The validity of online relationships.

[Magnes1976]

Here is my story of online romance. Some years ago i played Ultima Online. I was in a role playing community on the Europa server. In that community we had our character. Created a personality and developed it through online experiences. Each city in UO had a role playing guild that controlled the city for role playing purposes. Getting of track here.

In that game my character had a wife. So basically i had a online love affair going on. It was pretty romantic and at times dramatic. I got to know the person that played my wife pretty well. We chatted a lot. Later on we even spoke on phone. She's English and I'm Swedish. I liked her, still do even if we don't play anymore. Got her on face book though.

The truth of it. We are not loving each other, never were in love. I consider her my friend, still do and i trust her.

 

[Mephistophelily]

I'm close to many people here, and on other sites. Some, closer than others.
Have a developed a sense of "love" for some of them? Yes. Do I feel it's the same as "actual" love? Not entirely.

The person you know online is letting you see them as they wished to be viewed. A person you meet IRL can only do that for so long. Online, you have that time of censorship when responding to them, that ability to cloud certain aspects of your persona.

The person you feel "love" for online may not be the same person off the internet.
It's the same thing that's been drilled into the heads of every kid born into the tech age. You never know who is on the other end of that screen, even if they swear "this is the real me".

So yes, I do have a deeper connection with a number of Lit folk. In a way, I'd call it love. The person they convey themselves as is someone that I feel close to. Am I 100% certain that who they show me is the true them? No, because I'll be honest with you; the girl sitting at this keyboard is NOT exactly like Mephy, and I don't expect everyone I talk to would be behaving as they do in every day life.

 

[Azazael]

We all have them. Especially here. Tell me how real they are. How much you think it's stupid... or not.

But here's the deal, speak from your own experience. Don't speak from a place of judgement (if you can). Own your own words. This, I expect will be heated. So if you can't take it, then walk away.

This conversation, it seems.. needs to be had. Let's do it. Get dirty and get it over with.

Ready?
Deep breaths everyone.

Go.

Interesting questions, reality and validity. I suspect that's not really what this topic is all about though. Ausus, you state that you expect the arguments to become heated. I would have to surmise that is because you know within fairly reasonable boundaries, exactly how certain individuals are going to approach and answer this topic.

As it seems that a few here have decided that the mere mention of strong online relationships should bring forth an immediate stoning, I would argue surely that causality is more important. Does the relationship impact adversely ether on the individuals (or those in their) offline lives? The argument would then seem that they are all harmful in some way and therefore should be shunned or derided. As offline relationships can have the same widely varying effects, it beggars what the actual problem with them is. Judgement then raises its head, with all the personal viewpoints that enable and equip one to be a fair and impartial, self appointed "judge." This in turn dovetails nicely into the "reality" question, where a persons conceptual grasp of reality is largely a construction of perceptions, beliefs and cultural factors and can rarely be, if ever, identical.

What does this mean? In my opinion, people who profess online "love" or choice to display "E-Collars" are perfectly entitled to their viewpoint and lifestyle. In many ways, those are statements of intent in exactly the same way that others go to great lengths to publicly express "respect" for someone. It is done so others notice, which shows that despite all the protestations and the varying degrees of import placed on such tokens, that most people within this community are disturbingly more similar to each other than they wish to admit.

Every person judges by the way. However the moral high-ground which gives those judgements weight, suffers from the same tests of validity and reality as all other actions and opinions. It would seem that this forum often suffers from the inability to tolerate, or at the very least ignore the lifestyles and viewpoints of others ...

 

[Hikari]

I don't know why this is even a debate.

People can project feelings onto even just the idea of a person. Much like school crushes. They may never have even spoken to the person, but they can pine, fantasize, and obsess. Unless you've met someone face to face, you can hardly know that you love them. You can know their favorite ice cream flavor and movie, but never know how they treat their mom or what they smell like. For all you know, there could be genuine reasons why people in real life won't date them. Reasons why you shouldn't date them either.

So unless it becomes a long term face to face situation it's not really an accurate perception of that person.


