intimate way...kissing, groping, etc”); (3) having intimate relations while legally bound; (4) any type of gratification (sexual/emotional, i.e., “infidelity is both physical and emotional”); (5) physical act unless not getting it from partner; (6) seeing more than two people; (7) relationship beyond fiiendship (i.e., “Infidelity, to me, isn’t only about sex....[it] occurs when you allow any type of emotional involvement to occur with someone else”); (8) taking time/resources away from partner (i.e., “to give something to the other person that you’re not giving or taking from your partner.”); (9) betrayal of trust (or secrecy) (i.e., “if a partner is having an intimate relationship without someone outside of the relationship and the other partner is unaware or doesn’t consent, it is cheating”); (10) greater emotional ties to someone else (i.e., “Feeling more deeply for your online partner than your real life one would be considered cheating”); (11) doing something outside the relationship that makes you feel guilty; (12) other (i.e., “cheating is illegal/immoral behavior.”); (13) none (see Table 2). Scale Reliability Three semantic differential items were combined to form a single measure of ofiline relationship satisfaction. Participants rated how satisfied, happy, and good their offline relationship was on a seven point scale. A reliability analysis revealed an alpha = .96 for the offline relationship satisfaction scale. Online relationship satisfaction was measured by combining the same three semantic differential items for online relationships. A reliability analysis revealed an alpha = .92 for the online relationship satisfaction scale. 22 Offline relationship satisfaction was additionally measured by combining six items from Spanier’s satisfaction measure. Participants rated how ofien they thought their relationship was going well, confided in partner, considered terminating their relationship (reverse scored), regretted (reverse scored) and quarreled (reverse scored.) Reliability analysis revealed an alpha = .89. These same six items for online relationships were tested as a measure for online satisfaction. However, the reliability analysis indicated an alpha = .44. Due to the poor reliability, this scale was not used for further analysis. Emotional and sexual firlfillment were each measured by a one item measure that asked participants to rate their sexual fulfillment and emotional fulfillment on a semantic differential scale, ranging from 1-7 and anchored by fulfills sexual needs to does NOT fulfill sexual needs and firlfills emotional needs to does NOT fulfill emotional needs. The lowest number on the scale represented the highest level of emotional and sexual fiilfillment. 23 Chapter 3 Results Preliminag Analyses Hypothesis one suggested that women would report significantly greater emotional involvement in their online relationships compared to men. The data were not consistent with this hypothesis. Independent sample T-tests indicated that men and women did not significantly differ in their degree of emotional involvement (1 = 1.03, p>.05, ns, M = 2.11, S12 = 1.33 for men and M = 2.28, S_D = - 1.36 for women). Thus, hypothesis two was not supported. Hypothesis two suggested that men would report significantly greater sexual involvement in their online relationships compared to women. The data were not consistent with this hypothesis. Independent sample T-tests indicated that men and women did not significantly differ in their degree of sexual involvement (t = -.746, p>.05, ns, M = 2.05, S_D = 1.58 for men and M = 2.29, M2 = 1.36 for women). Thus, hypothesis two was not supported (See table 3 for emotional t-test results and table 4 for sexual results.) Hypothesis three suggested that women would report a negative correlation between offline relationship satisfaction and online participation. The data were not consistent with this hypothesis. Hypothesis three was measured in five different ways. General satisfaction was correlated with five different one-item measures, including emotional involvement with online partner (1:2 197, ns), sexual involvement with online partner (1:030, ns), online fulfillment of emotional needs (_r=.095, ns), online fulfillment of sexual needs (F212, ns), and hours spent online with partner (r=.085, us). The results were not consistent with hypothesis three. 24 Research Questions Research question one asked how Internet users defined cybersex. When asked this open-ended question, 23% of participants did not answer. Several of the participants offered rationalizations for their behavior in addition to definitions. In general, six categories for cybersex emerged from the data: giving sexual pleasure to someone online by describing sexual encounters (31%); sexual gratification with masturbation while chatting online (22%); anything that leads to climax and arousal with or without masturbation (6%); anything more than just chatting(6%); anything involving porn (3%); and other various responses (9%). The responses were diverse ranging on a continuum from “anything more than chatting” and “anything involving porn on the Internet” to “anything that leads to climax” and “sexual gratification.” Research question two asked how users defined infidelity. Again, a wide range of responses emerged. Similar to the data for cybersex definitions, individuals provided excuses and justifications for their behaviors in addition to the definitions. Twenty-four percent of the participants did not answer the open-ended question to define infidelity. Twelve categories of infidelity definitions emerged from the data. Twenty percent of the respondents indicated that it was a physical, sexual act with someone else. Usually these individuals stated that intercourse had to be present (20%). Yet another 20% stated that infidelity can be defined as receiving any type of gratification (both sexual and/or emotional) from someone else. Other responses ranged from having intimate relations while legally bound (6%); anything stimulating or arousing (5%); relationships beyond friendship (5%); simple secrecy and betrayal (4%); anything that is taken away from one person and is given to another(3%); and various other responses. Two participants stated 25 that the sexual act was not considered cheating if sex is not obtained fi'om your ofiline partner. One 46 year old white male stated, “Cheating is when a person with a good relationship, including a good sexual relationship, has sex with another person outside the relationship. If there is no sex at home for no good reason the going outside the relationship for sex is not cheating.” Two more individuals stated that greater emotional attachment to someone other than your partner was more detrimental to the relationship. One individual stated that infidelity was “doing something outside of the relationship that makes you feel guilty.” The qualitative results indicated that people define both cybersex and infidelity on a continuum that ranges from flirting or emotional involvement all the way to sexual gratification. The results do indicate, though, that most of the participants believe that cybersex does involve masturbation and that infidelity does involve a physical, sexual act. Subsidim Analysis Post-hoc analysis revealed several unhypothesized results that merit comment. For women, a significant positive correlation (§=.440, p_<.01) between emotional involvement with online and sexual involvement with online partner was discovered. Furthermore, women reported a significant negative correlation (r=-.353, p<.01) between emotional involvement with online partner and online sexual fulfillment; and a significant negative correlation (r_=-.599, p<.01) between sexual involvement with online partner and online sexual fulfillment. For men, emotional involvement with online partner significantly correlated with all the other online measurements: online sexual involvement (§=.551, p<.01); and online 26 sexual fiilfillment (92562, p<.01). Additionally, men’s online involvement was not related to their offline satisfaction. This is also measured in five different ways. General satisfaction was correlated with five different one-item measures, including emotional involvement with online partner (;=-.098, ns), sexual involvement with online partner (_r=. 156, ns), online fulfillment of emotional needs (_r=.025, ns), online firlfillment of sexual needs (17".071, ns), and hours spent online with partner (_F-. 178, ns). To explore any significant differences between the offline and online relationships, other correlations were run. The emotional fulfillment that participants reported in their online relationships was correlated with the emotional involvement that was reported with their online partner. The less fulfilling that participants rated their offline relationships, the greater the extent of emotional involvement with their online partner, I (93) = -.219, p = .035. When these same correlations were figured by splitting the sexes, there was a significant difference for the women. Women’s online emotional involvement was significantly related to the offline emotional involvement rating. The less fulfilling that the female participants rated their offline relationship, the grater the emotional involvement of their online, 1 (55) = -.293, p = .030. Men’s emotional offline rating was not related to the online emotional involvement, 1 (3 8) = -.040, p = .813, ns. Furthermore, a significant positive correlation was revealed between participants’ ratings of how their offline relationships were going(M = 2.8, S_D = 1.3), compared to their online relationships(M = 4.0, S_D = .98; r (92) = .207, p = .048). Finally, the results indicated that the emotional and sexual involvement with the online partners was very intense. Fifty percent of the participants reported either strong or extremely deep emotional involvement with their online partner. Figure two illustrates the 27 percentages based on emotional involvement. When reporting their sexual involvement with online partners, 22% of the participants had actually met their online partner in person and had intercourse with them. Twenty-seven percent chat with intent of arousal and masturbation while 20% reported flirting being the extent of the sexual involvement with their online partner. Figure three illustrates these reportings. A cross tabulation was run to evaluate the difference between the sexes taking part in intercourse with their online partner when married and not married. While the differences were not significant, it was reported that more non married women (25%) met their partners for intercourse than non married men (17%), and more married men (27%) met their online partners for intercourse than married women (20%). Again, the fact that these individuals are actually conducting the “physical” act of infidelity is interesting in itself. 28 Chapter 4 Discussion The goal of this study was to explore online relationships and compare them to offline relationships. It was hoped to obtain some insight on past sex-role research and how it might be applied to Internet relationships. Even though the data were not consistent with the hypotheses, the exploratory results found in the present study can give direction to further Internet research. It was hypothesized that the reasons men and women pursue EMS in face to face relationships would apply to cybersex EMS relationships. Hypothesis one suggested that women would report significantly greater emotional involvement in their online relationships compared to men. Hypothesis two suggested that men would report significantly greater sexual involvement compared to women. The data indicted that past gender research on infidelity does not explain the reasons for the sexes taking part in intimate online relationships. There were no differences between men and women with regards to sexual or emotional online involvement. The present study leads us to many more unanswered questions, yet the biggest question