| URLs in this document have been updated. Links enclosed in {curly brackets} have been changed. If a replacement link was located, the new URL was added and the link is active; if a new site could not be identified, the broken link was removed. |
Citing government interests in making "the new Internet and information superhighway as safe as possible for kids to travel" and in keeping computer networks from turning into a "red light district" (comments made by Senator Jim Exon, D-NE, 1995), Congress recently passed the sweeping Communications Decency Act of 1996 that (among other things) makes it a crime to knowingly "by means of a telecommunications device [make available] any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent...[to any person] under 18 years of age" (47 U.S.C. Section 223(a)). This bill, now signed into law, extends already existing prohibitions on legally "obscene" materials and child pornography to include a ban on "indecent" content as well. In the wake of this broad ban, discussions have raged both online and in the press about free speech, online pornography, and the protection of children.This presentation is a discussion of the legal and social science issues currently surrounding content regulation of the world wide web and the Internet as a whole, with an emphasis on the indecency ban. Specifically, I address concerns that have led to legislation, including 1) the perceived pervasiveness of online pornography (i.e., what has been called the "porn panic"); 2) the perceived intrusiveness of online communication and its accessibility to children and adolescents; and 3) the potential for societal "harms" to children or adults following exposure to online indecency. In each of these areas, I examine the role of social science, both in fuelling the porn panic and in potentially informing the policy debate, and I address the broad First Amendment implications of (inappropriately) applying broadcast regulation standards to online communication.
An old debate in America has been recently renewed and extended in the wake of rapidly changing technology. The perceived proliferation of sexually explicit messages across computer networks has reignited discussion of adults' right of access to sexual messages versus the possible contribution of such exposure to antisocial attitudes or behaviors (e.g., discrimination against women, sexual assault). Moreover, the easy point-and-click nature of many online media, including the World Wide web, has given rise to the additional concern about the availability of sexually-oriented materials to an audience of children and adolescents. Media attention to a (now seriously discredited) study (Rimm, 1995) proclaiming widespread and especially deviant pornography on the "information superhighway" has particularly fuelled these concerns. What Harper's Magazine has called "the Internet porn panic" ("How Time," 1995, p. 11) has resulted in policy makers, parents, lawyers, feminist scholars, and social scientists all arguing about how to (or whether to) deal with offensive content on computer networks.
Traditionally, government attempts at regulation of non-electronic sexual materials have encountered difficulty in the courts when faced with First Amendment challenges. In fact, apart from prohibitions on strictly "obscene" materials, that is, materials that do not receive First Amendment protection if they meet the legal definition of obscenity outlined in Miller v. California (1973),1 the courts have not upheld outright bans on sexually explicit material in books (e.g., American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut, 1986; Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 1962; Butler v. Michigan, 1957), magazines (e.g., Pope v. Illinois, 1987), or films (e.g., Miller v. California, 1973; Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 1973). Indeed, in Roth v. U. S. (1957), Justice Brennan stressed the importance of protection for sexual expression:
- The portrayal of sex, e.g., in art, literature and scientific works is not itself sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press. Sex, a great and mysterious motive force in human life, has indisputably been a subject of absorbing interest to mankind through the ages; it is one of the vital problems of human interest and public concern (354 U. S. at 487).
Inasmuch as sexual materials on the Internet or BBSs are, like X-rated movies and sexually-explicit publications, available for consumption by audience members who seek them, a similarly strict First Amendment standard of protection for non-obscene sexual materials might easily be applied to computer networks as well.
However, many parents and legislators have asserted that special concerns about online sexual and other offensive communication call for less stringent First Amendment protection and a need for regulation. In fact, citing government interests in making "the new Internet and information superhighway as safe as possible for kids to travel" (Lewis, 1995, p. 10) and in keeping computer networks from turning into a "red light district" ("Junior and cyberspace," 1995) (comments made by Senator Jim Exon, D-NE, 1995), Congress recently passed the sweeping Communications Decency Act of 1996, which (among other things) makes it a crime to knowingly "by means of a telecommunications device [make available] any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent...[to any person] under 18 years of age" (47 U.S.C. Section 223(a)). Now signed into law (but facing Constitutional challenge in the D. C. Circuit courts), this act extends already existing prohibitions on legally "obscene" materials and child pornography to include a ban on "indecent" content as well.2
This paper is a discussion of the legal and social science issues currently surrounding content regulation of the world wide web and the Internet as a whole. Specifically, I address the widespread concerns that have led to online indecency restrictions, including 1) the perceived proliferation of online pornography (the "porn panic"); 2) the perceived intrusiveness of online communication and its accessibility to children and adolescents; and 3) the potential for societal "harms" to children or adults following exposure to online indecency. In each of these areas, I examine the role of social science, both in fuelling the panic and in potentially informing the policy debate, and I address the broad First Amendment implications of (inappropriately) applying broadcast regulation standards to online communication.
