Courtney Twing

Professor Reid
English 102.20
24/01/15
Synthesizing Lying, Cheating, and Virtual Relationships with Hiding Behind the Screen
Lying, Cheating, and Virtual Relationships
Cynthia Jones, author of Lying, Cheating, and Virtual Relationships, writes about
dating, sex, perks, and ethical problems in the virtual world. Jones beings by explaining a
little about what her four years of online gaming on World of Warcraft (WoW) and virtual life
on Second Life (SL) have taught her where online relationships are concerned. She explains a
bit about how online life is lived, and then gets to the crux of her ethical discussion: is it
considered cheating if a person has a partner irl (in real life) (Jones 151), yet proceeds to
create new relationships in online forums? In addition, is it still lying if it is generally
expected that someone in an online forum is roleplaying and thereby not telling the truth?
despite the medias interest appearing to lie solely in exploiting the freak factor
involved in virtual dating and relationships, a large number of people choose to not only flirt
and date virtually but to become sexually and emotionally involved in a purely virtual
manner. And the number grows daily. (Jones 154) But why would so many people flock to
the internet for a relationship when some are already in a committed relationship in real life?
Jones suggests that the internet gives the opportunity for fantasy, anonymity, removal from
real-world messiness, and perhaps even the cost. Jones is not speaking of mere monetary
cost, although this is included, but rather the cost of aspects of relationships upon a person.
For example Jones lists emotion, fear of abuse, unwanted pregnancy, a partner or spouse
becoming jealous of other sexual partners, and STDs as reasons why the costs of dating irl
may be too high in the minds of online daters. Jones says final obvious perk of virtual
dating and cybersex over real-life relationships and sex the old-fashioned way is the freedom
to disengage (155). She believes this can account for some of the draw of online dating
because you never have to look your partner in the eye and say Its over (Jones 155).
Still, Jones knows that this world is not without its drawbacks. The obvious drawback to
anonymity is that you have no idea of the gender, age, attractiveness, or mental health of
said individual (Jones 156). She suggests that the costs of online relationships are lower, but
that the potential payoffs can also be lessened. Jones poses a valid question: is a virtual
marriage legally count[ed] as polygamy if one or both partners happen to be married irl to
someone else [?] (Jones 156). She answers this by stating the fact that online marriages are
not currently recognized by the government, but that divorce is on the rise as a side effect of
online infidelity. But can you cheat on your partner without ever touching someone else?
(Jones 156). To find the answer to this question, the author turns to ethical debate about lying
and cheating. Jones asks Assuming it is morally problematic to lie to a partner irl, is it
wrong to lie to a virtual partner? (157). The answer seems to be pretty decided in terms of
ethicists views. Most believe that lying is always under any circumstances the wrong thing
to do, and that lying is equal to using a person for ones own means which makes it wrong.
Yet, when both people expect to be lied to in order to keep up a fantasy, it seems less
problematic until irl partners are taken into account. This turns the focus away from lying in
order to role-play with each other and changes it to lying and causing potential harm to

