It seems to me that, in spite of the popularity of pornography online - which (mostly) follows the broadcast model - most people's expectations of individual sexuality default to the peer-2-peer model. Which makes a certain amount of sense, since that is almost by definition the way people have to interact sexually in person. Physical contact is much easier between two (or a few) people, than it is between one transmitter and a large audience. Also, there is a higher potential for emotional bonding, which is harder to maintain when split among a great many targets.
Naturally, many of the behaviors we engage in while out in the real world translate to our online lives (especially as ubiquitous - and invasive - as the internet has become). For example, we text our sweethearts, and sometimes share private images with them. But there is also another way of interacting sexually on the internet, which takes advantage of the anonymity and physical separation (usually considered disadvantages) of the medium. This is the broadcast model of sexuality, and it seems optimally designed to satisfy the desires of voyeurs and exhibitionists (although it may be true that most, if not all, people have a little bit of voyeur and/or exhibitionist inside them).
We could perhaps consider this the evolution of print magazines and video pornography, as it relies on the performance of a model disseminated to a wide audience of (usually) strangers. Traditionally, the position of "model" would be reserved to those few exquisite specimens that appeal to a broad base of admirers; however, the populist nature of the internet has expanded this role to include just about anyone with the inclination to try it, to which the growing popularity of amateur pornography can attest.
And so, a whole generation of horny exhibitionists can expose themselves on the internet to the drooling admiration of usually nameless, faceless voyeurs. However, this can sometimes present a bit of a clash of expectations between the broadcaster and her peers. Sometimes, a member of the audience will expect more than the model may be willing to give. That the lines are blurred between these two models - with broadcasters sometimes developing "relationships" (if sometimes purely superficial and for business purposes) with particularly lucrative fans - only contributes to the confusion.
Yet the nature of the broadcast model determines that the attraction being capitalized on is primarily one-way, which is in contradiction to the traditional peer-2-peer model of sexuality. The stimulus - performed by the broadcaster - is a product designed for consumption, anonymously, by large audiences. It should not matter, then, who those audiences are. They will, naturally, be those who are attracted to the broadcaster, but the broadcaster need not be mutually attracted to her fans. Because it is not direct physical (or emotional) intimacy she's sharing with the world, it's really more of a fantasy.
But as someone who gets off on fantasy, and is not in the habit of being either promiscuous, or especially forthcoming in developing social or intimate contacts, I find it an ideal method of interacting sexually with the world, and satisfying my desires as an exhibitionist while giving back to the voyeurs with which I can so well identify.