The initial proposal made by Senators Jim Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton (R-WA) for the Communications Decency Act (also known as the "Exon amendment" to telecommunications reform bill S. 652) sparked heated arguments online and sensational coverage in the popular press. A number of writers in computer magazines decried censorship (see e.g., Abernathy, 1995a; Meeks, 1995; Norr, 1995), although some also expressed a need for online decency (Metcalfe, 1995a, 1995b). Legal commentaries appeared in media industry trade journals (e.g., Corn-Revere, 1995a), and major American newspapers and news magazines covered the constitutional controversy over the bill (e.g., El Nasser, 1995; Levy, 1995a; Lewis, 1995a; Lohr, 1995; Rich, 1995; Wilson, 1995).
Many journalists emphasized the "raunchy" aspects of sexual materials that can be found on the Internet or in private BBSs. For example, a cover story about online sex in USA Today featured a color photo of sexy (albeit clothed) computer images and their corresponding web links together with the caption, "The Internet's seamy side" (L. Miller, 1995, p. 1A). A New York Times headline declared that "Despite [the bill's] plan for cooling it off, cybersex stays hot" (Lewis, 1995a, p. 10). The Wall Street Journal reported that one pornography database shut down due to heavy traffic downloading "electronic erotica" (Sandberg, 1995). Newsweek, with a focus on the issue of children's access, ran "No place for kids? A parent's guide to sex on the Net" (Levy, 1995b, p. 47) with a related article's headline declaring that "with just a computer and a modem, techno-savvy kids have access to a plethora of cybersleaze" (p. 48).
Perhaps the most prominent press attention to the sex in cyberspace debate (and resulting in the most fury online) came with the June 26, 1995 release of Time magazine (its July 3, 1995 issue). Also focussing on the concern about sexual images available to children, Time magazine ran a cover story entitled "Cyberporn" (Elmer-DeWitt, 1995), with the cover photo illustration depicting a horrified child's face in the light of a computer screen and a headline exclaiming that "A new study shows how pervasive and wild it really is. Can we protect our kids--and free speech?" Full-page photo illustrations accompanied the article, including a naked man embracing a computer and a child being lured into a dark alley by a man with a lollipop image on a computer screen.
Widespread discussion had already been going on online, both in the network newsgroups (e.g., alt.censorship, alt.comp.EFF.talk) and at sites on the world wide web (see e.g., http://www.well.com/user/hlr/tomorrow/cyberporn.html), largely about the (un)constitutionality of the Exon bill and government attempts at content regulation in general. However, upon its release the Time cover story itself (Elmer-DeWitt, 1995) came under particular attack online (see e.g., HotWired's web site at {http://hotwired.wired.com/special/pornscare/}). Critics were enraged that in his story, Philip Elmer-DeWitt relied upon the findings and generalizations of a "Carnegie Mellon study" entitled "Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway" (Rimm, 1995) that had been and continues to be intensely criticized by marketing researchers (Hoffman & Novak, 1995a, 1995b), a prominent computer scientist (Reid, 1995), and legal scholars with research backgrounds (Godwin, 1995; Post, 1995). The study proclaimed vast amounts and particularly deviant forms of online pornography, and the Time story touted its findings as having widespread implications for public concern and policy.
In a report published in the Georgetown Law Journal (a non-peer-reviewed legal journal), Marty Rimm (1995) examined the download patterns of images from a number of private, self- proclaimed "adult" BBSs (i.e., BBSs that require payment and proof of age before subscribing). He also examined the number of image postings to a small subset of Usenet newsgroups. Despite his examination of only a limited portion of computer network activity, Rimm made a number of alarming assertions about online pornography in general that researchers have since challenged as unsupported, misleading, or outright misrepresentations of his data.
