Is it worth even trying? Any success stories? Cuz I've heard of a lot that haven't gone so well.
If so, which sites should be tried? Costs?
Just curious,
Hasdy!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hatrack seems to be working well.
Posted by hasdy (Member # 5905) on :
in that case... how yoooou doing *wink wink*
hehe
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh honey, I don't think so.
Good luck, though!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
How many couples have been the result of hatrack?
Brinestone and Jon Boy (actually married) Hobbes and Annie (budding romance) Pixie and Black Fox? (I'm not actually sure if they knew each other IRL or not)
I'm sure I'm leaving a couple of couples out.
AJ
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
Um . . . Strider and Leonide . . . um . . .
I'm having a really bad brain day. I know there are more.
Posted by hasdy (Member # 5905) on :
hahaha..... that was a bit discouraging.
just for curiousity's sake..... I'd like to hear some of those horror stories too.
Hasdy!
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
quote: So, what does everyone think of it?
Is it worth even trying? Any success stories?
I'd say so!
Umm, yes, AJ, you left someone out... *looks innocent* ((((((((((((Marek)))))))))))) Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
LOL!
I've never been particularly inclined towards internet dating. Probably because it used to seem that more then half of the 'women' online were guys pretending to be women. However, I know many people that have had positive experiences dating people they've met online and I know others that have even gotten married to people they've met online. These positive experiences are fairly balanced by other's negative ones though.
Most people seem to progress from online to phone then to a "Real-Life" meeting.
Anyhoo..my two cents worth.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
It ruins the internet.
Posted by hasdy (Member # 5905) on :
rhaegar...
explain!
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
About a week ago I would have said its great, me say no more.
Posted by Anti-Chris (Member # 4452) on :
Pssh. Dating. Pssh.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I didn't know if Strider and Leonide actually met on Hatrack or if they were a couple beforehand.
Marek and Raia, I thought you knew each other somewhat IRL first, but I guess I was wrong.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
And do Kama and Leto count?
AJ
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
It is absolutely absurd.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
Well, my wife started doing it and has now moved out. . . .
So in my own situation I don't personally approve, but for all you single people out there, I don't know. I've never done it myself. For y'all it just might work.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The way I've seen things work out:
If you get on line to meet other people, then disaster will befall you.
If you meet people while on-line, then it is definately worthy.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I didn't know if Strider and Leonide actually met on Hatrack or if they were a couple beforehand.
we met on hatrack.
And actually *met* due to Grenme. Then started dating soon after.
but I agree with Dan. I think things can work out when the couple happens to get together as a result of meeting online somehow. But I wouldn't promote internet dating in itself. Not to say it won't ever work, but i think the former is probably more condusive to having a relationship.
[ December 15, 2003, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I met my wife over the Internet. It's not a bad idea, if you're mature about it.
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
I agree with Dan_raven and Strider, it seems like it is a very good thing if you just happen to meet someone online, but actively tring to meet someone seems like a bad idea to me anyway.
quote: Marek and Raia, I thought you knew each other somewhat IRL first, but I guess I was wrong.
-Hobbes
We have met eachother in person now, but we met on hatrack first, and were sort of a couple before we met in person, so I'd also say hatrack is a great place to meet people.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Raia)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
hasdy -- I'm wondering if AGE has a factor in how successful it is.
I know more middle-aged (been married once before type) are using internet dating, and some with success. I have looked at a few out of curiousity, but have not had any meaningful relationships from it (of course, eharmony's free personality test said only 2% of the men in the world matched the type of person I need -- HA!!)
I would think if you are younger, there is more risk.
Farmgirl (still sitting here waiting for Bob_S to ask me out...)
Posted by hasdy (Member # 5905) on :
good point.... i can see how age can be a factor. Just to reiterate for my own sake, the older you are... the more serious you'll take it. Where as if you're younger.... you don't give a rats ass if it works or not... cuz there's lots of time.
Isn't location a major factor? Are all the hookups in hatrack based on people in the same area... or did some people actually move to be with the other?
Cuz.... well at this point in my life... I ain't gonna move just to go and date someone.
Hasdy!!
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
I have a co-worker who met his wife through an internet dating site. We work for the US Army Corps of Engineers and his wife and mother-in-law thought it would be a good idea for him to volunteer to go to Iraq, so whether or not the whole thing worked out well is kind of a call I'm going to let you make. He's the only one I know who has done the internet dating thing.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Are you saying that the internet wife and mother-in-law (mother-in-laws are almost always bad news anyway especially if it is her mother) are telling him to go to Iraq so that he will die and they can collect life insurance or is it something less insidious?
AJ
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote: Marek and Raia, I thought you knew each other somewhat IRL first, but I guess I was wrong.
-Hobbes
I assume that by attributing that quote to me you mean that AJ said it. Right?
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ohh, and I agree with Dan. Internet relationships are good but I have serious doubts about getting online to meet people, as opposed to meeting people online.
Did I say good? I meant very good.
Hobbes Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
Like I said, I'm going to let you make that call. It's not as if I know the wife or the mother-in-law, so I can't really say, but let's just say that there were a lot of chuckles going around when we found out why he is going.
Mike
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Well, Unicornwhisperer and I are a success story. We have been married for 2 and half years and we have our 6-month old son Elijah (not named after Frodo, by the way). We met on LDSingles.com. We emailed each other for about a month,then met and started dating after that. The rest is history and our marriage is great. In fact, many people have said they could not imagine a better-matched couple. Of course, that's not to say all internet matches work so well...
...Oh, and I have a wife who is going with me tomorrow to the SLC line party to see ROTK. So, it must be a success!!
And she's cute, too. Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Saudade and Andrei (met at proto-Hatrack and moved to be together from what I understand).
The women of Hatrack and Dante (if he had ever married us that is).
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
My husband and I are a success story, but we met online (as opposed to getting online to meet people). We actually met in a MUD when I was working as a consultant in my university's computer lab (a job I now hold at a different university). Anyway, we've been married three years and are very happy. Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Here is an OSC siting with Unicornwhisperer and I some time ago. Our picture is about halfway down the page. You can't miss it. OSC has his hand on my head.
Did you two meet on the internet? Don't you have kid(s)? That's awesome!
As far as this subject goes, my mind has changed. Annie and I discussed this in depth one night while she was visiting...we were trying to figure out why a lot of us (me included) had the notion that internet relationships, friendships etc were 'unhealthy.' I don't know! I guess I feel guilty when I spend too much time online. But, if I was dating a guy long distance, I'd spend a lot of time on the phone with him. Probably just as much time as I would spend on the internet. Right?
Anyway, after meeting people IRL that I first got to know on the internet, I have shed my silly notions that relationships that start online can't possibly be good. I think they really can be good! I've heard of several success stories and saw Annie and Hobbes in person when they first met IRL. It can be for real if, like Tom said, you're mature about it.
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
Ok, I'm not even sure how I made that mistake, Hobbes hadn't even posted in this thread, and the screen names are very different, so now I'm really confused, but I still stand by everything in my post except who I attributed the quote to.
[ December 15, 2003, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Marek ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Pix and Black Fox met on hatrack. They are still waiting to meet IRL because he got deployed soon after they became a couple.
Personally, I think it's a great idea. Certainly there are a lot more people online from whom to choose, as compared to the people you might meet in real life. Online they sort themselves according to interests, too, so you are just going to be able to meet many more people with whom you have a lot in common online than IRL.
Of all the internet couples I know well, every one of them found someone far better suited to them, smarter, kinder, better educated, etc. etc. than the people they were dating in real life up to that time. I also think it's good to find out how compatible you are as people before you actually meet in person. And of course if you like someone well enough, you are going to talk on the phone and then travel to meet one another as soon as possible. So I don't see any down-side. I personally think it's the ONLY way to date.
[ December 15, 2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
People who think you can't form meaningful bonds online (of any type, romantic or not) have niether spent enough time on Hatrack nor met Annie and myself.
Hobbes Posted by Polemarch (Member # 3293) on :
I think it could form good relationships here because one isn't distracted by the usual things that can be distracting in a relationship- appearances, physical lust, etc. What you get here is just the person's actual personality (and writing skills, but that doesn't count for much), not one changed because of circumstances. But yeah, meeting someone online is probably much better than going online to meet someone. Like in a real situation, there's no pressure to try a real relationship unless both of you really want to, unlike in a dating service where that was the point from the get-go.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Always. Get. Pictures. Before. Meeting.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Effing DUH.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Yep. I've done it. Met a guy online, met IRL and was a couple for about 3 1/2 years. He just recently moved out but we are still friends. It can happen and I would encourage mature indivduals to give it a try.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Well, that eliminates most of this board.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Nah, just you and me, Mack.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
ne1 want cyber w/ 1337 h4x0r?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Only at Whistler Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Show boob1ez prz!!!!
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
Even though Mayday and I met in real life first, the majority of our relationship (except three weeks) has been pretty much internet and phone. You do have to have a certain amount of maturity to do it. Satyagraha
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Again, as has been said, it's really not the medium that can be called good or bad.
But there's really something to be said for the "sorting out of interests" that occurs online. What I've always wanted in someone I dated IRL - intelligence, humor, wit, similar tastes - was what I was first able to recognize in my new fantastic boyfriend. Of course, the fact that he's cute and adorable doesn't hurt at all.
But, as my dear friend Hobbes put it, long-distance relationships have to become short-distance relationships at some point if they're going to progress.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
That's the key. I must say that I am rather skeptical when people say they're 'in love' even when they haven't met in person. I think you HAVE to meet in person and spend some time together to add an important level to how well you know someone.
And if you do that and it still works, it's a good thing!
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Have they really developed techniques for dating the internet? I thought that it might have to have been around a bit longer to date it, like a few more decades. Is it anything like carbon dating?
[Edit because I cannot spell]
[ December 16, 2003, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Mr.Funny ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm trying to think of a polite way to put this. Leave it to me to bring it up since ya'll know my mind is always in the gutter anyway.
So What about the sex?
There I said it. Clearly there is the nasty smut that is all over the internet, and I'm not talking about internet porn here. I guess that for those of you waiting until marriage, it probably isn't as big an issue, and actually puts a degree of separation from temptation in there. In fact it makes it more old fashioned where the bride and groom exchanged letters during their betrothal when they'd never actually seen each other until they day they got married.
However I'm interested in those sorts of people who have done an internet relationship, that while not being wantonly promiscous at the same time would like to have a physical aspect to their relationship as well as an intellectual aspect. My own relationship would fall apart without the intellectual relationship, but I also know that there isn't a replacement for having a warm body next to you in bed either.
Years ago I had an extended internet correspondence with a guy. It lasted about a year and a half. He was someone who I'd met in real life first over a summer. Neither of us had significant others at the time. We had an intellectual relationship that made both of us less lonely and needy at the time. The idea of a physical relationship was discussed, we were both physically attracted to each other, but it came down to distance. Maybe it was selfish, but while the intellectual aspects were great, neither one of us was willing to deal with a long distance relationship that also had a physical component.
Actually that isn't entirely true, I was more willing to consider the idea than he was, but neither of us was comfortable with it. It wasn't a faithfulness or unfaithfulness issue, it was a present or absent issue. While we were still contemplating these issues to see whether they could be resolved, my parents got in the middle and pretty much ran him off. We never even so much as kissed, which adds to the irony of my paranoid parents.
Anyway we both started dating someone else close to us in physcial location at about the same time. So I'm of two minds. I think an internet relationship can work, but at the same time it is awfully nice to have someone nearby in both body and mind. And it is much easier to work out your future with someone who is close to you then to work out how two people far away from each other end up in the same place.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: But, as my dear friend Hobbes put it, long-distance relationships have to become short-distance relationships at some point if they're going to progress.
Hobbes is wise. I somehow missed your quote above but I think that sort of sums up what I was trying to say in the above post.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
We were both in our early 20s at the time. I don't think I was any hornier then, than I am now however. I guess I could ask him whether he is or not since I still talk to him ocasionally, and he's used to off the wall questions from me. The internet relationship or non-relationship lasted approximately a year and a half.
