Breaking The Clouds

Helping you to get help, bilingual mental health info

Projection

最近恶补了一些心理学基本概念,上次转贴了一篇关于 transference 的文章,这次转述一下学到的 projection 的概念。

字典上对 projection 的定义是: the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially: the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety.

这是啥意思呢?就是说,一个人,当他感受处于不愉快的有压力的处境时,把自己内心的负面想法和感情投射在别人身上。这是一种心理防御 (defense mechanism) 的手段之一,过程一般在意识之下进行,大脑皮层不会有意地想: “我要把不愉快或者焦虑的想法投射到别人身上”,而是通过皮层下的 limbic system 之类的线路低空飞行更快地通过潜意识达到。 (旁白:潜意识就是意识思想之下进行的大脑活动,所谓本能、直觉,以及感情线路的活动,没有弗洛伊德形容得那么神奇,但是确实存在,而且意识本身可以收集线索间接地观察到自己的潜意识。)

举个例子哈,甲先生在工作上失手犯错,感到十分焦虑和羞愧,认定“老板要开除我了,同事都瞧不起我,他们都认为我一钱不值”。事实是,他又不会读心术,也没有跟老板谈话交换意见,怎么能确认别人的实际想法呢?但是甲先生非常肯定公司里的人都认为他很差,没本事。实际上,是他自己认为自己很差,没本事,认为自己一钱不值,应该被开除,但是这个想法(虽然也许他很习惯这样的思路)带来强烈的焦虑和沮丧,所以他并没想到这是自己的想法,而是将之投射到别人身上,这样弱化了焦虑感情。

另举一个例子,乙太太想跟丈夫离婚,她已经不爱他了,看见他就心烦和厌恶,但是离婚的前景让她感到害怕和紧张,所以不能直白地向自己承认“我想离开他”。作为 defense mechanism ,她把这个愿望投射在对方身上,下意识地将丈夫的言行(这时候他们的关系多半好不到哪里去)解释为“他不爱我了,他想跟我离婚。” 实际上是她自己想离婚,但是无法忍受和接受这样的来自本人的愿望,所以将此心投射在对方身上,不仅缓解了自责和焦虑感,而且更方便为自己建立一个“战斗”或者“受害者”的立场,给自己提供反感对方更多的理由和借口。

************************************************

Projection 是一个颇常见的天然现象,本身并不一定是病态,只要是人都有且使用 defense mechanism 。只不过,在不同的人身上发生的频率和程度深浅不同而已。推到一定的极端程度,则有可能影响到客观认知,把他人和自己的思想混淆起来。

在大脑发育过程中,婴儿逐渐学会区分我与他,我和他是不同的人,我感到热或者痛,他不能同时感到,世界不等于我。别看这个现象微不足道,似乎天经地义,其实非常复杂非常神奇,而且不是每次都能够完美地完成发育任务。人脑还有另一个本事,empathy, 身感同受,婴儿看见旁边的孩子哭,自己也哭了;我们看见别人钉钉子砸了手,会不由自主地缩起手好像自己也痛到。通过设身处地的想象而揣摩别人的思想感情,这也是天然的本领在早期发育过程中建立,也很神奇,但也偶尔会出错没长好 (例如未能建立同情能力的 psychopathic/antisocial personality disorder )。

上面这段儿跟 projection 有什么关系呢?我想的是,区分你我,区分主观与客观,真是一个复杂而模糊的事情,每个人的你我界限和认知似乎都有一定程度的不同。有些人情绪特别容易受到周围人的影响,也有人过度将自己的情绪投射到别人身上分不清人与我,另外有些人生活在自己的硬壳里,对别人的情绪完全隔离。

社交上过度紧张害羞的人,常常在社交场合之前想象别人会如何鄙视自己,过程中想象别人如何关注和批评自己,过后还想象别人在背后讥笑自己,其实所有这些贬低自己的想象都来自内心,来自本人最根深蒂固的自我意象 (self image) ,但是当事人认定主观的焦虑和恐惧是客观的存在,来自外界的威胁。

过度投射自己的焦虑自卑和恐惧怎么办呢?我觉得可以重新审视很多根深蒂固,自动不经大脑的 knee jerk 反应。每次脑子里跳出“他讨厌我”,“他瞧不起我”,“他们都认为我是傻瓜”之类想法的时候,不如停下来反问自己,这是客观现实呢?还是我的主观心理投射?

