Internet couples : Possible or just a Substitute?

[Disquiet]

but seriously i don't see why it can't happen, love is a feeling to another person, the way in which you communicate with that person is irrelevant. if people can talk on the phone, send SMS messages or communicate through mail and love each other the internet is not that diffrent. however i will agree that meeting the other guy/girl in person might change your opinion on them and the love will be lost. but you can defenitly fell in love over the internet.

I must have missed this. I agree. If someone had a friend in an adjacent state, and said "Hey, I know this girl, she might be good for you." And the two start talking over the phone, and after a while (weeks, months, whatever) go and see/be with her, most won't see a problem with that. However, if one was to do that online, and even web-chat, it's immediately looked down on.


It's also funny, that when talking with someone over the phone, even if it's strictly business. Most would never say something like 'we'll continue this talk in real life'. Maybe, face-to-face, but never 'real life'. Yet online, you are able to webcam with them, which entails seeing their face along with hearing their words.

Hell, I'm sure they have online local dating for people who aren't willing to go out of state, and then more global sites for the people who are willing and have the means to do so. It doesn't even have to be an inconvenience, if you know your limits.

I also agree with your last part, people can fall in love online. People just make the mistake in assuming love cannot end, just because you go there and you find out it isn't what you expected, doesn't mean you didn't fall in love online. You have people who falls in love with celebrities, and even stalks them. Human emotions is not to be underestimated. Even parents could stop loving their children under certain circumstances. The ending is not proof for a lack of love in the beginning. In that case, one could say they don't love anyone they have been in past relationships with.

Physical presence shouldn't be mistaken as an asset necessary to fall in love, but necessary to sustain it. We know that even if a close couple is to be separated for a long period of time, that the relationship could be in jeopardy. However, what we can see in this is, love gained and love lost. There's nothing to confirm that one cannot fall in love online. But, we do have many people saying that yes, they fell in love online. We just have to take their word for it, a lot of them aren't kids and probably have been in a relationship before. If we start questioning one's love for another, then we could all just be say 'You don't love that person' regardless of the proximity between both individuals, in the end, we will never know and that's between them.


Some statistics. A huge difference from what most people assume. Now there's going to be several links, just giving a warning.

You must be registered for see images

Link below

You must be registered for see links

Another link.

You must be registered for see links

^Take note of:

Long distance relationships are always or more less likely to fail: There is no evidence to suggest this. Calling it a myth.

Yet another link.

You must be registered for see links

Despite what many people believe, LDRs do not break up at any greater rate than more traditional, geographically close, couples


Here's some more links.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

It's very possible. Anyways, I hope I opened the minds of people that has or will view this thread.

 

[Ldude]

It's possible, but I would never want to be in a relationship over the internet because I'm already in a relationship with a fictional character. :heh:

 

[Frankenstein]

It's possible, but I would never want to be in a relationship over the internet because I'm already in a relationship with a fictional character. :heh:

Lmao you just took it to a whole new different level =D

@ Yami : Dude, you do understand that there is a difference between "long distance relationship" and "online relationship" right?
Say, I have a girl and we are together for a month, then she goes back home, I go back home too and we maintain this until we meet again.
What does this have to do with "we meet on the internet and maintain a relationship there until someday we maybe meet". None.

So all those statistics are irrelevant to the subject being discussed.

See? This time you brought a valid argument (flawed but valid) so I replied politely

 

[Disquiet]

Lmao you just took it to a whole new different level =D

@ Yami : Dude, you do understand that there is a difference between "long distance relationship" and "online relationship" right?
Say, I have a girl and we are together for a month, then she goes back home, I go back home too and we maintain this until we meet again.
What does this have to do with "we meet on the internet and maintain a relationship there until someday we maybe meet". None.

So all those statistics are irrelevant to the subject being discussed.

See? This time you brought a valid argument (flawed but valid) so I replied politely

They go hand-in-hand, that is to say, a lot of the same problems arise in both of them. Furthermore, if you read the articles, you would see that online dating has been a factor for an increase in long distance relationships. Someone could meet their partner online, spend a month with them, then go back to their hometown. They really are the same.

Also, did you look at the last two links?


All my other arguments were valid.