As for online friendships, those are different. I know very well I'd get along with some of my online friends and not so well with others. It doesn't mean you shouldn't value their friendship.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

This conversation was started as an argument about validity, Tio. I've only held exactly what you've said as the case. People on here have attempted to assert that they are the same, both love and fucking, in an online and offline sense. I'm trying to say that's nonsense. The expectations are extremely different. The fact they won't admit that is bizarre to me.

Perhaps, if you would, you'd clarify with how you and I disagree. I'm not sure that we do.

Sorry for not replying yesterday, but your comment came as I was leaving work and heading for a party...

Our only serious, perhaps, disagreement stems, I think, from the notion of "validity." I wouldn't deny that there are substantial differences between online and real life relationships, but do object to the idea that someone or something outside of the relationship can determine its validity. I could no more maintain that what someone finds as a meaningful relationship for themself is invalid than I could accept their designation of the relationship as the same as any relationship I may be in. Such validity is not an absolute; it is relative to the people who are in the relationship.

To put it in, perhaps, a less controversial area, consider fear and the production of adrenalin. A person who believes in malevolent ghosts will produce that muscle stimulant as a reaction to an experience that they interpret as evidence of the immediate presence of such an entity. I do not believe in ghosts, and would likely not have the same physiological reaction in the same circumstances. Does this mean that the person who does react has had an "invalid" reaction? I couldn't say that, as the adrenalin and fear are indeed there. Conversely, could the person maintain that my reaction was "invalid" because I didn't produce adenalin when they though I should?

And as a final note regarding the similarities between online and rw relationships: it may well be that a person in an online relationship has the same feelings and thoughts as I do in a real life relationship, but, given the impossibility of actually experiencing another's thoughts and feelings, I think neither one should declare the other's relationship to be without validity.

Thanks for your patience, LI

 

[grant_s]

This conversation was started as an argument about validity, Tio. I've only held exactly what you've said as the case. People on here have attempted to assert that they are the same, both love and fucking, in an online and offline sense. I'm trying to say that's nonsense. The expectations are extremely different. The fact they won't admit that is bizarre to me.

Perhaps, if you would, you'd clarify with how you and I disagree. I'm not sure that we do.

I would like to know who mentioned fucking, in the context of online. This was about online relationships, don't broaden the spectrum to suit your argument. As you keep trying tell me its about value which again I dispute, but when I ask you to define something I am copping out.

 

[Asa]

My whole thing about online relationships... I was good online friends with my current husband for a few years and then some friends suggested we get together and and he came for a visit on his way back home from visiting his parents and loved the area so much he applied for a couple of jobs out here and had a job before he made it all the way back home. He moved out here the next week and we have been together ever since and have a little boy together and my daughter from a previous marriage adores him as her dad now.

 

[Ahren]

That's not an online relationship.

 

[Asa]

Sees that the little one did wipe out a little of what I was typing. we were in an online relationship for a year or so before the visit *lol* Gotta love trying to type with a small child thinking they can "Help mommy type"

 

[Light Ice]

Sorry for not replying yesterday, but your comment came as I was leaving work and heading for a party...

Tio, there's never a need to apologize for walking away to tend to those kinds of things. Thank you for replying when you found the time.

Our only serious, perhaps, disagreement stems, I think, from the notion of "validity." I wouldn't deny that there are substantial differences between online and real life relationships, but do object to the idea that someone or something outside of the relationship can determine its validity. I could no more maintain that what someone finds as a meaningful relationship for themself is invalid than I could accept their designation of the relationship as the same as any relationship I may be in. Such validity is not an absolute; it is relative to the people who are in the relationship.

I think one of the most misinterpreted concepts that I present is how I envision validity, Tio.

If two people claim to love one another through the computer, having never met, I certainly find that invalid. There are so many beautiful, ugly, and important little nuances to a relationships in the flesh that cannot be recreated through text. I look at the totality of love, one of life's most fulfilling experiences, and find it shallow and vapid to claim you know it through a few lines of text.