The relationship I've had since has lasted four years, though if you'd asked me going in I would never have dreamed it would last so long or work out so well. Since I only talk with him sporadically now, there was one time about a year ago when he kind of asked if I was single, since he's had two or three relationships since that haven't worked out long term. But he's more of a gentleman than I am a lady and since I told him I was still with Steve he's never brought it up again.
AJ
(oh yeah and Steve and I were friends during that year and a half I was corresponding with the other guy, before we started actually seeing each other)
Also farmgirl, why did you want to know about age to begin with?
AJ
[ December 16, 2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Strider and I thought we'd add our two cents to the discussion since we have first hand knowledge of both internet dating and long-distance internet dating.
When we started dating i lived (and still do) in southeast Pennsylvania. Strider lived in North Jersey. We were two hours apart. At the very beginning, it didn't seem like that big of a deal, because we didn't know each other that well and of course we had the telephone and internet, especially the internet since that's where we essentially met. Seeing each other for a weekend and then being apart for two weeks wasn't a huge sacrifice or big lonely separation period because we were just starting. It wasn't *fun* leaving each other knowing we wouldn't meet again for awhile, but it was do-able.
As we began to grow closer, though, two hours was like an eternity. A few days would seem like weeks apart and the long-distance thing started to wear. NEVER to the point where we wanted to end it, but it was hard to see each other as often as we would have liked: i.e., a few times a week instead of once a week, or once every two weeks.
Strider decided to leave his job a few months ago and move back to his old college town which is, as luck would have it, a mere 45 minutes from my house. I think we both breathed a sigh of relief that we wouldn't be making our marathon commutes anymore.
As for the physical closeness, it's a must. A necessity. I don't know what I would do if I couldn't see him in person, touch him, talk face-to-face with him for an extended period of time. This relationship would not be at the level of intimacy it's at right now if we'd never met. And i mean personal intimacy. You need to see people in real life, in their element or as many elements as you can -- you have to meet their friends, see their home, see how they react to any and all situations. It's so important to have that. Kind of immerse yourself in their reality. And vice versa, obviously.
But the internet is not reality, although it can be real. You can't tell how a guy treats waitpeople on the internet. You can't guess how he holds hands, or kisses. Or what makes him smile or laugh out loud. You NEED that. I can't understand anyone who says they love someone they've never met. You might love all that they've shown you, all that you've garnered from them through their words, but you don't love *them*. THEM is who they are in person. THEM is their behavior, how they react to things, what makes them tick, really. You can't tell those things, in my opinion, through IM conversations.
The internet can be a good starting point, but it has to progress past that. It just has to.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I second everything Leonide said.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I have a question for those of you that met on the internet and eventually met in real life etc. Did you know the guy/girl well enough by the time you met them IRL to not be scared to death about what they would think of you when they met you in person?
I'm always one that has been ridiculously insecure about my physical appearance, which is why internet dating has its appeal...and yet the very thought of being interested in someone enough to want to meet them makes me go cold all over just because I am nervous about what they would think of the 'real' me (meaning what I look like and how I am in person). I guess I would have nothing to lose, but this is something that has kept me from letting other people set me up, and it has certainly kept me from letting myself be interested in anyone on the internet. Of course you have the guy that will say "I love you just the way you are" blah blah, but I think I have trouble believing that until I've met them in person. I suppose it's just the meeting that scares me enough to make me shy away from the possibility.
Does that make sense?
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
We forgot Pod and Jaiden. They are a hatrack couple.
I agree that of course you are going to meet that person in real life as soon as you possibly can, when you find someone online that you really care about. I do think you can fall in love with people online. I think how someone treats people who serve them is very indicative of character, yet you can find that out, too, online and in telephone conversations. How they treat their family, and their friends, yes. Those things do tell you a lot about someone.
The physical is a substrate, a platform, like hardware. Love is in the software. Lots and lots of different hardware platforms can support love equally well. Especially to people who are accustomed themselves to dwelling in a theoretical or mental or spiritual universe. People who read and think a lot, in other words, and understand things in terms of the underlying theory, what is actually happening to the best of human understanding, rather than just the surface appearance.
I've said this before but have never been able to make myself understood. The "real" world that we experience is constructed by the mind from the inputs the brain receives, which are electromagnetic impulses in nerves. Our bodies become part of us because of specific structures and routines in the brain. When pilots experience the phenomenon of their airplanes becoming extensions of their bodies, or when a person who wears inverting glasses suddenly sees the world turn right side up again after stumbling around for a few weeks, or when people who use waldos for extended periods of time begin to feel the grasping elements as parts of their own bodies, this shows that the brain is very plastic in the ability to shape perception to agree with new realities. The degree to which we "inhabit" cyberspace is similarly variable. Some of us take to it in such a way that we are as alive and real in this new space as we were in the old. The two spaces have different features and capabilities, but they are essentially the same, in that they allow beings to interact through the medium of electromagnetic impulses.
I think it's just like Narnia realized. It may be true for some people at some times, or for you, perhaps, at all times, that it is not possible to fall in love online, but that doesn't mean it's true for everyone. It does not mean that love is less real. It's like love in threespace, exactly as real as the people involved consider it to be. It's as real as the effect it has on your life and your choices from there on out. As real as who you are.
[ December 19, 2003, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I was worried, but not about the way I looked. Not because I look good (I look like a goober, and I believe that official goober rater Ralphie will back me up here) but because Annie knew what I looked like already from my pictures and I do look slightly better than I do in my pictures (I'm the least photogenic person I know). And it wasn't so much nervousness about anything in particular, just about a big event in general.
I think Annie was a bit worried about her looks but I don't understand why, she's completely gorgeous; and here Narnia (and everyone else at the Portland signing) can back me up.
Hobbes Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
I guess I'm more interested not in whether people were worried beforehand, but about how it actually turned out. Everyone I know has said about meeting someone in real life for the first time, that after at most the first few minutes, they seemed just exactly the same person as they were online.
I had the reverse happen to me once, that someone I thought I knew well in real life (a guy I had worked with for 2 years) turned out to be a real creep when I got to know him online. Once I knew his online incarnation, then the hints to his real self were there in regular life, too. I just had never seen how key they were to his true self. He felt constrained in real life to be nice, it seemed, because he was so physically unimposing a person. When he got online where there were no constraints, his true self showed a whole lot more. He was extremely not nice online.
I think if anything you can learn more about a person online than in real life.
[ December 16, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Narnia said,
quote: Did you know the guy/girl well enough by the time you met them IRL to not be scared to death about what they would think of you when they met you in person?
I was extremely nervous, but I guess that is always because I hear that guys put such store by physical looks. I already knew I would like him no matter how he looked (he was gorgeous), but since guys are so "visual", I was afraid of disappointing him. That lasted all of about 30 minutes after we left (long enough to get out of the airport). Then things were just like we were old friends.
AJ -- I guess I didn't really clarify why I asked age. I guess it is just because I don't know that I would recommend on-line romance and dating for younger people, especially inexperienced virgins. Too easy to get taken advantage of.
Since I'm older (42), I'm not ashamed to admit that I like the physical part of a relationship, but also that the physical is very secondary to the trust of a true friend and companion. So I thought perhaps the "physical" side you were talking about might have a varying amount of importance in the relationship in accordance with age.
Farmgirl
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
ana kata, I really, really, really love that analogy of love as software and the physical as hardware.
In fact, I really love everything you said in that last post. I am in complete agreement--I think it IS possible to fall in love online, though that isn't the way it happened for me.
About the meeting IRL--when it happened for me, I was scared silly, mainly from insecurity about my looks. But he turned out to be sweet and kind and liked the way I looked, so it all worked out. (I guess I should say I liked the way he looked, too...Looks just were sort of a non-issue with us, though).
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: The physical is a substrate, a platform, like hardware. Love is in the software. Lots and lots of different hardware platforms can support love equally well. Especially to people who are accustomed themselves to dwelling in a theoretical or mental or spiritual universe. People who read and think a lot, in other words, and understand things from in terms of the underlying theory, what is actually happening to the best of human understanding, rather than just the surface appearance.
I've said this before but have never been able to make myself understood. The "real" world that we experience is constructed by the mind from the inputs the brain receives, which are electromagnetic impulses in nerves. Our bodies become part of us because of specific structures and routines in the brain. When pilots experience the phenomenon of their airplanes becoming extensions of their bodies, or when a person who wears inverting glasses suddenly sees the world turn right side up again after stumbling around for a few weeks, or when people who use waldos for extended periods of time begin to feel the grasping elements as parts of their own bodies, this shows that the brain is very plastic in the ability to shape perception to agree with new realities. The degree to which we "inhabit" cyberspace is similarly variable. Some of us take to it in such a way that we are as alive and real in this new space as we were in the old. The two spaces have different features and capabilities, but they are essentially the same, in that they allow beings to interact through the medium of electromagnetic impulses.
I know we've talked about this before ak. As I've said before, you can have an intellectual romance in a way. To use the old Greek words that would be phileo love "brotherly love" as it were. I can concieve of feeling like that for quite a few people on Hatrack now, you included. However I don't think it is a truly romantic or eros type love unless physical interaction body to body is included. Now once we can jack in to a neural network, like sci-fi predicts I will take that objection back.
The examples you gave, the plane, the glasses and the waldo (which I assume is some sort of mechanical arm and not a sex toy that I'm unfamilar with ) are all of people physically interacting with their senses with the peice of equipment. THey are still getting direct sensory information back to their nerves. If you are just reading or words on a screen, there is an extra mental processing step of converting to words and then back to ideas that doesn't occur in the other examples and causes a sensory disconnect.
In a plane a pilot feels the push and pull of gravity on his rear in the seat if nothing else. That pull can be deciving at times, and they have to overcome the sensory while flying on instruments alone.
In a romance, at some point, I surely want to feel someone else's touch on my skin itself as well as other unmentionable places. There is a distinct difference in the way electromagnetic impulses go from my skin to my brain than the way they go from words on the computer screen to my brain.
AJ
[ December 16, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: Did you know the guy/girl well enough by the time you met them IRL to not be scared to death about what they would think of you when they met you in person?
I can't answer this, not like Annie/Hobbes can and others, because Strider and I met before we knew we liked each other a whole bunch. But I don't think I would've been so gung-ho about getting to know him better, IMing him until all hours of the night, if I hadn't met him in person first. And I *had* talked to him online before meeting him...it was meeting him in person that let me see how great he was. His easy-going manner, the way he carried himself, how you could tell he was confident but not cocky in the slightest...I was drawn to him.
I have had plenty of conversations online with people whom I've liked better in real-life than their personas online. I don't think there's ever a guarantee that you're going to meet someone online, then meet them in person, and feel exactly the same way about them. People are just different in both places. Maybe sometimes, rarely, it happens...but I've never seen it. My one good friend, best friend, is a talker. a jabberer. But online, she types in short choppy sentences that don't convey her personality or intelligence level in the slightest. She uses those trendy abbreviations like there's no tomorrow, and she's about as un-trendy as they come.
I just don't think that a person's entire personality can be shown over the internet. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote: I don't think there's ever a guarantee that you're going to meet someone online, then meet them in person, and feel exactly the same way about them.
This is what I find incredibly scary about online dating. I guess I'm just too insecure for it.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
We should have another Hatrack Singles thread, by the looks of things. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The extent of my online relationship with my wife has been a handful of AIM messages within a period of one day several years ago, before I banished AIM from my computer for being so annoying. We still send each other the occasional email, although our dial-up connection at home makes it easier to just call. However, we first started dating before either of us really knew what email (or the Internet, for that matter) was all about. We just didn't form those habits.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Just to make an observation, it's going to be a little sucky if hatrack romance turns into hatrack what was I thinking? Maybe that's just me projecting my own glorious leave no survivors behind style of dating onto others, though I can't help thinking of the whole Maui Babe debacle of a few months back. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Just to make an observation, it's going to be a little sucky if hatrack romance turns into hatrack what was I thinking
Did you mean: "Just to make an observation, it's going to be a little sucky if hatrack romance turns hatrack into what was I thinking"? If not I'm confused.
