posted
At the very base of all of this, I think, is the issue of how people form relationships and attachments, which varies from person to person. Also at issue are various definitions of love. There are many kinds and levels of love, as I think we all recognize. I think it is folly to say that it is impossible for people to form a relationship based solely on non-physical/online interaction. The kind and depth and characteristics of that relationship are dependant upon the individuals involved.
Some people interpret and chategorize non-physical and physical interaction differently, while others think that they can be (or are) interchangable. Those to whom physical and non-physical interaction are completely different and unequatable (one taking precedence or being "better than" the other), I think, are unlikely to perceive meaningful non-physical relationships as possible. On the other-hand, those who see non-physical and physical interaction as two sides of one coin, I think, would readily accept the concept of meaninful relationships being formed by people who have never met in meat-space.
The side conversation about intentions and perceptions, I think, is fairly moot. None of us can know with certainty that our intentions and another's perceptions of our intentions will be the same. That is part of what makes human interaction interesting and challenging. What we mean and what people think we mean can often be very different. That is as true in cyberspace as it is in meat-space. That does not mean that there is no need for tact, sensativity, and just normal kindness. It is easy to be cynical and assume the worst about other people's intentions. It is more difficult to assume kindness in others.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also did get taken aback a bit the first time we had this discussion, as you know, because it made me wonder if you saw something about our friendship, too, as being not quite real. And you assured me that it was real to you. And it has always been to me, too, of course. And I value it highly.
So I don't really know. All I know is how things are for me, and I don't see much difference. I'm very interested to know that for other people things are not the same, because it's something to be aware of, or wary of. That some people think all this is not really real.
[ December 19, 2003, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's real. They are both real. Different, but both real.
My best friend lives in Salt Lake, and I see her barely once or twice a year. On the other hand, I call her at least once a week. Since she recently had a baby, she's always home during the day and is usually happy to talk to an adult. I gotta say, this is fabulous for me. It is very, very real, and it doesn't matter that our relationship has changed from being roommates and seeing each other constantly to living in separate states and seeing each other once a year or so. It's only possible because we're both honest about being friends and about everything.
On the other hand, I had a long distance friend for years, and when we both graduated from college, we moved in together. It was a disaster - we didn't know each other at all. Not at all, and I didn't even know that. I didn't know her well enough to know what silences on the phone meant, and we'd been friends for so long, many things I'd held as true were no longer true, but since we didn't live near each other, I didn't know it.
Every experience is real, especially those involving our emotions. But they are not identical. It's possible for both to be Love and to not be the same thing.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know exactly what you mean about the roommate too! (So many congruences. <smiles>) I don't see that as being an online vs. threespace difference, either, though. Lots of people had close high school friends that became their roommates in college, for instance, and it didn't work out at all. Lots of people marry people they met in real life and knew and dated only in real life, and then it doesn't work out, they find out they didn't even know that person at all, etc. It's one thing that can happen to friendships, or to love no matter where they form. I still don't see any distinction in that regard.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's like the equations. They are the same in that both explain natural phenom, they are both true in their sphere, and they both were ground-breaking at their time, but they are not the same equations.
[ December 19, 2003, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you all for keeping this alive -- I don't have the time or energy to catch up on it (and pay attention, which is important) tonight, but I'll be reading it tomorrow.
posted
I haven't forgotten nor abandoned this thread and topic. Today hasn't gone anything like it was supposed to, though, and I'll likely require an hour or more to compose my thoughts eloquently -- in my most Churchillish (possibly lacking the middle third) manner. I also have yet to read page five or six, aside from the last few posts.
Rivka, I believe Tom is indicating that his explanation of things not happening in real time in cyberspace is being exemplified by my delayed response. In meatspace I wouldn't have all this time to compose my response. But I've been wrong at least four times in the past, and one of them was regarding my interpretation of something Tom posted, so take it with a grain of salt.
posted
ok.... i can't believe I started this thread (which i think turned out real well.... and for some reason I have this father's pride for it... since it's one of the few threads I've started) and haven't checked on it in the past week or so.
Annyways.... I've tried reading through as much of your comments as possible and I must say.... lot of valid points.