another person. But can a person file for divorce in a relationship with no physical aspects of
cheating? Cheating is typically much more complex than just sex Intimacy with a partner
outside of a committed relationship surely seems to be cheating, especially if we take
cheating to encompass emotional infidelity (Jones 158). Essentially this means that if
someone falls in love with another person, it is far more painful from the authors point of
view than having meaningless sex with another person.
Hiding Behind the Screen
Hiding Behind the Screen, by Roger Scruton, begins by defining our friendships
nowadays as purely behind a computer screen, and posing a question about what this means
for human communication and connection. Is this change as damaging as many would have
us believe, undermining our capacity for real relationships and placing a mere fantasy of
relatedness in their stead? Or is it relatively harmless, as unproblematic as speaking to a
friend on the telephone? (Scruton 169-170). Scruton goes on to say that Absence is less
painful with the Internet and the telephone, but it also loses some of its poignancy
(Scruton 170). He suggests that since almost all of our social interactions can be had through
a centralized site such as Facebook, we cease to go out of our way to make meaningful
connections to the people we love. Scruton asks if it can really be considered friendship if
there is no effort. Real friendship shows itself in action and affection (Scruton 171). There
is a certain level of control that Scruton emphasizes when he suggests that the other may
so grip my attention with his messages, images, and requests that I stay glued to the screen.
Nevertheless, it is ultimately a screen that I stay glued to, and not the face that I see in it
(Scruton 172). But not only do we not have such deep and meaningful conversations face-toface, we also battle other constant distractions such as depersonalized public walls and
status updates which cause your friendship to be demoted to merely a distraction or
amusement (Scruton 172). The author brings to light another aspect which strips personal
relationships away: the avatar. An avatar in an online setting is a character which walks
around in a virtual world and represents you. Scruton references Second Life, a virtual place
with avatars that represent a separate world away from reality and social interaction without
actually immersing yourself face-to-face. In this way, people often observe couples who
have never met in person conducting adulterous affairs entirely in cyberspace; they usually
show no guilt towards their spouses, and in fact, proudly display their emotions as though
they had achieved some kind of moral breakthrough by ensuring that it was only their avatars,
and not they themselves, that ended up in bed together (Scruton 174). But the internet is not
the only thing we use to distance ourselves from making genuine connections to people.
Television does the same exact thing; it is just another inanimate thing in which we invest our
lives and our time instead of people. Scruton explains the television has, for a vast number
of our fellow human beings, destroyed family meals, home cooking, hobbies, homework,
study, and family games (177). But he doesnt just mean that whats on the television is to
blame for our inability to communicate properly. Rather Scruton believes that television, and
all things we invest our lives in besides interaction in a meaningful face-to-face manner, are
simply human replacement. The iPod, says Scruton, does essentially the same thing when
people are out and about. Instead of opening up oneself to meeting new people or seeing
interesting new things, they close themselves off from people, risk and change. The argument
produced by Scruton comes to a head on page 181 when he points out that accountability is
not something we should avoid; it is something we need to learn. Scruton speaks of the
experiences we lose when we are not given the correct environments to learn to take risks.
He likens avoidance of risk-taking to those young people taught about the medical aspect of
sex as opposed to the emotional value of sex; they grow up to be adults who cannot give or
receive erotic love, and so learning to see sex as lying outside the realm of lasting

relationships a source of pleasure rather than love (Scruton 181). Avoiding risk means
avoiding being accountable.
Synergizing Ideas
At first these two articles do not appear to be related well enough to draw a single
point. The first article by Jones is basically talking about moral and ethical issues dealing
with cheating online, and the second by Scruton discusses how we as a society are atrophying
socially because we do not develop the sorts of social cues we need to make and keep
genuine connections with others. Upon looking more closely, the ideas are really two sides to
the same coin. In fact, they are almost a cause and effect of the same societal dilemma: the
social devices abounding through the internet, designed to bring us together, are really tearing
us apart. Because many of us do not have the correct social skills necessary to make genuine
relationships and friendships, having all our friends in one place where we can simply click
on someone (and then turn around and click off of them when we decide we are done), we get
something similar to what Jones and Scruton discuss: Second Life. Everyone is still in one
place, but there is a vast disconnect between real life and the quite literal second life. But
lets say it hasnt gotten to that point. Lets assume we are not yet at the creation of an online
persona. The implications of Facebook (suggested by Scruton) for instance means that those
we think of as our friends really may not care about us as much as we think they do. It
stands to reason that if we click on and off of them, they are doing the same with us. After
reading these articles I feel as though I need to try harder to be present in my real life
discussions, actions, and relationships. Yet questions remain for me. Do I let my old friends
slide away into oblivion simply because it is suggested that I cannot give them my presence,
and they cannot physically be there for me in return? Are my online friends no longer worth
my time? Is it inevitable that society will be unable to properly communicate in the future? I
suppose only time will tell.