 

[Frankenstein]

They go hand-in-hand, that is to say, a lot of the same problems arise in both of them. Furthermore, if you read the articles, you would see that online dating has been a factor for an increase in long distance relationships. Someone could meet their partner online, spend a month with them, then go back to their hometown. They really are the same.

Also, did you look at the last two links?


All my other arguments were valid.

I do get your point but the fact that it isn't mentioned which of those LDR were a product of online dating and which not makes the statistic flawed. Logical, no?

And no it's not the same because in the first distance I accidentally (say summer vacations), or not accidentally (but he/she leaves afterwards due to unexpected reasons) meet the future partner and get to know them this way from the get go whereas in the online thing I get to "know" them from the online interaction and then, after some months usually decide to make a trip. Again, there is a difference, no?

Well, those 1-2 you initially made were indeed valid and I had answered very politely. Afterwards you started dodging so yeah, but let's not go back to that.

 

[Disquiet]

I do get your point but the fact that it isn't mentioned which of those LDR were a product of online dating and which not makes the statistic flawed. Logical, no?

And no it's not the same because in the first distance I accidentally (say summer vacations), or not accidentally (but he/she leaves afterwards due to unexpected reasons) meet the future partner and get to know them this way from the get go whereas in the online thing I get to "know" them from the online interaction and then, after some months usually decide to make a trip. Again, there is a difference, no?

Well, those 1-2 you initially made were indeed valid and I had answered very politely. Afterwards you started dodging so yeah, but let's not go back to that.

I get you, but it's not 'flawed', I'm sure there is very very few people on this planet that wouldn't think of an online relationship as being a long distance relationship. And the fact that this was mentioned as factor in rise of long distant relationships shows my point. The statistics are long-distant relationships as a whole.


Well to be honest, the only difference is that they met face-to-face first. In both our scenarios, both are long distant relationships. It is what it is, relationships from a distance, correct? And if you go the link of those LDR statistics, they even define it for you.




I disagree but meh that's all in the past now.

It's possible, but I would never want to be in a relationship over the internet because I'm already in a relationship with a fictional character. :heh:

lol Sasuke or Kira?

 

[Frankenstein]

I get you, but it's not 'flawed', I'm sure there is very very few people on this planet that wouldn't think of an online relationship as being a long distance relationship. And the fact that this was mentioned as factor in rise of long distant relationships shows my point. The statistics are long-distant relationships as a whole.


Well to be honest, the only difference is that they met face-to-face first. In both our scenarios, both are long distant relationships. It is what it is, relationships from a distance, correct? And if you go the link of those LDR statistics, they even define it for you.




I disagree but meh that's all in the past now.





lol Sasuke or Kira?

Well statistically it is flawed because I can argue that out of - let's say the sample is 100 people for the sake of the argument- the 100 people that were asked 80 of them were not talking about online dating and 20 did. 20 constitutes a rise when it is added to the 80 non-online but the 40% that you have underlined is only barely influenced by it.

Of course, but that's a huge difference! Because in the online dating case the other one can bullshit you for months and months and then you meet and bam! the truth is revealed and you realize that you don't match at all. Not to mention that they might have lied to you all these months.
In the other scenario you get to interact with each other from the get go and you test the potential of the relationship from the very start. Some people can bullshit you even from up close but that's much more difficult than doing so through the net. Practically, online even a careful moron can lie to the biggest genius and still get away with it. That's why they say no one is to be trusted online and that's why even if you believe in the innocent an kind intentions of the person you talk to you can't be 100% truthful (actually better say 90% because no one is 100% even after years of direct contact).

 

[Disquiet]

Well statistically it is flawed because I can argue that out of - let's say the sample is 100 people for the sake of the argument- the 100 people that were asked 80 of them were not talking about online dating and 20 did. 20 constitutes a rise when it is added to the 80 non-online but the 40% that you have underlined is only barely influenced by it.

Of course, but that's a huge difference! Because in the online dating case the other one can bullshit you for months and months and then you meet and bam! the truth is revealed and you realize that you don't match at all. Not to mention that they might have lied to you all these months.
In the other scenario you get to interact with each other from the get go and you test the potential of the relationship from the very start. Some people can bullshit you even from up close but that's much more difficult than doing so through the net. Practically, online even a careful moron can lie to the biggest genius and still get away with it. That's why they say no one is to be trusted online and that's why even if you believe in the innocent an kind intentions of the person you talk to you can't be 100% truthful (actually better say 90% because no one is 100% even after years of direct contact).