Tags:
June 4, 2009 - 7:20 PM No Comments

In Treatment 第二季

前阵子我推荐过一个 HBO 电视剧 In Treatment,当时看了第一季里面的前几集,觉得不错。后来看了第一季的全部,态度就有点动摇了。主要问题在于,这部电视剧讲的是精神分析学流派的过程,主角进行的是精神分析法。在美国,精神分析法已经颇为衰落,在英国,分析师人数和研究者仍然不少,但也仅限于小圈子里使用。现在的心理咨询与治疗方法,主流是 CBT,认知行为治疗法,同时还有其他几种经过临床研究考验的疗法,例如 interpersonal therapy,problem-solving therapy。过去我对精神分析学有很大的偏见,认为完全无效(至少不能在临床研究里证明有效)。但是随着对心理学的了解加深,现在我不认为 psychoanalysis 无效了,实际上其中很多成分和理论对其他心理治疗流派有很深的影响和帮助。我的个人观点是,纯精神分析疗法只适用于一小部分病人,如果要达到对大多数人的显著疗效,则不能只依赖它。

一部分是因为我个人比较偏向临床数据,所以 In Treatment 第一季里面的 psychoanalytical 的态度让我很不耐烦。现代心理治疗不是这样看似漫无目的,每周见面治疗师让病人想说什么就说什么,而是在谈话过程中有明确的目标和主旨。当然不能太过拘泥,病人说“我的问题是嫁不出去”,治疗师就专门解决这个问题,帮病人结婚成功。大部分时候,嫁不出去,或者工作受挫,或者家庭关系问题,这些是症状而不是病根,所以需要一定程度的挖掘 explore,但是找到问题症结,心理治疗师一般会集中火力引导病人一个一个地打开死结,有很明确的目标和终点 endpoint,而不是没有方向地探索挖掘下去。

另一个让我颇不满意的地方是关于治疗师和病人之间的界限 (boundaries) 问题。电视剧里为了达到戏剧效果,把这个界限描绘得模棱两可。还好,编剧借用其中一个人物 Gina 提供了目前已被广泛接受的行医标准:治疗师和病人不能越过界限进行恋爱关系。这是不符合行医道德的,医生本人需要严格避免。电视剧里主角的态度几乎抵抗不了病人的诱惑,这种态度有点过时。当然,这不等于说,现在正在工作行医的治疗师里没有违反职业道德标准,甚至不把职业标准当回事儿的人 — 有,我都听说过不少反例,而且二三四十年前,这个标准比现在松得多。但是毕竟现在的标准严格很多了,所以我的期望值也比较高。

最近偶然看到第二季中的两三集,大失所望。本来,其实也不应该把文艺作品当作真实的教材和范例,但是第一季至少还有一点精神分析学的真实感,虽然不太符合现在的职业标准。第二季就太糟糕了,主角表现得象一个刚出道的学徒,不象一个有二十年经验的精神分析师,净说一些很初级的话,犯些初级的错误,有初级的烦恼。也许主要原因是,第二季的 show runner,剧本总监,换了个人,而这位老兄看上去是个不太了解心理治疗专业的外行,直奔戏剧情节和煽情去了。

所以,我郑重收回对这个电视剧的推荐,特别是第二季。现实中的心理治疗不是这样的,治疗师也(绝大多数)不是这样的。

Tags:
June 3, 2009 - 8:31 PM No Comments

做一次偷书人:Transference and Computers

Mom, Dad, Computer

(Transference Reactions to Computers)


Let’s do a quick exercise.

Think of your husband or wife, or your romantic relationship, or a close friend. Think about some important characteristic of that individual’s personality - a characteristic or trait in that person to which you have a strong emotional reaction, positive OR negative…. Now think about one of your parents, or perhaps a sibling. Do they have that very same characteristic, and are the reactions you have to that aspect of them similar to those concerning your current close relationship?

The phenomenon of “transference” is one of the cornerstones of psychoanalytic theory. Rows of bookshelves could be filled with what has been written about it. The basic premise is that we tend to recreate in our current relationships the patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that were formed early in our life, most importantly in the relationships with our parents and siblings when we were children.