that needs to be addressed in future research is why there was no significant difference between the sexes involving emotional and sexual gratification with their online partners. Why is it that online relationship involvement does not parallel with traditional sex-role research? Have these traditional roles changed all together, or does the online atmosphere make a relationship more unique? Prins, Buunk, and Vaaneren’s (1993) study found that in general men and women’s involvement did not differ. If sex roles are changing in general, what is the cause? It may be possible that the 29 liberation of women and a workforce which is growing toward more equal grounds between the sexes has lead to more equal thinking of the sexes as well as reasons for being in a relationship. Are more and more women becoming more sexually oriented with the increase of knowledge and sexual empowerment? One explanation is that women may be separating sex and love or men may be beginning to link sex and love. This socialization would support Wood’s description of gender in a “transitional era,” where we are still discovering and becoming comfortable with definitions of masculine and feminine. People are becoming more exposed to alternative views of men and women (Wood, 2001). Several studies have been done on gender socialization which have found significant differences in adolescents who were raised in traditional verses nontraditional families. Children raised in nontraditional families are more likely to accept equality of the sexes. It is quite evident that more and more families do not fit the traditional (stay-at-home mother and father as sole breadvvinner) family model. Several marriages end in divorce and single-parent families are becoming more practiced and accepted. With this in mind, these gender differences are becoming much more blurred than ever before in our history. Many of these single parents are representing androgynous roles in the household. However, if the sex similarities truly are discriminatory to online relationships, we must ask ourselves what components of the Internet make it that way. Is it possible that the anonymity of chatting online leads to fewer sex difi‘erences? Perhaps the Internet is a safe way for these individuals to seek whatever it is that their relationships are lacking. Hamman (1996) does state that the anonymity of chatting online opens up experimentation. Standards by which people may judge others personally do not exist online. Therefore, if a woman wants to expose or experiment with a sexual side, it is safer 3O to do so online. Furthermore, it is less likely that she would viewed by society as a being a “tramp” or “slut.” In fact, some people go online hoping that women will be sexual. Women have the freedom to experiment and express themselves without this stigma. For all of history women have been judged not only by men but by other women as well. The more sexual a woman is, the more unaccepted she becomes. Men have never really been faced with this pressure. Society actually accepts and promotes men’s promiscuity by viewing it as part of their nature. Society has always had norms, and it can be quite difficult for an individual if he or she does not feel like he or she fits comfortably in those norms. On the Internet, one can break out of them and experiment without the costs involved in face-to-face contact. Men can afford to be emotional while women can afford to be sexual. If by chance these behaviors are not accepted by certain people online, the anonymity keeps the participants from truly being recognized as “abnormal.” Hypothesis three suggested that women would report a negative correlation between offline satisfaction and online participation. The data were not consistent with this hypothesis. Past gender research involving infidelity states that women are more likely to take part in EMS due to lack of satisfaction in a relationship while men’s involvement seems to be unrelated to satisfaction. Both men and women’s involvement with their online partners were unrelated to their offline satisfaction. However, several participants did report being unhappy in their relationships. It is possible that the anonymity, equality, and socialization explained previously all play an important role in why the sexes are choosing to take part in online relationships. Also it is important to point out that by increasing the sample size, one might find that general satisfaction and emotional online involvement and general satisfaction and online firlfillment of sexual needs would be 31 significantly correlated. Replicating the study and achieving a larger sample would be beneficial to fixture online infidelity research. Research question one was developed to obtain a definition of cybersex by users themselves. Because this is a newer medium and cybersex is a newer temr, few definitions were found in previous research. It is difficult for one solid definition to exist. Even users themselves reported a variety of answers. However, by letting the categories emerge from the data, cybersex can be defined and measured on a continuum from flirtatious and erotic chatting to climax and masturbation. The same appears to be true for infidelity. Research question two was developed to obtain a definition of infidelity by cybersex users to determine if this term would include these cybersex actions. Infidelity can also be defined and measured on a continuum from guilt and betrayal all the way to the physical act of taking part in intercourse. While 20% of respondents stated that the physical act had to occur for it to be considered infidelity, another 20% stated that it could be receiving any type of gratification, either it emotional or sexual. Just about any definition of cybersex obtained from the users would fit into this category; however, many users justified their actions. Even though the hypotheses were not valid, several interesting correlations were brought forth in the data. Both women and men reported a