We are a blog

My photo

Hi, my name is Biju P R. I am a writer, teacher and academic blogger. Anything that comes through society and technology interest me. My blog posts here define what am I doing here. Please just check it out.

Share this Blog

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Socrates: Ignorance, Unexamined Life, Method- Elenchus and Midwife for Undergraduate Students

Hi, getting visibility among core literary public is benchmark of publishing success and this message is part of an aggressive online campaign for the promotion and visibility of my two books [1] Political Internet and [2] Intimate Speakers among core reading public in online space.
It will be really helpful if you are able to help me forward, share, tweet, post, or tag this message or parts of this message among potential beneficiaries of the ideas in the books in your network, your friend’s network or their networks?

Or anyone should according to you benefit if they work broadly on anything related to social media, Internet, society, politics, cyber sexuality, Internet pornography, intimacies,  women and online misogyny, introverts, underprivileged people, Diaspora, cyberspace, Internet in education, International relations, digital politics, social media and state, public sphere, civil society, social capital, contentious politics and so on.

1. Political Internet: State and Politics in the Age of Social Media, (Routledge 2017)

Buy it on Amazon: 

Preview on Google Play: 

Preview on Google Books: 

Preview on Kindle:

Publisher Website:

2. Intimate Speakers: Why Introverted and Socially Ostracized Citizens Use Social Media, (Fingerprint! 2017).

Buy it on Amazon: 


Blog Review


Contact the author

Biju P R

Author, Teacher, Blogger

Assistant Professor of Political Science

Government Brennen College


Kerala, India

My Books
1. Political Internet: State and Politics in the Age of Social Media,
(Routledge 2017), Amazon https://www.amazon.in/Political-InternetStatePoliticsSocialebook/dp/B01M5K3SCU?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&ref_=tmm_kin_swatch_0&sr=

2. Intimate Speakers: Why Introverted and Socially Ostracized Citizens Use Social Media, (Fingerprint! 2017)
Amazon: http://www.amazon.in/dp/8175994290/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487261127&sr=1-2&keywords=biju+p+r 

Socrates Method

Most interesting and influential thinker in the fifth century was Socrates.
Socrates' Life was between 469-399 BC.
He was one of the few individuals who so-shaped the cultural and intellectual development of the world.

He is best known for his association with the Socratic method of question and answer, his claim that he was ignorant (or aware of his own absence of knowledge), and his claim that the unexamined life is not worth living, for human beings.

Socrates was born in Athens in the year 469 B.C.E. to Sophroniscus, a stonemason, and Phaenarete, a midwife. His family was not extremely poor, but they were by no means wealthy, and Socrates could not claim that he was of noble birth like Plato. He grew up in the political deme or district of Alopece, and when he turned 18, began to perform the typical political duties required of Athenian males. These included compulsory military service and membership in the Assembly, the governing body responsible for determining military strategy and legislation.

In a culture that worshipped male beauty, Socrates had the misfortune of being born incredibly ugly. Socrates was exophthalmic, meaning that his eyes bulged out of his head and were not straight but focused sideways. He had a snub nose, which made him resemble a pig, and many sources depict him with a potbelly. Socrates did little to help his odd appearance, frequently wearing the same cloak and sandals throughout both the day and the evening. 

The Peloponnesian War and the Threat to Democracy

Between 431—404 B.C.E. Athens fought one of its bloodiest and most protracted conflicts with neighboring Sparta, the war that we now know as the Peloponnesian War.  Aside from the fact that Socrates fought in the conflict, it is important for an account of his life and trial because many of those with whom Socrates spent his time became either sympathetic to the Spartan cause at the very least or traitors to Athens at worst.  This is particularly the case with those from the more aristocratic Athenian families, who tended to favor the rigid and restricted hierarchy of power in Sparta instead of the more widespread democratic distribution of power and free speech to all citizens that obtained in Athens. 