True, but if you look at the links, you will see there's no evidence to suggest that long distance relationships as a whole is less likely to succeed than a close proximity relationship. The same was said in the last link, which saw solely talking about online dating.


Well I was actually talking about the definition of the term. I can agree with this, but if you take a look at the link (specifically the last two), you would see that online dating is much more successful than people think. You say that it's very easy to lie online (which I agree with), but due to the success of online marriages and what not, people must have much more sense that we give them credit for. Better said, we must be fairy-tailing these scenarios up on our own, 'that everybody is fooled', or that it's not easy to read and or feel emotions through the internet. We created this myth on our own. There's not even any evidence to suggest that they fail more than close proximity relationships.

 

[Frankenstein]

True, but if you look at the links, you will see there's no evidence to suggest that long distance relationships as a whole is less likely to succeed than a close proximity relationship. The same was said in the last link, which saw solely talking about online dating.


Well I was actually talking about the definition of the term. I can agree with this, but if you take a look at the link (specifically the last two), you would see that online dating is much more successful than people think. You say that it's very easy to lie online (which I agree with), but due to the success of online marriages and what not, people must have much more sense that we give them credit for. Better said, we must be fairy-tailing these scenarios up on our own, 'that everybody is fooled', or that it's not easy to read and or feel emotions through the internet. We created this myth on our own. There's not even any evidence to suggest that they fail more than close proximity relationships.

Okay I finally checked the links. Seriously I haven't seen a less detailed survey in my life lol. Plus you conveniently mixed "online meeting" with "long distance relationships". The first few links are about LDRs ( which btw for me is a ridiculous term because it reminds me an -existing- electronic device ) and the next ones are about marriage or relationships after online meeting.
Those 2 separate survey conveniently yet absurdly mixed together would prove your point and all I would be able to do would be to question the legitimacy of the surveys (which I do).
However, they are separate as I said. Let me explain though. The statistic about LDRs is flawed for the reason I mentioned in my previous post. Also the fact that long distance relationships are more likely to fail is true no matter how many statistics you might show me. Heck in my country we even have a saying that goes like "eyes that are seldom seen are easily forgotten".

As for the other statistics about marriage after an online meeting, no details about the sample are given so I can't even comment on it. Seriously though if you think that considering to marry a person you have met online is a good idea I strongly advice you to reconsider.
But let's say the this statistic is true and the sample is good an everything. It is about "marriage after online dating" or "relationship after online dating". Doesn't mention the distance anywhere in the question of the survey. This makes your argument again flawed because meeting someone that is close to you, same country, or even same city (!) online isn't a bad idea at all. No big sacrifices made, and it is easy-peasy. I am not against that at all, actually I once almost did it (although I knew that girl from before we basically got to knew each other online).

So I think you get my point.
That's a nice case to show how one can easily be fooled by statistics online btw

 

[Disquiet]

Okay I finally checked the links. Seriously I haven't seen a less detailed survey in my life lol. Plus you conveniently mixed "online meeting" with "long distance relationships". The first few links are about LDRs ( which btw for me is a ridiculous term because it reminds me an -existing- electronic device ) and the next ones are about marriage or relationships after online meeting.
Those 2 separate survey conveniently yet absurdly mixed together would prove your point and all I would be able to do would be to question the legitimacy of the surveys (which I do).
However, they are separate as I said. Let me explain though. The statistic about LDRs is flawed for the reason I mentioned in my previous post. Also the fact that long distance relationships are more likely to fail is true no matter how many statistics you might show me. Heck in my country we even have a saying that goes like "eyes that are seldom seen are easily forgotten".

As for the other statistics about marriage after an online meeting, no details about the sample are given so I can't even comment on it. Seriously though if you think that considering to marry a person you have met online is a good idea I strongly advice you to reconsider.
But let's say the this statistic is true and the sample is good an everything. It is about "marriage after online dating" or "relationship after online dating". Doesn't mention the distance anywhere in the question of the survey. This makes your argument again flawed because meeting someone that is close to you, same country, or even same city (!) online isn't a bad idea at all. No big sacrifices made, and it is easy-peasy. I am not against that at all, actually I once almost did it (although I knew that girl from before we basically got to knew each other online).

