College Sex - Philosophy for Everyone: Philosophers With Benefits by Fritz Allhoff, Michael Bruce

of communication following hanging out or hooking up is often an indicator of how things went. If things went well, or at least was per- ceived that way by one of the people, direct contact like a phone call or text message is likely. This immediate gesture signals that he is very inter- ested and wants to continue in courtship. The response to this act is equally important. If the call is taken, which is a large clue already, the status of courtship or attraction, and so on, is normally obvious by the conversation. If the call is not answered and a message is left, the technol- ogy the person replies with – if he does at all – points to his level of inter- est. If a phone call is responded to with a text message, if a text message is responded to with an online message or email, if an online message is responded to with a public profile post, this would be a huge sign showing a lack of interest or a sense of uneasiness. This move, which may not be consciously chosen, creates distance and brings the relationship into a “safe” place of objects where a battery of technological gestures can help him manage the situation. In sum, it is easier to give and take bad news online. The alienation of people by the distancing and objectifying tech- nology makes it easier for people to break up or brush people off.
    Shy college students use level jumping to their advantage. There are a number of reasons why college suitors prefer to use online media for courtship, especially when it comes to meeting and introductions to new people. A person who may be socially awkward or have challenging inter- personal skills may be much more successful using the text-work of the Internet. The incredible amount of control over how she can frame her information and online persona gives rise to an alternate online-ego or confidence, behind or through which the suitor may exploit opportunities
    not available ten years ago. Shy and soft spoken sensibilities can become, often comically, robust and aggressive when enough distance and subter- fuge is in play.
    When Internet dating was still relatively new and heavily stigmatized, popular culture had a running gag: a new and exciting online romance would be depicted, followed by the first face-to-face meeting … and … neither person would be anything like they described themselves to be. The butt of the joke was often a geeky college kid. The mode of commu- nication used by these shy suitors is also used in relationships where someone cannot express themselves in person. Many important conver- sations, fights, and love letters are enacted this way, because they might be too upset, intimidated, or flustered to articulate it in person.
    It can be hard to judge if “level jumping” is disrespectful or not. Prior to the social media craze, the moral standard was that breaking up was done face-to-face. Doing it over the phone was not acceptable, and there was a level of respect perceived when breaking up in person. From this perspective, brushing someone off via online message would amount to a slap in the face. But I am not sure online junkies would agree. If most of the relationship, however brief it may have been, takes placed via indi- rect technologies, then perhaps online is an appropriate space to give bad news. This is also much more acceptable if the couple met online; court- ship here still has a level of unreality associated with it. It would be com- pletely normal to hear a rationalization like, “It was an online thing. I met them on that website; it didn’t work out, no big deal.” Now it may have been the case that these people just did not have a connection, and meet- ing online was not a factor. However, I suspect that framing relationship reports with technology like this can be used to lessen the social stigma of a failed relationship – “It was just an online thing.”

    Black Holes

    There are some places where technology is seemingly abandoned and college kids revert to the