But I believe what makes it invalid, truly invalid, is that the people involved both know that their online romance is not going anywhere. They've accepted a shallow projection of love, willfully, in order to feel wanted and special. I believe that anytime two people choose to lie to each other in order to simulate love, they've made their own relationship invalid from the very start. If you notice, in all these arguments, not one person has attempted to claim that they are perfectly satisfied with an online partner as opposed to an offline one.

Not one of these people has attempted to claim that sex, or company, or the nuances of reality are completely disposable in comparison to the simulated moments they create online.

Not a single, solitary one of these people has been willing to defend their online romance when another has a spouse. They point fingers at me, wag them, and say, "Who are you to judge?!" but they -never- say "We had a right to deceive their partner, we were in love!"

In the end, Tio, my position is that the people that engage in an online relationship (particularly those that have no intention of taking it offline or those in which one or both parties have spouses) have made a decision from the very beginning to embrace a simulation, a game, rather than expect the real thing. They've cheapened the concept of love, by choice, to fill a need.

But that does not make their game an actual love. It's that knowing and willful decision to deceive themselves, and one another, that makes the relationship invalid. It isn't the opinion of others.

I maintain that deep down Grant knows he's full of shit when he claims to love people online.

 

[Ahren]

Sees that the little one did wipe out a little of what I was typing. we were in an online relationship for a year or so before the visit *lol* Gotta love trying to type with a small child thinking they can "Help mommy type"

I understood that's what you meant, but the fact that you took it offline meant it ceased being an online relationship, therefore it's not quite what the topic is discussing.

 

[Light Ice]

Sees that the little one did wipe out a little of what I was typing. we were in an online relationship for a year or so before the visit *lol* Gotta love trying to type with a small child thinking they can "Help mommy type"

Do you maintain that you loved him before you met?

Did your relationship change for the better when you were in person?

If you do maintain that you loved him while he was only on the computer, did you love him -more- when he was in person?

 

[Asa]

LI We were very upfront and honest with each other and I think that the several year friendship prior to even considering what everyone around us thought we should do really strengthened everything when we did fall in love. After a divorce and a couple of failed relationships I was in no way looking to fall in love and he was well aware of that and yeah when we met it helped but it changed nothing. It took a long time to get to a true in love kind of situation even online.

Ahren had he not gotten a job offered here we would have still been in an online relationship when he went home so yeah it still fits the topic. It is just an example of what can happen if an online relationship progresses in a trust earning and honest way.

 

[Ahren]

You didn't really answer his questions. At least not very well. Did you or did you not think you loved him before you met him in person?

 

[Light Ice]

LI We were very upfront and honest with each other and I think that the several year friendship prior to even considering what everyone around us thought we should do really strengthened everything when we did fall in love. After a divorce and a couple of failed relationships I was in no way looking to fall in love and he was well aware of that and yeah when we met it helped but it changed nothing. It took a long time to get to a true in love kind of situation even online.

Ahren had he not gotten a job offered here we would have still been in an online relationship when he went home so yeah it still fits the topic. It is just an example of what can happen if an online relationship progresses in a trust earning and honest way.

Forgive me, Asa, could you answer my questions more directly? I'm not certain if you are saying you believe you were in-love before you two met, or not. I'm not certain if you are saying that your time online strengthened your time offline. I'm not certain, really, what you are expressing other than the fact that you are happy.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Tio, there's never a need to apologize for walking away to tend to those kinds of things. Thank you for replying when you found the time.



I think one of the most misinterpreted concepts that I present is how I envision validity, Tio.

If two people claim to love one another through the computer, having never met, I certainly find that invalid. There are so many beautiful, ugly, and important little nuances to a relationships in the flesh that cannot be recreated through text. I look at the totality of love, one of life's most fulfilling experiences, and find it shallow and vapid to claim you know it through a few lines of text.

But I believe what makes it invalid, truly invalid, is that the people involved both know that their online romance is not going anywhere. They've accepted a shallow projection of love, willfully, in order to feel wanted and special. I believe that anytime two people choose to lie to each other in order to simulate love, they've made their own relationship invalid from the very start. If you notice, in all these arguments, not one person has attempted to claim that they are perfectly satisfied with an online partner as opposed to an offline one.