Just to give you all an update.... I've registered myself with lavalife and have met (online) several girls. ALthough I find that the majority of them claim they are tired of the bar scene and playin around... but it's those same girls that come off as the most superficial. Some of them immediatly stop talking to me after seeing my pic... just because i don't look like a greek god. As a note... i know i'm not a hottie.. but i sure ain't ugly. It just seems that all these gurls online are so sought after by so many guys on the system... that they tend to be sooper picky.... and not willing to give it a real chance once they see a hint of what they don't like (even after conversations where chemistry is very apparent). Its a little disheartening. Almost to the point where I think I have to go back to the bars to pick up the ladies..... bruuutal
posted
I haven't forgotten. Honest. Just horrendously limited on time right now -- in-laws in town again. Please be aware that when I do post it will fail to live up to the hype I have inadvertently created.
posted
I'll lay odds on his agreeing with some aspects of both "sides," and doing so with wit and panache. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm not Pop, but after reading the whole thread over, I'd like to add my voice to those who think that becoming close to, and loving, someone that you met online is indeed possible.
See, in the summer I finally got AIM, and started talking to people, mostly from pweb. And made friends with a particular guy. And then close friends. And then something happened. And you have no idea (well, maybe some of you do ) how nice it is for me to find other people who were/are boyfriend or girlfriend to someone they'd only seen as a font or an avatar, or maybe as a photo.
Before this, before him, I was totally leery of this type of relationship. A friend of mine from HS ran away with a guy she met at a poetry forum. But I have to admit that now that it's happened to me I feel slightly different. I don't think it's for everybody, or that every person you meet online has the capacity (or honesty, but that's another matter) to maintain a romantic relationship online while you wait for it to move into meatspace. (I'm waiting, but not for much longer. I'll let you know in a week and a half how things went. )
But I have to think ofthe unlikely situation that people find love in. People in arranged marriages, the souls who, during WWII, had to wait for years, writing and receiving only the occasional letter. SoI think it's no more unlikely than anywhere else.
I have to go now, but I'll keep writing later. I'm far from done.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who are sure that "true love" cannot develop substantially over the 'net, Hatrack has its own exhibit A: quidscribris. Judging by her blog, she and Fahim are pretty happy. And they had not met in person till she moved to Sri Lanka to marry him.
Of course it can't STAY only online (has anyone suggested otherwise?) -- but it seems to me that if geography makes meeting difficult, there can still be hope of developing the relationship quite a bit anyway.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I'm gonna ramble, because if I spend the time organizing this the way I would if it were a class essay, I'll never get it done. And for the record, I'd say rivka was 50% right with her guess -- 100% correct that I'll agree somewhat with both sides, 0% right that I'll write with panache, and exactly 50% on the other because everyone already knows I'm a half-wit, right?
Shoot. I keep stuttering (mentally) at the beginning, because I don't know how to start.
Ok. First off, I'm a mathematician. It isn't my occupation, but it's a rather central part of my character. Thus, I tend to look at these things from a math standpoint, and in doing so I think of a graph. For the time being, we'll use just two dimensions: intellectual (/emotional) and physical, if only because that seems to have been the main thrust in the conversation so far. People have claimed that the physical by itself is useless, and though I haven't seen anyone claim that the non-physical is useless, it is certainly limited. Well, I imagine that the graph, rather than being infinite in each direction, is unlimited in the non-physical side and limited in the physical (there's only so physical one can get). With me so far?
What I see is that one's interpretation on the value of a relationship described in this way is dependent entirely on the way in which one measures. If we're looking at distance from the origin, then the limited physical nature makes very little difference in a deep, meaningful intellectual/emotional website. However, I can't help but think that the better way of measuring this is in area, and in that sense, the physical dimension is desperately important, since without it one has an area of zero no matter how high the non-physical aspect measures.
Now I also understand that a relationship can have no physical aspect, but still have innate value, and certainly there are many examples to back this. In fact, I believe it's possible to have a deeply meaningful relationship of this manner, but that's more because of the faultiness of the analogy -- trying to cram these things into two dimensions is futile. What we really see is many, many dimensions (intellectual, emotional, physical, sexual, spiritual, social, psychic, temporal, etc.) and the goal is the biggest measurement in the most dimensions (no, I'm not saying that size matters). *Internal News Flash* Just realized in re-reading what I have so far that I'm at least in part specifically talking about a monogamous romantic relationship. Some of the aspects are entirely unnecessary and in fact detrimental to some other types of relationships. If I thought the physical interaction part was necessary in all relationships, what the heck would I be doing at an internet forum?
