After guilt, the deluge

Just because you've never heard of me until this blog doesn't mean I haven't been doing my bit. You are quite right, and I apologize for my overreaction. That was a most regretable way to express my feelings. The adjustment to my expressed point then is this: at what point do you distinguish between consensual activity and the general definition of guilt? The general (and arguably oversimplified) way to put what you are saying is: exhibitionism is bad, and the person partaking of it is bad. Your example remains weak, from my POV. I certainly have personal axes around the bullying counter-example I offer, but I contend that it's the everyday interactions we need to focus on, not the narrow and impersonal focus of an online phenomenon. I should add, at this point, that I agree that the "sensibility" you and the article describe is deliterious; I cannot join you in calling it monstrous, at least not with the rest of the "sensibilities" I see.

Rod writes: The "monstrous phenomenon" is not the advent of blogs or online communities, and it surprises me that I would have to use a blog to point that out. The m.p. of which I speak is the sensibility reported in the NY magazine story, a sensibility that's apparently generational, in which young people are perfectly willing to violate their own privacy by putting their most intimate thoughts and deeds online, in a permanent record for all to see. It's not that online communities exist -- they do, and I've long been part of several -- but the kinds of things people are now putting online, and the revolutionary, unprecedented change in consciousness regarding privacy that the new technology is bringing about. However, this willing (and it is very willing; no one is forcing young people to do this) abnegation of privacy is precisely what people will get, were we to return to true "village" or "small town" life. Keep in mind that until the early 20th century in rural France, for instance, the bride was still expected to hang out the sheet the morning after her wedding night, so the whole village could see the proof of her virginity. Rose Wilder Lane left Mansfield, MO, for many reasons - but one was the petty, intrusive, gossipy nature of small town life, where everything was known about everyone else - and if it wasn't, you can be sure they were going to find out. This is the same phenomenon with the i-village. To me, the phenomenon makes perfect sense. This is the coming-of-age of the Playdate Generation: the kids who grew up in the Littleton, COs of the USA, with their nonexistent sidewalks; their social and physical isolation; their car culture; their hyper-organized after-school lives. This is their way to break free and meet people spontaneously, on their own. Of course it's going to involve technology, and of course it's going to involve the shedding of "privacy" - because "privacy" isn't what they want - friendship and connection are what they want. And for some, yes, some sex too. Also, the younger people are not afraid of "predators" or other bugaboos. They trust each other. Perhaps this is stupid - but perhaps not. The greatest dangers to people come from other people they know IRL. For instance, a woman is far more likely to be murdered by an irate ex than by someone she meets online (especially someone of her own sex.) Many people all through the world live their whole lives without an upper-middle-class notion of "privacy" (like the poor in India who may live their whole lives literally out on the street.) Some anthropologists think that language evolved largely as a way for people to talk about one another, to socially interact. Most of human communication is pretty low in content anyway - made up mostly of reinforcement, social "fluff," reassurance or teasing. So is most internet communication too, especially on young peoples' sites. Most people are social, especially the young. This is their outlet.