Teenage Relationships and Love

[Liz]

<b>Teenage (and preteen) relationships</b>
They haven't been around all that long... well in a sense they have, but previously they were "courting" with a sole intent to marry. Another observation is the rise in divorce rates. I think the two might be related. Of course, teenage dating has its positive effects such as getting to know people and such, but here I will focus on the negative.

When young people are in and out of relationships, they are accustomed to making and breaking commitment based on an emotion and a whim. A lot of people have the perspective that true love never ends, so they have this expectation that when they are in love with someone they are not ever going to stop liking them. Meanwhile, the reason, I think, why true love never ends is because it is a decision. It is putting someone else before yourself and loving them no matter if you have those feelings for them anymore.... respecting them and wishing the best for them whether you like them or not. I think in modern society, we have no respect for humankind, we have no respect for eachother, and we have very little real love. It is disgusting and selfish, I think, to view love as an emotion that is only different from other emotions because it will last forever, when in reality, nothing lasts forever unless you make it last.

Do you think, ultimately, teenage dating has more positive or negative effects? Do you think it correlates to divorce?

[cyberen]

It's life. It's not overall bad or good, but thankfully with experience comes wisdom. So I'll let them do whatever they want, we can't stop teens anyway.

[Liz]

But so many people don't get wisdom at all. It seems like only a select few do.

[Charnye West]

The only girl I am realling willing to date refuses to date until, like, the last year of high school. I think she's smart.

(Post one of OnTopic)

[espoon]

I've just gotten out of a teenage relation ship and i think that the resalts are more negative because i started to not feel that think of conmentminship and felt more like im going to leave this crazy ass stalker lady... O.o

Spoon

[Lord Koopa]

This girl at my school asked me out, but I thought she had a boyfriend at the time so I assumed she was joking. I've learned it's wrong to assume things.

[Liz]

I prefer not labeling relationships, and just letting them happen. They're more real that way. But then, because there isn't a spoken commitment, I always end up getting tossed to the curb without warning.... it sucks.

[MST3Kakalina]

They haven't been around all that long... well in a sense they have, but previously they were "courting" with a sole intent to marry. Another observation is the rise in divorce rates. I think the two might be related.

but during times when there hasn't been such a thing as teenage dating, divorce was considered a big no-no.


the only problem that i see with teenage relationships and dating is that kids take them way too seriously (and also not seriously enough) and get obsessed with getting a boyfriend/girlfriend. it's not like they date people to find out what they want and don't want in a partner. they're just horny and want the available possibility of sex.

[Liz]

Exactly.

And yeah, you're right about the divorce thing. But maybe (with exceptions of abuse and continuous cheating) it was good that divorce wasn't practiced, since you learned to live with someone and tolerate someone instead of just being like "ohh hum I don't like you anymore".

[Vile]

I think they're good in the way that Zach makes me happy and dating him prepares me for relationships in later life.

[ManiacTHP]

I found out that my ex boyfriend was dating a seventh grader behind my back and dumped me for her because she would have sex with him. :(

All in all, the heartbreaks you get as a teen can make you wiser once you look for a boyfriend later in life. So yes, teen relationships to me are important and can last for a long time.

Unless your boyfriend/girlfriend is a jerk.

[Magenta]

Its less about the age and more about the attitude. There are two general attitudes about dating. "I date in order to eventually find a husband/wife" or the other, "I date for social reasons and to have a good time". Those who date for the second reason often get used to the "make and break" relationships and will often divorce, and often, when teens and preteens date, that's the reason. They don't want to find a spouse, they want to have FUN.

The other thing is that love isn't a magical thing that you fall in and out of. Love is when you do nice things for someone, and they do nice things for you, and you grow a respect and love for them. When you are dating, its easy to do these things, but it gets tedious when you are married. You stop holding the door open for her and cancelling football games to eat dinner with her. She stops kissing you goodbye in the morning and making your favorite lasagna.

That natural affection that built up from that mutual sacrifice begins to die, which is when people start to want a divorce. The problem is, to build back the love, you have to start the sacrifice again, the doing nice thing, but it no longer has the natural "newness" and "fun" of when you were dating. You have to work at it then.

Most people just blame it on "falling out of love" or "not finding their one true love" and divorce them. I think its sad.

[Shaman King]

Of course, teenage dating has its positive effects such as getting to know people and such, but here I will focus on the negative.
Pessimist.

When young people are in and out of relationships, they are accustomed to making and breaking commitment based on an emotion and a whim. A lot of people have the perspective that true love never ends, so they have this expectation that when they are in love with someone they are not ever going to stop liking them.
Not necessarily true. I don't expect to love the girl I'm going out with now forever, nor did I expect to love my ex forever.

Meanwhile, the reason, I think, why true love never ends is because it is a decision.
It most certainly is not. You don't decide to love someone, it just happens. I've been completely infatuated with people who show no interest in me, and not at all attracted to people who are interested in me. If love was a decision, I would always choose to love someone who would love me back.

It is putting someone else before yourself and loving them no matter if you have those feelings for them anymore.... respecting them and wishing the best for them whether you like them or not.
No, that's not love. That's senseless commitment.

I think in modern society, we have no respect for humankind, we have no respect for eachother, and we have very little real love.
People like to blame 'society' for a lot of things, but it's not fair to do so. Society is actually pretty okay. For the most part, people respect life, and other people.