There are a number of important historical moments throughout the war leading up to Socrates’ trial that figure in the perception of him as a traitor. Sparta finally defeated Athens in 404 B.C.E., just five years before Socrates’ trial and execution.  Instead of a democracy, they installed as rulers a small group of Athenians who were loyal to Spartan interests.  Known as “The Thirty” or sometimes as the “Thirty Tyrants”, they were led by Critias, a known associate of Socrates and a member of his circle. 

The Socratic Problem: the Philosophical Socrates

Socratic problem is the problem faced by historians of philosophy to reconstruct the ideas of the original Socrates as distinct from his literary representations. 
Socrates’ identity as a philosopher is much more difficult to establish.
He wrote nothing, what we know of his ideas and methods comes to us mainly from his contemporaries and disciples
There were a number of Socrates’ followers who wrote conversations in which he appears.  These works are what are known as the logoi sokratikoi, or Socratic accounts.  Aside from Plato and Xenophon, most of these dialogues have not survived.  What we know of them comes to us from other sources. 
The two Socratics on whom most of our philosophical understanding of Socrates depends are Plato and Xenophon.  Scholars also rely on the works of the comic playwright Aristophanes and Plato’s most famous student, Aristotle.

Origin of the Socratic Problem

The Socratic problem first became pronounced in the early 19th century with the influential work of Friedrich Schleiermacher. Until this point, scholars had largely turned to Xenophon to identify what the historical Socrates thought.  Schleiermacher argued that Xenophon was not a philosopher but rather a simple citizen-soldier, and that his Socrates was so dull and philosophically uninteresting that, reading Xenophon alone, it would be difficult to understand the reputation accorded Socrates by so many of his contemporaries and nearly all the schools of philosophy that followed him. The better portrait of Socrates, Schleiermacher claimed, comes to us from Plato. His disciples were…

1.      Aristophanes
2.      Xenophon
3.      Plato and
4.      Aristotle, among others.

Content: What does Socrates Think?

Given the nature of these sources, the task of recounting what Socrates thought is not an easy one.  Nonetheless, reading Plato’s Apology, it is possible to articulate a number of what scholars today typically associate with Socrates. Plato the author has his Socrates claim that Plato was present in the courtroom for Socrates’ defense (Apology 34a), and while this cannot mean that Plato records the defense as a word for word transcription, it is the closest thing we have to an account of what Socrates actually said at a concrete point in his life.

Pre-Socratic Philosophy and the Sophists

The Pre-Socratic’s were not just those who came before Socrates, for there are some Pre-Socratic philosophers who were his contemporaries. A group of thinkers whom Socrates did not influence and whose fundamental uniting characteristic was that they sought to explain the world in terms of its own inherent principles.  The 6th cn. Milesian Thales, for instance, believed that the fundamental principle of all things was water.  Anaximander believed the principle was the indefinite (apeiron), and for Anaxamines it was air.  Anaxagoras, the 5th cn. thinker who argued that the universe was originally a mixture of elements that have since been set in motion by Nous, or Mind. Socrates suggests that he does not engage in the same sort of cosmological inquiries that were the focus of many Pre-Socratics.

Socratic Ignorance

Socrates explains that he was not aware of any wisdom he had, and so set out to find someone who had wisdom in order to demonstrate that the oracle was mistaken.
He first went to the politicians but found them lacking wisdom.
He next visited the poets and found that, though they spoke in beautiful verses, they did so through divine inspiration, not because they had wisdom of any kind. 
Socrates found that the craftsmen had knowledge of their own craft, but that they subsequently believed themselves to know much more than they actually did.  Socrates concluded that he was better off than his fellow citizens because, while they thought they knew something and did not, he was aware of his own ignorance.  The god who speaks through the oracle, he says, is truly wise, whereas human wisdom is worth little or nothing (Apology 23a).
This awareness of one’s own absence of knowledge is what is known as Socratic ignorance, and it is arguably the thing for which Socrates is most famous.  Socratic ignorance is sometimes called simple ignorance, to be distinguished from the double ignorance of the citizens with whom Socrates spoke.  Simple ignorance is being aware of one’s own ignorance, whereas double ignorance is not being aware of one’s ignorance while thinking that one knows.