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Turns into Hatrack what-was-I-thinking?(regarding the person you met on Hatrack, who is still posting there, but you now dislike intensely.) Clear now? No? Oh, well.
I'm just being a little pessimistic and bitter, Hobbes, as is my want. I really do very badly, have done very badly, with most women that I've dated. My break-ups are always very emotional and, except in the case of one person, never result in any kind of friendship, but rather a kind of low level warfare. Kind of hard to explain if you're not a manic lover. High highs, low lows and all that. Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
quote: People are just different in both places.
I think that's one of the biggest things you have to "look out for" with anyone online. Sometimes the differences are subtle or small, sometimes they're significant. Most major differences are pretty much avoidable if you make a point of being honest. ::shrugs a little:: The way my mother puts it: In an online or non-IRL relationship you can know everything about someone and still know really nothing at all at the same time.
And Anne Kate's got it: Foxy and I will have been together for a year now (as of this Saturday!!! ) but we haven't met in person yet because of his deployment and being stuck on base beforehand and my inability to get to Kentucky and back home in time to not get into any trouble with school. He'll be spending at least a week or so with me when he returns so we'll see what happens. For now I just love him to pieces and am praying that he still loves me in person too. (In other words: Heck yeah, I'm nervous, but I wouldn't change it for the world. )
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Stormy, the person you're reffering to and I are still friends thank-you very much. Or at least I haven't noticed her flaming me here.
Hobbes Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I don't think Stormy was referring to you, personally, Hobbes. That was a general "you"
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
You mean, there's other people?
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, that was a general you, Hobbes. I certainly wasn't referring to you specifically! Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
That's the problem with English not having a second person plural, or whatever the term is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sure it does! "Y'all" fits the bill quite nicely.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yes, but the unedcuated masses that have yet to live in the South can't seem to accept that word.
I know that I do. Posted by Feyd Baron (Member # 1407) on :
heh most other languages have a form of "y'all" (second person plural, as a singluar word). I wouldn't JUST say it's the South to blame...
And I'm pretty neutral on internet relationships. Then again, I pretty much surrendered before I even gave any sort of long-distance relationship a try.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I could have sworn we were all 'bots and the only real person here was Hobbes. Possibly Annie, though she might be a bot too.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Around these parts we've taken care of the "similar" plural quite horrendously with the word "yous." Yes. yous. Yous heard me. Yous.
*shudders*
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hey! Annie's real. Celia's just a robot though, your right.
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The only "South" I've ever lived in is SoCal, but I adopted "y'all" cuz it's so useful.
Leonide, "yous" is still better than "youse guys"! Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
By the way, I hearilty endorse Feyd for getting his "y'all" right. "y'all" is singular, "all y'all" is plural. I learned that in Sunday school so I know it to be true.
Hobbes Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hobbe's you are forgetting you'uns and we'uns and we-all and they-all
See also:fixn' ta
<grin>
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
bump, for ak. We were talking about this more last night on IM. She had some interesting thoughts on the matter, that I hadn't particularly thought about.
For those of you in internet relationships, do you actually write out actions you would do if you were there? not necessecarily in a smutty sense but something like
*brushes hair out of your face and tucks it behind your ear* (that was an example from ak)
AJ
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Yes. Definitely.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Yes, but mine usually consist of <gives huge wedgie>.
Of course, I've always been something of an odd-ball.
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
Ditto Leo's post. It just helps to keep things a bit more realistic since, let's face it, a lot of a relationship or just plain communicaiton in general isn't so much words as it is actions.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Maybe it is just me then. Before hatrack I would have never dreamed of giving an e-wedgie or *thump* Mack has been a bad influence. I also only really chatted on IM and ICQ with people I already knew IRL. I had this huge mental disconnect between the two mediums.
AJ
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
PC never gave me the wedgie. Does it mean we haven't dated? Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Yes yes, blame it all on Mack. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I was just reading the dating after marriage thread, and I wonder if internet dating after marriage would work. We do have two computers hooked up now. We could sit back to back and steam up the parachat. What d'ya think?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
LOL. With Steve and I we often IM each other even though our computers are about 3 feet away from each other. We both get so engrossed in whatever we are doing on the computer that we don't actually hear when someone is talking to us. So if I'm not just babbling and care whether he hears me or not I generally IM him.
AJ
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
<gives Kama a huge wedgie>
Now, don't tell my girlfriend. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Primal Curve Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I find wedgies very offensive.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Don't take THAT away from me! Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
He's just saying he wants one.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Yeah, I wonder if the people who can't imagine possibly falling for someone online are correlated with those who don't do actions in instant messaging. Though it's not strictly necessary, it does seem to be a part of most online couples' friendship, that they hold hands or sit side by side or have cyber pillow fights or tickle fights or throw water balloons or whatever. And, yes, I had a friend who used to often tuck stray strands of my hair behind my ears for me. I remember someone thwacking me once with a cyber-pillow way back in the old mirc days before instant messaging really took off. Saudade and I made ourselves dragon bodies back in 1998 or some time and flew all around the solar system. A dragon body has lots of advantages, mainly that it doesn't use oxygen for fuel, and of course is much more tolerant of extremes in atmospheric pressure. The parachat room has all sorts of cool futuristic virtual reality games and things in it, of course, as well as endless room upon room down recursive corridors like the Doctor's tardis. I wonder if actually inhabiting cyberspace, with full decor and props and everything makes any sort of difference to the ease with which a person can fall in love there? It's true that not everyone moves in and takes over and feels so comfortable there. I forgot about that. I bet that does make a real difference.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Oh. Storm Saxon Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I had a friend who used to often tuck stray strands of my hair behind my ears for me.
I loved that.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I have nothing to say in relation to this thread...I'm just curious about who stole my name! Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'll thumb-wrestle you for it. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You want to know why cyber-actions aren't substitutes for real actions?
Because they always come off the way you want them to come off, and they always feel the way the recipient wants them to feel.
If I write something like *gently runs his hand down the small of your back, sending shivers of silver up and down your spine*, you the audience get to decide what that feels like. Is it blissful? Is it calming? Arousing? Is it poetic, and meant to be blissful or calming or arousing? Is it -- as I think -- thuddingly cliche?
Consider that for a moment. It's possible for this action to be interpreted as a manipulative cliche in the real world, too, but it's far MORE likely that we'd think of it that way in cyberspace -- precisely because we understand that, in cyberspace, there IS no action beyond our ability to execute.
I can flawlessly make love to you over the Web, hindered only by my command of the language. I can balance an infinite number of spoons on the end of my nose. I can fly through the vacuum of space to fetch you your favorite ice cream, and never need to get resentful of or exhausted by all that labor because it ISN'T labor.
In cyberspace, I am Smoove B.
In MeatSpace, I'm clumsy. Sometimes, when I roll over in bed to caress you, I'll twist my arm awkwardly and poke my elbow into your eye.
In cyberspace, when I type that, you are aware that I have deliberately introduced flaws into the fantasy we're creating together; you interpret this as some potentially heartwarming sincerity, or just a sense of humor. In MeatSpace, when I actually jam my elbow into your eye, the LAST thing on your mind is "Oh, isn't it nice that Tom's able to interject a little reality into our lovemaking?"
Here in cyberspace, I can be as eloquent as Shakespeare, as passionate as Browning, and indeed exactly as romantic as anyone listed on Google. I will never step on your shoes when we dance, except when I think it would be appropriate for me to do so. You will never ACTUALLY see me looking my worst in the morning, with bad bed-head and sheet marks pressed like scars across my entire face -- and even if, for some reason, we choose to roleplay that experience, you'll always be just as noble and understanding as I would hope you would be in that situation.
I will always have at my fingertips your birthday, your contact information, and logs in which you have told me your favorite songs, flowers, and other appropriate gifts and romantic markers. You will never see me look at or flirt with another woman, unless of course you intercept a misdirected /whisper or check my browser history.
In other words, 'Net romances are NOTHING like real life. They move faster, because it's all talk without any real impact or distraction; they commit faster, they declare love faster -- and unless they make the leap to the real world, or unless the people involved are so INTJ that they don't actually need to experience reality and live satisfactorily in their own self-contained fantasies, they tend to burn out faster, too.
Cyber romances are exactly like the Hatrack River 1800s forum, or any other form of consensual roleplay; they're fictions authored by a group, that last as long as the group agrees to keep them going and finds them satisfying. But while the emotions might be real, the hugs aren't.
[ December 17, 2003, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
I've found that most people who get really into those text actions or who use them a great deal (like every other post) are usually those who have more difficulty interacting with people in the real world. I'm sure there are exceptions, because I can imagine that people who are socially talented may learn when the best time or audience is to use such emotitexts. On the whole, however, most people I know in real life who use excessive text actions are usually too timid or socially unskilled.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Oh, amen Tom.
Amen.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
That's funny, Tom. The more I learn about people, the less I think they are like each other. I don't believe at all in this mythical perfection of a person you are referring to, whom you could create online. I don't believe I would fall for him for a moment. I get no such image from my friends online. No fantasy feel. No perfection. Just people, that's all. Who are grumpy some days and elated other days, funny and goofy and sad and glad, thoughtful and serious sometimes, kind or rude. Just like the people I know in the "real" world.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
The essence of a hug is not really the specific neural impulses generated by the pressure on various parts of your body. I could invent a hug machine that you could climb into and press a button and it would squeeze you in exactly the same way, even a precise robotic recording of the motions, if you liked, of your spouse giving you a tender hug. Would that be something that could replace your spouse's hugs for you?
I submit that it would not begin to replace them. Why can't a person tickle themselves? Why don't you laugh when you try to tickle yourself? Is it not the exact same physical sensastion as someone else tickling you? I believe the true essence of being hugged or tickled is in the intention of the person doing the hugging or tickling. Without a real person there behind the kiss, even the same exact physical sensations of a kiss would be totally empty. However, when someone to whom you are really attracted kisses you for the first time online, you might well faint dead away. Your heart will probably be pounding and you will get woozy and lightheaded and so on.
Perhaps not everyone can perceive a real person well enough online to fall in love with them, but it's certainly true that some people can.
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
Tom's got it. People can be immensely different in their online roles than they "truly" are in Meatspace.
It's true even in my case, to use the only online/flesh dichotomy I come even close to understanding. Online, I'm brilliantly witty (don't even try to deny it). In AIM, I can whip back a Funny within a second of an insult, and in letters I can express myself with a clarity and level of insight I often struggle to express verbally. My opinions are structured, and my thoughts limited only by the speed of my fingers -- often I write without having any idea what I'm saying, since I know it'll make coherent sense by the time I'm done writing. And once I express what I feel, regardless of my lack of mental involvement with my opinions (no matter how intellectual those opinions may be), I can then assert control over my own opinions and debate their merits from there.
That is, when typing, I rarely think of the next word I put down -- it just flows out, and by the time I'm done writing I'm nodding in agreement.
By contrast, in Meatspace, I can often fail to be understandable, and my thoughts are often jumbled when expressed. In conversation I can stammer or mumble, and more often than not, my tongue fails to represent my political views with the justice my fingers can serve them. I'm still charming and witty and handsome, heh, but it's more difficult to express my thoughts, since I rarely know my political opinions until I write them out, then consider their worth from there.
It's difficult to express this idea, even through my oh-so-talented fingers, and I know I'd have even more trouble expressing it through my tongue. What I'm trying to say is that while I'm the same person in Meatspace as I am online, it's far more difficult to respond in Meatspace with the speed and witticism and sheer intricacy of ideas I can online. I don't mean to malign my verbal ability overmuch -- I'm a sociable guy, and I like making conversation with people -- but I've noticed my Meatspace conversations tend toward banter, and usually leave political discussion to a written medium. This isn't to downplay my Meatspace personality, which I like to believe is no less intelligent or witty than my Internet persona (no jokes allowed), nor to put Daedalus on a pedestal (since my online writing isn't as brilliant as I'd like it to be), but online I am capable of political argument that's easier to express, if only through the virtues of overall cohesion and no interruption. Even conversation can be held that maintains casual cool without expressing the lazy body language that often accompanies easy banter. It's a great bonus to be able to hold a political argument in boxers, or tune out/go over a post whenever I don't feel like paying attention or simply don't understand another person's arguments.