One now famous (mis)statement about the prevalence of computer pornography is Rimm's conclusion that "83.5% of all images posted on the Usenet are pornographic" (Rimm, 1995, p. 1994). This proportion of Internet pornography could not appear credible to anyone familiar with the Internet (see Levy, 1995a). The percentage actually refers to numbers of images posted to a narrow subset of 32 Usenet newsgroups called "alt.binaries." Specifically, Rimm found that 83.5% of the images posted to 32 "alt.binaries" newsgroups were posted to the 17 of those newsgroups that Rimm labelled "pornographic" (Post, 1995). However, even this is likely an inflation, given that Rimm does not disclose how he counted "images" (many image files consist of multiple posts), he does not discuss how he determined which newsgroups were in fact "pornographic" (in a separate table of the forty most accessed newsgroups, he labelled "alt.binaries.pictures.supermodels" as pornographic), and he does not examine whether all the images posted to those groups were actually even sexually explicit (Hoffman & Novak, 1995b).
Both Hoffman and Novak (1995b) and Post (1995) maintain that the 83.5% figure is grossly misleading. Using Rimm's own figures, they point out that the part of the Internet that involves Usenet newsgroups represents only 11.5% of total Internet traffic, and of that, only about 3% (by message count) is associated with newsgroups containing pornographic imagery. Thus, they conclude that less than one-half of 1% (3% of 11.5%) of messages on the Internet is associated with newsgroups that contain pornography (and many of the messages in these "pornographic" newsgroups are text files that may not even be sexually explicit). Although we do not have such data about sexual explicitness in the remaining 88.5% of the non-Usenet Internet traffic (e.g., world wide web use), it is fair to say that only a small percentage of pornographic imagery, relative to non-pornographic content, occurs in the Usenet newsgroups. Nevertheless, the misrepresented 83.5% is what Rimm listed in his summary of findings (and what Time publicized).
Interestingly, the 83.5% figure itself comes from the small part of Rimm's study that deals with readership statistics of selected Usenet newsgroups. Most of Rimm's data concerns download patterns on selected private "adult" BBSs. Nevertheless, even with this data, Rimm obscures important methodological procedures: he does not make explicit how his sample of adult BBSs was chosen to be "representative" (p. 1876), he confuses the actual numbers of image descriptors that were examined (917, 410 versus 292,114, among others), and he professes both "reliability" and "validity" for his categorizing procedure without providing any data for support (Hoffman & Novak, 1995b; see also Godwin, 1995).
Furthermore, in his conclusions Rimm repeatedly conflates the adult BBS data with the Usenet data, and then exacerbates this problem by generalizing to all of the Internet (see Hoffman and Novak, 1995b, for a number of egregious examples). One particularly outlandish claim is that "after a year of exploring the Internet, Usenet, world wide web, and computer Bulletin Board Systems (BBS), the research team discovered that one of the largest (if not the largest) recreational applications of users of computer networks was the distribution and consumption of sexually explicit imagery" (Rimm, 1995, p. 1861), yet Rimm does not examine "distribution" in his study and only examines "consumption" in adult BBSs. He provides no evidence for his sweeping conclusion about all these network resources.
Despite online criticism and attempts to otherwise publicize problems with the Rimm study (see e.g., Godwin, 1995; Lewis, 1995b; 1995c), many journalists have expressed concern that the Time coverage of Rimm's study, together with "the woeful face of the child on the cover" (Webb, 1995, online), has overly alarmed parents and politicians and has generally "fed the Internet porn panic" ("How Time," 1995, p. 11). Indeed, when Sen. Grassley (R-IA) introduced his own Protection of Children from Computer Pornography Act of 1995, which would prohibit the transmission of any sexually explicit materials via computer networks, he did so with passionate rhetoric inspired by the Time article, reiterating the now infamous implication that 83.5% of all computerized images available on the Internet are pornographic (Grassley, 1995). Law professor and anti-pornography feminist Catharine MacKinnon (MacKinnon, 1995) also featured the "over eighty percent" (p. 1964) figure in her response to the Rimm study, and she extended Rimm's argument about aberrant sexual behaviors, claiming that "the most violent and dehumanizing materials" (p. 1964) are the most frequent. "Pornography in cyberspace," she argued, "is pornography in society--just broader, deeper, worse, and more of it" (p. 1959).
