Relationships that exist only through the internet are not real. You don't even know the person.
Poll: Are Internet Relationships Real Relationships?
- Thread starter Setsuhen
- Start date
There's a difference. At one point, the relationship between the soldier and the girlfriend was face to face. Only recently has it been turned into a long distance relationship.Cliff_m85 said:
An internet relationship does not require you to have meet the person in real life. So unlike the solider, who has seen his girlfriend before and knows her, this person on the internet could be anyone.
Okay, I voted yes, internet love can be real love. But I would like to clarify my stance: I am by no means claiming that it is always true love on the internet. Yes, there are sickos out there who will take advantage of you, but there are some other people out there, who, like you (presumably) are trying to find true love and have difficulty doing it in any other way. It all comes down to one simple thing: a face to face meeting.
Depends on how close people get, or if its cybering or something. I dunno. I'm leary of internet relationships. I've seen some work, but some...not so much.
No because if it's online than it really is just some people pretending to be something else. Even if they meet in real life than it stops being online because the net just acted like a singles bar but the real world is where it became real. Dating sites wouldn't exist if people just wanted platonic long distance relationships (typing one handed does not count).
It's only a true one if the two people involved know each other offline as well as they do online. Relationships that START online and are developed in real life count. Relationships that started offline and MAINTAINED online count (such is the case with long-distance relationships). Relationships that began online and STAY online DO NOT count. I know people from all three scenarios, and that's just what I think about it. The bottom line is that it ain't a real relationship (in an intimate sense) if you haven't even seen the other person in real life.
Speaking as a man who's had over seven online relationships (indeed, I am in one now), I'm not going to be one of those who say it can't be "real".
The thing that people on the Internet miss is that they're interacting, by distance but still interacting, with real life people. Content on the Internet isn't generated by people who don't exist. People do exist outside of your narrow little personal sight-and-smell universe.
The idea that a relationship online is not "real" is merely one excuse among many, particularly for gamers, to act like jackasses on the Internet and in games. It is a way of avoiding that the people they are abusing, annoying, irritating, "killing", and the like, are real people with real feelings. In short, it is an attempt at telling yourselves that there is no consequence for how you act online. Just like hate, love has consequences online. That these consequences are reduced, or seem distant, does not mean that they do not exist, that they never happen.
If you are aware that there are consequences from how you speak and who you are on the Internet, if you attempt in every possible way to replace the huge piece of communication missing from not being face-to-face, then the reality of any relationship, be it friendship, romantic, or co-worker, will be there with you. It is a question of resolve, intelligence, spirit and inner strength. It is much harder to be yourself with someone who has never met you, but it is not impossible.
Having a "real" relationship doesn't even depend purely on ever meeting (in many, many circumstances, the truth is that's not possible, however much a person can want it). You do need to prove the person is who they say they are. That's different. There are many, many ways of achieving that. But to say that if you've never met, it's not love, is pretending that attachment and commitment are things that come from the body rather than the mind. They aren't.
As in all relationships, the choice and the test is upon both individuals. If either fail to be themselves in the Internet section of meeting, both fail upon meeting or against time itself during the Internet-only period. If neither fail in resolve, then the relationship can last to death and even beyond.
The thing that people on the Internet miss is that they're interacting, by distance but still interacting, with real life people. Content on the Internet isn't generated by people who don't exist. People do exist outside of your narrow little personal sight-and-smell universe.
The idea that a relationship online is not "real" is merely one excuse among many, particularly for gamers, to act like jackasses on the Internet and in games. It is a way of avoiding that the people they are abusing, annoying, irritating, "killing", and the like, are real people with real feelings. In short, it is an attempt at telling yourselves that there is no consequence for how you act online. Just like hate, love has consequences online. That these consequences are reduced, or seem distant, does not mean that they do not exist, that they never happen.
If you are aware that there are consequences from how you speak and who you are on the Internet, if you attempt in every possible way to replace the huge piece of communication missing from not being face-to-face, then the reality of any relationship, be it friendship, romantic, or co-worker, will be there with you. It is a question of resolve, intelligence, spirit and inner strength. It is much harder to be yourself with someone who has never met you, but it is not impossible.