But I'm sidetracking. If there's a point to this post, it's that I can be -- as Tom said -- a perfect man online. While in my case it's genuine (admit it), more often than not, the on-the-moment witticisms of online boyfriends can take days to think up, if they're not plagiarized entirely. If their Internet personas are genuine at all.
Of course, there are degrees. I can't believe that Moose, as a parallel example to my own, is as brilliant a speaker as he is a writer, if only because nobody sent me a memo telling me Churchill's been reborn. Chris can't possibly be as insightful off-the-tongue as he is in his posts, nor Frisco as large a wussy. Yet, Moose is brilliant, and no doubt reflects that in his Meatspace persona. I doubt Chris' insights are born in his fingers. Frisco may be as large a wussy as we expect from his posts, but at least he's tall. All these people, even if judged only by other Hatrackers' reactions upon meeting them, reflect a great deal of the brilliance (or wussiness) that they provide online.
Heh, god, I know I started this post with some conclusion in mind. What I've been saying, it looks like, is that people (though not most Hatrackers, according to various testimonies) can drastically differ from their online representations -- if their online personas aren't contrived to begin with. That's the problem inherent with Internet dating -- not only are you soliciting people who may need the Internet for their social lives (as opposed to picking up a boyfriend at a club or concert), and all the negative consequences that implies, you run the risk of planning a date with someone who may not be who they say they are in their ads. And all the negative consequences that may entail. I wouldn't recommend it unless you're looking for a sex buddy, and even then, you're likely to be unimpressed with the results of such an ad.
As far as an Internet relationship goes, just don't try it. You don't know how honest the other end of the IM box is being about herself; hell, you may be misportraying yourself, intentionally or not. You can't account for chemistry, and you can't measure sex appeal through a few carefully selected photos. While it's possible to fall for someone's Internet persona (like I have for Frisco's), there's no way you can guarantee that love will extend to their Meatspace identities. It's a recipe for hurt feelings and heartbreak.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
I'd like to ad my two cents. I met my girlfriend (we're dating for almost two years now) in a brazilian dating service called "Almas Gêmeas" (something like "soulmates"), sponsored by Terra. The interesting think is: i tried it just for fun, as me and my cousin were goofing around about it, saying that "if we write all the weird stuff we like, as sci-fi, fantasy, literature, classical music, RPGs, computer games, etc." nobody would answer. You know...the old assumption that most women abhors nerd stuff .
Surprisingly, I got a bunch of replys. I even considered to not answer any of them. You know...the concept of actually dating someone I met in a dating service freaked me out, a little (plus, my previous relationship, which lasted one year, ended only two months earlier). But, as people say, why don't try? So I tried, and met some nice girls. I became friends with some of them, and found Xana, the love of my life .
Well...I guess it means: it is worth a try. It may or may not work for you, but I know some people (I encouraged some of them to try) who benefited from it very much.
Just a piece of advice. Narrow the search for someone who live near you. I searched for people who lived here in Rio, since it's a big city. If you live in a smaller town, you could try the general area, I guess.
Dating someone you met online for other reasons is also nice. I also did it, once, some years ago. Unfortunatelly she lived very far from me, and we couldn't keep the relationship.
Internet is only a tool. People are the most important thing in a relationship.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Without a real person there behind the kiss, even the same exact physical sensations of a kiss would be totally empty. However, when someone to whom you are really attracted kisses you for the first time online, you might well faint dead away."
Anne Kate, I think it's interesting that you're critical of a "hug machine" -- a machine that delivers some of the physical sensation of a hug, but no emotion -- but wax effervescent over an online kiss -- which delivers some of the emotion but no physical sensation.
BOTH are seriously lacking, in my opinion.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
You’re right Tom, actions in cyber-space aren’t the same as those in meat space. It’s far harder to screw up online than in person (not to say I haven’t done it, I’m socially inept enough I can screw up just about anywhere). I also think that any relationship that will survive the test of time is going to have to move into meat space at a decent rate if only because (as Annie said earlier) a long distance relationship will have to become short distance eventually or break-up.
However, that doesn’t mean that online actions don’t have meaning. It’s true, I’ll never accidentally kick someone online or trip over my ridiculously large feet or anything like that. So when you do things online the other person doesn’t see the things that you don’t want to do. That’s what it is, I’m not going to get my hand stuck in anyone’s hair online though it happens in meat space but I don’t see why someone has to know that I get my hand stuck in their hair in meat space to understand me. Now if you’re saying that then when people get together and they expect that it will be exactly the same as online with no screw ups or awkwardness, then you’re right that the relationship probably wont last, or at least will have to undergo some serious change. That’s not a flaw in online dating, that’s just a lack of perception of reality by those involved.
Certainly meeting online hides certain things about the participants, but I personally think that it is far better than most dating I see, where one person just sees another one and they’re instantly attracted. Then without knowing anything about the other person, ask them out and start dating. Online you may not realize that I have size 14 feet but you know a heck of a lot more about me than almost all people who start dating know about each other.
I think I got sidetracked in my own reply, I know there’s a few quality sentences in there somewhere, you just have to pick them out.
Hobbes Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I was using the hug machine as a demonstration that what matters about the hug or kiss has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical sensations involved. What is missing from the hug machine that makes it so empty? It's exactly the part of the hug that you DO have available online: the fact that someone you care about is hugging you.
I'll give you another example on a very crude level that once struck me. I read something somewhere or other, in some contact I once had with popular culture, in which a guy made a statement that made it clear that "real girl" nudity was of much higher worth to him than "stripper" nudity. I think he put it much more crudely than that, but it struck me that even someone who was on that level (of looking for body parts) recognized that who a person is is an integral part of their attractiveness. Otherwise why would we not all date and fall for inflatable dolls, or Stepford wives?
The essence of attractiveness is the person who lives inside. Just as the world's most gorgeous body with noone inside is only a corpse, a chunk of rotting garbage. The only thing that invests the physical manifestation of a person with any attractiveness is the being who resides therein. That being exists in all his glory, and can communicate with you to a greater or lesser degree, through a wide variety of different media. When you limit yourself to only one, you are doing just that: limiting yourself. It's not something to make a virtue of. It's a limitation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don’t see why someone has to know that I get my hand stuck in their hair in meat space to understand me."
Part of it, to me, is that a HUGE factor in understanding who someone is is being able to see how that person deals with adversity. Since it's possible to reduce adversity in cyberspace to a truly bare minimum, it's possible to think you've "known" someone online for years without ever seeing them handle something they didn't want to handle.
Another part, of course, is that physical action is a major component of any action. Anne Kate's wrong; a kiss online is NOT a substitute for a real kiss, any more than a kiss from a robot is a substitute for a real kiss. Leaving aside the actual hormonal factors involved -- which influence emotion a fair bit, as well -- there are nuances in the sensation and the actual execution of the action which can vary widely from someone's imagination.
------
"What is missing from the hug machine that makes it so empty? It's exactly the part of the hug that you DO have available online...."
And what's missing from an online hug is exactly the part of the hug that you DON'T have available online.
"The only thing that invests the physical manifestation of a person with any attractiveness is the being who resides therein."
I reject this utterly. While it may be true for you -- and I can't imagine that this actually IS true, since it represents a level of emotional abstraction and self-denial that I find alien -- the simple fact is that I can appreciate a photo of an attractive woman without knowing the least thing about her.
[ December 18, 2003, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I have to admit Tom, I'm incredibly curious as to how you and Christy met over the internet. And how soon after meeting over the internet you actually met in person. Did you feel you knew her better after meeting over the internet first, or did you have huge preconcieved ideas to get over first and find that she was nothing like her internet persona?
Because meeting someone over the internet did work for you, even if the relationship didn't exist on the net only.
AJ
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
(((Tom)))
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Disclaimer: Christy was not my first 'Net relationship, and I wasn't really hers.
That said, we met within three weeks, I believe, and had escalated to phone conversations literally a matter of days after the first E-mail. I'm ashamed to say that I don't actually remember many of our pre-meeting conversations all that well (*blush*), although I certainly remember the occasion of our meeting quite vividly.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:I'll give you another example on a very crude level that once struck me. I read something somewhere or other, in some contact I once had with popular culture, in which a guy made a statement that made it clear that "real girl" nudity was of much higher worth to him than "stripper" nudity. I think he put it much more crudely than that, but it struck me that even someone who was on that level (of looking for body parts) recognized that who a person is is an integral part of their attractiveness. Otherwise why would we not all date and fall for inflatable dolls, or Stepford wives?
To rebut this from my perspective. The reason why the "real girl" nudity was more valuable is because it was what he would actually have in his bedroom. Assuming he didn't solicit prostitutes, looking at a stripper and then going home to a blow up doll is much less satisfying than the real thing. The "real girl" nudity would also be volutary and given as a gift rather than a stripper or prostitute, who while hopefully participating voluntarily are doing it strictly for the money.
While yes, you could have nude photos taken and sent over the internet, and people do. It isn't the same as seeing someone's physical presence warts and all. When you look at a photo, you are always wondering where the touch up was in this technological age. It is the same thing as masturbation vs. consensual sex. You ask anyone with a healthy sex life and they will tell you consensual sex is preferred, though variety is nice. Or if you want to talk mutual masturbation, two people far away from each other via the internet can't 69. There is a degree of intimacy when you are physically causing someone else pleaure that doesn't exist in cyberspace.
This is the extreme example but in a lesser degree the exact same concept applies to a cyber hug versus a real hug.
AJ
(I realize I got rather explicit above to support my argument. If you feel it is offensive please let me know and I will delete the post.)
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tom, once you met in person, did you to through an awkward stage and have to "rebuild" the intimacy you already had established over e-mail and phone? Or was it already there and undiminished?
It sounds as if your relationship did progress faster as a result of the internet aspects that happened initially, as you stated earlier. Do you think this is an inherently bad thing, or is it just something that is?
AJ
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
ak -- keep in mind that TomD is an Aries (like I am) -- which means he loves to debate on forum just for the sheer pleasure of debate in and of itself...
FG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, once you met in person, did you to through an awkward stage and have to 'rebuild' the intimacy you already had established over e-mail and phone?"
There were a few awkward moments, but they were smoothed over (for me, at least) by my realization within hours of meeting her that I could love and adore her. What's interesting is that I'd never had that reaction before with any other 'Net relationship that had progressed to physical meetings, so I can't say that our previous 'Net closeness somehow smoothed the path. I DO think we got to know each other a lot better faster than we otherwise would have -- and no, I don't think that's a bad thing. I DO think it can put a lot of pressure on a budding relationship, though.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Psst, Farmgirl. Look at AK's and TomD's user numbers. As you can see they are both older than dirt from a forum perspective and have been going at [discussing issues with] each other for a lot longer than we can imagine!
AJ
[ December 18, 2003, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*grin* Of course, I don't recall Anne Kate and I ever "going at" each other, ever; we agree on most things, even. I remember she got upset once when I was openly hostile to a troll, but that's about it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:they are both older than dirt
FG
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
No, I think Tom's sincere. I also think he's right.
*thinks* Anne Kate, maybe things are true in their sphere, but the problem is we are using the same vocabulary to describe both kinds of relationships. Becuse it's the same words, we think we are talking about the same thing. They are not. There's a difference between Love on the Lines and love in real life, and the difference doesn't mean that either one is less true.
But they are different.
Love cluttered up with lust and dishes and thermostats and boring Friday nights when one wants to go dancing is different from Love of the minds, reaching and exploring and coming together in an intellectual sense. They ARE both real, but they are not the same. In the case of one being better than the other, I must admit I absolutely adore the second. I miss having it. I loved it when I did.
But when I realized in some corner of my brain that time marches on, and despite my best efforts and beliefs, I'm a part of the too, too mortal world, that Love wasn't adequate for the rest of my life. It wasn't true in the sphere I reluctantly came to want to inhabit.