Anyway. Tom has said, "Have sex. You'll disagree." In a sense, yes -- in my experience, once I add one of these many dimensions, I realize that its absence is profound. But I've heard many times that you can't miss what you never had, and I suppose it's true, at least in part. That's one of several reasons I waited until being married to have sex, waited until I was 21 to have a drink, have never smoked or used drugs, as well as some other issues (though I don't want this to become <that> type of topic). I also think the more aware one is of those dimensions, the more important it is to have them as a part of the relationship. For example, were I an atheist, I probably wouldn't be too concerned about my wife's spiritual orientation (absent conversion attempts). As a Christian, however, I realize how incredibly difficult (if not futile) it would be to build a relationship with her if we couldn't share something that is so central to my life. The fact that I know the dimension is there would make it painful to see its measurement at zero.
An anecdote, since those make posts more interesting for me. My younger brother once dated a beautiful (well, cute might be more accurate, but attractive nonetheless) young lady in San Diego -- about a year after I did, it so happens. She and I had dated only a few times, and it was never a relationship per se, just that we pretty much expected to spend time with each other whenever we were in the same place at the same time. Well, that, and the kissing. I had realized after a few dates that our interests simply diverged far too much for us to have much of a future, and admittedly part of that was pride and snobbery on my part. She wasn't very quick, didn't get a lot of my jokes (I've later realized that this probably wasn't her fault), and didn't have much in the way of aspirations, at least by my metric. As I said, pride and snobbery -- I admit it. When my younger brother met her, I didn't say anything about it, because it really wasn't my place. But after a couple months, he came to me and essentially said, "You know how you figure if a girl is cute enough it can make up for being a ditz? Well, it's not true, and Krissy is proof." She was the most beautiful (cute) girl he'd dated to that time, and possibly the cutest I had by then, too, but it simply wasn't enough. The issue there was that the measurement on the intellectual dimension was just too low for him -- a dimension with which he was already familiar. I'm not painting this in a way to make either of us look better -- we were snobs. We were also (eventually) realistic, though -- in the long term, it's very doubtful that the relationship(s) would work out.
************************
Ok, next thing. I don't wish to sell internet relationships short. I can see the possibility that the issue is hardware/software as aka indicates, or to use the analogy she has used in the past, it's a bandwidth issue. I hear stories of famous composers who, when looking at the music on a page, hear the orchestra. I can't do so myself, but I can conceive of its possibility for others. In the same way, I can understand that a person can absolutely feel as much reality in words on a computer screen as those whispered in her ear. I can't, though. And probably because I can't, I haven't been able to bring myself to really believe it, not at a gut level.
Rather, I fall more into Tom's camp -- they're not the same, because to do this one must fill in the gaps that are left through the lack of bandwidth, like the brain filling in the blind spot in the eye based on preconceived notions and patterns. The thing is (and we're back to brain versus gut here), we do that in person, too. Yes, the blind spot is much smaller -- we have a greater amount of external input upon which to base our conclusions about a person's intent, demeanor, emotion, involvement, skill, dexterity, and so forth. But as our host is fond of saying, we never really know another person, and never can.
The thing is, there are very real relationships that are even more limited in (measurable) scope than internet communication. The first that comes to mind is my relationship with God. (I can only speak of this in the first person, but I believe it applies to others, as well.) God has never sent me an email. I spend a lot more time talking to Him than He does to me. My understanding of Him is dependent on His making Himself known, and me filling in the blind spot, except that I trust Him to do that, too. I can't prove to anyone else how real the relationship is, and that its value depends not on the bandwidth of the communication, at least not solely.
There are some who would claim that I am not just filling in a blind spot, but imagining the entire relationship. There are some who would say that the blind spot is larger than I think. There are some who would say that such an example shows exactly why people who believe that internet relationships are exactly equivalent to real-life relationships are deluding themselves. I cannot prove such people wrong; I cannot convince such people of the legitimacy of my evidence and experience. I also won't try to. That my evidence is personal and subjective doesn't make it inaccurate or untrue, but it does make it something I can't legitimately expect others to accept.