significant, positive correlation between emotional and sexual involvement online. This is a likely correlation, for the more emotional one becomes involved the more sexual he or she becomes involved. Both men and women reported a significant, negative correlation between online emotional involvement and online sexual fulfillment. Due to high firlfillment being scored by a low number and high involvement being scored by a high number, the higher 32 the level of emotional involvement reported, the more sexually fiilfilled they were. Again, in most meaningfiil relationships, these two variables are related. We can see that these online relationships parallel by having strong emotional and sexual ties. Several different measures of general offline satisfaction were correlated with online involvement. Men’s offline satisfaction was not correlated with online involvement. It is important to note that past research does support this finding. Men’s involvement in EMS is unrelated to how happy or satisfied that they are in their marriage (Brehm, 1985; Glass & Wright, 1977). However, in the present study, there was also no significant difference found in women’s offline satisfaction and online involvement. Yet again bridging the sexes closer in cybersex and online involvement—making the Internet unparallel to past research. Other important points to consider are the levels of cheating involved. It would be interesting to repeat the study and use Thompon’s sanction descriptors to fiirther evaluate differences based on the type of offline relationship and the actual act of “cheating.” Twenty-eight percent of the participants (n = 94) have shared sexual gratification (i.e., masturbation) with their online partner while twenty-two percent of participants reported actually meeting their online partner to have intercourse (women n = 12 out of 56 and men n = 9 out of 38). One women even reported in the comment section of the survey that she has done this repeatedly. She describes her marriage with no love where she’s only there for the children: “I have known him [online partner] 2 years now. And have meet 6 different time for 10 days at a time....we’re both trying to get out of our marriages so we can plan a life together.” Others feel that cybersex is no worse than a magazine with porn, and that it is a 33 great way to express fantasies that are not played out at home. Still others believe that it is not cheating if your offline partner knows about the online relationship. Forty-one percent of the participants reported that their offline partner knows about the online partner. Furthermore, when participants reported answers to the question of acceptability: “In general do you think it is acceptable for people who are in committed, romantic, offline, face-to-face relationships to use the Internet for cybersex without their partner knowing about it?,” 33% agreed that it was not acceptable while 30% reported that it was. The rest of the sample was neutral. Several participants reported that the secrecy or betrayal was cheating. Since their partners knew what was going on, it was not cheating. This needs to be expanded on as well. One can see that the anonymity and fantasy features of the Internet opens many questions in regards to traditional sex-role research. Even though the present study was an exploratory study, one can gather that the Internet and computer—mediated communication seem to differ from face-to-face interaction, yet they have the potential to be an interpersonal medium. 34 Bibliography Alexander, P. (1998, October 15). The real story of the cybersex trial. Rolling Stone, 94-104. Brehm, S. (1985). Intimate Relationships. New York: Random House. Bingham, J ., & Piwtroski. (1996). On-line sexual addiction: a contemporary enigma. Psychological ReportsJ9a 257-8. Brophy, B. (1998, February 17). Saturday night and you’re all alone? Maybe you need a cyberdate. US. News and World Report. 122. 60-61. Bruckman, A. (1992). Identity workshop: Emergent social and psychological phenomena in text-based virtual realig. Unpublished manuscript. MIT Media Laboratory. Cambridge, MA. Available via anonymous tip from media.met.edu in pub/MediaMOO/Papers/Identity—workshop. Buss, D. M. (2000) Marital satisfaction and spousal cost-infliction. Personality and Individual Difference. 28. 917-928. Buunk, B. Extramarital sex in the Netherlands: Motivations in social and marital context. Alternative Lifestyles,3, 11-39. Cate, F. (1996). Cybersex: Regulating sexually explicit expression on the Internet. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 14. 145-166. Collins L. (1999) Emotional adultery: Cybersex and commitment. Social Theory and fictice. 25. 243-262. Dormen, L. (2000, May). Chat-room cheating? McCall’s,127, 44-48. Dubrovsky, V.J., Kiesler, S.B., & Sethna, EN. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction. 6. 199-146. Edmonds, S. (1998, May 17). Issues of sex related material on the web. Canadian Press Newswire. Enfield, J. (1998). Secret.email@sexaffairs: forget phone sex. The wave of the future is virtual. But beware, you may be looking for love in all the wrong place. Flare, _2_Q, pp. 90,94. Ehrmann, W. W. (1959). Premarital dating behavior. New York: Holt. 35 Garton, L. & Wellman, B. (1995). Social impacts of electronic mail in organizational research literature. In B. Burleson (Ed), Communication Yearbook 18 43. Park, CA.: Sage. Glass, S. & Wright, T. (1977). The relationship of extramarital sex, length of marriage, and sex differences on marital satisfaction and romanticism: Athanasiou’s Data Reanalyzed. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 39. 691-703. Glass, S. & Wright, T. (1985). Sex differences in type of Extramarital Involvement and Marital Dissatisfaction. Sex Roles 12 1101-1120. Gordon, A. & Miller, A. (2000). Perspective differences in the construal of lies: Is deception in the eye of the beholder? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 46- 55. Gross, A. (1978). The male and the heterosexual behavior. Journal of Social Issues 34 87-107. Hamilton, J. (1999, February, 22). When cupid uses a cursor. Business Week p. 326. Hamman, R. (1996). Cyborgasms: Cybersex amongst multiple-selves and cyborgs in the narrow-bandwidth space of America online chat rooms.[Online].Available: http://wmv.socio.demon.co.uk/cyborgasms.html Hamman, R. (1999). The application of ethnographic methodology in the study of cybersex. [Online]. Available: http://wwwsociodemon.co.uk/magazine/plummer.html Heywood, L. (1999, January). Surfing for true love. Hues, 8-9. Johnson, R. (1970). Extramarital sexual intercourse: A methodological note. Journal of Marriage and the Farrrily, 32, 279-282. Kerr, EB, & Hiltz, SR. (1982). Computer-mediated communication systems: Status and evaluation. New York: Academic Press. Kirkendall, LA. (1961). Premarital intercourse and interpersonal relationships. New York: Julian Press. Lamb, M. (1998). Cybersex: Research notes on the characteristics of the visitors to online chat rooms. Demnt Behavior. 19. 121-135. Levine, D. (1998). The joy of cybersex. New York: Ballantine Books. Lynch, A. (1999). Online and in love. Accent on Living. 44. 52-55. 36 Miller, L. E., & Clement, PC. (1997). The 1997 American Internet User Survey: Realities beyond the Hype. [Online]. Available: http://wwwfindsypcomfl Montgomery, C. (1999, February 8). Love blooms in cyberland, Insight on the New 15, 37-40. Parks, M. R. & Floyd, K. (1996). Making fiiends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication 46, 80-97. Parks, M. R., & Roberts, L. D. (1998). ‘Making MOOsic’: The development of personal relationships on line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 517-537. Prins, K. S., B. P. Buunk, and N. W. Vaaneren. 1993. “Equity, Normative Disapproval and Extramarital Relationships.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10:39-53. Quittner, J. (1998, May 18). Boogie sites. Time 151, 35-37. Reiss, I., Anderson, R., & Spongale, G. (1980). A mulitivariate model of the determinant of extramarital sexual permissiveness. The Journal of Marriage and the Family,42, 395-411. Rintel, E. S., & Pittam, J. (1997). Strangers in a strange land: Interactive management on Internet relay chat. Human Communication Research 23 507-534. Shackelford, T. & Buss, D. (1997). Cues to infidelity. Personalig and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2; 1034-1045. Shaw, J. (1997). Treatment of rationale for Internet infidelity. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22, 29-34. Singh, K, Walton, B., & Williams, S. ( 1976) Extramarital Sexual Perrnissiveness: Conditions and contingencies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 701-711. Something for just about everyone on the Net. (1996, October 26/28). Financial Post, p. C5. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New Scales for Assessing the Quality of Marriage and Similar Dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 15-28. Sprey, J. (1972). Extramarital relationships. Sexual Behavior 2 34-40. Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organization communication. Management Science. 32. 1492-1512. 37 Sprout, AL. (1997, March 3). Looking for love in all the Web place. Fortune, 135, 186. Susman, E. (1998). Abnormal sexual compulsions linked to OCD: Patients have sexualobsessions but normal sex lives. Medical Post. 34, 58. Thompson, A. (1983) Extramarital sex: A review of the research literature. T_he Journal of Sex Research. 19. 1-22. Walther, J .B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research. 19. 52-90. Walther, J .B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research. 22. 3-43. Walther, J .B., Anderson, J .F., & Parks, D.W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Comqunication Research. 21. 460-487. Wiederrnan, M. W. & LaMar, L. (1998). “Not with him you don’t!”: Gender and emotional reactions to sexual infidelity during courtship. The Journal of Sex Research. 3 5. 288-297. Wood, J. T. (2001). Gendered lives: Communication. gender, and culture. Belmont, CA2Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. 38 Appendices 39 Appendix A Tables 40 Table 1 Categories to define cybersex Number Category GONGMAWN Sexual gratification with masturbation while chatting online Anything that leads to climax Arousal with or without masturbation Giving sexual pleasure to someone online (describing sexual acts) Anything involving porn on the Internet Anything more than chatting Other None 41 Table 2 Categories to define infidelity Number Category \OWNOMbWNu—I n—Iu—Av—bu—t WN—‘O Physically taking part in the sexual act Anything stimulating/arousing Having intimate relations while legally bound Any type of gratification (sexual/emotional) Physical act unless not getting it from partner Seeing more than two people Relationship beyond friendship Taking time/resources away from partner Betrayal of trust (secrecy) Greater emotional ties to someone else Doing something outside the relationship that would cause guilt Other None 42 Table 3 T-test results of emotional involvement Sex N Mean Std. Deviation Sig. male 38 2.1 1 1.33 female 56 2.39 1.33 .919 43 Table 4 T-test results of seml involvement Sex N Mean Std. Deviation Sig. male 38 2.05 1.58 female 56 2.29 1.36 .057 44 Appendix B Figures 45 Figure 1 Partici antS’ A es 28.3% . so.) _ —n.:%§’é‘”~ 7 mernMstm-modlnm' [3 21-25 M 20-30 D 31-35 I E] “45 - 4&50 E3 51-55 D I 6165 46 Figure 2 Emotional Involvement Legend ' lmagec in this thesis are presented in color. I None I Slight [:1 Moderate I Strong D Extramely Deep I Missing 47 Figure 3 Sexual Involvement Legend ‘lmages In tlis thesis are presented in color. Flirting n Intimate chat [:3 Arousal without mastu-bation I Arousal with masturbation [j Intercouse I Missing 48 Appendix C Survey 49 Survey Questions You are going to be asked a series of questions about offline and online relationships. Please remember that your responses are confidential. Complete the survey by checking the appropriate response and/or supplying information when needed. 