So I think you get my point.
That's a nice case to show how one can easily be fooled by statistics online btw

In both articles, online relationships is used as a factor as a rising factor in LDRs, you're saying they are talking about LDRs, yet they also say online dating is increasing the rate of these LDRs. So yes, when they're talking about LDRs, they're also talking about online relationships.


Then there's the articles about marriage, you say you don't mind hooking up with someone in your own country. At this point, you're not arguing against the chances of success as far as personality matches, but have reduced it to the magnitude of sacrifices. I don't even know what this had to do with anything if it is already showed that people actually fell in love with each other, no matter what, it still shows that we created this myth. People have more sense that we give them credit for. You're now even hinting at that yourself. So, you're arguing that people never made the sacrifice, or made the sacrifice and is thus part of the 35%? If they never made the sacrifice, then it kinda defeats the point since you said earlier that this was about the couples actually meeting.

Though the main reason I showed these articles, was to show the injustice it would be to say that 999 out of 1,000 fail. Certainly, the 'it's nearly impossible' argument can no longer be applied.

 

[Frankenstein]

In both articles, online relationships is used as a factor as a rising factor in LDRs, you're saying they are talking about LDRs, yet they also say online dating is increasing the rate of these LDRs. So yes, when they're talking about LDRs, they're also talking about online relationships.


Then there's the articles about marriage, you say you don't mind hooking up with someone in your own country. At this point, you're not arguing against the chances of success as far as personality matches, but have reduced it to the magnitude of sacrifices. I don't even know what this had to do with anything if it is already showed that people actually fell in love with each other, no matter what, it still shows that we created this myth. People have more sense that we give them credit for. You're now even hinting at that yourself. So, you're arguing that people never made the sacrifice, or made the sacrifice and is thus part of the 35%? If they never made the sacrifice, then it kinda defeats the point since you said earlier that this was about the couples actually meeting.

Though the main reason I showed these articles, was to show the injustice it would be to say that 999 out of 1,000 fail. Certainly, the 'it's nearly impossible' argument can no longer be applied.

Increasing factor yes but it doesn't mean anything for the online relationships themselves. Internet basically helps more in "maintaining" them, not "creating them". Don't just cite a statistic that isn't even any kind of "authority" and look at it blindly for the sole purpose of your argument.

Well if I am from the same city and a friend of mine introduces me online to a friend of theirs and we talk a bit online and arrange a meeting we basically "met online" no? That statistic includes that option, which is indeed very frequent these days. Then you twist it and use it to support your argument. That's tricky logic, but the argument is flawed. I think you understand what I mean.

Falling in love through the internet is impossible. Plain and simple. If you think otherwise you either have no idea what falling in love means or you are have formed, for reasons unknown to me, a twisted idea about this concept. Or just immature haha

The thing about sacrifices is also one of my points yes, because this thread is about online relationships between people who are very far from each other and to meet have to transfer to another country (or state, talking in U.S. standards).

Well 1 out of 1000 but it's not that far from reality. Even if it is 1 out of 100 it's still nearly impossible. But the numbers aren't accurate at all, because you can never find out the quality of the relationship the ones that answered "yes I did it and it worked" have from a mere simplistic statistic.

 

[Disquiet]

Increasing factor yes but it doesn't mean anything for the online relationships themselves. Internet basically helps more in "maintaining" them, not "creating them". Don't just cite a statistic that isn't even any kind of "authority" and look at it blindly for the sole purpose of your argument.

Well if I am from the same city and a friend of mine introduces me online to a friend of theirs and we talk a bit online and arrange a meeting we basically "met online" no? That statistic includes that option, which is indeed very frequent these days. Then you twist it and use it to support your argument. That's tricky logic, but the argument is flawed. I think you understand what I mean.

Falling in love through the internet is impossible. Plain and simple. If you think otherwise you either have no idea what falling in love means or you are have formed, for reasons unknown to me, a twisted idea about this concept. Or just immature haha

The thing about sacrifices is also one of my points yes, because this thread is about online relationships between people who are very far from each other and to meet have to transfer to another country (or city, talking in U.S. standards).

Well 1 out of 1000 but it's not that far from reality. Even if it is 1 out of 100 it's still nearly impossible. But the numbers aren't accurate at all, because you can never find out the quality of the relationship the ones that answered "yes I did it and it worked" have from a mere simplistic statistic.