They are not the same, Anne Kate. And one isn't necessarily better than the other, although the first kind - the elbow-in-the-eye, morning-breath, physical-touch kind - is more useful and condusive to happiness in the concrete world. If you have no intention of living in the concrete world, or if you don't believe the option is open to you, then the second kind is a slice of heaven.
I think the second kind is always a slice of heaven. But it's wearying to carry heaven around with you when your feet is shuffling on the ground.
I personally don't believe I have to make a choice between the two (I'll let you know how that turns out), but there is a time for each.
[ December 18, 2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Anna Jo, not in this case, no, he was just comparing meat and meat. The real girls were being presented in a similar fashion to the strippers, though I can't remember exactly how. It may have been a discussion about peeking into locker rooms or something. Wasn't there a case like that in the news in the last year or so? It must have been something like that. I wish I had thought to save the exact quote.
But it's quite a common sentiment, I believe. It's just like in that book that disturbed me written by that soldier, how they wanted to pick up nice girls in bars and copulate with them for a day or a few days and then leave them. They didn't want any of those slutty bar girls, they wanted nice girls. Nice girl **** being a much more valuable commodity than slutty girl ****. It struck me as being weirdly wrongheaded and obviously paradoxical, in a way that surely anyone could see, but some guys I discussed it with seemed to think that made perfect sense.
Every one of those girls in the bar they were surveying like that was someone's daughter or sister, someone who was a precious priceless individual. The difference being only in how they were treated and how they thought of and treated themselves. By picking up girls in bars and casually sleeping with them, they were doing THE VERY THING that destroyed the girls' worth in their eyes. That's not even considering that the sluttiness they personified by so doing was completely off their own scale. I don't know. It's just so messed up you can't even begin to talk about it, you know? Different levels, different worlds. Not even the same universe that we are living in with people like that. <laughs>
I get that same feeling whenever we discuss online relationships. <laughs> That it becomes indecent to even go on talking about it, after a point. I think I will stop now.
[ December 18, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Oh, yes, of course, Tom and I have fundamental disagreements on a whole lot of things, but that's what makes discussing them interesting. We agree about a whole lot, too.
And he's a great DM.
Sometimes I want to shake him, but never hard enough to give him shaken baby syndrome, I hope. Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
anne kate, what do you think about what I said?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Javert Hugo, I think you are saying that if one has to choose between a purely online and a purely threespace relationship, then a purely threespace one is preferable. I don't think that's the choice we have available to us.
[ December 18, 2003, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Anne Kate I know the situation you are talking about W.E.B Griffin uses it extensively in his books. But those situations in their own way as disconnected from "real life" as internet dating is. Those situations are based on selfishness and transience. They want the impression of the real thing without the commitment. Admittedly someone facing likely death, often becomes more selfish than they ordinarily would be. I think those same people would likely be selfish online as well.
Like Javert Hugo said, there are two things with the same semantics. I think you have to have both before it is Love. All the people that you are talking about are really interested in is the Lust side of the equation, and completely ignoring the emotional/spiritual aspect. Likewise for a romantic relationship (not just a friendship) it is empty with only the emotional/spiritual and none of the lust side of things.
Maybe it is actually a continuum with Lust at one extreme and the entire mental/spiritual at the other extreme. In the population I wonder where most people lie. Maybe more people than I realize are willing to have one without the other. But I feel like if I made that comprimise at one extreme or the other I would be cheating myself, and the other person.
AJ
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
No, anne kate, that's not what I was saying.
This is kat, by the way.
I'm saying they are different, and the trouble is we are using the same vocabulary for both.
That a purely online relationship can be glorious, but it is a choice. If a deep moves to real life, then it does have to change. The change need not be ornerous, but it must change in some way - it must add features.
A purely intellectual coupling does not even need to be only online. I do think that if you take away the distractions of every day life, in some ways a purely intellectual relationship can be much closer in the intellectual aspect. When you live in a purely intellectual world, that's simply wonderful.
Do you have a response to that?
I'm not dismissing your opinion. I'm trying to have a conversation about it, and I'm hoping you will try to understand what I'm saying so that we can.
[ December 18, 2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
ak, I think what you're describing is simply the thrill of getting something we shouldn't get. That's a huge turn-on, even for me, at least in my imagination.
The soldiers wanting the "nice" girls or the guy wanting a "real" woman naked instead of a stripper naked is no different from a 5 year old desperate to have a cookie simply because it's forbidden. Strippers are paid to be naked for you, there's little thrill in it once the initial novelty wears off. But a woman who you aren't supposed to see naked? Exciting!
I don't think there's anything particularly wrong about being turned on by the idea of these things. I think you'd find that almost everyone's fantasies involve things that are even more socially unacceptable than spying in a locker room. Routine, expected, and even professional sex is boooooring. Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
anne kate, you there?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Patience, kat. Why the name change, BTW?
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I think she's avoiding a landmark.
I am quite pleased that I guessed right as to Javert Hugo's identity, though. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
If I recall I think Kat is following in the landmark-avoiding tradition.
It was interesting for me to find out Javert Hugo was Kat. I could tell I resonated with some of the person's ideas, and I suspected it was someone who posted under other screen names too, but I wouldn't necessarily have guessed Kat.
AJ
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
am i the only person that clicks on profiles? of course it's kat!
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
The "purely" thing is the straw man.
I see the two approaches under discussion as being these.
A) Limit yourself to relationships with people you meet and know only in threespace. Anything else is childish and fantastical and not real life.
2) Recognize the possibility of depth and reality in relationships which form during cyberspace interactions, which of course you will broaden and deepen in any and all ways possible as you grow closer to that person. In other words, falling in love online is entirely possible. And of course if you love someone online you're going to talk on the phone, and then travel to visit, and so on, move to be together, marry, etc. as things work out.
There's no fundamental difference from the same process of courtship and marriage when it is entirely confined to threespace, except there is a much much larger pool of people online from whom to choose.
[ December 18, 2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Really, Anna? How come?
Yep, avoiding a landmark. I hate it when people do it, but I promise it's only for a few days - as soon as I finish some things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I'll never understand the landmark-avoidance thing as long as I live.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm doing it so I don't spend my 10,000 post making fun of Jon Boy. I'm keeping crowing rights from a brother. That HAS to be understandable.
[ December 18, 2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
No, kat, I didn't realize it was you until you said. Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
If it moves to marriage and living together, then it isn't a purely intellectual relationship anymore. It's changed - it's become a different kind of Love.
I think finding someone to love is kind of like deciding to investigate the church - there's no bad way to do it. There are bad reasons to stay in a relationship, and there are bad reasons to get baptized, and there are bad reasons to make any kind of committment, but there's almost no such thing as a bad reason for an opportunity to catch your eye. If you find your love on the internet, or in a bar, then that's fine.
The exceptions, of course, are if you find it at a family reunion or such, but if getting together is okay, it doens't matter how it starts. It only matters how it progresses and continues.
But it does mean that that purely intellectual, online relationship becomes something different.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Celia, I almost never check profiles. I just don't think about it unless I want to e-mail someone about something very specific. Actually I've been doing it more since I met you IRL, because I realized that that is a serious part of where you derive your "evilness" from and I want to grow up to be just like you.
Kat, why didn't I know it was you? Because in a lot of ways IRL, I'm naieve and gullible. I take a lot of things at face value that I probably shouldn't. Unless it is obvious the intent of the new persona is devious or a type of joke, I don't bother trying to figure out who it is because I figure they have their reasons for changing names and it isn't any of my business. One of the people who I think is still here but I haven't figured out where, is the alternate persona of Maui Babe. But I'm pretty sure she's still here and I enjoy her anyway even not knowing it is the same person.
AJ
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I think I see the essence of the love relationship as something that's in software, which can be supported on a variety of different hardware platforms. I don't see it as being something imaginary which becomes real only after you meet in threespace, I mean. Meeting in cyberspace is one way of interacting and meeting in threespace is another way. They aren't all that different, in essence.
It's like I might prefer to hear baroque music played only on the original instruments, or I may think Bach sounds best on piano, though he hated the pianos of his day and never wrote for them. Someone who was a fanatic about authenticity of instruments would insist that I wasn't really hearing Bach unless I listened to it played on a properly constructed harpsichord, but to me it's still Bach. It's great stuff, in its essence. There are some aspects of it that are even more easily heard when it's played on piano. To me it's all good. It's the essence of Bachness that matters, and I get that either way.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
No, they are different. It's different in threespace. It isn't necessarily better, or truer, or any of the other value judgements, but it is indeed different.
They are both Love, but it's not the same thing. That's okay. There can be more than one kind of good thing. But they aren't identical. ... It's like Einstein and Newton's equations - they are both true in their sphere, but they are not, in the essential, the same equations.
I don't agree with the software and hardware anology. The anology implies that the different kinds of Love are identical. They are not. Why do you think they are?
[ December 18, 2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm trying to imagine listening to "Back in Black" or "Smells Like Teen Spirit" played by a harp or trumpet.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: And of course if you love someone online you're going to talk on the phone, and then travel to visit, and so on, move to be together, marry, etc. as things work out.
If sexuality is a choice, there is an argument to be made that homosexuals and bisexuals have, perhaps, transcended to a higher plane of being than heterosexuals. That is, if loving someone for 'who they are' is more betterer than just loving someone for their physical appearance, then loving someone in a romantic fashion for who they are, regardless of their sex, is more betterer.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Seems to me AK did a pretty good job explaining why they were basically the same thing just expressed different ways, but I'm confused as to why you think they're different Kat, all I could find from your post was that you knew they were different, not why.
Hobbes
[ December 18, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Stormy, i understood none of that post, but it made me smile. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Seems to me AK did a pretty good job explaining why they were basically the same thing just expressed different ways...."
Have sex. You'll disagree. I don't mean to sound patronizing, here, but there's no way to avoid it: once you've actually engaged in a physical relationship (which doesn't necessarily require sex in order to apply, by the way), the differences become obvious.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Therein I think lies the fundamental disagreement I think. I believe TomD and I both view it as software AND hardware. If it isn't both, yes it can be a kind of love but not truly Romantic intimacy, I guess. I don't like using the term "romantic intimacy" but I can't think of a better one for the moment. I'm talking about the bedrock on which to build a sucessful relationship and if both software and hardware aren't there, there will be major problems in execution.
The reason why Bach stays Bach, is because the pitch B-flat is tuned the same regardless of what instrument it is played on. You could actualy make an argument it isn't Bach because of the difference between tuning styles between then and now, of whether you fudge the octaves or the fifths. (One is even tuning and the other is "well" tuning and I can't remember which is which). Either way the medium with which you recieve Bach is the same. You HEAR it. You can't touch it. The notes on a page of sheet music for most people are meaningless. A musician can recreate the tune by looking at the notes and have it be similar as before. Except we still don't know the exact inflfections and nuances he wanted and will never know because Bach is dead.
This difficulty in translation is exactly the problem that happens between internet communication and real life and why the two while they can overlap are distinctly different.
AJ
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
[EDIT: This was supposed to go after Tom's post ]
1) The only relationship I'm having sex in in a maritial one 2) I agree, online relationships have to progress to physical ones if they're going to survive 3) There are things you can do in real life that either you can't online, or aren't the same. These actions are often very important to building a relationship 4) That doesn't mean that you can't have an e-ationship (my new word ) that means something
Hobbes
[ December 18, 2003, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I don't think anyone is arguing that e-relationships don't mean something. I think the argument is whether or not that "something" can ever be truly called "Love"
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Leonide,
that's depressing. Let me try again:
1) If it is most moral to love someone for 'who they are' 'on the inside' regardless of how they look.
then
2) Ignoring someone's sex and loving them for 'who they are' is more moral than not loving someone because they are male of female--a physical attribute that is not really who they are.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Am I derailing the thread?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Tom and Anna have done an excellent job of explaining why they are different from the perspective of people who have had both.
*thinks* What can I say...