1. Sex: _male _female 2. Age: years 3. Race/Ethnicity: The first set of questions regards your committed, romantic, offline, face to face relationship: 4. How would you best describe your committed, romantic, offline face to face relationship? __ married _ engaged and not cohabiting _ separated _ engaged and cohabiting _ cohabiting _ dating and not seeing anyone else _ dating and seeing other people 5. How long have you been together with your committed, romantic offline face-to-face partner? Years Months 6. Think about how your committed, romantic, offline face-to-face relationship makes your feel. Please rate these feelings on the scales below: unsatisfactory _1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 _7 satisfactory unhappy _1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 ___7 happy bad _1 _2 __3 _4 _5 _6 _7 good not emotionally fiilfilling _1 _2 _3 ___4 __5 _6 _7 very emotionally firlfilling not sexually fulfilling _1 _2 3 4 5 _6 __7 very sexually fulfilling 7. In general, how often do you think that things between you and your committed, romantic, offline partner are going well? _ all the time __ occasionally _ most of the time __ rarely _ more often than not _ never 8. Do you confide in your committed, romantic, offline partner? _ all the time _ occasionally __ most of the time _ rarely _ more often than not _ never 9. How often have you considered terminating your committed, romantic, offline relationship? _ all the time _ occasionally _ most of the time _ rarely __ more often than not _ never 50 10. Do you ever regret that you are with your committed, romantic, offline partner? _ all the time _ occasionally _ most of the time _ rarely __ more often than not _ never 11. How often do you and your committed, romantic, offline partner quarrel? __ all the time _ occasionally __ most of the time _ rarely _ more often than not _ never 12. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the future of your committed, romantic, offline relationship? _ I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to almost any length to see that it does. _ I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do all I can to see that it does. _ I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do my fair share to see that it does. __ It would be nice if my relationship succeeded, but I can ’t do much more than 1 am doing now to help it succeed. __ It would be nice if it succeeded, but I refuse to do any more than I am doing now to keep it going.____ _ My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more that I can do to keep the relationship going. 13. How many hours do you spend online in an average week? hours per the average week The next set of questions regard your online relationship with someone else other than your committed, romantic, offline partner. 14. How many hours do you spend online chatting with your online partner per week? hours per the average week 15. Now think about your online relationship with the person other than your offline partner. How would you rate your online relationship on the scales below? unsatisfactory _1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 _7 satisfactory unhappy _1 _2 _3 _4 __5 _6 _7 happy bad __1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 _7 good not emotionally firlfilling _1 ___2 _3 _4 ___5 __6 __7 very emotionally fiilfilling not sexually firlfilling _1 _2 3 4 5 6 _7 very sexually firlfilling 16. In general, how often do you think that things between you and your online partner are going well? _ all the time __ occasionally _ most of the time _ rarely __ more often than not __ never 5] 17. Do you confide in your online partner? _ all the time _ occasionally _ most of the time _ rarely _ more often than not _ never 18. How often have you considered terminating your online relationship? _ all the time _ occasionally _ most of the time _ rarely _ more often than not _ never 19. Do you ever regret that you chat with your online partner? _ all the time _ occasionally _ most of the time _ rarely _ more often than not _ never 20. How often do you and your online partner quarrel? _ all the time _ occasionally __ most of the time __ rarely _ more often than not _ never 21. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the future of your online relationship? _ I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to almost any length to see that it does. __ I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do all I can to see that it does. _ I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do my fair share to see that it does. _ It would be nice if my relationship succeeded, but I can ’t do much more than I am doing now to help it succeed. _ It would be nice if it succeeded, but I refuse to do any more than I am doing now to keep it going. _ My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more that 1 can do to keep the relationship going. 22. What is the extent that you have been emotionally involved with your online partner? _ no emotional involvement _ slight emotional involvement _ moderate emotional involvement _ strong emotional involvement _ extremely deep emotional involvement 23. What is the extent that you have been sexually involved with your online partner? _flirting _chat dates with intimate, personal conversation with slight sexual connotation _typing with intent of arousal without masturbation _typing with intent of arousal with masturbation _ have met and had intercourse 52 24. Please describe your online relationship using the following scales. fulfills sexual needs_1 _2 _3 _4 5 _6 _7 does NOT fulfill sexual needs fulfills emotional needs _1 _2 _3 _4 5 _6 _7 does NOT fulfill emotional needs offers companionship _1 _2 3 4 5 _6 _7 does NOT offer companionship firlfills intellectual needs _1 _2 3 4 5 6 7 does NOT fulfill intellectual needs 25. Does your committed, romantic, offline partner know about your online relationship with this other person? _Yes or _No 26. If you marked yes for question #25, think of the extent to which your committed, romantic offline partner approves. Please mark on the scale below. Approves _1 2 3 4 5 _6 _7 Disapproves The last set of questions are how you feel in general about online relationships. 