************************
I don't like most poetry. I wish I did. I wish I could look at deerpark27's musings and find artistry in it the way Tom does. I know it's there in the poetry, but I don't have the facilities to see it. Once it's explained to me, I can accept it, but it almost always has to be explained (the few times it doesn't, we're probably talking about prose that happens to rhyme and fit a meter). I believe it's probably the same with people who are color-blind -- capable of accepting the information that things might be different colors, but unable to see it themselves. It is perhaps in this way that there is a cyberspace, as real as the threespace I've grown to know, and I don't have the ability to experience it the way others do.
But there's a flip-side to that. Is Tom finding meaning where there is none? And in the same way, could aka be finding reality in cyberspace where it doesn't exist? Is the reality independent of the observation?
Maybe they're essentially the same. Maybe the information packets sent through the net are a simpler example of the quantum-mechanical nature of the universe. The thing is, I haven't been convinced of it yet, and can't take it to a gut level. All I can see is a qualitative and quantitative difference in the nature of real-life interaction versus internet communication. As I've said before regarding other topics, I honestly believe that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I don't see that as the case on the net. I agree mostly with the people who have said that the cyberspace relationship only becomes real when and where it collides with threespace. Aside from that, it just makes me think of bad science-fiction plots.
Anne Kate feels when someone tickles her or strokes her neck via cyberspace, yet doesn't die when killed. One could pretty fairly claim that it isn't real, but is merely her imagination at work -- a sort of biofeedback, perhaps -- and she has to filter it through what she envisions as Kama's intent. In realspace, that wouldn't be so necessary -- if Kama were stabbing aka with a knife, the intent isn't quite as important to gauge, except maybe for the jury.
I think I might have had more to say, but this is already way too long. If I remember more later that I wanted to include, I'll do so. Thank you for your patience. Merry Christmas.
posted
Nice post, Pop. I'm rather unclear as to what your conclusion is, however, beyond each-to-his-own.
Also, I'm not quite sure you can stretch a religious belief to equal an Internet relationship. For one, as you said, God doesn't e-mail you -- with Internet relationships, you can have consistent conversation with direct question-answer sessions. I'm admittedly biased in this regard, as I don't see any reason to believe that gods exist, but I'm also fairly sure that most people, when asked, answer that their relationships with gods are much like the one you described -- you say much and interpret your god's answer from life events that happen subsequent to your prayer. (If that's my correct understanding of your claim that your relationship with your god is "dependent on His making Himself known, and me filling in the blind spot, except that I trust Him to do that, too.")
More, I see Internet relationships as the equivalent of a relationship held exclusively over the phone -- but even then, with a telephone, you can interpret one's personality through nuances of speech, or the strength and firmness and quavering of the voice. With Internet relationships, you're a step removed even from that -- you can't hear each other during the long pauses between IM-sendings, you can't read a person's voice to tell how truthful she's being, you can't even tell the gender or age of whomever you're talking to.
If Anne Kate (or whoever believes cyber-relationships are the equivalent of their meatspace versions) can hold a relationship exclusively online, it stands to reason that she can do the same over the telephone -- a connection, if anything, more intimate than the impersonal letters and emoticons of cyberspace. Yet, if asked, I have twenty-to-one odds that few people would be able to stand a permanent telephone-only relationship. Why not?
The Internet essentially allows you to have a relationship with your computer. You don't have to look or feel well for it, you can turn it off and walk away whenever you like, and you can be funny even if you feel anything but. The telephone is a far more difficult medium to disguise one's true self through -- I can sit here and type that I'm a seventy year old Belgian millionaire widow, and your doubts would hold no water -- after all, if I affect the correct stilted grammar, and maybe pick up a few facts from Google between instant messages, you couldn't tell me apart from a true Belgian widow.
By contrast, on the telephone you would hear a youthful male voice without any trace of a Belgian accent (whatever the hell that is). There's no time for me to think of what to say between the phrases we send to each other, and I have neither the conveniences of researching Belgian-widow-related facts nor of being as racially or sexually ambiguous over the telephone as instant messages permit me to be online.