Having a "real" relationship doesn't even depend purely on ever meeting (in many, many circumstances, the truth is that's not possible, however much a person can want it). You do need to prove the person is who they say they are. That's different. There are many, many ways of achieving that. But to say that if you've never met, it's not love, is pretending that attachment and commitment are things that come from the body rather than the mind. They aren't.
As in all relationships, the choice and the test is upon both individuals. If either fail to be themselves in the Internet section of meeting, both fail upon meeting or against time itself during the Internet-only period. If neither fail in resolve, then the relationship can last to death and even beyond.
i don't Believe What Source was Mentioned Besides the Internet, so it Could be a Game, or a chatroom, or msn, aim, yahoo. lots or area to coverDamien the Pigeon said:
I think there has to be actual physical contact at some point, I'm not discounting online relationships starting something or being used to keep together while apart, but it's insanely easy to be a completely different person online and over the phone than in person.
Personally, I have to have time together with a person, I really heavily on body language and expression and such when I talk to someone, so an online conversation or a phone call just wouldn't cut it for me.
Just like people say that dating someone and actually living with someone are two completely different things, but still the same, a long distance relationship and being near the person are completely different. I had a friend who dated a boy 2000 miles away for a year and a half, they were both completely in love, she flew out to see him, and within a week they were over. It could've just as easily been the opposite, but that's the risk of long distance relationships.
Personally, I have to have time together with a person, I really heavily on body language and expression and such when I talk to someone, so an online conversation or a phone call just wouldn't cut it for me.
Just like people say that dating someone and actually living with someone are two completely different things, but still the same, a long distance relationship and being near the person are completely different. I had a friend who dated a boy 2000 miles away for a year and a half, they were both completely in love, she flew out to see him, and within a week they were over. It could've just as easily been the opposite, but that's the risk of long distance relationships.
I'm going to say no, probably even hell no.
It can definitely lead to a real one, but in and of itself it is not one. Dating sites or even meeting in a game are real ways too meet people and start towards a relationship.
But not until you actually meet that person would I consider it a meaningful relationship. There is simply too much you don't know until you spend real time with them, you can lie about alot over the internet and people do lie alot, interests, friends, other relationships.
It can definitely lead to a real one, but in and of itself it is not one. Dating sites or even meeting in a game are real ways too meet people and start towards a relationship.
But not until you actually meet that person would I consider it a meaningful relationship. There is simply too much you don't know until you spend real time with them, you can lie about alot over the internet and people do lie alot, interests, friends, other relationships.
If they've never met each other in real life, and can't easily meet each other in real life - then no. It's not a real relationship. It's an interaction of sorts, but it can never be as real as a REAL LIFE relationship. Sure, some real relationships start off in the internet and THEN progress to real life meetings and whatnot - but if they never meet, then it's all a farce. It could even be a lie (you might never know if they're telling the truth or not).
I believe they can develop into one should the two persons involved meet up in person. Otherwise, no.
I did it.Spinwhiz said:Yup, I can agree. I actually my girlfriend through MySpace and became friends first. We've been together over 8 months and I can only see me in it for the long haulLabyrinth said:BUT, that was a social site. What about MMO's? People can get an idea in their head about what people look like, how they are in real life, etc. The people that get attached to their "lover's character" may be in for a real letdown if they ever actually meet.
When I met him, I wasn't disappointed at all, far from it. He wasn't a letdown in the least. What's difficult is that due to geographical distances, we aren't able to see each other as much as we would like. And we still play, nearly every day. I'd say difficult sometimes, but not impossible to conduct a real relationship via the internet. And the same with it going sour too. If it ever does, it'll be for reasons other than cyberworld issues. It'll be the same reasons face2face couples break up.
NEITHER. The choices are too diverse to make an accurate decision, because it really depends on if you're just flirting with someone online, or on an internet dating site, 'cause, there's a difference.
Most of the complaints from the "No" side amount to "They are probably lying about who they are etc etc." or the idea that a person has to be physically with the other to really cultivate feelings of love for them.