Not one of these people has attempted to claim that sex, or company, or the nuances of reality are completely disposable in comparison to the simulated moments they create online.

Not a single, solitary one of these people has been willing to defend their online romance when another has a spouse. They point fingers at me, wag them, and say, "Who are you to judge?!" but they -never- say "We had a right to deceive their partner, we were in love!"

In the end, Tio, my position is that the people that engage in an online relationship (particularly those that have no intention of taking it offline or those in which one or both parties have spouses) have made a decision from the very beginning to embrace a simulation, a game, rather than expect the real thing. They've cheapened the concept of love, by choice, to fill a need.

But that does not make their game an actual love. It's that knowing and willful decision to deceive themselves, and one another, that makes the relationship invalid. It isn't the opinion of others.

I maintain that deep down Grant knows he's full of shit when he claims to love people online.

Yes, LI, I understand your values, and I have values as well, including my own definition of love. But I am an Anthropologist, by career and by nature, and I cannot help but see the relativism of it all. There are many world views among people, and many variants of each of those views, for how we see and know the world comes from what we are taught and what we experience. Ido not judge the validity of any, no matter how close or distant they are from mine, for I know, ultimately, all are contigent. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't hold my own views and values as dear and defendable.

I understand your response, since the claim questions your definition of the concept, of the value; I would have the same. But to turn around and judge the other in the same context as they judge me would be contrary to my own values. In the end, then, I reject the judgement itself. And that in itself may prove a problem, for it implies that my value of relativism is, in fact, an absolute value.

In the 1600s, King James decreed for the colony of New York that "none shall be interfered with in the following of their religion as long as they do not interfere with any other's following of their beliefs." A good idea, I think.

 

[Asa]

The fact that we had a friendship online before we had a relationship online strengthened the relationship part and then the final touch or icing on the cake was when it progressed to him being here now.

 

[Ahren]

Tio, you desperately need a less stupid avatar.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Tio, you desperately need a less stupid avatar.

I'm not particularly impressed with yours, Ahren. I change mine now and again, and they do reflect my vocation.

If you aren't familiar with ancient Greek phalli, you might consider learning abit about them. After all, you are here on Literotica, and might want to be familiar with the origins of Aphrodite from the severed genitals of Chronos, or perhaps the origins of Hermes, the winged messenger, who went back-and-forth, back-and-forth, in a mime of sex, life, and death. His flying phallus ends up as the Caduceus which we use as an emblem of medecine.

This one itself is among many found in Greece; they were the focus of an ancient cultic worship, with dance, drink, and sex. What more could the Literoticii desire?

 

[Ahren]

No, I'm pretty sure I don't have to be familiar with those things to write some stories on a message board.

 

[Alana_]

The topic is interesting and the views are excellent, please don't let it become stupid because of one unneeded comment about a members Av. So uncalled for, and so unrelated to what was a very interesting conversation..

 

[Tio_Narratore]

No, I'm pretty sure I don't have to be familiar with those things to write some stories on a message board.

You're right again, Ahren. It's best to have your own thoughts and not let them get cluttered up with knowledge of anything but your own navel.

 

[Ahren]

You guys can handle a couple off topic posts. You're big boys and girls. Besides, people are flat out refusing to answer questions now so the topic is already losing steam.

You're right again, Ahren. It's best to have your own thoughts and not let them get cluttered up with knowledge of anything but your own navel.

"You don't know about this ancient trivia? You only care about yourself!"

Truly solid reasoning. Besides I didn't say there wasn't any value in knowing it, just that it's a bit silly to claim someone should know it because they post here. That doesn't make much sense. It also doesn't automatically make me appreciate the avatar just because it happens to be relevant to Ancient Greece.

 

[Alana_]

So are you Ahren, try have a little manners and act like a grown up, instead of a bratty juvenile taking pot shots at people's tastes.

 

[Alana_]

The fact that we had a friendship online before we had a relationship online strengthened the relationship part and then the final touch or icing on the cake was when it progressed to him being here now.

I'm glad Asa that you're happy. At the end of the day it's everyones right.