Similarly, to return to Pop's black spots, our furthered intimacy over the telephone makes it impossible for the person on the other end of the line to fill in the blanks and thus make me a perfect man -- a feat so easily done in online communication. This is even more exacerbated in Meatspace relationships -- it's possible for a woman to be attracted to James Earl Jones' intellect online, and make him a tall strong intelligent Scandinavian man. It's possible to be attracted to his voice over the telephone, and still be attracted to a intelligent black man. In Meatspace, though, how many women would fall for the unfortunately aging, toadish man Jones has become?
Therein lies the problem with online relationships, as Pop identified. While I guess it's possible to go without any physical aspect fulfilled -- unlikely, in my experience -- the real problem is that you have no idea who you're talking to. It's like a relationship with a dog; all he needs to do is provide the merest responses -- a bark, a lick, a look -- and we can ascribe motives to him like his desire to talk, to love, to plead. He's not talking or loving or pleading, but we can extrapolate those conclusions to better fit what we want him to be like.
I couldn't live that way. It's nice to have a fantasy that kinda sorta comes to life, a desperate, beautiful maiden just through the monitor, but in what qualifies as "real" life, she's just a fat middle-aged divorcee who's neither as brilliant nor as beautiful as I once thought her to be through instant messages or carefully selected photos. It could be nice to sometimes escape to a world where everyone's perfect in their own way. But to hold a treasured relationship over what Pop dubs a blind spot is one hell of a risk, one that's damn near impossible to hold with any kind of accuracy or real care. How can I love someone I know only by their writing? It's like falling in love with Dorothy Parker. Sure, she's sardonic and sarcastic and brilliant and everything I could want in a soulmate, but I have no idea who she is or what she's like through her poetry. Poetry that, in my opinion, gives me a much clearer view into her soul than carefully selected instant messages ever could.
Not that I'm not guilty of the same. I have a penpal, I guess I'd call it, in New York. His name's Sean, and he's the most brilliantly funny Irishman I've ever known. I mean, if I were a woman, I would've proposed long ago. He's one of my closest friends and confidants, and whenever he sends me a letter or we hold a conversation, I can be heard giggling like a maniac for hours on end. I've never met him. I've never even heard his voice. I've shown portions of his letters to Toni who calmy dismisses his jokes as dumb toilet humor -- something's clearly wrong with her dismissal, as I know Toni and I can find each other funny (particularly when she claims superiority to me; ha ha, what a kidder!), and I find Sean to be a god of Funny. How is it she doesn't even smirk with his best jokes? His funniest skits? I'm guessing it's all in our interpretations of humor. She sees a young sex-deranged mind making jokes about Bush or his love life whenever she reads it (really, every time, she's a downer). But whenever I read Sean's writings, I see a twinkle in a winking eye and a genius constrained only by the speed of his fingers. I read my own experiences and prejudices into Sean's jokes, and make them knee-slappers; Toni, apparently, can't empathize with either of our situations and takes our jokes about Billy Bob or Cabada at face value.
I have the privilege of filling in the blanks for Sean, and can declare the man I believe Sean to be as my soulmate. Toni, who holds similar tastes to me, can dismiss the man she believes Sean to be as a vulgar idiot. I wonder who Sean really is, and how similar he is to his online persona?
Heh. To think, I started this post asking Pop what his conclusion was...
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The root of this disagreement, I think, is that the human mind is not infinitely sensitive to qualitative differences, and its language doesn't have the infinite vocabulary necessary to accurately describe similar but non-identical things. There is no special word for love-that-makes-coffee-without-being-asked-but-will-not-take-out-the-trash, love-that-has-met-once-but-exists-mainly-online-and-the-one-time-there-was-spinach-in-his-teeth or love-that-sends-heartfelt-poetic-emails-but-has-never-held-hands, and if there were special words for them there still wouldn't be any way to place them on a scale and say that this one's yay-good and that that one's just this much better, the way we so want to. Each-to-his-own really is the only conclusion that can be reached.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conclusion? Where did I ever say I had a conclusion? And while "To each his own" may seem to fit, I don't think it's quite that simple. I think it's more like an agnosticism thing -- on this one, I don't think the definite answer can be known (regarding the nature of the existence of cyberspace). Regarding the original issue of "Should I date in the internet," then yeah, to each his own. There are almost enough anecdotes on that one to call "data."