I think those that are satisfied with intellectual relationships are those that do best with intellectual things. There are no weaknesses, then - and I don't mean the cute weaknesses that make them seem less than perfect. There are no weaknesses of the kind that everyone has and that are not merely endearing - that are truly unpleasant things that have to be dealt with. In an intellectual relationship, you don't have to deal with them, because you are not committing all of yourself. You are committing all of yourself that belongs in that sphere, but there's is more to a person than the intellectual sphere. Even if you did find something in another aspect that was undesirable, you can truthfully ignore it, saying it doesn't matter.
In a close, committed threespace relationship, (at least the kind I want, I'll let you know how that goes), everything matters.
That's why some people who place no value on anything outside of the intellectual sphere can actually be very happy and fulfilled with an intellectual relationship. All their primary emotional needs are being met. That's happy. It's hard to argue with hapy.
I can understand thinking that an online relationship would translate into threespace easily because if you believe that when the most important part of a relationship - compatibility of the minds - is taken care of, the rest will follow, then thinking that does make sense.
The online relationships breaks down if another aspect of the relationship (1) turns out to be very important as well, and (2) does not match as well as the relationship of the minds. The unknown factor then is the ability and desire of the ability of the other person to deal with that imperfection.
Added: Dang. Took too long.
[ December 18, 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
My views on this:
A relationship started up IRL: Most of them (not all) start up with little to no knowledge about the particpants, simple physical attraction (and sometimes good old desperation) brings two people together.
A relationship started online (I'm talking about relationships where you meet similar to Annie and myself, after knowing each other for a while not through live links or something): You know the other person very well on an intellectual level and feel mutual respect and admiration for them. You also feel that a physical relationship could work out (i.e. you know enough to be aware of if there's a huge problem) but you don't know how they act in "meat space" or how attractive they are (beyond what pictures can tell you).
Niether of these is complete, I would say option 2 is a better way to start but both of them have to lead to each other (intellectual and physical) or you're building a pretty poor relationship.
That's my verdict, not that anyone asked
Hobbes Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
i still think internet relationships are utterly ridiculous.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:an intellectual relationship, you don't have to deal with them, because you are not committing all of yourself.
Speak for yourself Kat.
Hobbes Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I just thought of another analogy that might describe it. In religons, there is emphasis on the physical as well as the spiritual/intellectual planes. Baptisim and Communion to name two biggies are both physical acts. In most cases if one believes, but dies before one has a chance to participate in either act, allowances are made in the spiritual plane. But for believers that are still alive and well, if it was only spiritual, why is the physical still required. From what I have read, enormous emphasis is placed on this in the LDS church, probably higher than many of the other religous. Why, bother with the physical if the spiritual/intellectual relationship is all that really matters in getting to know God?
AJ
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Hobbes, I believe you can commit all of yourself that's available, but not all is available.
Mind, heart, money, body, future. That's married. Unless you're married with the intention of never being unmarried, you haven't committed all of yourself.
[ December 18, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Just so people know (since some people seem to think I'm either mad now, or was) I'm not upset and having a perfectly enjoyable time. So anything you read in my posts as an attack I swear was not meant that way, thank-you.
[EDIT: I sweat things too you know]
Hobbes
[ December 18, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: If you're not married with the intention of never being unmarried, you haven't committed all of yourself. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And people say I'm confusing?!? Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh, me too. This is a passionate thread, but not the kind to get anyone upset, I don't think.
Unless someone is using an online relationship for status (and no one is - Hatrackers don't do that) and would be upset that status if that was questioned. However, since a Love that is for the audience is pointless anyway, I'm not really worried about anyone who would be upset. They should be.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, wait. I get it now. nm.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:In an intellectual relationship, you don't have to deal with them, because you are not committing all of yourself.
quote:Mind, heart, money, body, future. That's married. If you're not married with the intention of never being unmarried, you haven't committed all of yourself.
If you're not fully comitted until you marry, clearly first quote is rather meaningless to this discussion, dodn't you think? I mean, meeting in meat space doesn't mean you're fully committed then either since you don't exactly marry everyone you ask out.
I'm comitted online exactly as much as I am IRL.
[EDIT: This thread seems to have cost me the even rudimentary ability I once had to spell ]
Hobbes
[ December 18, 2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I'm not married, with the intention of never being married. and i still think internet relationships are ridiculous.
Now about this "not married witht he intention of never being unmarried" thing. If you are currently unmarried, yet intend to never be unmarried, isnt that an utter failure on your part already? doesnt that violate some fundamental law governing logic and nature? I mean, are there philotes involved here, or what?
Tell uncle dave. I am interested.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Yes. That's fine.
But it means that fully committed, threespace kind of Love is a different kind from dating.
Now that I DO believe. I have loved someone that was perfect in the dating situation and that didn't (for reasons I may someday elucidate, but not this decade) make the transition to a more committed type.
[ December 18, 2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:But it means that fully committed, threespace kind of Love is a different kind from dating.
I think I'm confused, what is the "it" your alluding to? (See? The even the smilies think I'm confused )
Hobbes Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
it = fully committed as much online as would be if Annie lived across campus
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm still confused though now I'm so confused I don't even know what about. Hmm... how about you explain what you mean by "fully committed, threespace" and how the above quoted statment follows from what I said.
Hobbes Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Some observations:
LDS people believe gender is part of who we truly are.
A Van Gogh painting of a leaf is both more and less than the actual leaf he was looking at when he was painting.
Homosexuals and bisexuals aren't having non-physical relationships. They are attracted to the people they fall for.
I'm not advocating giving up the physical joy of togetherness.
For me, cyber actions are real actions with real consequences.
There's no lack of reality online, unless you mean when people deliberatly try to deceive, and they do that in threespace, too.
People you interact with long term will know you. They know to what extent you mean what you say, and so on. There is no hiding yourself from people you deal with over a long period of time.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
have you finished your finals yet? Hobbes... maybe that's what is muddling your brain
Anne Kate, I think a physical relationship may be a dot product or a cross product of an intellectual relationship. You may be able to see where it was derived from , but it is a substantial vector change that makes it different and unique from just an intellectual relationship. Do you really think they are *exactly* the same? Could you have an online cat for a pet and have the same relationship you have with your other cats? (edit: I think anne kate answered this above, before I got this posted!)
AJ
[ December 18, 2003, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh dear... I'm not spending as much time on crafting my reply as this needs. Just think of it as conversation rather than a thesis.
Hobbes: I mean that when you are your current position - no intention of making a larger committment that involves your body and your long-term future - then an online relationship makes a lot more sense. The difference between online and threespace almost vanishes, because you are not ready to intertwine your everyday lives anyway. If you are also following the law of chastity (which means, basically, no sexual relations, including turning someone on, which excludes all the physical things that CAN turn someone on), it's much, much easier to be online when you are crazy about someone.
I love, love what Anna said about the physical aspect indeed being important in any real action. To be baptized, you need to be both be dunked and to have a change of heart. In taking the sacrament, you remember him, recommit to following him, and consume the bread and water. And to have the real union of two disparate souls and entities, you need to have the physical and mental (spiritual, intellectual) aspects.
[ December 18, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
No they aren't, in fact I have to leave soon to take my math final
Hobbes Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
well I started talking about cross products and vectors in my last post, with out even knowing you had math on the brain
AJ
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Worse yet, I have linear algebra!
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Kat, I think we're agreeing on this point. It has to become physical at some point. A relationship needs that aspect evtually, what I'm saying is that the Love I express via the internet is the same Love I express in person. Perhaps I can do it better in one medium over another but that has nothing to do with the Love itself which is present in either one.
Hobbes Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
There is a certain kind of lack of reality that might sometimes be a problem. It can be true in threespace and also in cyber space. It happens when a person is acting while they are with you like it's real, but in their minds they are telling themselves it's not real, it is only pretend, there are no real consequences. I imagine that can be quite jarring if for one person it is and for the other person is it not real.
The way to tell this is to watch carefully how the person acts when others are around. Do they talk about you to their friends and family? Do they make the plans that have to do with the other parts of their day to day life in a way that includes you? Again, it's just like in threespace. If a person asks you out again and again, but never meet their parents or their friends, then something isn't right.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I am lamenting our lack of a better vocabulary. There are so many ideas and nouns being thrown about here, and they are all called Love.
There are many synonyms, but I'm not sure I agree with those definitions. So many, like infatuation and lust, have taken on pejorative or diminishing connotations.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I find it far less likely that "fake love" (i.e. lust) pokes its head out when the happy couple twine online.
Hobbes Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I do think "idealized love" is more likely, though.
See, vocab problems. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the "'Highway to Hell' played on piano" analogy is a good one.
You can have the whole score. You can play it note-perfect, and -- with enough pianos -- play it exactly right. You can even have someone sweetly sing the words, if that's part of the verisimilitude.
But even though it's the same SONG, it's elevator music compared to the original -- because it's not being played on the same instruments. And the instruments matter.
-------
"I find it far less likely that 'fake love' (i.e. lust) pokes its head out when the happy couple twine online."
You know, I'm not sure this is true. Many of the online relationships I've seen progress to cybersex far faster than a MeatSpace relationship would progress to physical sex.
[ December 18, 2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK then, try this. You have a symphony, Beethoven's ninth say. When played in full (a complete relationship that has commitment, intellectual understanding and physical love) it is a beautiful and moving work. Then for some reason the percussion decides not to show up (purely online). It’s arguable if it’s the ninth, it’s not as good, but it’s still a symphony and I would still go to hear it (especially if you knew that the percussion was going to come in later). Does that make any sense?
Hobbes Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Maybe it is the difference between budding love and mature love as well. Even with a lifetime commitment to each other, there is no guarantee that love will last. There are an awful lot of miserable, loveless marriages that stay together simply because they believe breaking up is wrong. Love becomes riper and more mature as the physical aspect is as added, as it does after having weathered multiple storms together. Without the physical aspect though it is incomplete.
Love is holding someone's head over the toilet when they are puking with a hangover and can't hold their head up themselves.
It is sitting next to your loved one in the ER putting up with their complaints because you were the one dragging them there in the first place when they didn't want to go but needed to. (Steve had pneumonia and if his temperature had been a half degree higher they would have admitted him after medicating him.)
It is knowing they would (and have)done the same for you.
It is doing the dishes again, even though it wasn't your turn.
It is cleaning up the dog's puke even if it isn't your dog.
It is making sure the other person is doing things you know they enjoy doing, even if you don't entirely understand the reason why they enjoy them.
It is figuring out how to get the other person out of problems that they got stuck and need help with whether by accident of birth or their own doings.
(Can't think of any others, but most of these require a physical presence in the same location)
AJ
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:You know, I'm not sure this is true. Many of the online relationships I've seen progress to cybersex far faster than a MeatSpace relationship would progress to physical sex.
Possible, I was going by what makes sense to me, not previous encounters with people. Let's just say that for Annie and myself, that wasn't an issue so I didn't much consider it.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, sure. In fact, I think everyone here agrees with you, Hobbes. Speaking as someone who MARRIED somebody he met online, I'm certainly not arguing that online relationships are meaningless.
However, Anne Kate seems to be arguing that the physical element is unnecessary -- which is like saying that Beethoven's 5th doesn't need drums.
[ December 18, 2003, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
It seems to me most people are saying that it's not the same expressed love while I (and a few others) are saying it's the same love expressed. Not condridictory statments. But I don't pretend to actually know what you're thinking so feel free to tell me I'm wrong.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Fair 'nough Tom, I agree with that (that physical interaction is necessary).
Hobbes Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I hear people saying that online relationships are childish and unreal and just pure fantasy. I'm arguing against that.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm not arguing that they are unreal, I'm arguing that they aren't entirely the same. And that there can be a lot more room for an un-real fantasy to develop without the physical than with. We've probably all known people IRL who lived in a fantasy world in their own mind (without any cyber help) that were totally infatuated with a particular person, while the other person didn't even know they existed.
I think a lot of the friendships I have here at Hatrack are *real* though the dynamic I have with Hobbes and Celia IRL is far different than the one we have online. The nice thing is that we do get along IRL. But it is still different than here at Hatrack.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I hear people saying that online relationships are childish and unreal and just pure fantasy.
That's not what people are saying.
