Several news sources have started reporting on a 2007 research project by a group of MIT students who found they could accurately predict Facebook users' sexual preferences based on the people they were friends with. The project, referred to as "Gaydar," sampled data from 1,600 men (only 33 of whom were out as gay on Facebook) to create an algorithm that supposedly predicts whether a user is gay or not. However, the research methodology behind this unpublished study seems a bit dubious to me.

The initial test of Gaydar correctly predicted that 10 of the researchers' friends - who weren't "out" on Facebook - were gay. That's a pretty decent success rate, but a tiny, tiny sample size. Only 33 gay men out 1600 total can't possibly be reflective of the entire population. According to Wikipedia, 4% of voters in the last US election self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Assuming that those numbers are pretty conservative, only 2% of the people in Gaydar's initial sample were gay. I'm not convinced it's really time to start panicking that you could be inadvertently outed based on your Facebook friend list.

Recently I was interviewed by a graduate student who was working on a thesis about representations of female sexual empowerment in popular culture. Much of our conversation centered on women's usage of the internet. One of the first questions she asked me was whether I thought there was still a stigma against women being openly sexual online. After stumbling over my words because I couldn't get the "yes" out fast enough, I gave her an example that shows just how much of a problem this is.

I go to a lot of conferences, unconferences, and all variety of social media-oriented events. Frankly, I'm feeling a little conferenced out at this point. Anyway, at each of these events I go to, there's almost always a panel or session or discussion group focused on the question of how to "present yourself" online – usually framed in a business context. And even if there isn't a session nominally devoted to this topic, it ends up coming up sooner or later. It's obligatory, just like the incessant "bloggers vs. journalists" debate.

These discussions can get quite heated, with people becoming very earnest about not wanting to look "unprofessional" online. Women in particular tend to get very worked up about it (which isn't surprising; there are expectations placed on us that men won't ever experience). Without fail, the ultimate example of "unprofessional" is always something sexual. Someone will be ranting about the presentation of their professional demeanor online and attracting new clients and blah blah blah, and it's only a matter of time before they make an offhand remark like, "So, I'm not going to go around posting naked pictures or anything!" Such comments are usually received with much laughter and nodding in agreement.

So, YES, if one's sexuality is the ultimate representation of what it means to be unprofessional, then absolutely we have a problem here.

What's your first thought when you hit a Blogspot blog that slaps this warning screen in front of your face?

Some readers of this blog have contacted Google because they believe this blog's content is objectionable. In general, Google does not review nor do we endorse the content of this or any blog. For more information about our content policies, please visit the Blogger Terms of Service

My first thought is, "splog." Followed, as a close second, by, "threats of violence." In any event, it gives every indication that previous readers thought the site was problematic and flagged it.

Well, that might be the case.

We often hear that social media is enabling us to see a more complete picture of who people are, and in some cases this may be true; but how often do we, instead, see a more truncated version of who a person is, because they feel like they have to self-censor? As anyone who's been blogging for a while will tell you, the reality of it has a lot more sticky nuance than the idyllic concept. What about the places where one's life intersects with the lives of others? How much is okay to share about another person without his or her consent? Even for those who blog pseudonymously, these are constant questions whose answers may vary from day to day -- especially when sex is involved.

(This column both acknowledges the existence of sex, and explores the ways sex and sexuality relate to and are enhanced by the internet. If you're offended by such content, don't take the jump.)

Like podcasting? Like sex? Like not being spoken to as if you're slightly more intelligent than a paramecium? If you answered "yes" to all three of those questions, here are some podcasts you might enjoy.

(Warning to readers. This column both acknowledges the existence of sex, and explores the ways sex and sexuality relate to and are enhanced by the internet. If you're offended by such content, don't take the jump.)

A little more than a year after my last "regular" post here, I'm back to write a monthly/semi-monthly/whenever-inspiration-hits column about Sex 2.0-related stuff. What's Sex 2.0, you ask? Why, it's the totally awesome conference I'm organizing!

After this introductory post, I promise I won't be constantly shilling for my conference; but I do think I need to provide a little background.

Over the past several years, the internet – especially that of the web 2.0 variety – has been enabling people to learn, grow, and connect sexually. As an unapologetic geek and an unapologetic sex fiend, the worlds of sex and technology naturally dovetailed for me. As I began paying attention to what was happening on the web, it seemed like inspiring new projects were popping up left and right, largely led by women.