Also, it wasn't my intent to stretch a religious belief to be equal to an internet relationship. I was saying that other people might, and I'm not entirely sure they couldn't. Through my personal experience, I can't, not in such a way as to convince anyone. The majority of the time, yes, I probably "say much and interpret [my] god's answer from life events that happen subsequent to [my] prayer" -- such as the time mentioned in my landmark. I've had times when God was far clearer than that, though, and it's through experience and study and time that I've learned to recognize His interference in my life. That gets us back to the personal experience not being used as evidence for anyone else, though. I can only use it for me.
Besides, if I wanted to get in an argument over this stuff, I wouldn't choose to equate the internet to religion, I'd equate it to homosexuality. *smile* I even considered doing that, but then figured we didn't need another of those threads, either.
posted
Hmmm, ae, you make a good point. However, I still find it hard to believe that the level of connection over any medium, paper, telephone line, or internet, is going to be a genuine and as real as in person. There are just too many gaps that these mediums need filled in, that get done by the other person.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of you make excellent points, on both sides, but personally, I believe that it boils down to this: It's not the type of medium--be it a telephone wire, a letter, a computer screen, or meatspace. It's that you HAVE the bandwith, to borrow losely from Pop. The mediums are very different, but if you're in love (or lust, or even both), then the medium shouldn't matter much, it's that you have that connection. Yes, in some mediums it's harder to read someone than in others, but if you have feelings, there's that. Your feelings make the relationship real, even if it's all been a lie. If, by unlucky chance, you find that you've been in love with someone who doesn't exist (such as a Belgian widow), you were in LOVE, the feelings were there. There was bandwith, just no connection, just like a crush, or any other one-sided love/lust relationship.
Of course, that's just how I see it. Posts: 873 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My two cents is that a relationship is all about communication, something that can be done through many mediums. Personally, I find it a lot easier to read the signs when I'm speaking with someone in person, but that's just me. I believe a relationship can be carried on in any medium, but threespace is where it's got to end up.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, it depends on the type of relationship. I only have one relationship where sex is involved, and that's all I plan on having. Deep, meaningful, real friendships are still available on-line. If you don't believe me on that, just let me check my junk mail folder, and I'm sure I can find some links for you.
As a side-note, to me sex is a form of communication -- a very personal, private, intimate form. So in this sense, I wholeheartedly agree with Ryuko's words.
posted
Here's the deal: if sex is just another TYPE of communication, along with every other form of physical stimulus, then of course EVERYTHING is ultimately just a form of communication.
But I'm willing to submit that physical stimulus produces physical responses that affect behavior in ways generally NOT produced by, say, E-mail, and that the differences between these forms of "communication" are in fact very significant.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we're talking in circles now. I'm also not entirely sure that there's much disagreement. All have agreed that for an online romantic relationship to progress, it must eventually transition to the 3-d world.
The only disagreements seem to be how "real" it is until that point, and at what point that transition must occur.
I think that many of those who are pushing the idea that it can exist and grow and be "real" for longer online also don't believe in premarital sex. I think that's significant -- it means that even in entirely "3-d" relationships, we don't think the strictly physical aspects of a growing-but-not-yet-married romantic relationship are the most important aspects.
Actually, speaking entirely for myself, I don't think they're the most important aspects of a married relationship either. Important? Very! The most important? Absolutely not -- communication (in a more traditional sense ) is.
posted
BUT...there's a lot involved in communication that isn't just talk. (I'm not talking sex). I'm saying it's body language, pitch, tone, facial expression.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed! I actually agree that some amount of face-to-face time is PREFERRED for all sorts of reasons. But sometimes it isn't possible -- and I think the online communication (likely complemented by phone conversations and maybe (paper) letters) is not such a terrible substitute.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just speaking for myself here (mainly so I don't contradict what I said earlier ), I think it's an absolutely terrible substitute, simply because if it was an adequate subtitute I wouldn't want something more than that. What's missing from an online relationship has to be important because there is a need for it. Wanting makes it so.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to that logic, marriage-minded people should not date, because they crave something MORE than dating. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I'm willing to submit that physical stimulus produces physical responses that affect behavior in ways generally NOT produced by, say, E-mail, and that the differences between these forms of "communication" are in fact very significant.