27. In general do you think it is acceptable for people who are not in a committed, romantic, offline face-to-face relationship to use the Internet for cybersex? Acceptable _l _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 _7 Not Acceptable Please explain your answer: 28. In general do you think that it is acceptable with people who are in a committed, romantic, offline face-to-face relationships to use the Internet for cybersex without their partner knowing about it? Acceptable _1 _2 3 4 5 _6 _7 Not Acceptable Please explain your answer: 29. In general do you think that it is acceptable for people in a committed, romantic, offline face-to-face relationship to take part in cybersex if their partner approves of it? Acceptable _1 _2 __3 _4 _5 _6 _7 Not Acceptable Please explain your answer: 53 30. People define cybersex differently. How do you define cybersex? Please describe and give examples to help clarify. 31. People define cheating differently. How would you personally define infidelity? Please describe and give examples to help clarify. 54 Appendix D Advertisement and Consent form 55 Advertisement Bulletin: Do you have an intimate relationship online with someone while in a committed, romantic, face-to-face offline relationship with someone else? If so and you would like to help out a graduate student from Michigan State University in the department of communication with her Master’s thesis in comparing online and offline relationships, click the link to the survey below and complete it. This should only take about 15 minutes of your time and would be greatly appreciated. Please answer honestly. All responses are guaranteed confidential and will be protected, meaning that no one will have any connection with the responses you particularly make other than myself (the researcher) in anyway. Any links will be destroyed once data is collected and coded. Survey Link 56 Consent Form: Dear Participant, The following survey contains questions comparing offline and online relationships. The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. All of your answers on the survey are completely confidential. This means that I (the researcher) will be the only one to know your particular responses. Your name or e-mail address will not be linked in any way to your responses on this questionnaire, and you will not be identified in any report of the findings. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. You may choose to stop at any time or skip questions if you are uncomfortable answering them. If you have any questions about the study, please email me at speakman@msu.edu. Sincerely, Shanna R. Speakman Masters Student Michigan State University Department of Communication Clicking the agree box indicates that you have read and understood this form, and that you give informed consent to your responses as data in this study. The survey follows. 57 Appendix E List of Web Sites for Advertisements 58 Web Address Club Name YAHOO http://clubs.y@o.com/clubs/girlfriendbofiiendclub Girlfiiend, Boyfiiend Club http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs_/cyberlovers Cyberlovers http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/cvberspouses Cyberspouses http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/exmaritalaffairsuppgroup Extramarital Affairs Support Group http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/nymarrieds4affairs NY Married for Affairs http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/theotherwomfl The Other Woman http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/chicagomarriedandlooking Chicago Married & Looking http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/affairclubofind Affair Club of MD http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/affairsforraleighdurhamnc Affairs for Raleigh Durham NC http://au.clubsyahoo.com/clubs/jimsfirnhouse Jim’s Funhouse http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/flirtingmarriedjacksonvillefl Flirting, Married Jacksonville FL http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubMniedhoosierswantingmore Married Hoosiers Wanting More http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/seekinglatinladiesonly Seeking Latin Ladies Only httpzl/clubsyahoo.com/cluba/thechoklitfactog The Choklit Factory http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/pittsburghextramartialhangout Pittsburgh Extramarital Hangout http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubflmramantalafiainntemessee Extramarital Affair in Tennessee http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/inmesotaemrmantdaflairs Minnesota Extramarital Affairs http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubsialittleextrainlosa_ngles A Little Extra in Los Angeles http://clubs.yahoo.comIcluba/newyorkmalesforcheatingvMiV NY Males for Cheating as Wives 59 http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/marriedandlookingmo Married and Looking MO http://clubs.yahoo.com/clulfi/lookingforextrafiminohio Looking for Extra Fun in Ohio http://clubs.vahoo.com/cluba/coloradoextramaritalseekers Colorado Extramarital Seekers http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/inlandempirecaliforniaaffairs Inland Empire California Affairs http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/seducingmaniedwomen Seducing Married Women http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/flingsandaffairsmelb F lings and Afl‘airs Melb http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/minneapolisextramaritalaffairs Minneapolis Extramarital Affairs http://clubmhoo.com/cluba/descreetgffairsinwisconsin Discreet Affairs in Wisconsin http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/descreetaffairsinlouisville