Critics challenge this idea. They accuse psychoanalytic theory of dwelling too much on the effects of childhood and family dynamics on the evolution of one’s personality. Surely, one’s personality does develop and change throughout the course of one’s life as a result of our friends, lovers, and new life experiences. It is not solely determined by how our parents raised us as children.

I think this is a perfectly valid criticism. We are not SIMPLY the products of our families. Nevertheless, our parents (or other parental figures) and siblings did indeed spend a great deal of time with us during those formative years, when our minds were young, impressionable, and eager to learn about how we humans relate to each other. Based on our relationships with them, we created models or templates in our mind about what constitutes the expected ways in which people will behave in relationships. We formed basic impressions about the kinds of needs, wishes, fears, and hopes that shape relationships and our image of ourselves in those relationships. Often we don’t realize these are OUR OWN models. They may be very different than the models taking shape in the heads of other people. Think of a time when, as a young person, you went to a friend’s house and were totally surprised, maybe even shocked, at how differently that family behaved as compared to your own family.

As we grow up we take these models with us. Often operating at an unconscious level, they affect the choices we make in the kinds of people we get involved with as well as how we experience those people. For example, think of your first boyfriend or girlfriend, and how similar that person might have been to one of your parents (usually your opposite sex parent). How often have young men said to their girlfriends “You’re just like my mother!”… or vice versa.

These models also shape how people select and experience things in their lives that are NOT human, but so closely touch our needs and emotions that we want to imbue them with human characteristics. We humans can’t help but anthropomorphize the elements in the world around us. It’s in our blood. We use our internal models to humanize and shape our experience of cars, houses, pets, careers, the weather…. and COMPUTERS.

Yes, computers can be a prime target for transference because they may be perceived as human-like. They are complex machines that almost seem to “think” like humans think. In fact, some people say they WILL someday be able to “think” like us. Unlike TV, movies, or books, they are highly interactive. We ask them to do something and they do it - at least, they usually do (like humans they sometimes disobey and surprise us). With the new generation of highly visual, auditory, and customizable operating systems and software applications, we also have a machine that can be tailored to reflect what we expect in a companion. The science fiction fascination with robots and androids is the culmination of this perception of machines as being almost like one of us.

What makes computers especially enticing targets for transference is that they are VAGUELY human and PROGRAMMABLE to be whatever we make them out to be. Psychoanalysts discovered that if they remain relatively ambiguous and neutral in how they behaved with their clients, the clients would begin to shape their perceptions of the analyst according to their internal models from childhood. When faced with an indistinct, seemingly malleable “other”, we instinctively fall back on our familiar mental theories about relationships and use those theories to shape how we think, feel, and react to this new, somewhat unclear relationship. This whole process often is unconscious. We are so used to these old templates that they automatically start to mold our perceptions and actions without our really thinking about it.

So now we go back to the exercise at the beginning of this article. Only now we substitute in “computer” for husband, wife, lover, or friend. Do we unconsciously experience the computer as being like our mother or father, or sibling? At first glance the question may seem silly. Keep in mind, though, that I am not saying that we think the computer IS our parent or sibling, but rather that we recreate in our relationship with the computer some ASPECT of how we related to our family members. Still, even if you apply the exercise to an important person in your life or to your computer, you may insist that they are nothing like your mother or father! Here’s where we need to examine the process of transference more carefully - for there are curious twists and turns in this phenomenon that make it considerably more complex than what I have described so far. We’ll see that the same pattern of relating to a family member can be played out in various ways in one’s relationship to the computer. In the descriptions that follow, I’ll focus mostly on relationships with parents, though these also could apply to other family members.


You as You, Computer as Parent

This is the most basic, obvious type of transference - the type I’ve already described. You experience the other as being like your parent and yourself as the child you once were.

So let’s say Leonard had a mother who had many rules for how he should behave as a child, but the rules always seemed to be changing. Even though he tried to figure out and obey his mother’s requests, he never quite succeeded and never satisfied her. He could never seem to do anything right. As a result, he felt frustrated, helpless, and defeated whenever he tried his best but ultimately failed in the eyes of his mother. As an adult, Leonard experiences his computer in the same light. He is intimidated by it, is never quite sure how to please it. When he tries to accomplish something, the computer doesn’t seem to like what he does. It won’t respond. He gets error messages. He has failed once again. His computer makes him feel frustrated, helpless, and defeated. Maybe he even tries to avoid it, just like he did with his mother.

