It might be interesting for folks to look at John Suler's writing on "online disinhibition effects." Suler starts with what we all observe (that folks tend to act differently IRL than OL) and tries to pick apart the threads that lead us there. In general, all effective communication is built on a combination of unconscious rules and social cues, or signals from those we're interacting with. If I know that the lovely and loquacious denuseri believes she should not speak first, then I know that I must. If I say something and her face twitches, I know that I've hit a nerve and need to proceed with extra care.

The ability to do those two things (grasp the rules, grasp the cues) is so central to our functioning, that we recognize those who lack them as possessing a form of mental disorder (in this case, to a greater or lesser degree, Asperger Syndrome).

The point that Suler makes is that exchanges OL mess with our understanding of the rules and deprive us of many of the cues we'd naturally receive in face-to-face exchanges. We tend to press ahead too vigorously, say too much, demand too much, misunderstand too much, recoil too much. In effect, we accelerate the development (and decay) of our relationships. IRL, even at a gathering of like-minded souls, there's better social enforcement of norms and richer symbolic environments. In consequence, we're able to play nice.

I'd guess that the folks who thrive in such virtual environments are more verbal, more attentive, and more accepting than others: they're the people who are able to deduce the shape of the rules, however faintly they might be visible, and to begin to compensate for the reduced number of cues this environment naturally offers. That might account for my (subjective, one-sided, biased, admiring) observation that there's a real imbalance between the number of thoughtful, engaging, sweet-spirited subs and the number of doms capable of earning their devotion.

For what it's worth,

S.