Squicky does this - thinks of a thesis, thinks of the arguments that might come, then counters the arguments he's thought of when he encounters a opposition.
The problem is, the rebuttals don't match what people are saying.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hear people saying that online relationships are childish and unreal and just pure fantasy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not what people are saying
Actually, that kinda is what I'm saying. I don't think anyone else is though.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
They don't work.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Okay, before I read page 3, I want to say something.
I think Tom's point about the physical world being so much more honest than the online world is key. In an online relationship, you really do ONLY see what the other person chooses to show/tell you. Period. In a good online relationship, both people are being honest with each other, sending each other real untouched photos, answering questions honestly.
But even when two people are honestly trying to make an online relationship work, neither one of them is telling the other person: "I haven't showered in three days, and I stink." "I get really loud and obnoxious at parties." "My friends are all drunken losers who you'll hate spending time with." "I like to leave the toilet seat up." "I have a really annoying voice that will grate on your nerves." "I'm rude to waitresses." "I spend too much money on lottery tickets."
And all of the millions of other little flaws that everyone has, but don't come across over IM, email, and forum posts.
In the physical world, you see how someone treats the people at the ticket counter when their student discount doesn't work that day, how they deal with running late to an appointment, what they're like when they're bored, how critical or uncritical they are of various things, and on and on. There are just so many things that you learn about a person by spending time with them, in the same room, that you'll never ever learn online, even in the most honest relationship.
I've always considered them something like crushes, where you constantly imagine what the crush would be like doing this, imagine how a kiss would feel, imagine them holding you.... but when you actually do get into a relationship with them, discovering that there are a million other things you never thought were important to you that suddenly really are. That the person you thought you knew so well in your Spanish class, that haunted your dreams for months, that helped you with your homework and gave you imaginary hugs and kisses, is really nothing like what you were so sure they were.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
This conversation is fascinating, and I hope it continues. I have some stuff to add, but we're taking an impromptu weekend trip to Palm Springs, so I haven't time now to compose, nor would I be here to respond. Please keep the thread alive at least until Monday, ok?
--Pop
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yes Ayelar,
I had a friend who constantly complained about the service he gets at restraunts. He tipped like a skinflint, however even when the service IMO was adequate. To me it isn't any wonder that he didn't get good service.
Would I have known that from an online friendship? Heck no. Was he actually a bad person? Definitely not in many other ways he was kind and generous. Did he have a fault that completely put the romantic off limits for me. Heck yeah!
AJ
[ December 18, 2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
dont worry pop, i plan to interject my 'its ridiculous' assertion at least once every page. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hmm… so much to say, you leave for a math final and look what happens! I’ll say as much as I can before I run out of steam ( I did just finish a final you know ).
First off, Rhaegar The Fool
quote: They don't work.
Like IRL relationships online relationships don’t all work out. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if like IRL relationships, most of them end in failure, but just because one fails doesn’t mean they all do. Have hope Rhaegar, we know you’re a great guy, I’m sure you’ll find the right women.
quote: I'm not arguing that they are unreal, I'm arguing that they aren't entirely the same.
My opinion on this, it’s like the symphony, they don’t all play the same notes but they all are music. It may not be expressed the same way but it’s still the same underlying love (or at least it can be, I don’t argue that it always is).
quote: I think Tom's point about the physical world being so much more honest than the online world is key. In an online relationship, you really do ONLY see what the other person chooses to show/tell you. Period. In a good online relationship, both people are being honest with each other, sending each other real untouched photos, answering questions honestly.
It’s true, if someone wanted to they could hide things about themselves online. But I don’t think any of us are naïve enough to think that this doesn’t happen IRL too. People who’ve known each other for a long time suddenly discovering, ohh, they’re married, or look, they belong to the Nazi party! Or heck, it could be something like they don’t like dogs. Whatever it is it may be easier to hide online, but any relationship in any “space” isn’t going to work if people hide stuff, that has nothing to do with the internet, an e-ationship just makes it easier.
quote: In the physical world, you see how someone treats the people at the ticket counter when their student discount doesn't work that day, how they deal with running late to an appointment, what they're like when they're bored, how critical or uncritical they are of various things, and on and on. There are just so many things that you learn about a person by spending time with them, in the same room, that you'll never ever learn online, even in the most honest relationship.
I know it’s not true for all people, but for some of us we really are how we come off online. And for almost everyone I’ve found, they are what they come off as in 1 on 1 chat if not on forums. I can’t prove that this is true, but I know it’s true for Annie and myself. And if you know someone long enough, even over the internet, you’ll figure out their habits and life patterns. I didn’t have to meet Annie in person to know she doesn’t drink or hang out with her to determine that she’s an absolute sweet heart to people.
Not sure that’s all I wanted to say, but it’s all I’m saying for now.
Hobbes Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Hobbes, it isn't a matter of hiding things, it's that these things just don't come up. Sure, you could ask, "How well do you tip? How do you treat sales reps?" and then trust the person to give an honest answer. But, the key thing here is, *do* you? I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't. And even if you do some qualities are better judged by an observer than by the person themselves. It isn't a deliberate misconception, sometimes you just don't realize these things.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
True Bob, but on the other hand, if you really get to know someone things like that are often easy to tell without being there. Not to say I can guess everyone's habits but I have good idea about most of them and so far I've been pretty much right. If for some reason you can't handle simple things like someone being (out of their normal charecter) a bad tipper, then it's probably not a strong relationship to begin with.
Hobbes Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Yes, the things that matter will be apparent when you know someone over a long period of time, and you interact with them a great deal. Things like being a stingy tipper show themselves in a number of ways. For instance, we've had threads that ask, "do you give money to panhandlers", and the people who say, "absolutely not! I work for my money and so can they!" are pretty much the ones who are going to be the tightfisted tippers, you know? <laughs> An attitude like that pervades many areas of a person's interactions with other people. Again, I'm not saying that it's not possible to be fooled, in the short term, but just as in threespace, the long run always will tell the real story.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: the people who say, "absolutely not! I work for my money and so can they!" are pretty much the ones who are going to be the tightfisted tippers, you know?
That only works for the very open. Most people know that to say something like that doesn't sound flattering, so they won't say it, but they still don't actually tip well.
[ December 18, 2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I tip absurdly well. I love to. I tip at least 50% at meals and at least 50-75% at the bar (when i by for dates or buddies and such).
And im a broke guy who doesnt drink. Ive just BEEN a waiter and done some bartending before. I know what its like. Money is energy, one has to get into the flow of giving and recieving.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
So David, are you ever going to explain why you think internet relationships are stupid?
Hobbes
[ December 18, 2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Hobbes I beg you by all that is holy to coin a new term for online relationship. "e-ationship" is just very jarring to read.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
<grin> I will drop the term, I promise. *Holds up right hand* Really, I will!
Hobbes Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Thanks. I appreciate it. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think Tom's point about the physical world being so much more honest than the online world is key.
I'd just like to point out that people are often a million times more honest about what they think and feel on-line than off. People will say things on-line in the safety of their homes and away from someone's actual physical reaction that they would never say in person until they got to know you.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:I'd just like to point out that people are often a million times more honest about what they think and feel on-line than off. People will say things on-line in the safety of their homes and away from someone's actual physical reaction that they would never say in person until they got to know you.
And that doesn't seem dishonest to you?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I feel that there's a lot missed when you aren't communicating with someone face to face. There's voice intonation, facial expression, eye expressions, body gestures (small and large and sometimes unconscious ones). There's a lot of misunderstanding on the internet BECAUSE you can't see those things when you're speaking to someone.
I can see an relationship that's in MeatSpace that has on-line communication (it's cheap and allows you to multi task in this busy world). But it's no replacement for face to face interaction.
I can also see STARTING a relationship online through meeting someone through mutual friends or a dating service or whatever. But it's got to move into MeatSpace, or it isn't...real. It's completely intellectual (with feelings, with feelings, I grant that. ). However, humans have bodies and senses for a reason. To have those removed entirely from a relationship scares me. It takes away some of our humanity, I think.
An internet hug is nothing for me because even if it DOES have real, solid intentions (and I'm sure it does, don't get me wrong. I DO appreciate them for their sentiment of "I support you"). There's no physical connection to it. So much is said with eye contact (or unwillingness to maintain eye contact), with a hand-clasp, a pat on the back or head, an arm across a shoulder, a firm hug that makes you feel safe and supported and okay.
The internet doesn't provide that. Sure, it's a mode of communication, but in no way a replacement for MeatSpace.
Those are my feelings.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"if you really get to know someone things like that are often easy to tell without being there."
Hobbes, the problem here is that human idealism is often a boundless thing, and often in the process of "getting to know" someone, we'll fill in details that aren't actually there. IMO, this kind of self-delusion is much easier in cyberspace than in MeatSpace -- not even because people are actively dishonest, but because few people have fantasies that are WORSE than the reality.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
bump as per Moose's request.
AJ
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I finally took the time to read through all of this, and I think basically we're all making a lot of the same arguments and drawing different conclusions from them.
But I would like to stress the fact that the internet is really no different from real life; it's the honesty of the people involved that is at issue. There are plenty of people who fall in love with con men, marry someone only to realize months later they hate the way they chew, or talk themselves into being in love when they're not.
And the physical aspects of love are very important; our bodies are just wired that way. I wish that at the end of a hard day I could just run over to Hobbes's house and have him give me a big hug, but you know what? I'm extremely blessed to have a way to talk to him whenever I want to, and frankly his loving *hugs* are almost as perfect as his real hugs, and I appreciate his care and concern even though he's 1500 miles away. And until I get the chance to move across the country to be with him all the time, we're blessed to have this technology that allows us to be together with an ease and speed that would flabbergast 19th-century lovers separated by a war living off monthly letters.
I don't know enough about statistics and large numbers to say if the internet is, on average, comparable to real life, but I know that in my particular circumstance I'm grateful for it, but I'm also grateful for a loving, trusting relationship that is allowing me to move to the next level as soon as I can.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
One other thought:
Dr. Laura once said (go ahead, laugh at me) that when you want to meet someone you need to be smart about where you're planning on doing so. If you meet someone in a bar, the only thing you have in common is alcohol. She reccommends meeting people at church, which really makes sense. Hatrack, on the other hand, is like the perfect blend of church and nerdiness. It's a beautiful thing.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Like, meeting them at church and then hanging out there for the date? Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I have been on SOOO many church dates. I do draw the line at dates to the temple though.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, I guess in one sense I could definitely get behind it because it sounds like a great excuse not to spend any money on your date. In fact, I could definitely see dating nowhere else but the church. Wow. Why didn't I think of this sooner? *smacks forehead*
"Honey, can't we go to the movies or something?" "What, and disappoint Jesus?"
Sorry. A little sacrilicious humor there. Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*laugh* No, that's hilarious.
[ December 19, 2003, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
::applauds Annie's first post (the one before the Dr. Laura one):: Annie, what I've been trying to say, you manage to spout out so eloquently. Amazing. Teach me, O sensi.
My great-grandparents didn't have the internet, or even the telephone--all they had were letters. A long-distance-thru-internet relationship might not be a 'real' relationship, but I'd rather have my long-distance relationship with Bernard than have none with him, and when we do visit one another, then we can get to know one another more intimately.
[Edit to at Storm]
[ December 19, 2003, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: MaydayDesiax ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I wish that at the end of a hard day I could just run over to Hobbes's house and have him give me a big hug
Hobbes wishes that too. But he's also patient enough to wait for a good thing.
[EDIT: In other words, I wish we weren't confined to an internet relationship, but I have no problem with it so long as I know eventually we get to be together ]
Hobbes
[ December 19, 2003, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
I can't stay out of this thread, seemingly.
kat, I may be responding to something you aren't saying, but maybe it's because I'm not understanding what you ARE saying.
Are you saying this?
online relationship = intellectual only
threespace relationship = intellectual plus physical
Because I disagree with that. Online relationships can have a mixture of physical and intellectual interactions the same way that threespace ones do. The spacetime in which they take place is a different one, but it is no less real.