I don't personally buy either of those. The funny thing is, though, most of those posts that conform with what I just listed, were just that. Simple statements of "fact" without explaining anything. Any details were nothing more than wordy versions of what was already stated in a shorter version in a similar post 3 users before.
Anyway, an online relationship that is based in the real intentions of those two persons to hook up in a very real way is a very real ticket to a successful relationship away from the computer screen. Note my wording there. Both participants have to have real intentions to make the relationship more than a series of IM chats. This requires that both people are really being honest one with the other. Honesty can be validated in many ways that don't alienate anyone involved and this can forge a connection of openness between the two people involved and form a strong foundation for future interaction and future "real life" connections.
Also, while there is no real substitute for the physical closeness of a loved one, this is no reason to assume that nothing can come of a connection made over the Internet. A lot of what troubles modern expectations of relationships is a demand for more and immediate physical gratification. I'm not only talking about a headlong rush to jump into bed with your newest find. I'm talking about a focus on the physical "chemistry" as one would call it. If you can't "feel" the pheromones its not real. Chemicals never produced love. Here in the real world call that "lust". I'm stunned daily by the number of people who simply don't know the difference between the two. When two people are honest with each other and allow bonds of trust to flower into deeper connections of care and desires for the greatest happiness for the other we have the beginnings of love. If we have a moment where two people sit and chat happily for a few hours and then decide (due to proximity and short term impressions) that they need to be closer to that person or even escalate their connection with that person in a rapid fashion we have what is known as "lust".
Both love and lust exist on and offline. Is love a bit harder to find online than in the "real world"? Not really. Anonymity only goes so far when two people have honest intentions of making something real work out. This depends wholly on the people involved.
Also, I find it confusing exactly what the "not unless they meet in person" crowd actually calls a relationship. There is a huge definition gap here. Two people with honest caring feelings for each other and their personal growth and happiness. <-- Sounds like a relationship to me. Or is it really a requirement that the participants can hold hands and kiss etc. I'm hard pressed to find that logically honest.
I don't personally buy either of those. The funny thing is, though, most of those posts that conform with what I just listed, were just that. Simple statements of "fact" without explaining anything. Any details were nothing more than wordy versions of what was already stated in a shorter version in a similar post 3 users before.
Anyway, an online relationship that is based in the real intentions of those two persons to hook up in a very real way is a very real ticket to a successful relationship away from the computer screen. Note my wording there. Both participants have to have real intentions to make the relationship more than a series of IM chats. This requires that both people are really being honest one with the other. Honesty can be validated in many ways that don't alienate anyone involved and this can forge a connection of openness between the two people involved and form a strong foundation for future interaction and future "real life" connections.
Also, while there is no real substitute for the physical closeness of a loved one, this is no reason to assume that nothing can come of a connection made over the Internet. A lot of what troubles modern expectations of relationships is a demand for more and immediate physical gratification. I'm not only talking about a headlong rush to jump into bed with your newest find. I'm talking about a focus on the physical "chemistry" as one would call it. If you can't "feel" the pheromones its not real. Chemicals never produced love. Here in the real world call that "lust". I'm stunned daily by the number of people who simply don't know the difference between the two. When two people are honest with each other and allow bonds of trust to flower into deeper connections of care and desires for the greatest happiness for the other we have the beginnings of love. If we have a moment where two people sit and chat happily for a few hours and then decide (due to proximity and short term impressions) that they need to be closer to that person or even escalate their connection with that person in a rapid fashion we have what is known as "lust".
Both love and lust exist on and offline. Is love a bit harder to find online than in the "real world"? Not really. Anonymity only goes so far when two people have honest intentions of making something real work out. This depends wholly on the people involved.
Also, I find it confusing exactly what the "not unless they meet in person" crowd actually calls a relationship. There is a huge definition gap here. Two people with honest caring feelings for each other and their personal growth and happiness. <-- Sounds like a relationship to me. Or is it really a requirement that the participants can hold hands and kiss etc. I'm hard pressed to find that logically honest.