Thus, although the Rimm study may have lost authority in some academic circles and online, in much of the public and political discourse regarding cyberporn, the "83.5%" figure and the conviction that material is particularly "deviant" seem to continue to serve as central features to pleas for government regulation and protection for children.4 In a recent local editorial, activists Santa Barbara County Citizens Against Pornography quoted Rimm's conclusions from Time in order to argue that computer networks are rife with images of pedophilia, bondage, bestiality, and urination (Goss & Picks, 1995).
Unfortunately, where rigorous social science might have served to illuminate the public and Congress about the issue of online pornography, instead misinterpreted findings, unwarranted conclusions, and problematic research methods have served to cloud an already inflamed and perhaps unwarranted panic.
Given the numerous problems with Rimm's (1995) research, his study provides only a shaky understanding of how much and what type of sexual material actually appear on computer networks. Nevertheless, Rimm's data, despite his overgeneralizations, does indicate that a very small portion of total Internet traffic (less than 1%) is devoted to the posting of sex-related photographic images in Usenet newsgroups. This finding is consistent with Tamosaitis' (1995) report that of over 10,000 Internet Usenet newsgroups, less than 200 are related to sex in any way (photographs or discussion). Thus, at least in the realm of newsgroups, sexual content, even broadly defined, appears to account for only a small part of Internet activity.
Rimm's study also indicates that sexually explicit photographs, of even extreme forms such as pedophilia and bestiality, are described in and downloaded from private "adult" Bulletin Board Systems (which require payment and proof of age). However, this is not surprising, considering that the sole purpose of such BBSs is to serve those very interests. In other words, it is not particularly informative that pornographic pictures (or at least descriptors of such pictures, as Rimm measured) are found in pornographic online services. What we cannot determine from Rimm's data, because he only measured a selected group of BBSs, is what is the extent of explicit images relative to the totality of images available across Bulletin Board Systems, as well as compared to images on the rest of the Internet. Without such information, using Rimm's download data on adult BBSs to make statements about the pervasiveness of "online pornography" is like using sales figures from adult book stores to make statements about the pervasiveness of adult books on the literary market.
According to Brian Reid, who for the last nine years has been compiling data on Usenet use for the Network Systems Laboratory at Digital Equipment Corporation, measuring online user behavior is very difficult (Reid, 1995; see also Godwin, 1995). He argues that absolute numbers are essentially meaningless (accurate only within a factor of ten), but that trends either in month-to-month readership percentages of given newsgroups or within-month ratios of one newsgroup to another are "meaningful enough to pay attention to for serious scholarship" (Reid, 1995, online). Such readership trends can be generated for Usenet newsgroups or world wide web pages. However, readership statistics only indicate the relative percentages of "hits" or "drop ins" each newsgroup or web page receives in a given period; that is, how often someone (the same person or different persons?) gained access to the newsgroup or page in this period. It is impossible to tell from such data whether or not any files were actually read or downloaded (Hoffman & Novak, 1995b; Reid, 1995). Moreover, measuring relatively how often, for example, the "alt.sex" newsgroup or the Playboy web page is accessed does not necessarily provide useful information about how pervasive sexual material is in a given computer environment. The "alt.sex" or similar newsgroups may be popular (i.e., lots of lurkers) without there being a lot of substantial sexual material there (i.e., multiple lurkers are all looking at or reading the same selection). Similarly, although one web page can receive thousands of "hits," it is still only one web page among thousands. And although adult BBSs may have many subscribers, material on these BBSs is only a fraction of the kinds of resources available across the rest of the online universe. Thus, for researchers and policy makers interested in how much pornography there is online, data on the popularity of sex-related newsgroups, web pages, or BBSs are not, strictly speaking, an indication of the extent of available sex-related or pornographic material in these media.
Little systematic investigation has been undertaken to examine the extent of available online sexual imagery or discussion. However, a number of cursory explorations of sexual material online have generated much anecdotal evidence, and some "guidebooks" to the Internet sexual universe have emerged. Most of these writers have focused on sex-related photographic images, although a few have explored in detail the phenomenon of sexual discussion as well. Although these accounts provide only a limited understanding of how much sex-related material exists online, they also provide important information about the nature of different online sexual materials as well as fuel for the argument that there is more to sexuality online than just offensive pornographic pictures.