Priority of the Care of the Soul

Throughout his defense speech (Apology 20a-b, 24c-25c, 31b, 32d, 36c, 39d) Socrates repeatedly stresses that a human being must care for his soul more than anything else (see also Crito 46c-47d, Euthyphro 13b-c, Gorgias 520a4ff).  Socrates found that his fellow citizens cared more for wealth, reputation, and their bodies while neglecting their souls (Apology 29d-30b).  He believed that his mission from the god was to examine his fellow citizens and persuade them that the most important good for a human being was the health of the soul. Wealth, he insisted, does not bring about human excellence or virtue, but virtue makes wealth and everything else good for human beings (Apology 30b).

The Unexamined Life

After the jury has convicted Socrates and sentenced him to death, he makes one of the most famous proclamations in the history of philosophy.  He tells the jury that he could never keep silent, because “the unexamined life is not worth living for human beings” (Apology 38a).  We find here Socrates’ insistence that we are all called to reflect upon what we believe, account for what we know and do not known, and generally speaking to seek out, live in accordance with, and defend those views that make for a well lived and meaningful life.

Other Socratic Positions and Arguments

In addition to the themes one finds in the Apology, the following are a number of other positions in the Platonic corpus that are typically considered Socratic.

Unity of Virtue; All Virtue is Knowledge

In the Protagoras (329b-333b) Socrates argues for the view that all of the virtues—justice, wisdom, courage, piety, and so forth—are one.  He provides a number of arguments for this thesis.  For example, while it is typical to think that one can be wise without being temperate, Socrates rejects this possibility on the grounds that wisdom and temperance both have the same opposite: folly.  Were they truly distinct, they would each have their own opposites.  As it stands, the identity of their opposites indicates that one cannot possess wisdom without temperance and vice versa.

This thesis is sometimes paired with another Socratic, view, that is, that virtue is a form of knowledge (Meno 87e-89a; cf. Euthydemus 278d-282a).  Things like beauty, strength, and health benefit human beings, but can also harm them if they are not accompanied by knowledge or wisdom.  If virtue is to be beneficial it must be knowledge, since all the qualities of the soul are in themselves neither beneficial not harmful, but are only beneficial when accompanied by wisdom and harmful when accompanied by folly.

No One Errs Knowingly/No One Errs Willingly

Socrates famously declares that no one errs or makes mistakes knowingly (Protagoras 352c, 358b-b).  Here we find an example of Socrates’ intellectualism.  When a person does what is wrong, their failure to do what is right is an intellectual error, or due to their own ignorance about what is right.  If the person knew what was right, he would have done it.  Hence, it is not possible for someone simultaneously know what is right and do what is wrong.  If someone does what is wrong, they do so because they do not know what is right, and if they claim the have known what was right at the time when they committed the wrong, they are mistaken, for had they truly known what was right, they would have done it.

All Desire is for the Good

One of the premises of the argument just mentioned is that human beings only desire the good.  When a person does something for the sake of something else, it is always the thing for the sake of which he is acting that he wants.  All bad things or intermediate things are done not for themselves but for the sake of something else that is good.  When a tyrant puts someone to death, for instance, he does this because he thinks it is beneficial in some way.  Hence his action is directed towards the good because this is what he truly wants (Gorgias 467c-468b).

It is Better to Suffer an Injustice Than to Commit One

Socrates infuriates Polus with the argument that it is better to suffer an injustice than commit one (Gorgias 475a-d).  Polus agrees that it is more shameful to commit an injustice, but maintains it is not worse.  The worst thing, in his view, is to suffer injustice.  Socrates argues that, if something is more shameful, it surpasses in either badness or pain or both.  Since committing an injustice is not more painful than suffering one, committing an injustice cannot surpass in pain or both pain and badness.  Committing an injustice surpasses suffering an injustice in badness; differently stated, committing an injustice is worse than suffering one.  Therefore, given the choice between the two, we should choose to suffer rather than commit an injustice.
This argument must be understood in terms of the Socratic emphasis on the care of the soul.  Committing an injustice corrupts one’s soul, and therefore committing injustice is the worst thing a person can do to himself (cf. Crito 47d-48a, Republic I 353d-354a).  If one commits injustice, Socrates goes so far as to claim that it is better to seek punishment than avoid it on the grounds that the punishment will purge or purify the soul of its corruption (Gorgias 476d-478e).