Jenny had a father who was frail and not quite competent as a person. She loved him, and so took care of him and was very attentive to his needs. Perhaps she sometimes sacrificed her own needs in order to attend to his. As an adult, she perceives her computer as something that is a bit fragile and vulnerable. She is very careful about how she uses it because she doesn’t want to cause damage. She is very conscientious about running diagnostics and anti-virus programs. The health and well-being of her computer, she feels very earnestly, is in her hands. Some might even say she is bit over-protective of her machine.

Leonard and Jenny are only two examples. This first type of transference can take many different forms. Traditional psychoanalysis (”Freudian” theory) often described it in terms of sexual wishes and fantasies towards the parent. The child hopes to possess the opposite sex parent as someone to satisfy their sensual/emotional desires. Later, after resolving the conflicts associated with these wishes, the child learns to identify with the sexuality of the same sex parent. In his article “The Internet Regression,” Norman Holland focuses on these types of transferences towards computers. The computer is seen as seductive, as a sex object, a satisfier of desire, as a symbol of sexual power and prowess. As an illustration, consider this real conversation from a cyberspace chat room in which the members are discussing how one of their friends “Suzy” on CUseeme (internet video conferencing) was flashed by a exhibitionist.

Daisy: so all she sees is a big penis on her screen! lol!
Hawkeye: lol
Daisy: I can’t figure out why he wanted to see *Suzy’s* penis!
Dragon: next ur gonna say she has a 15 inch monitor, right?
Daisy: 20 inch, Dragon
THR: geez and black and white haha
Mr. Tops: 17 in rotating
Daisy: hahahahhahah
Tweety: bigger is… bigger!
Dragon: wow, no wonder you gals like macs so much
Daisy: doesn’t have to be bigger, just better
Daisy: and rechargeable
Tweety: or plugged in the wall…
Hawkeye: what about bigger AND better?
Mr. Tops: its not the size of the monitor, but the driver behind it
Tweety: with loads of amps
Hawkeye: as one of my friends like to say, “How hard is your big drive?”
Daisy: lol!
Dragon: more importantly, Hawkeye, is it compressed?
Daisy: more importantly, is it unzipped
Hawkeye: and how often do you optimize it?
Lola: or is it backed up?
Dragon: only in san francisco
Daisy: LOL!

Freud would have a field day with this dialogue. It’s not too difficult to detect themes about phallic power, penis envy, castration fears, and a miscellaneous collection of heterosexual and homosexual issues. However, I don’t want to dwell on the idea of computers as powerful (parental) sex objects. This type of transference applies to some people, but not all. I’m not even convinced that it is a prominent type of transference. The language of classical Freudian theory also gets downright sexist and culturally biased.

What I think is most important about this “erotic” transference is not the sexual feelings towards computers, but rather the perception of the computer as POWERFUL, perhaps in ways similar to how parents are perceived as powerful. This perception of power is obvious in the dialogue from the chat room. The computer can think faster than us, often has more knowledge on a subject, can perform tasks that we couldn’t do alone… and now, in the age of the internet, is a link and guide to a vast, wondrous “outside” world. For some people, these qualities may stir up feelings of admiration, awe, fear, competition - not unlike transferential feelings towards any authority figure.


You as Parent, Computer as You

In this type of transference, a person’s mind reverses the roles played by the child and parent. A clearly visible, and pathological, example of this is when the abused child grows up to become a child abuser. This is a process of “turning the passive into the active” where the child’s feelings of helplessness and anxiety in the face of being controlled, manipulated, and used is warded off in adulthood by assuming the role of one who is powerful and in command.

It’s possible that some users might abuse their computers just as they might have been abused, to a greater or lesser extent, within their family of origin. But computers are expensive. For most people, the possibility of damaging them would not be very satisfying in the long run. On a more subtle level, people who once were controlled, dominated, and manipulated within their family - as if they were not really people at all, but just objects to be used - may very well as adults treat their computers in the same manner. Anger and outright rage at the computer, when it doesn’t behave the way YOU want it to, may be a symptom of this kind of transference. This may have been the same emotional reaction of the disappointed, “betrayed” parent.