Sex-Oriented Pictures. One journalist (Gleick, 1995) attempted through his own Internet connection to find sexual material, but he encountered many difficulties. Starting his exploration with the world wide web, Gleick notes that many promising-sounding links (e.g., "Girls") resulted either in error messages, such as "Document contains no data" and "Connect timed out," or, given a successful connection, a picture that took a lunch-time to download but revealed a fully-clothed photo of a television actress. He found that some web sites that had closed down (e.g., "Femmes femmes femmes je vous aime") redirected users to a new site where "you can find naked women, including topless and total nudity" (p. 26), but this turned out to be the Louvre museum. Nevertheless, he points out that he did notice many sex-oriented newsgroups and "if you look hard enough, there is grotesque stuff available" (p. 26), including, he argues, gun and militia groups.
Another journalist (L. Miller, 1995), inspired by the Senate's initial passage of the Exon amendment, undertook (with a fellow reporter) an exploration into "the back streets of cyberspace" (p. 1A), including the world wide web, Internet Usenet newsgroups, private BBSs, and online chat. Miller found overall that "the proportion of raunchy material is small, but it exists. If you want to avoid sex online, that's fairly easy. But if you know where it is, you can get it" (p. 1A).
On the world wide web, the reporters found a number of sites for online magazines, with Playboy and Penthouse featuring photographs of nude women, Naked featuring nude men, and Libido depicting slightly more explicit "art" shots. There were also "sexual storefronts" with "adults only" warnings, that advertised sex aids, condoms, telephone sex lines, etc., and there were personal home pages set up by individuals that provided a range of material, from personal photos to "steamy stories" to links to other sites (e.g., to the BDSM [Bondage & Discipline, Dominance & Submission, Sadism & Masochism] home page).
Billy Wildhack, author of the guidebook Erotic Connections: Love and Lust on the Information Highway (1995), argues that people seriously looking for pornography generally subscribe to the private adult BBSs rather than the open Internet, because "the quality of images is poorer on Internet Usenet groups, and there's a lot of pranking going on" (see L. Miller, 1995, p. 2A). Furthermore, he argues that most of the erotic pictures on the Internet are nudes of women, "maybe tens of thousands" of them (typically copyright violations of magazine photos), but "probably less than 100" are of a type of hard-core depiction such as bestiality.
Sex-Oriented Discussion. In her guidebook, net.sex, Computer Life columnist Nancy Tamosaitis (1995) goes beyond looking for pornographic photographs and takes readers on a "tour through the Usenet's red light district." She describes in some detail the content of over 20 different "alt.sex.*" discussion groups (e.g., alt.sex.breast, alt.sex.fetish.diapers, alt.sex.watersports) and several other "alt" groups with sex-relevant interests (e.g., alt.clothing.lingerie, alt.homosexual, alt.amazon-women.admirers). She also provides lists of the Usenet personals (personal want ads) and binaries (pictures only) groups, and she relates the typical goings-on in sexual chat rooms (Internet Relay Chat).
Tamosaitis' descriptions of newsgroup content provide a useful beginning for explaining online sexual activity beyond the mere descriptions of visual imagery that have been the focus of popular media and Congressional attention, as well as of Rimm's research. Relying on newsgroup Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) files, e-mail from system operators, and specific user posts, Tamosaitis describes an amazingly diverse array of sex-related Usenet newsgroups, each with "a defining tone of its own" (p. 70).
Probably the most widely read group, "alt.sex" (an estimated 440,000 readers), for example, Tamosaitis contends consists of an abundance of college students and "feels like a never-ending dormitory party, complete with overflowing beer mugs and horny men" (p. 71). Nevertheless, she notes that "a wealth of sophisticated people who are eager to share their knowledge" (p. 71) also frequent the group and commonly debunk sexual fallacies. Discussion and information seeking take place on a broad range of topics, including, among others, "how-to" information, sexual biology, sex aids, sexually transmitted diseases, and contraception.