Method: How Did Socrates Do Philosophy?

As famous as the Socratic themes are, the Socratic method is equally famous.  Socrates conducted his philosophical activity by means of question an answer, and we typically associate with him a method called the elenchus.  At the same time, Plato’s Socrates calls himself a midwife—who has no ideas of his own but helps give birth to the ideas of others—and proceeds dialectically—defined either as asking questions, embracing the practice of collection and division, or proceeding from hypotheses to first principles.

The Elenchus: Socrates the Refuter

A typical Socratic elenchus is a cross-examination of a particular position, proposition, or definition, in which Socrates tests what his interlocutor says and refutes it. 



Socrates typically begins his elenchus with the question, “what is it”?  What is piety, he asks Euthyphro.  Euthyphro appears to give five separate definitions of piety: piety is proceeding against whomever does injustice (5d-6e), piety is what is loved by the gods (6e-7a), piety is what is loved by all the gods (9e), the godly and the pious is the part of the just that is concerned with the care of the gods (12e), and piety is the knowledge of sacrificing and praying (13d-14a).  For some commentators, what Socrates is searching for here is a definition.  Other commentators argue that Socrates is searching for more than just the definition of piety but seeks a comprehensive account of the nature of piety.  Whatever the case, Socrates refutes the answer given to him in response to the ‘what is it’ question.

Another reading of the Socratic elenchus is that Socrates is not just concerned with the reply of the interlocutor but is concerned with the interlocutor himself.  According to this view, Socrates is as much concerned with the truth or falsity of propositions as he is with the refinement of the interlocutor’s way of life.  Socrates is concerned with both epistemological and moral advances for the interlocutor and himself.  It is not propositions or replies alone that are refuted, for Socrates does not conceive of them dwelling in isolation from those that hold them.  Thus conceived, the elenchus refutes the person holding a particular view, not just the view.  For instance, Socrates shames Thrasymachus when he shows him that he cannot maintain his view that justice is ignorance and injustice is wisdom (Republic I 350d).  The elenchus demonstrates that Thrasymachus cannot consistently maintain all his claims about the nature of justice.  This view is consistent with a view we find in Plato’s late dialogue called the Sophist, in which the Visitor from Elea, not Socrates, claims that the soul will not get any advantage from learning that it is offered to it until someone shames it by refuting it (230b-d).


In terms of goal, there are two common interpretations of the elenchus.  Both have been developed by scholars in response to what Gregory Vlastos called the problem of the Socratic elenchus.  The problem is how Socrates can claim that position W is false, when the only thing he has established is its inconsistency with other premises whose truth he has not tried to establish in the elenchus.

The first response is what is called the constructivist position.  A constructivist argues that the elenchus establishes the truth or falsity of individual answers.  The elenchus on this interpretation can and does have positive results.  Vlastos himself argued that Socrates not only established the inconsistency of the interlocutor’s beliefs by showing their inconsistency, but that Socrates’ own moral beliefs were always consistent, able to withstand the test of the elenchus.  Socrates could therefore pick out a faulty premise in his elenctic exchange with an interlocutor, and sought to replace the interlocutor’s false beliefs with his own.
The second response is called the non-constructivist position.  This position claims that Socrates does not think the elenchus can establish the truth or falsity of individual answers.  The non-constructivist argues that all the elenchus can show is the inconsistency of W with the premises X, Y, and Z.  It cannot establish that ~W is the case, or for that matter replace any of the premises with another, for this would require a separate argument.  The elenchus establishes the falsity of the conjunction of W, X, Y, and Z, but not the truth or falsity of any of those premises individually.  The purpose of the elenchus on this interpretation is to show the interlocutor that he is confused, and, according to some scholars, to use that confusion as a stepping stone on the way to establishing a more consistent, well-formed set of beliefs.