Well I'm sleepy and kinda just skimmed through your argument, it seems you just make a lot of baseless claims such as 'The internet maintains' them and not 'create them', and 'falling in love online is impossible' with no support at all, and dismiss research with your own ideals. Only a very small mind and heart would believe falling in love online is impossible. In such a case, continuing this is pointless. In fact, it seems like you're on the retreat. You went from saying 'online relationships' to 'online relationships that are across country'. Furthermore, by using this argument, you gave up that 'people who meet online has a nearly impossible chances of success'. Again, you dropped the whole 'everyone is lying, everyone is deceived'. Even if it's within the country, it's still online, and it's still 35% of marriages. Man, just accept it. This thread has fallen due to lack of knowledge on the subject.

Your sacrifices and going across country argument wasn't a rebuttal at all to my point, but alright.


Anyways, a nice discussion it was, won't be continuing, would rep you again if I could.

 

[Frankenstein]

Well I'm sleepy and kinda just skimmed through your argument, it seems you just make a lot of baseless claims such as 'The internet maintains' them and not 'create them', and 'falling in love online is impossible' with no support at all, and dismiss research with your own ideals. Only a very small mind and heart would believe falling in love online is impossible. In such a case, continuing this is pointless. In fact, it seems like you're on the retreat. You went from saying 'online relationships' to 'online relationships that are across country'. Furthermore, by using this argument, you gave up that 'people who meet online has a nearly impossible chances of success'. Again, you dropped the whole 'everyone is lying, everyone is deceived'. Even if it's within the country, it's still online, and it's still 35% of marriages. Man, just accept it.

Your sacrifices and going across country argument wasn't a rebuttal at all to my point, but alright.


Anyways, a nice discussion it was, won't be continuing, would rep you again if I could.

First of all that's not research. If you think that's research then imagine me laughing at that
Also, those are not my ideals. Those are simple facts that have been proven true through the experience of people over many years. You just deny them, and cling to some statistics.

Please, falling in love through the internet? I don't even have to refute that! It's the most immature thing ever. How can you ever fall in love with somebody without having shared any experience with them? How can you fall in love with anyone if you haven't looked at them form up close? How can you fall in love with anyone if you haven't touched them? How can you fall in love through a screen?
Simple, you cannot. You just think you can, which is not the same.
And here comes my great other option which you dodge aaaall this time. That it is a substitute! Do you know what a substitute is? I guess you do. It's a thing close to another thing, but with substantial, radical differences. It can produce the same feeling to the subject that it is applied to but, but, that feeling is not real, it's virtual. And it usually crumbles when it has to face reality.

Nope, I explained what I meant and how the distance and the duration of the time spent online can influence that statistic that is only talking about meeting online.

I really, really hope that 35% of marriages are not products of online dating unless it was done the way I talked about. If it is true I honestly pity the country that the survey was made in.

I am not the one in denial here Look at what you are doing and you will realize it. I am talking with generally accepted facts and you are clinging to 2-3 articles and some more statistics whose value is questionable.

I was surprised that you even responded since I thought it was really , really late in the U.S.

 

[Disquiet]

First of all that's not research. If you think that's research then imagine me laughing at that
Also, those are not my ideals. Those are simple facts that have been proven true through the experience of people over many years. You just deny them, and cling to some statistics.

Please, falling in love through the internet? I don't even have to refute that! It's the most immature thing ever. How can you ever fall in love with somebody without having shared any experience with them? How can you fall in love with anyone if you haven't looked at them form up close? How can you fall in love with anyone if you haven't touched them? How can you fall in love through a screen?
Simple, you cannot. You just think you can, which is not the same.
And here comes my great other option which you dodge aaaall this time. That it is a substitute! Do you know what a substitute is? I guess you do. It's a thing close to another thing, but with substantial, radical differences. It can produce the same feeling to the subject that it is applied to but, but, that feeling is not real, it's virtual. And it usually crumbles when it has to face reality.

Nope, I explained what I meant and how the distance and the duration of the time spent online can influence that statistic that is only talking about meeting online.

I really, really hope that 35% of marriages are not products of online dating unless it was done the way I talked about. If it is true I honestly pity the country that the survey was made in.

I am not the one in denial here Look at what you are doing and you will realize it. I am talking with generally accepted facts and you are clinging to 2-3 articles and some more statistics whose value is questionable.