Apart from the "alt.sex" newsgroup itself, most of the newsgroups are highly specialized, and people who post inappropriate messages (usually newcomers who have not lurked enough to know the rules) get mercilessly criticized, or "flamed." Comments about dieting woes, for example, are taboo in "alt.sex.fat." In "alt.sex.femdom" (an offshoot of "alt.sex.bondage" that focusses on female dominance), unsolicited requests to start relationships ("wannas") are discouraged, because, the FAQ reads, "a dominant female looking for a partner is more than capable of making her own specific intentions very clear" (p. 83).
Tamosaitis argues that humor is a frequent part of a number of groups, particularly "alt.sex.bestiality" and "alt.sex.breast." Opposing factions also commonly develop within groups, as evidenced by the pro- versus anti-gay male marriage debates in "alt.homosexual," the "vaginal" versus "clitoral" orgasm discussions in "alt.sex," and the "kill Barney" versus "have sex with Barney" disputes in "alt.sex.bestiality.barney."
It is important to note that, particularly among the more controversial newsgroups, a number of posts come from people opposed to the very subject under discussion. Tamosaitis reports that Moral Majority spokespersons and Christian fundamentalists "spew negativity and eternal damnation" (p. 105) throughout all the homosexual-oriented newsgroups (e.g., "alt.homosexual," "alt.sex.motss"), as well as "alt.sex.watersports" (devoted to erotic urination) and "alt.sex.masturbation." "Alt.sex.bestiality" also gets a share of critical commentary (e.g., "why don't you name this new group, alt.sex.animals.rape?" [p. 78]), and occasionally "law-abiding citizens appalled at...brazen illegal conduct" (p. 88) interject comments into "alt.sex.voyeurism."
Ironically, "alt.sex.pedophilia," with its subject matter the most publicized concern about cyberspace (beyond photographs), is not carried by most Internet providers. Tamosaitis argues that, although it may once have been "a feeding ground for pedophiles in the past" (p. 114), it has since been reduced to "a few stale crumbs, soon to be swept away" (p. 114). One user characterized the group's current focus as the following:
On the other hand, "alt.sex.intergen," where the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) posts their press releases, contains more serious discussions about pedophilic desires, including posts on "the philosophical differences between loving and having sexual intercourse with, versus just raping a 12-year-old boy" (p. 111). Tamosaitis does not discuss the volume of activity in this newsgroup, but she does report that a great deal of controversy exists here too, including arguments about abuses of power and responsibility inherent in adult-child relationships, as well as more general comments about sex with children as "morally reprehensible." Not surprisingly, most of the pro-pedophilia posts in either of these newsgroups use anonymous mail servers that keep their identities hidden.
Real-Time Chat. In addition to explorations of the diverse array of sex-related Usenet newsgroups, one study has begun to look closely at the phenomenon of real-time sexual encounters online. In a case study of one commercial provider's sexual "chat" culture, Branwyn (1993) spent time "jumping in and out" of chat rooms devoted to a "curious blend of phone sex, computer dating, and high-tech voyeurism" (p. 784) known as "compu-sex," or text-based, real-time sexual exchanges. Acting as "themselves" or creating completely fictitious identities, participants "cruise" for potential partners (not unlike at a singles bar), frequently changing rooms, looking up other users' "biographies," and exchanging flirtatious messages. Once partners are decided, participants create "private" rooms (which are temporary text exchange windows that the rest of the chat room cannot gain access to), in which they then engage in some form of sexual encounter.
Although Branwyn's case study and Tamosaitis's (1995) descriptions of sex-related newsgroups are largely anecdotal, their discussions provide valuable information about the rich diversity of sexual content online. Together with the limited available data, their descriptions suggest that pornographic photographs and even stories do not comprise the bulk of sexual information online, rather that a host of different discursive "communities" abound and may be a starting point for researchers interested in how people in a number of different ways accomplish sexual communication.
In sum, pornographic pictures, including photos of acts of bestiality, do exist on computer networks, although some writers contend that "serious" pornography seekers use private, adult BBSs, rather than the open Internet (see L. Miller, 1995). The world wide web appears to contain predominantly photographs of nudity, although sex-oriented web sites may be growing. A number of sex-related Usenet newsgroups abound on the Internet, but the content varies widely among these groups, ranging from individuals' erotic stories to explicit discussions of a myriad of mainstream and deviant sexual techniques, experiences, and desires. Sexual chat may consist of anything from online flirting to simulated sexual intercourse.