Maieutic: Socrates the Midwife

In Plato’s Theaetetus Socrates identifies himself as a midwife (150b-151b).  While the dialogue is not generally considered Socratic, it is elenctic (used of indirect modes of proof —opposed to deictic.) insofar as it tests and refutes Theaetetus’ definitions of knowledge.  It also ends without a conclusive answer to its question, a characteristic it shares with a number of Socratic dialogues.
Socrates tells Theaetetus that his mother Phaenarete was a midwife (149a) and that he himself is an intellectual midwife.  Whereas the craft of midwifery (150b-151d) brings on labor pains or relieves them in order to help a woman deliver a child, Socrates does not watch over the body but over the soul, and helps his interlocutor give birth to an idea.  He then applies the elenchus to test whether or not the intellectual offspring is a phantom or a fertile truth.  Socrates stresses that both he and actual midwives are barren, and cannot give birth to their own offspring.  In spite of his own emptiness of ideas, Socrates claims to be skilled at bringing forth the ideas of others and examining them.

c. Dialectic: Socrates the Constructer

The method of dialectic is thought to be more Platonic than Socratic, though one can understand why many have associated it with Socrates himself.  For one thing, the Greek dialegesthai ordinarily means simply “to converse” or “to discuss.”  Hence when Socrates is distinguishing this sort of discussion from rhetorical exposition in the Gorgias, the contrast seems to indicate his preference for short questions and answers as opposed to longer speeches (447b-c, 448d-449c).
There are two other definitions of dialectic in the Platonic corpus.  First, in the Republic, Socrates distinguishes between dianoetic thinking, which makes use of the senses and assumes hypotheses, and dialectical thinking, which does not use the senses and goes beyond hypotheses to first principles (Republic VII 510c-511c, 531d-535a).  Second, in the Phaedrus, Sophist, Statesman, and Philebus, dialectic is defined as a method of collection and division.  One collects things that are scattered into one kind and also divides each kind according to its species (Phaedrus 265d-266c).

Some scholars view the elenchus and dialectic as fundamentally different methods with different goals, while others view them as consistent and reconcilable.  Some even view them as two parts of one argument procedure, in which the elenchus refutes and dialectic constructs.

Legacy: How Have Other Philosophers Understood Socrates?

Nearly every school of philosophy in antiquity had something positive to say about Socrates, and most of them drew their inspiration from him.  Socrates also appears in the works of many famous modern philosophers.  Immanuel Kant, the 18th century German philosopher best known for the categorical imperative, hailed Socrates, amongst other ancient philosophers, as someone who didn’t just speculate but who lived philosophically.  One of the more famous quotes about Socrates is from John Stuart Mill, the 19th century utilitarian philosopher who claimed that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.  The following is but a brief survey of Socrates as he is treated in philosophical thinking that emerges after the death of Aristotle in 322 B.C.E.

About the Contributor: 

Biju P R is a writer, teacher and academic blogger. Writes a social media trilogy. Specializes in celebrity culture, political class, culture studies, business politics and technology.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Women in Internet

A discursive look at the nebulous social media platforms highlights the negotiation between social media and women's sexual activism in Indian Internet. Of course, surfacing tendencies and tensions consequent to the higher incorporation of digital media in the expressive and interactive spaces of sexual minorities and sexually annihilated social groups acquires wider recognition and popularity since a blurring line fogs the contours of atoms and bits. 

Whether much of Facebook profiles, plenty of YouTube videos, fleet of blogging sites, and countless texting in chat forums replicate and reproduce from atoms to bits everything that are socially approved and collectively stigmatized. What are young people, women, housewives, college going students, etc. doing online in Indian cities and homes?

