Internet Relatonships

Great Debates
21

Yes, but there are a lot of good people who are incompatible with other good people, and one of the ways we figure that out is through physical contact (I’m including just visual contact here as well). You pick up a lot of little clues about people when you’re with them in person that you just don’t get online.

Hell, everyone on this board seems like an absolute gem of a person. So unless I’ve hit the motherload of great people, I’m not getting all the information I need to judge you. Maybe you converse like Mother Theresa with a Ph.D in rocket science, but I’ll never see you lose your temper and yell at little children because you’re not about to talk about it here, y’know?

22

quote:

Someone said

To which pldennison replied

Phil, what is the correct way to interpret this statistic? I had always taken it at face value.

Thanks…

“Where there is clarity, there is no choice. And where there is choice, there is misery. But then, why should I speak, since I know nothing?”

23

Wally: thanks for your kind words. Yes, I am fine and no, it’s a legitimate question that relates to the discussion. I thought hard before posting it in a public forum, and knew it could raise questions.

I’ll try to keep my response very on-topic so it doesn’t sound like some vomitous Mary Worth soap opera.

Yes the relationships did start online and then become full fledged affairs. The first affair I discovered by accident; I was home at an unusual time and accidently intercepted a phone call. BTW, I was numb but the woman was shocked, guilt ridden and yes, heartbroken. You see, the Ex had done a masterly job. He had proposed marriage, picked out a ring, planned Christmas with her, etc. She had no idea, and absolutely no reason to suspect lying on that scale.

I never blamed her in the least, and tried to get her to see that she was the sinned against, not the sinner. She was devestated, though, and I’m sure she’ll carry the scars and disillusionment for a long time.

BTW, the Ex travelled frequently “on business”, which was one huge factor in his success in deception. That is a huge factor in considering the net’s role in this.

The second affair showed up at the door after I had booted the Ex out.( Incidentally, I supported us both, so I could kick him out without guilt or indebtedness.) This one he had met in a chat room dedicated to, shall we say, slightly offbeat sexual practices. No, no sheep or Sheland ponies (that I know of) but folks who stun me, at least, with their blithe disregard for AIDS, etc.

This net honey was shocked, yes, but it’s worth noting that she pursued the relationship. As a bizarre footnote, she called ME a few months later, bemoaning that the affair didn’t work out. That little conversation really taxed my ingenuity and manners. It would make a great thread, though: is cluelessness a disability?

To wrap up, Satan and previous posters found the crucial factor: distance vs propinquity. It’s possible to become AWARE of someone on the net, but the only–repeat, only–way to know if the relationship is viable is to spend time together. There is simply no getting around the factor of distance.

I shared this tedious saga of the Ex as a worst-case example. His type of romantic predator is rare–I hope! At worst, the net made his deception easier, and probably last longer. I am fine: it was like living in prison and not knowing it until, poof! doors swung open. I applied for, and miraculously got, a promotion at work so I’m financially better than I’ve ever been. I’m too busy, with honest problems and stresses, to look back much.

But it genuinely bothers me is that the Ex is still out there, cruising the net like a shark. He and the minority like him prey on people who just want love and to believe the best of others. Mixing metaphors here, I wish there were a way to hang the historical leper’s bell on him: unclean! unclean!

If you haven’t committed hari kari by now out of pure boredom (ever see “Airplane”?), this situation is why I responded to Chief Scott the way I did. Someone who proudly praises his love on line and invites her to “listen in” is nowhere near the danger zone. Happily slinging BS and actually living together are literally separate universes. I hope that all works out.

Anyway, that’s the scoop. Sorry for the length of it.

Veb

24

Good for you, Veb. Hold your head up high. You’ll always have yourself.

He has nothing.

25

I’ll just throw my experence in here. I’ve never tried dateing on the net, because I was married before I really started using it. However, I’ve made a number of freinds on the net, and when I’ve met them in person, they seemed very much like person I knew on-line. If I were looking, I would stay away from the sites that are only about meeting people, the chances of finding someone compatable, and in your area, seem very small. Instead I would find places that cater to special interest groups. That’s one of the benifits of the net. People with interests that are somewhat unique can find each other. Since, very often, most of the people in the special interest area are people you could get along with, the only challenge is finding someone near-by, your age, etc. I belong to another group with about 1000 members, the 20 of us in my area got our own sub-group together, and we already have 1 fairly successful relationship in the group. It’s a little like meeting people in real life. It’s sometimes better to just do the things you like to do, and meet someone that way, than to go to singles bars to actively try to meet someone. It wouldn’t hurt to know a little amature psyc. either. I’ve become interested in personality types. A good site for this is: www.keirsey.com
I’m sure most of the people here would be “Rationals” on the tests they give there. It turns out that most of the aspects of personality can be judged by talking to someone on the net. The one thing that is hard to judge on the net, but easy to judge in person is extrovertion/introvertion, but this is actually the least important factor in determining personality, of the factors that Keirsey lists. So if you had a good idea what sort of personality you were looking for ahead of time, you could save a lot of time. Well, that’s my 2 cents. :slight_smile:

26

El Mariachi Loco(regarding the 50% divorce rate statistic):

Well, if 50% of marriages end in divorce, then Mickey Rooney and Liz Taylor, between them, have probably saved a significant number of regular posters, here, from ever getting a divorce. Too often people interpret the 50% divorce rate as “half of all people will get divorced.” With a certain segment of the population marrying, divorcing and re-marrying multiple times, the number of humans who will get divorced is significantly lower.

It is not the same thing to say 50% of all people who marry will get divorced as to say 50% of all marriages end in divorce. The first statement indicates that half of the people who marry will suffer a divorce. The second statement indicates that every person who divorces and re-marries more than once will “free up” another person to marry and stay married forever.

Let’s apply the “50% of marriages” rule to Mickey and Liz. Let’s say that each have been married eight times with seven divorces. (I don’t know what their actual totals are.) In order for them to participate in a 50% rate, 12 other couples have to have married and never divorced. Since many of the multiply (multiplee?) married tend to marry and re-marry each other, the number of “just folks” out there who never divorce is much higher than 50%.

The odds actually get better when you consider that among people who do get divorced, the majority have a single failed marriage in their youth followed by a single successful marriage at a slightly older age. In other words, by figuring the number of people who get divorced only once (and who often marry another once-divorced person) the number of multiple partner marriages truly becomes an offsetting figure and marriage begins to look like a much more stable situation in our society.

Tom~