Reminds me of socialising with people I knew through the office, actually.
Which is, I think, the critical point: one can have relationships that are defined by a certain location, mode of connection, or interaction style and depend on that context for their value. Divorced from the context that gives them their skeleton, they just sort of flop around.
It doesn’t matter what the strictures are that give the thing structure – office relationships, bbs relationships, whatever; they need the modifier to stand up. They’re not capable of standing on their own as relationships.
I tend to figure that’s just life. Not enough time in the world, not enough energy, and not enough giving of the damn.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that while an honest relationship might begin on line, if you go for years in cyberspace anonymity, you are not in a true romantic relationship.
Our OP said she’s been strictly on line with this guy…talking sex and other deep heartfelt subjects…but they haven’t had a real-life encounter. Her friend obviously was not into this relationship to the same intensity she is…he was able to cut off ties without batting an eyelash (and very cruel about it, in my opinion). After a few months of on-line interaction, if I felt that a strong romantic, emotional bond was forming, and my online partner felt the same way, I’d be making plans to meet this person and move forward to an adult, physical, let’s-make-plans-for-our-future phase. This didn’t happen. Whether he was paralyzed by fear, married, lying about himself…whatever…it’s fairly obvious he was uninterested in taking the relationship to a responsible, mature level.
Real world lovers want to hold each other, pick out apartments, plan families, meet friends, dine together, etc. If you don’t desire this person enough to build a bricks-and-mortar life with them, then it’s pretty apparent the relationship was friendship only. No romantic future.
What did I say that was imflammatory? That you shouldn’t assume you know (or have a “relationship” with) people that you only know online? Is that really an outre thing to say?
Maybe it’s just that people love to argue with you, Dio. I don’t know. But that shit monopolizes a lot of threads in here. I’m all for a good debate, but this clawing each others eyes out routine is ridiculous. Everything has to get into personal insults. I’m not sure why that is.
First, I’m sorry that you ended up hurt; online or not, that was a very shitty thing for that douchebag to do. Look at it this way, at least you found out his true colors before you actually became even more emotionally involved.
That said, I think it is tremendously. . . naive isn’t quite the right word, but you know where I’m going with this, to invest yourself so much in someone you’ve never actually met. It’s easy to do, no doubt, but sometimes you have to stop yourself. Just like IRL, sometimes you’ve got to slow yourself down- a great first date might leave you gushing to your friends about how AWESOME! he is, but you shouldn’t start moving your stuff into his apartment and declaring your undying love for him (not an exact comparison by any means).
It’s also necessary to realize that people can be idiots, jerks, and perverts in real life as well as on the net. You just have to be aware that the anonymity of the internet allows for much more idiocy, jerkishness, and perving. There are certainly lots and lots of great, normal, sane people surfing the net, genuinely looking for friends and relationships (JSGoddess and her husband are a perfect example of this), but there are plenty of guys looking for something not so good, in a not so honest fashion (your guy).
Best of luck with dating. It sucks no matter how you go about it!
Excellent point. It is alot like the folks at work or even the gal at the dry cleaners. You might chat with her and fill in her on stuff when you see her, but are you really friends?
I think there it lots of room in life for people like this. It’s the transitioning that can be hard, as the OP found out.
When I was doing the online dating thing, one of my rules was to move into real life meetings fairly quickly (within a month or so of first contact) to prevent exactly this type of “wasted my time for so long and nothing came of it” kind of frustration. I’m not saying you made a mistake, betenoir, just that I would learn from this and refine my actions if I were you.
I also disagree with people who say online relationships aren’t real. I understand the point you’re making, but I think online relationships are different from real life ones, not that online ones aren’t real. They’re certainly not imaginary.
I don’t think they’re imaginary–I didn’t see anyone posting that they were. Certainly, the odds of being conned are greater, given the anonymity of the Net.
I like my friends on the SDMB. I care alot about some of the people here. I think they are real and genuine. But would we have much to say face to face? I don’t know. I’ve gone to two bb fests-one for SDMB and one for another bb. We tend to talk about the bb. That’s natural and friends usually dicuss common interests, at first. But given the level of knowledge that people share online, one would expect that feeling of trust etc to carry over into RL meetings–that hasn’t happened (for me) except once(and that was longdistance phone calls and then a festivus).
For me, one of my points is that it can be disconcerting to sit across from someone and either not know them, yet they all the details about your termination(or whatever), or you feel you know too much about them, without really knowing them. Gah-I cannot seem to express what I mean here.
Bottom line: the Web allows people to be perhaps more free with intimate details than they would in RL, and yet when you meet these people, there is not a corresponding level of trust as there would be in a RL friend. For me, that leads to a dissonance of sorts. By no means do I mean to sound disapproving of online friendships or romances, but with them comes this potential jarring.
I’ll have to tell my husband we’re still living in sin. Thanks so much for the update. Maybe we’ll get another computer so we can get laid once in a while.
No, it’s not that you’re living in sin, you’re just not in a real relationship, according to the totally arbitrary standard I just came up with for judging the reality of your relationship.
My sympathies, betenoir; it sounds like this guy really didn’t handle things well.
I suppose you’re also going to tell me my relationship with Angelina Jolie isn’t “real” either. Probably make up some arbitrary standard like “you have to communicate with her at least once” or “she needs to know about it” or some other nonsense like that.
Sometimes arbitrary is unfair and stupid, sometimes it’s just common sense. If your relationship is 100% online, it’s not the same as one where you meet the person face to face.
I agree 100%. I just don’t think that different makes one real and the other unreal (or imaginary).
Maybe the problem here is the use of the word “real.” My credit card debt is very much real, but I can’t grab a double handful of it. When I say “real,” I mean that it exists, that I’m not imagining it, whether or not it has any meatspace existence.
Well of course. Because, you see, Diogenes is the all-knowing authority of everything. Anything that he disagrees with, or he hasn’t experienced is wrong, stupid and “retarded.” :rolleyes:
There was nothing arbitrary about my position. Your “marriage in a church” analogy is a straw man. I don’t think it’s unreasonable (and certainly not “inflammatory”) to state a personal opinion that actually meeting someone in person is a prerequisite to having a real relationship with them. You may disagree with opinion but there’s nothing arbitrary or irrational about it. I can’t fathom why anyone would think it was insulting.
This is an admission of ignorance, but I think it’s coming too early: have you really actually thought about why someone might think it’s insulting for you to tell them that their relationship isn’t real? I’d advise you to spend five minutes wracking your brain for an answer to that question; if you can’t, your imagination is far more stunted than I think it is.
I’m interested in this idea; what I understand you to be saying is that unless you have met the person, and are continuing to engage with them in meatspace, no one can have a real relationship with another person. What does a real relationship consist of by your definition, Diogenes, so that online relationships aren’t meeting the criteria?
Knowing who the other person is would be a start. I think a relationship (especially a specifically romantic relationship, as was intimated in the OP) is defined by actual physical interactions in real time and space., otherwise you’re just bending the definition of love relationships to a ridiculous degree. On online correspondence is just that- a correspondence.
(not an exact comparison by any means).