Is Google's PG-13 virtual world doomed to be NC-17?

There’s just no denying that our world is full of perverts. Thankfully, we have social norms, prison and pepper spray to keep them at bay.

Not so in the virtual world, where pervs run wild and free. They especially seem to like haunting 3D online communities like Second Life and the new Google Lively. While a vast majority of the users are upstanding citizens, it only takes a handful of creepy pedophiles and porn peddlers to ruin the fun for everybody.

So here’s my question: What should companies like Google do about it? Quash sex out of the virtual space altogether? Or segregate the furries, tentacle pornographers and other ne’er-do-wells into their own dark corner?

Since launching Lively last month, Google has valiantly tried to make it a nonsexual place to fraternize. The developers were smart enough to know that flirting would be common, and they’ve built that into the gestures your character can use with others. But there’s no overtly sexual gesture, as compared to the veritable orgy you can find over at Second Life.

It’s a bit unfair to compare Lively and Second Life this way. Second Life is 18 and over, so adult themes are to be expected and, I suppose, tolerated. Lively is open to anyone 13 or over (with parental consent under 18), so Google opted to block sex altogether.

You may be shocked to learn that it’s not working.  Saucy details and exploited robots after the jump.

The Mashable blog today covered a truly bizarre bit of vicarious perversion in which some Lively users are simulating sex through something called a “Robot Closet.” I can’t do justice to the description, so here’s a quote from the Second Life Herald's spin on "To Catch a Predator":

"Lively players feeling amorously inclined will place a Robot Closet in a secluded chatroom, then position themselves so that the animated arms of the closet appear to thrust from one player into another. Vigorous clicking of the closet follows, to trigger the animation as the avatars pleasure each other."

Wow. Sounds like a fantastic way to spend a weekend.

I have to say, if this strange H.R. Geiger-meets-William-Burroughs bit of performance art were the most graphic thing happening on Lively, I wouldn’t be too concerned.

But it doesn’t exactly take Inspector Clouseau to find sex on Lively.  The game is divided into rooms, and several of the most active rooms are sexually themed. This afternoon, some of the most popular rooms on Lively were “Sexy Babes Club,” “Sex on the Beach,” and “Erotic Club.” That’s not counting the dozens you get if you search for terms like “sex,” “girls,” etc.

What has surprised me is the number of people saying that Google should just relent and allow sexual content, since it’s going to happen anyway.

Shortly after the launch, Eric Krangel at Silicon Alley Insider captured the argument pretty well:

"There are lots of people engaged in grown-up behavior at Second Life because lots of people like to engage in grown-up behavior. And limiting what people want to do in a virtual world seems like a good way to discourage them from showing up at the first place."

I see the logic, but I have to disagree. There are no shortage of sex sites on the Web, and Google has a chance here to really open up virtual worlds to a much wider audience who've been wary of Second Life's illicit subcultures.

Personally, I think Google should drop the hammer on this sexplosion while the site is young. It doesn’t take long for a social network to build a reputation, and if Lively comes off looking so sketchy just one month into its lifespan, then it’ll never get the mainstream appreciation that Google is hoping for.

It feels weird to say all this, because I’m definitely not a prude. I’m fine with consenting adults doing whatever they want. But I appreciate the fact that Google is trying to create a virtual utopia where people don’t frighten children, scare away newcomers and molest innocent robot closets.

Is that so wrong?

Comments

[turn.self.off]

hmm, i wonder how lively compares to imvu. the latter have a specific item that allows more adult stuff, but can only be bought by creditcard...

[Porker Borkotron]

This is a really good reminder about what virtual worlds are primarily used for. It's easy to forget this given the starry-eyed marketing that companies like Linden Lab, IBM, and now Google like to throw around when talking about the virtues of virtual worlds. Most virtual world enthusiasts tend to espouse the non-sexual activities, but they're usually typically in denial or may not even be aware how much their sexual activities are what motivate them to spend so much time in these worlds. Anytime you hear a new company stepping into this market, you really need to examine their product with a critical eye as to how much they're recognizing this fact. If they're naive enough to think they can sanitize the experience, their service will very likely fail, there just isn't any other very compelling use case.

[Alan Wolk]

To Porker's point David, it may just be that there isn't a whole lot of reason to be in one of these virtual worlds other than the sex.

We're time-crunched enough as it is, and the virtual worlds of child-themed sites like Webkinz appeal to, well, children. (They also rely on the fact that you need to play non-virtual arcade-style games to win the cash to play with your virtual pets.)

The technology behind these virtual worlds has applications beyond game-playing, but it may just be that they become apps for business conferences or shopping, rather than full-on worlds.