What is contiguity? What constitutes being right next to each other? It has to do with cause and effect, doesn't it? If I can reach out and tuck a stray strand of hair behind your ear then I am right beside you, right? If I can tickle you and you laugh, then you are right here.
There's a great article about spacetime in SciAm this month right here except unfortunately they've made it cost money to read. Anyway, it's a very interesting theory that has space and time split up into quantum packets. Well, we knew it had to be like that, for a number of reasons, didn't we?
My point is that space and time are not what you think. When you are in threespace sitting next to each other, the only reason that's true is that the coordinates on some packets of space happen to be similar to those on others <laughs>. The details aren't important. What matters is that you realize that threespace is no more nor less a mix of theoretical construct and underlying reality than cyberspace. The theoretical construct part is the details of contiguity, and the underlying reality is that when you reach out and tickle someone, it makes them giggle.
<tickles kat>
<giggles>
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*hugs anne kate*
Dear, I love you. I love your theories. I love this. I just don't agree with you on this.
*thinks* I also have a theory as to why we disagree so profoundly on this when I agree with on so much of the theory. What do you think? Should I post it?
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
So the difference boils down to this. Three billion years of evolution plus our whole lives training have suited us to inhabit threespace in a way that the medium becomes invisible to us and we just feel ourselves to be there.
Our brains are amazingly plastic and adaptable, so that we can learn to be there in cyberspace too. People obviously differ a great deal in the ease with which this happens for them. Some of us, however, are already here.
[ December 19, 2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Lol, kat, you say you love me but is it real love?
[ December 19, 2003, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*frustrated* I don't feel like you're hearing what I'm saying, or else you don't want to let in the slightest possibility that what I'm saying has credence.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
I don't know. Maybe some people really can't fall in love online, but I know that many people can. <climbs a tree and looks out at the far horizon>
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Anne Kate, is that your version of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nahnahnah I can't hear you?"
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
*kills ak*
So, if it's real - are you dead?
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
Kama: ak, now you have to make a new post name, since this one's dead.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
She would probably argue that the spirit in which it was intended was real.
I think i'm understanding both sides of the argument here. I just can't imagine saying "i love you" to someone on the internet that I'd never met, and meaning it in a way accepted by society or logic or anything at all as being "realistic." I think anne kate's trying to argue that it's a new kind of perception. I don't think that it's a very reasonable kind of perception.
edit: i think what needs to be discussed is whether or not those things that can only be gotten through being in the real-world vicinity of someone else (the term meatspace makes my stomach churn! ) are of enough importance that they can make or break a relationship. I would argue that they are. I think anne kate would argue that they are not. I am curious as to why they aren't important enough to have that kind of pull?
[ December 19, 2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
See, I do think that has an effect. I don't think she's physically dead, but something inside dies. When someone decided to pretend to virtually swing a pichaxe at me, I wasn't physically hurt, but I did identify him as someone who swings a pickaxe when he thinks he can get away with it.
It does not mean nothing. It does mean something. It just doesn't mean the same thing that it means if someone swings a pickaxe in threespace. For one thing, I'm not in the hospital. Anne Kate's body is not in the morgue.
The only way to claim virtual actions are the same or higher than actions in the physical world is to believe that there is something unnecessary about the physical world. That isn't true. You need both.
[ December 19, 2003, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Wait. Are we saying I meant to kill ak, but wouldn't do it in real life because of the consequences? And that I'm deliberately mean to her, now?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I think she was saying that if you *had* meant it, then it would've meant something, just not that you had actually killed her.
i think.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm saying that all evidence in this thread points that anne kate takes virtual actions seriously - maybe more seriously than others. No, of course I don't think you meant to kill her.
But it's like a pretend slap in real life ("To the moon, Alice!"). Some people can take it as a pretend and don't mind, and other people (me) never, ever think it's funny.
I'm sure Anne Kate doesn't think you mean to hurt her, but once you start looking at online actions as having effects, they mean a lot more than text. Whether or not they should is immaterial, because they do.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:Some people can take it as a pretend and don't mind, and other people (me) never, ever think it's funny.
Never? Not even when you're play-wrestling with your significant other and you pretend to give him a good whack? Or when you're teasing him and he responds with a playful, loving graze across your cheek? These seem like happy, normal parts of our relationship.
The intent seems to be a whole lot more important than the action, in this particular instance. We know Kama, and it's insane to accuse her of being malicious because of her post. She didn't intend anything cruel, and we shouldn't read that into it.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*thinks* I'm trying to look at it the way anne kate does, and it looks like she takes all of it very seriously.
Once you take it all seriously, you lack the cynicism/perspective/wryness necessary to filter out the sincere stuff and the pretend things.
Heck, maybe it's totally fine and I'm just dreaming here. I don't think so, though. If there's anything we know from this thread, it's that online actions mean a great deal to her.
[ December 19, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*tickles everyone in this thread until they cry*
----
How many of you cried?
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
It's a real shame when you have to start taking everything seriously. Happiness is pretty hard to come by when you feel obligated to take offense at every turn.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
That's the should bit.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
The what bit?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Whether or not somone should take it so seriously, or be so easily offended.
Unless you're taking on the responsibility of changing it, or else what you are saying is so terribly important it doesn't matter if people get hurt in the process, what someone SHOULD feel is completely immaterial. What matters is what they will feel.
If you know what you're saying would hurt someone, and you do it anyway, it's cruel, whether or not it's supposed to be.
[ December 19, 2003, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: My great-grandparents didn't have the internet, or even the telephone--all they had were letters
Ahh... love letters.
On of my most cherished possessions is a box of love letters my dad sent my mom through four years of the Navy, as he courted her, before they were married.
Nothing like that tangible letter, and those words, that you can carry around and read again and again. I don't even think you can do that now with an internet relationhip...
(yes, I'm fully aware that I'm going off topic from your current argument....)
FG
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
Stop, Tom!
It's the emotion behind the ::hugs:: or ::kisses:: that MAKE them real hugs and kisses, well to me at least.
When Bernard first ::kissed:: me, I felt as light-headed as I did when we first kissed in meatspace. And his ::hugs:: made me remember our embrace before I left Presidential Classroom. And just about everything we rp (and yes, we know it's an rp) online, we've done when he's visited me. Also, I've noticed that we get more and more 'physical' in our chats the more we've visited one another: ::lays head on shoulder:: and ::rubs back:: are not uncommon if you were to look at our chats in the past few months (and no, you can't, so don't ask )
I know that a hug is very different from a ::hug::, and I definately know that a : : is different from meatspace kisses (especailly passionate ones ). But to me, it feels somewhat real, because I'm not imagining, I'm remembering. Or maybe Bernard and I are bound tighter than other online couples.
[ December 19, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: MaydayDesiax ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
I do take online actions seriously, as gauged by the intent. Kama didn't want to hurt me, so it didn't, but it came through as a sort of play push or arm-punch, you know? She was demonstrating by killing me, which was a less affectionate way of demonstrating than, say, when I demonstrated to kat by tickling her, but it wasn't meant to be hurtful and so I didn't take it that way.
But like when Tom tried to demonstrate one time that online actions are not like real life actions by tickling my neck online, it did make me feel weird, and I asked him to stop, and moved away from him, and turned up the collar on my jacket, when he kept on, because it was too personal. It made me uncomfortable, yeah. Even though he was saying he didn't mean it for real, I still felt like backing away, you know?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote: Or maybe Bernard and I are bound tighter than other online couples.
It is NOT a contest.
Okay, I can't hold but notice that the most strenuous defenders of the "real life is different" are those with, frankly, experience with relationships in real life, sexual or not.
In that case, the discussion's moot. It's like the difference between Newton's and Einstein's equations. Both equations are true in their sphere.
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
Sorry Javert, I didn't mean to make you think I was in a contest. I simply meant that I felt like it was real because I'm close to Bernard. I didn't mean it as a contest, I'm sorry.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
No, it's fine. You're fine. It just had the potential to veer into Barbra Streisand "Our Love is Better than Yours" territory, and I wanted to head it off at the pass.
[ December 19, 2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
When you say that about "the people with real life experience" aren't you saying "our love is better than yours?" and aren't you also presuming you know something about anyone's experiences, real life or otherwise?
This thread reminds me of the religion threads where people say "I have no experience of God, please tell me about your experience of God" and you bare your deepest most personal experiences and feelings to try and help them see what you mean and then they say, "oh, you are delusional! yes, i understand all about that."
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Anne Kate, you KNOW I know what you're talking about. You know I do. You heard all about it. Do you think I've forgotten?
I did NOT say better. Ever. I never said better. I don't believe it is better - I don't think there is a value judgement. They are different, though.
One is more condusive to happiness in its own sphere than another, but they are both true and most condusive in their spheres.
[ December 19, 2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Yeah, that's true, I do know for sure that you know something about what I'm saying. And Tom does too, since he met Christy online (Tom, you can say "I tickle all of you" but when you say "until you cry" you're telling our responses which of course as DM you understand exactly how far that works <grins>.)
But what you tell yourself about what you've experienced is as important as what you experienced. That is, how you explain it to yourself. And it sounds from this thread like you have both decided your online experiences mean much less somehow, than those you've had in real life. If you decide that then it's TRUE, for sure.
But what nobody can say, I don't think, is that it's also true for other people.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*hugs anne kate* Thank you.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
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.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
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 ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
<<<<<kat>>>>>
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
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.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
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.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
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 ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hmmm, I think of I have some things to say but I just flew home and then celebrated my Mom's birthday party, I'm a bit wiped; so for now:
*Bumps for the Moose Miester*
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*bump*
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Clearly I haven't said whatever it is I was going to say, but now I'm tired and have forgotten. *Sigh*
*Bumps for Moose before the second page this thread does reach*
Hobbes Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
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.
--Pop
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I see how this works, Pop. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
How is that, Tom?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
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.
--Pop
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I am.
I really am going to start putting in a every time I'm teasing, and Ralphie will just have to understand.
Except that even with a , I've had several people think I was being serious. I'm going to start festooning my posts with s!
*cackles insanely*
Posted by hasdy (Member # 5905) on :
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
keep the comments coming tho...
Hasdy!
[ December 23, 2003, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: hasdy ]
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
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.
--Pop
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
<grin> Now I feel like taking wagers on which side of the argument Papa Moose will fall on.
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'll lay odds on his agreeing with some aspects of both "sides," and doing so with wit and panache. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ummm... the house doesn't cover that bet.
Hobbes Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
A friend of mine suckered me into something. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Is anyone else twitching with anticipation for Papa Moose's next post? I know I am!
*starts selling tickets*
*forms line party*
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
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.
--Pop
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
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...
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
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.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
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.
--Pop
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
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.
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
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. Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"My two cents is that a relationship is all about communication, something that can be done through many mediums."
Again, people who say this have not, as far as I can tell, had sex.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I was thinking for a comeback to that Tom, when I sadly realized you're right. My response: Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
He's right.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
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.
--Pop
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No he's not -- because I strongly agree with Ryuko's sentiment.
And I have three kids.
[Edit: I was responding to those who said Tom was right; I agree with Pop.]
[ December 28, 2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
[ December 28, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
According to that logic, marriage-minded people should not date, because they crave something MORE than dating. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. It's just that marriage-minded people will always be dissatisfied by dating.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*blink*
Ohhhhh! Ok, that's true enough, and that is a better analogy. I sit corrected. Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
quote: Again, people who say this have not, as far as I can tell, had sex.
Not entirely true. Hard, but possible. Satyagraha
[ December 28, 2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: BYuCnslr ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
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!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
rivka: What Tom said.
Lalo: HA! Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
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.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
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.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
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.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
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.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I'd say so! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I guess I feel guilty when I spend too much time online. But, if I was dating a guy long distance, I'd spend a lot of time on the phone with him. Probably just as much time as I would spend on the internet. Right?![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
But I'm pretty sure she's still here and I enjoy her anyway even not knowing it is the same person.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
(See? The even the smilies think I'm confused ![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
)![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
). But to me, it feels somewhat real, because I'm not imagining, I'm remembering. Or maybe Bernard and I are bound tighter than other online couples. ![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)