Discreet Afl‘airs in Louisville http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/utahextramaritalaffairs Utah Extramarital Affairs http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/discreetcheatersdallaa Discreet Cheaters of Dallas http://clubs.yahoo.cchlubs/mameiandseelingasoulm Married & Seeking a Soulmate http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/marriedflirtingandlovingit Married, Flirting, & Loving it http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/marriedlonelyandhurt Married, Lonely, & Hurt http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/onlinerelationships Online Relationship http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/unhappilmarried Unhappily Married http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/datingservice Dating Service http://ca.clubs.yaaoo.com/clubs/Mseekiflmore Seekingmore http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/peoplehavinganaffair People Having an Affair http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/onlineromanceandrelationship 8 Online Romance and Relationships http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/findonlinerelationships Find Online Relationships 6O http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/onlineromances Online Romances http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/calgarysexplay Clagary Sexplay http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/ritasspicecorners Rita’s Spice Corner http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubalsecretaffairsinnewhampshire Secret Affairs in New Hampshire http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/edmontonalbertadiscreetaffair Edmonton Alberta Discreet Affair http://clubs.yahoo.com/cluba/secretsinkentucky Secrets in Kentucky EXCI TE http://boards.excite.com/boids@ddtopic?id=151620604 Big & Beautifirl http://boards.excite.com/boards/addtopic?id=15:620573 By Age Group http :l/boards. excite.com/boards/addtopic?id=1 5:620612 By Age Group/20ish http://boards.excite.com/boards/addtopic?id=15262061 5 By Age Group/3 Oish http:I/boardsexcite.com/boaLs/gdtopicfidfl 5 :620629 By Age Group/40ish http://boards.excite.com/boards/addtopic?id=15:620632 By Age Group/50ish http ://boards. excite. com/boards/addtopic?id=1 5 : 880762 Dating http ://boards. excite. com/boa_rda/addtopic?id=1 5 : 57 1 524 Pen Pals http ://boards. excite. com/boards/addtopic?id=1 5 :94 106 Love Online http ://boards.excite. com/boMltorfichdfl 5 : 8823 18 Are Online Affairs Wrong? http :l/boards. excite. com/boards/addtopic?id=1 5:93 21 24 7?? TALK CITY http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- Personals/Online bin/WebX.cgi?l3@62.meraijiOO"21933@.ee95e34 http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- Personal/Romantic bin/WebX.cgi?9@62.meraijiOO"21935@.ee8ea38 http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- Personal/Family bin/WebX.cgi?9@62.merajMniOOAZ1939@.ee8ea3e http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- Personals/Friends bin/WebX.cgi?9@62.merajMniOO"21943@.ee8ea3c 61 http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- Personals/Pen Pals bin/WebX.cgi?9@62.merajMniOOAZ1947@.ee8ea3a http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- Women Online World bin/WebX.cgi?9@62 . TgigaDsOiabAl @.ee9aa90 http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- bin/WebX.cgi?9@62.TgigaDsOiab"5@.ee90409 Women Together Forum http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- Asia American Chat bin/WebX.cgi?9@62.TgigaDsOiab"l 1@.eecbc64 http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- Afiican American bin/WebX.cgi?9@62.TgigaDsOiab"1 5@. ee8ee69 http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- Lifesytles bin/WebX.cgi?9@62.TgigaDsOiab"40@.eeac80d http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- Lifestyles/Polls bin/WebX.cgi?9@62.TgigaDsOiab"48@.eea5959 http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- College/Polls bin/WebX.cgi?9@62.TgigaDsOiabAS5@.eea5ef6 http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- Relationships bin/WebX.cgi?9@62.TgigaDsOiab"59@.ee9ad6e http://boards.talkcity.com/cgi- Online Personals bin/WebX.c i?9 62.Nblaallviio"2 .ee95e34 LYCOS http://clubs.lycos.com/live/AUTH/Annotation/AddAnnotati on.asp?CG=6m4c7luv6va13ak401 88mmh7t0&Gl=9743 1 Marriage & Commitment http://clubs.lycos.com/live/AUTH/Annotation/AddAnnotati on.asp?CG=5m4c7luv6va13ak40188mmh7t0&Gl=97397 20 Something http://clubs.lycos.com/live/AUTH/Annotation/AddAnnotati on.asp?CG=5 g4c7luv6va1 3 ak401 88mmh7t0&Gl=973 76 30 Something http://clubs.lycos.com/live/AUTH/Annotation/AddAnnotati on. asp?CG=5u4c7luv6va1 3 ak401 88mmh7t0&Gl=973 90 40 Something http://clubs.lycos.com/live/AUTH/Annotation/AddAnnotati on.asp?CG=624c7luv6va13 ak401 88mmh7t0&Gl=97469 50 Something http://clubs.lycos.com/live/AUTH/Annotation/AddAnnotati on.asp?CG=664c7luv6va13ak401 88mmh7t0&Gl=97434 60+ http://clubs.lycos.com/live/AUTH/Annotation/AddAnnotati on. asp?CG=6a4c7luv6va1 3 ak401 88mmh7t0&Gl=9747 9 Advice 62 http://clubs.lycos.com/1ive/AUTH/Annotation/AddAnnotati Broken Hearted on. asp?CG=6e4c7luv6va1 3 ak401 88mmh7t0&Gl=97609 http://clubs.lycos.com/live/AUTH/Annotation/AddAnnotati Divorced on. asp?CG=6i4c7luv6va1 3 ak401 88mmh7t0&Gl=973 91 http://clubs.lycos.com/live/AUTH/Annotation/AddAnnotati Singles on. asp?CG=6g4c7luv6va1 3ak401 88mmh7t0&Gl=943 75 http://clubs.lycos.com/live/AUTH/Annotation/AddAnnotati Friendship Café on. asp?CG=6u4c7luv6va1 3 ak401 88mmh7t0&Gl=9747 8 http://clubs.lycos.com/1ive/AUTI-I/Annotation/AddAnnotati Bisexuals on. asp?CG=5 a4c7luv6va1 3ak401 88mmh7t0&Gl=97450 http://clubs.lycos.com/live/AUTH/Annotation/AddAnnotati Romance on. asp?CG=3gsfl1rh3 on9 1 3 31e004cfcdhuo&Gl=9940 FLIRT S. COM http://www.flirt.com/cgi- Personals bin/ad_display. cgi?sid=24869984&key=4 1 983&membershi p_state=205 872&refresh=96 1 1 8647 1& 63 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII illHilllililll‘llljlljlilfllllfllll