The computer also can be perceived, almost lovingly, as one’s baby. You attend to it’s needs, nurture it, help it develop and grow (by adding software and hardware). Not unlike Jenny, who assumed a parental role towards her father, you feel protective and responsible for the computer’s well-being. You become invested in it’s strivings and achievements, even taking pride in the new things it can do. With delight and wonder, you take part in the creation of a new individual with it’s own unique abilities and personality. It is a reflection of you, YOUR abilities and personality, but you also realize that much of what you have done is to direct and shape the raw qualities and potentials that already existed inherently in your “baby.” And quite unlike real life babies, this silicone substitute will never become independent and leave you. For some people, that may be a very attractive proposition.


You as You, Computer as Wished-For Parent

Many people wish, consciously or unconsciously, that their parents could have been different in some way. That wish may shape their perception of the computer as possessing those desired characteristics.

Sam’s mother was, to use a less than technical term, “crazy.” Her behavior and emotions were unpredictable. One moment she would be caring and loving, and the next harsh, critical, and punishing. Never being able to tell what was coming his way next, Sam became a hypervigilant, paranoid child. He needed always to be on the lookout for subtle cues indicating how his mother would behave. He tried to anticipate her moves, but often was not successful. Feeling helpless and angry (in some ways similar to Leonard), he experienced life as unpredictable, dangerous, and beyond his control.

As an adult, Sam takes comfort in his computers. They possess the qualities he wished his mother had - predictable, reliable, non-judgmental, and no unexplained emotional outbursts. If he applies his hard-earned skills at analyzing the subtle details of how it behaves, almost all of the time he CAN predict and control how it will behave. There is very little intimacy and “loving” feelings towards his computer. But that’s quite OK by him. Those things only got him entangled in trouble with his mother. In fact, he takes some pleasure in his cold dominance over the submissive machine.

Lorna experiences her computer quite differently. She sees it as a benign presence. It is always there, waiting for her. It pays attention to what she wants and gives immediate feedback. It allows her to express her thoughts, her feelings, her creativity. It takes and accompanies her wherever she wants to go on the internet. She almost sees it as a very responsive, compassionate companion who recognizes her value and individuality as a person. It even HELPS her develop her individuality…. How unlike her parents who were so busy and preoccupied that they often neglected to show an interest in her life.


You as Wished-For Parent, Computer as You

In this last type of transference, a reversal once again occurs - only this time the user acquires the wished-for parental qualities and the computer becomes like the child. Often people strive for the benign qualities that were missing in their parents - which is often a matter of reversing some characteristic of the parent. Sometimes that reversal may go too far. If your parents were too strict, you may become too liberal with your child. If your parents were uninvolved in your life, you may become too intrusive in your child’s life.

Becoming the wished-for parent of one’s computer may follow the same pattern. Users strive to be “good” to their computer in ways that their own parents were not “good” to them. In some cases they carry that effort too far. One user is careful about making sure her computer is safe and healthy. Another becomes so worried about viruses and possible damage to his machine that he refuses to explore the internet, is wary of installing new software, and rarely lets anyone else use it. One user takes interest in what goes on “inside” his computer and so tries to learn about its hardware and software. Another becomes so invested in the technology of her machine that it becomes an obsession that rules her life.


You are Me, I am You, We are All Together

Some type of transferences (called “selfobject” transferences) involve a bolstering and enhancing of one’s sense of self. When the parent admires the child’s painting, acknowledges her thoughts about a TV program, or empathizes with her feelings of anger, sadness, and delight, the child’s identity is fortified through this “mirroring.” When a boy imitates his father mowing the lawn, or a girl plays with Mommy’s briefcase, this identifying with the parent in an “idealizing” relationship augments their self-esteem and sense of self. So too in a “twinship” relationship when siblings play and work with each other. The feeling that “we are doing this together” satisfies their thirst for knowing who they are by what they do with others. In these forms of transference, there is a blending of oneself with the other, so that the other person is not necessarily experienced as a separate person, but as part of oneself.

Users may rely on their computers to clarify and strengthen their sense of identity. The computer is attentive and accommodating to their needs. It mirrors them. As users customize its hardware and software, the computer becomes more and more like a responsive reflection of their needs, feelings, and ambitions. It is part of them, a reflection of who they are, a world created from within themselves. By idealizing it, by participating in all the amazing, powerful things a computer can do, users strengthen their own confidence and feelings of success. By spending time together with their computer, it becomes a reassuring extension of their motivations, personality, and inner psychological life - like a good buddy, a sibling…. a twin.