In the contemporary time, modalities of women’s involvement in online spaces in India range across a wide array of digital platforms. It includes participation in electronic networks, social networking, emails, bulletin boards, blogging sites, chat rooms, video sharing sites, online conferences, photo sharing sites, virtual markets, news media sites, online shopping sites, video calling are few among them. 

Women who go online are relatively more affluent and younger and in terms of online behaviour, email, search and social networking topped the preferences, and it has frequented by music downloading, searching educational content, looking for job, seeing videos and passions for news and information. 

The top searched categories by women on Google, seems apparels and accessories and followed by food and drink, childcare, hairstyle, and skin protection according to a report by Times of India. 

From chatting to blogging, from posting own ‘sexy’ pictures on Facebook to looking for prospective partners in dating sites, Internet have resurfaced to channelise the self of individuals that otherwise compacted in the tradition bound Indian society.

Young girls, whose social interactions are cut off after the end of the school and college days, now get together in chat rooms late night. Matrimonial sites such as shaadi.com, bharatmatrimony.com, simplymarry.com, matrimonialsindia.com, jeevansathi.com and dating sites such as indiandating.com, hi5.com, apundesi.com, datedosti.com, metrodate.com, indiamatch.com offer a mix between the fresh and the old, good and bad, letting young people to experiment their own friends, partners and meeting new people transcending cultural constrains and tradition bound social order.

With families, traditions, taboos and stigmas still curbing any socially dissociative expressions, the computer screen, the touch screens, smart phones, etc are becoming new ways of channelizing the otherwise compressed and tormented self. No family, no rituals, no taboos haunt the nomads in chat forums.
It is very simple to open account in chat sites such as chat-rooms.co.in, indiachat.co.in, chatrooms.org.in, onlinechat.co.in, chat.oneindia.in, allindiachat.com, talkdesi.com and find and meet new people, foment newer relationship, talk what one feels to talk, and express to any extent.

Around forty per cent of the over 150 million and expanding Internet users in the country are women and close to 24 million of them access Internet, everyday, to check emails, see walls, interact on social networking sites, shop online and search recipes, pronounces a study by Google, as reported by Times of India. 

Approximately sixty million women in India are now online and use the Internet to manage their day-to-day life. Women, with easy access to Internet at homes, smart phones, cyber cafes and offices use it and the user choices are definitely a political choice considering the attributes of Indian social hierarchy and norms, rituals and conventions and the cultural politics.

Everyone use Internet differently, and usage reflects, of course, gendered, sexist, misogynistic, and many more. Critical information and norms allow people to form new relationships, show that the Internet is not just a tool, but that it is critical in advancing sexual citizenship and that it has different meaning to critical masses. 

However, who goes, with what name, with whom they mingle and for what in matrimonial sites, dating site, chat sites etc., are quite confusing and confounding since anonymity, easy access, higher privacy, protective spaces, uninterrupted engagements mark Internet social space.

These anxieties have read against the backdrop of a particular cultural politics emerging since the New Economic Policy (NEP) in early 1990s. Call for Indianness and Indian culture and an anxiety about the influence of all that are Western have been at the centre of contemporary debates and struggles in politics and media. 

New and diverse forms of politics, media and culture have emerged ever since NEP. Protests in the 1990s against the opening of the Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet and the hosting beauty contest in India have acquired wider political currency among sections of political tribes. 

The censorship of film-song lyrics, movie posters, commercial and documentary films and music videos for their supposedly provocative, indecent, obscene content played a crucial content of new form of cultural politics.

The ban on bar dancers in cities, restricting holistic sex education in schools, dress-code on college women, prohibiting jeans or tight clothes for women, moral policing by right-wing forces, rounding up of young men and women in public places, especially on occasions such as Valentines Day, all that formed the basis of emerging cultural politics in the country. 

Violence against women engaging in so-called ‘immoral activities’ such as buying cigarettes or going to pubs has become rampant and this moral thread and concerns with obscenity and sexuality have been the centre of censorship debates in the country as well as an assuming inhospitable women social space in the play of cultural politics.