Oh, TYPE it big daddy! POUND that keyboard! Oh god, no, yes yes yes I'M GONNA USE AN EXCLAMATION MARK!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those in favor of not meeting people online seem to have overlooked the fact that you have many thousands of times more people from whom to choose online than in threespace. That is the huge advantage of cyberspace friendships. I also think there are other advantages, for instance, getting to know the person as a person before you ever even find out what they look like. Again, if your primary focus in dating is carnality, you are not going to be interested in meeting people this way. But that is another advantage, to my way of thinking, because it eliminates guys whose primary focus in dating is carnality.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe you should be a bit more specific about who you're addressing. "Those in favor of not meeting people online" doesn't seem to encompass many people here, which leads me to believe that you are again misinterpreting what your opponents are saying. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, a clarification can't hurt.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
bump, I missed the end of this thread including Papa Moose's contribution (He posted on my birthday and I wasn't paying a lot of attention to hatrack then!) and want to read it tomorrow at work. Was discussing with someone the difference between being "in love" and love. How one is a feeling and the other is a fact that just "is". I'm doing a bad job of explaining it so maybe this thread will give me as much insight as it did last time.
posted
Here's a question. Are the "in love" and the transition to "ordinary love" stages different on the internet compared to a real life only relationship?
Kat has a great discription of what I would describe as "ordinary love" earlier in this thread.
quote: Love cluttered up with lust and dishes and thermostats and boring Friday nights when one wants to go dancing
The "in love" while not necessarily equivalent to "in lust" but close to me is only an inital "honeymoon phase" It last different lengths in different people and while some people claim that in their relationship it doesn't go away, I think that the general evidence is that it does (though it can come back on occasion) And it is when the "in love" fades that you find out whether there is enough "ordinary love" for the relationship to stick through thick and thin.
I was also contemplating I Corinthians 13 the famous "love chapter" and trying to bring it to a more human perspective.
Love is patient True, but sometimes love requires a kick in the behind when the other person is screwing up
Love is kind True however, what one person views as unkind isn't necessarily the same in others. Steve and I give each other a lot of sarcastic flak on a daily basis, and we enjoy it. However it takes some of my female friends completely aback, because they think we are being mean to each other.
Love does not behave itself unseemly. True but once again you have to have similar definitions of "unseemly". For example, my mother can't believe I would take off on weekend long dog shows or hatrack get togethers without Steve. She views it as a huge failing in our relationship. I on the other hand feel lucky to have found a guy that is secure enough in himself and in his trust of me, that he wants me to go do things I enjoy with or without him. Some of the things I enjoy, he doesn't, but that doesn't mean I have to stop participating in them. The same is true in reverse as well. I'm not really into RPGs and computer games, but if they make him happy, why not?
Love seeks not her own. True, unselfishness is key.
Love is not easily provoked. I know some relationships where one or the other will fly up into cinders over small things. However the reason those relationships are still together is because they don't hold grudges against each other. Not holding grudges is probably to me the more key thing than not provoking each other.
Love rejoices not in iniquity but rejoices in the truth.
Trust is key. I think more trust than honesty. Sometimes one person has to trust the other that they really don't need to know all the facts of whatever at the moment because it would make everything worse. But if you trust the person, then you know that what they aren't telling you is for a good reason. For a personal example Steve reads all my psychotic grandma mail before I do. Sometimes he never gives me the letter just the synopsis. Do I really want to know all of the hurtful things she said most recently? Not really, even if I might be curious about it. So I trust him to make the judgement call for me.
Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
At this point I believe he had to be refering to God, not humanity because there are certian things that shouldn't be put up with like abuse. This last line I have the most problem with I guess, because it would make someone incredibly naieve and easily vitimized.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(So many congruences. <smiles>) I don't see that as being an online vs. threespace difference, either, though. Lots of people had close high school friends that became their roommates in college, for instance, and it didn't work out at all. Lots of people marry people they met in real life and knew and dated only in real life, and then it doesn't work out, they find out they didn't even know that person at all, etc. It's one thing that can happen to friendships, or to love no matter where they form. I still don't see any distinction in that regard.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
every time I'm teasing, and Ralphie will just have to understand.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
that's just how I see it. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