I was surprised that you even responded since I thought it was really , really late in the U.S.

....Kyo, you realize you aren't making any sense? You yourself said that you're not against online relationships within the same country, yet you say love online is impossible and immature. How then is it more mature to travel across country for someone you don't love? You can't even argue that you say you like them, because how can you like someone without having shared any experiences with them? How can you like them if you've never even touched them? How can you like a screen? You're saying that you don't mind readjusting across country for someone you met online and yet have no feelings for. Listen to yourself, you've called yourself less mature than those people.

I pity you. U_U

 

[Frankenstein]

....Kyo, you realize you aren't making any sense? You yourself said that you're not against online relationships within the same country, yet you say love online is impossible and immature. How then is it more mature to travel across country for someone you don't love? You can't even argue that you say you like them, because how can you like someone without having shared any experiences with them? How can you like them if you've never even touched them? How can you like a screen? You're saying that you don't mind readjusting across country for someone you met online and yet have no feelings for. Listen to yourself, you've called yourself less mature than those people.

I pity you. U_U

Makes post that makes no sense, says that I my argument was flawed.

Seems legit.

Pity me all you want it means nothing coming from you =D

 

[Saikyokami]

I personally believe that internet dating is one of the best ways to start a relation ship... because you will already have had enough in common to meet on the internet. I mean sure you can meet someone in real life too but theres a 1 in 100 chance they like the same things you do.

along with one of the best ways, its one of the worst. What if you get together with cereal killer and you can never eat cereal again because they kill it all? What if they kill you because you don't love them or you're faking who you really are? The internet is a unpredictable place because anyone can access it. I could be a 30 year old wanted rapist, tryna to meet teen girls to come and meet me in real life so I can rape them and turn them into my *** slaves, but you wouldn't know this because I've told you I'm a 14 y/o Islamic African American eighth grader (this is true don't question me ( ._.))

 

[Disquiet]

Makes post that makes no sense, says that I my argument was flawed.

Seems legit.

Pity me all you want it means nothing coming from you =D

Dude, what the hell? How does that not make any sense? I'm sure everyone would agree that your argument is illogical due to what I pointed out. The evidence of your flawed logic is there for everyone to see, just own up to it and move on.

 

[Frankenstein]

I personally believe that internet dating is one of the best ways to start a relation ship... because you will already have had enough in common to meet on the internet. I mean sure you can meet someone in real life too but theres a 1 in 100 chance they like the same things you do.

along with one of the best ways, its one of the worst. What if you get together with cereal killer and you can never eat cereal again because they kill it all? What if they kill you because you don't love them or you're faking who you really are? The internet is a unpredictable place because anyone can access it. I could be a 30 year old wanted rapist, tryna to meet teen girls to come and meet me in real life so I can rape them and turn them into my *** slaves, but you wouldn't know this because I've told you I'm a 14 y/o Islamic African American eighth grader (this is true don't question me ( ._.))

The fact that you met online and therefore have some common interests is not wrong.

But what I am talking about in this thread is not how you come in contact with the potential partner. I am talking about having an online relationship with them for months and then transferring to another country to meet them.

 

[Aertes]

It's possible, but I would never want to be in a relationship over the internet because I'm already in a relationship with a fictional character. :heh:

Fully agree U_U I find real life relationships distracting me so much from my imaginary relationship with a fictional character

To Yami and Franken and all this argument.

i) On line relationship is a different thing from long distance relationship. In the first case you have two people that never met, getting to know each other from the internet and 'falling in love' with a concept of the other, they assume to be correct. They claim they are "together" with someone and they can maintain that "relationship" for months or years without actually meeting the other. In the second case, you have two people that met, formed a relationship and afterwards for some reasons those people had to be separated and decided to continue their relationship with the distance . Two completely different things. Equating those two kind of relationships is dumb and illogical.

ii) About the "statistic facts" and the surveys that were presented: They are refereeing to long distance relationships. They are referring to an increase of on-line dating without making clear if those "relationships" were successful and they are not giving any info about the sample. The survey about marriage doesn't give any info about the "met on-line" thingy. I can meet a person on line, see we have much in common, get to know each other up close and then form a relationship. That's not an "on-line relationship". It's just refers to internet as a way to meet someone. It doesn't make clear if they had a relationship through the net, how long they did if that was the case, or they used internet to find a person with same interests and then get to know them in real life. I don't think we can make any safe assumption from the surveys for the theme we are discussing in this thread.