For young women especially educated and other, internet presents a worldof new and exciting opportunities. Women bloggers have a sustained and continuous relationship with the Internet and it proffers for them copious opportunities for eloquence, articulation as well as to challenge the taken for granted ideas about what is appropriate for women to speak; says a study by Bhattacharjya and Ganesh.

The life of women and young people in particular are greatly affected and shaped these days given their increasing use of the Internet are taken in to account. In their everyday lives, particularly in terms of social networking sites, blogging, chatting, video and photo sharing, women have particularly influenced and affected. 

The Internet and online activism, their access of content, job search, experiences and relationships, how they negotiate its dangers and protect themselves, how the gendered politics of Internet access impact on their lives, in fact there are plenty of factors that negotiate women space. 

Social media and social networking has become so appealing to fight down many social constraints, which confront the everyday lives of people. The day-to-day issues of ordinary women got wider expression from the specter of social media platforms, and it has turned up the hub lifestyle dissent and personal political choices.

The women using Internet has listed out some copious tendencies: weak-tie network, infotainment, communicative engagement and activism. Young women’s lives are somewhat colonised by life style technologies and applications. The Internet first came into their lives when they were in school and colleges enabling them to do their assignments and projects.

However, now it is part of life, voice, expression, flesh and blood. For many young women, terms like SNS, apps, FB, cool buddy, hacking, DP (display picture), chat, post, check, tweet, etc., are part of everyday vocabulary. Now, the Internet is more than being connected.

Women with access to broadband or cell phone exhibits greater level of mobility than those do not, confirms various study and reports. Yet, a perusal of Indian Internet is a testimony to the fact that there are mixed responses and seesaw reactions in respect of the play of sexuality and Internet. 

There are both skeptics and pessimists around the gender and Internet debate. However, instead of the common discussions that the Internet constitutes a masculine or contrarily a feminine environment, the core idea reflected is that sexuality and the Internet are multidimensional concepts that articulated in complex and contradictory ways in Indian Internet.

Hitherto, it is almost difficult to predict a line that delineates the complex relation that exists between sex and Internet in India. To become digital skeptic; one has to refute the liberatory potential of Internet for sexual minority and to become a digital cynic; one has to disown many things that sexual activists have acquired via Internet over the years. 

These sex dissidents typically produced newfound freedom in the discursive practices from their own sexual experiences and from the debates, they waged against different web of resistances against them. These various discourses concerning sex specific robust resistance against existing chastity and sexual attitudes, reinterpreting the importance and which means of sex still as gendered, sexual orientation, personality, etc. within the virtual world.

In addition, such reflections and reinterpretations of their own various sexual practices have provided web practitioners with a wealth of various sexual views and values that serve to counterpoint existing titillating culture.

The web may be a social, cultural, commercial, and academic and diversion of international communications system whose legitimate purpose is to learn and empower on-line users, whereas lowering the barriers to the creation and the distribution of expressions throughout the globe. As video, game technology, interactive media advances, sexual dissent are going to be on the innovating more room for differing views and practices.

One must not lose sight of the fact that these have from the very beginning transcended the scope of mainstream sexual norms of reproductive heterosexuality. In fact, practitioners of all kinds of so-called sexual deviations and perversions have found for the first time fertile ground for existence and self-empowerment in the cyber world.

The political significance of sexual application of the e-mail, on-line chat rooms, interactive webcams, or the most recent sense of touch technologies is that they have created a toy of decisions and channels through that our deepest desires, our darkest needs, and our universal ought to connect with others.

Quite often, we have perpetually negotiated and contended move on to the virtual house, transcending boundaries of gender, social structure, taboo, stigma, norms, age, morals, nation, wrong, physical kind, etc.
Several cyber sex groups became sex dissidents or sex liberationists because of their sexual practices that are normally under scanner by the taboos, norms, stigmas, social structures, patriarchy etc. Now Internet becomes the Pandora box for women sexuality and identity expression.