But there is a danger in relying too heavily on the computer as a support to one’s identity. Placing all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea. The system may crash at exactly the wrong moment. The hard-drive may fail. For any of a wide variety of reasons, your treasured machine may be taken from you. The rug has been pulled out from under your feet. You feel betrayed, abandoned, lost….. resulting in anger and depression.

Perhaps all computer transferences involve a blending of the user’s mind with the “cyberspace” created by the machine. Cyberspace indeed is a psychological space, an extension of the user’s intrapsychic world. Using psychoanalytic terms, we would say that computers create a transitional space - an intermediate zone between self and other - where identifications, partial identifications, internalizations, and introjects interact with each other. In more plain language, we would say that cyberspace is a zone where the big and little bits of our parents and siblings that we’ve taken into our own minds and personalities become free to express themselves, to play, work, fight, and, ideally, make peace with each other.


How Do You Know It’s Transference?

Psychological reactions to one’s computer (and any significant “other”) may be a complex combination of some or all of the types of transference described above. Mother, father, and sibling transferences can interact and change over time. It’s often difficult detecting the interpersonal origin of one’s thoughts or feelings towards the silicone-other. When thinking about transferences in real life, clinicians often ask themselves, “Who is doing what to whom?”

So how do you know when you’re having one of these transference reactions to your computer? …. There are some tell-tale signs. When you want to throw the damn thing against the wall. When it “makes you” feel betrayed and disappointed. When you feel lonely and empty because you have not had enough time to spend with it. When you often want to be at your keyboard more than you want to be with family and friends, or when those people comment on how attached or emotional you get towards it. Any seemingly exaggerated or “inappropriately” strong feelings towards your machine probably means you think of it as more than just a machine.

Transference also may be rearing its head whenever one feels addicted (see “Why is This Thing Eating My Life”). Computer addictions often mean that the user is attempting to use the cyberworld to satisfy some strong internal need, but the strategy never quite works. One never feels fully satisfied or complete because the frustrated need arises from something that was or is missing from one’s relationship to real world people. The computer has become an inadequate substitute target for that unfulfilled need.


Adult and Machine

Growing up into a mature adult is a gradual process of realizing how the mental models from our childhood have shaped our relationships and our lives. Sometimes these models steer us in the right direction - towards the right people and activities - and thereby enrich our lives. Sometimes not. We may need to challenge, develop, or outright abandon some of them. In all cases, the enlightening path is to see these models for what they are - simply models. After all, the computer is not Mom, Dad, Sister, or Brother. It’s just a computer.


Online Others in the Machine

All of the transference reactions described in this article also can explain how the user reacts to other people that he or she encounters in cyberspace. Communicating only by typed text in e-mail, chat rooms, and newsgroups results in a highly ambiguous environment. We can’t see or hear other people. They become a shadowy figure, a screen onto which we may launch any of the variety of transference reactions.

Because we experience online others THROUGH the computer, it’s also possible that the transference reactions to them may interact with the transference reactions to the computer. Transference to the computer may spill over to, amplify, or be contradicted by the perception of the online other. For example, if William perceives the computer as a passive thing to be manipulated (like Dad manipulated him), he might extend that perception to other people he meets online, treating them as weaker people to be controlled. If they happen to say something that sounds passive, or if their personality style is indeed a bit passive, William may greatly amplify in his own mind how passive they seem to be. As a result, his reactions to them may be inappropriate. If others do something that grossly contradicts William’s perception of the computer as passive - if they act assertive or independent - William may react with severe disappointment or anger at the perceived “betrayal.”

Healthy online relationships are those in which we realize that our perceptions are not always accurate. Other people are other people, not extensions of our beliefs or ghosts in our machine. Given the complexities of transference reactions, this isn’t always easy to do. As Otto Kernberg was fond of saying about unraveling transference in psychotherapy, one must continually ask, “Who is doing what to whom?” Once we fully realize that the computer AND online others aren’t our Moms, Dads, Sisters, or Brothers, we become free to enjoy cyberspace in the ways that we wish, without any unconscious strings attached.


Tags:
June 1, 2009 - 7:06 PM No Comments