iii) Falling in love and meeting on line has such a huge difference. being intrigued enough by someone to want to meet him in real life, this I can accept and understand, actually this is the only way any kind of internet relationship has any meaning to me. Falling in love and creating a relationship through the internet? I can't find anything realistic to this. It's like using a distorted concept of what love is. Of course you can have certain feelings for someone but forming a real relationship, that is based to all those things that are important to create a true,deep and solid relationship are absent through the internet.

iv) Both of you seem to disregard the importance of physical contact for a healthy relationship. I can think so many cases of long distance relationships that didn't work out due to the lack of physical contact. It's very important for a couple to have this type of closeness and share feeling and emotions though a healthy sexual relationship. Take that away and you have the main reason most long distance relationships fail. Same goes for on line relationships. How can you really get to know someone, if you never get to know him physically too?

v) As a conclusion, I think on line relationships are possible, but they are a substitute too. Take this for example: You have someone you like and dating in real life and you have someone you like and "dating" on line. Lets' even say that the second one seems to be closer to what you think of the "ideal mate". If you had to make a choice, what would you choose? I think most people would settle for the first relationship. No one will go through the inconvenience of starting an on line thingy, if they have something keeping them busy in real life. So it's just a substitute to feel less lonely and more loved/important or whatever. Falling in love requires so much more than internet can offer.

 

[Disquiet]

Fully agree U_U I find real life relationships distracting me so much from my imaginary relationship with a fictional character

To Yami and Franken and all this argument.

i) On line relationship is a different thing from long distance relationship. In the first case you have two people that never met, getting to know each other from the internet and 'falling in love' with a concept of the other, they assume to be correct. They claim they are "together" with someone and they can maintain that "relationship" for months or years without actually meeting the other. In the second case, you have two people that met, formed a relationship and afterwards for some reasons those people had to be separated and decided to continue their relationship with the distance . Two completely different things. Equating those two kind of relationships is dumb and illogical.

ii) About the "statistic facts" and the surveys that were presented: They are refereeing to long distance relationships. They are referring to an increase of on-line dating without making clear if those "relationships" were successful and they are not giving any info about the sample. The survey about marriage doesn't give any info about the "met on-line" thingy. I can meet a person on line, see we have much in common, get to know each other up close and then form a relationship. That's not an "on-line relationship". It's just refers to internet as a way to meet someone. It doesn't make clear if they had a relationship through the net, how long they did if that was the case, or they used internet to find a person with same interests and then get to know them in real life. I don't think we can make any safe assumption from the surveys for the theme we are discussing in this thread.

iii) Falling in love and meeting on line has such a huge difference. being intrigued enough by someone to want to meet him in real life, this I can accept and understand, actually this is the only way any kind of internet relationship has any meaning to me. Falling in love and creating a relationship through the internet? I can't find anything realistic to this. It's like using a distorted concept of what love is. Of course you can have certain feelings for someone but forming a real relationship, that is based to all those things that are important to create a true,deep and solid relationship are absent through the internet.

iv) Both of you seem to disregard the importance of physical contact for a healthy relationship. I can think so many cases of long distance relationships that didn't work out due to the lack of physical contact. It's very important for a couple to have this type of closeness and share feeling and emotions though a healthy sexual relationship. Take that away and you have the main reason most long distance relationships fail. Same goes for on line relationships. How can you really get to know someone, if you never get to know him physically too?

v) As a conclusion, I think on line relationships are possible, but they are a substitute too. Take this for example: You have someone you like and dating in real life and you have someone you like and "dating" on line. Lets' even say that the second one seems to be closer to what you think of the "ideal mate". If you had to make a choice, what would you choose? I think most people would settle for the first relationship. No one will go through the inconvenience of starting an on line thingy, if they have something keeping them busy in real life. So it's just a substitute to feel less lonely and more loved/important or whatever. Falling in love requires so much more than internet can offer.

I'm actually too bored to continue this argument (No disrespect intended, but didn't even read it due to it becoming too boring). So, once again Chiharu, just going to have to agree to disagree. If you want to ask personal questions, you know where to find me.


EDIT- Maybe I'll read it sometime later.