{constructive criticism}
You need to support yr thesis, or whatever, better. Teenage dating leading to increased divorce rates is an interesting idea, but you got off-topic. Stick to your argument.
{/constructive critcism}

[tater]

I actually have to agree with the chipmunk here. Sort of. Love isn't the fabeled happily ever after ending, but it certainly isn't something you can decide to do. I like the example of unrequited love. One has no choices about whom they fall in love with. It just ... happens. Usually in the last place you would ever have looked for it and sometimes in places you wish it weren't.

Love is something that can be magical. It is the reason women stay with abusive husbands and what keeps people together when jobs and homes are lost. It is the only thing that makes an enduring relationship.

I think the trouble with teenage relationships is that love is still something foreign to most teens. The problem comes in because few teens experience truely hard timeades. They get a bad grade or have trouble with parents, but they rarely have anything that they are directly responsible for come to shambles. They don't know how to handle such things and often what they think is love is really just a comfortable situation where they can get along because everyone is happy.

Children aren't taught to stick it out anymore, they're taught to run and hide the moment it looks like feelings will be hurt. And I just don't think that's healthy.

[the Worms]

Despite all her flashy antics, Liz sure feels like a conservative sometimes.

Unfortunately, both tater and Chupa are assuming a universally accepted definition (and application of the definition) of love. That is, you assume we are all talking about the same thing. I has been apparent to me for a long time that the English language falters when these particular concepts are discussed, because it lacks the terminology to distinguish one thing from another. We don't have enough words for 'love', so we keep using the same word homonymously (i.e. equivocally) and analogically.

Is it not possible that there is a passion that takes hold of people and prevents them from doing anything about the fact that they are, as chupa said, infatuated with another; while at the same time there is also a conscious decision to set another's well-being first? It seems to me that the necessary consequence of choosing versus passively accepting is that the first is necessarily self-less because it requires overcoming of the instinct to preserve what is good for the self, and the second is necessarily egocentric because it does not consider anything but the immediate and unignorable good of the self, regardless of the other. Even the case of unrequited love shows a distinct split in consequence between these two types. In the non-egocentric, the lover loves because he truly wants the best for the other. He chooses to love because he believes that the person he is loving either deserves or needs his love. He will be sad but not lonely and he will not require love in return. In the second, egocentric case, the lover loves because he believes that it is something he needs. If it is the case that he does not require love in return, then it will be because he has no interest in the actual person at which his love is directed; it is for the sake of loving that he loves. In the case that he requires love in return, then it is because he feels that there is something in the other that is lacking in himself. It is this that he feels he needs to fulfill his instinctual drive for preservation of self. It is this last type that people refer to when the speak of "falling out of love."

Children aren't taught to stick it out anymore, they're taught to run and hide the moment it looks like feelings will be hurt. And I just don't think that's healthy.

And they won't stick it out so long as they perceive their own love as something they cannot control.

[Liz]

Well said Worms.

...I think, if I am reading it right.

I think too many people make longterm (marriage) commitments in the egocentric mode of love. I hate the egocentric mode of love, but teenagerhood atleast (and probably adulthood too, but I'm not there yet) is full of it.

[~VeronicaBlack~]

It is the reason women stay with abusive husbands

I hate to disagree with ya tatery one but the reason most abused women stay with there husbands is out of fear or there spirit has been shattered into a thousand pieces and they just cant fight back to leave. yes some do foolishly love the men that hurt them but those few are usually incredibly dumb.
as for teen dating thing it has gotten out of control and its taken to seriously. thats why 13 year olds have their own television shows about dating and sex in junior high. it makes my head hurt. it was so much easier when dating as a teen meant you held hands and sat next to each other in lunch and talked, not sneaking off somewhere where your parents cant find you and partake in heavy petting and other activities they have no right knowing about until they are over 18 and/or married.
the whole divorce thing I think comes from our wonderful dispoable society. people want everything easier and faster and better and dont want to work at it "dont like your spouse any more? are her tits all floppy like fried eggs hanging on a nail and you wanna bone the stripper down the street with bouncy 36FFs? has his dick up and quit working and the mail man becomes cuter and cuter everyday? no problem just sign this little paper and it'll all be done." thats the way it seems to go everyone seems to think trading in their old spouse for a new wife or husband because they dont like how they have aged, or some personality quirks that once were charming and endearing now drive you insane, is the answer to all their problems. marriage is not exactly fun all the time and it sure as hell isnt easy. there are times I wanna just smack my husband in the back of the head with a 2x4 because he did something stupid, but I dont because I love him ( though i still havent figured out exaclty why) and it takes patience to make a marriage work.

[Magenta]

Unfortunately, both tater and Chupa are assuming a universally accepted definition (and application of the definition) of love. That is, you assume we are all talking about the same thing. I has been apparent to me for a long time that the English language falters when these particular concepts are discussed, because it lacks the terminology to distinguish one thing from another. We don't have enough words for 'love', so we keep using the same word homonymously (i.e. equivocally) and analogically.
I was tempted to use the lovely greek words, which are better. They have (at least) two words for "love".

Agape, which means "benevolance" or "sacrifice". This comes from Agapao, which is an action where you choose to love someone by sacrificing for them. In this case, yes, love is a CHOICE. Its something you decide to do.

There is also phileo, which means "to be a friend to, to be fond of; to have affection for". Its just a sense of affection that you feel for someone.

When you love (agapao) someone, they will love (phileo) you back. That's how a relationship is formed. So both sides of the "you can/can't choose who you love" arguement are right, depending on which word you choose.

In my argument, stated above, I simply said that marriages often fall apart because the couple stops loving (agape) each other, there's a breakdown in how much they love (phileo) each other. It was easy to build that affection when they first dated and got married, because there was that natural, phileo affection there, but once that newness rubs off, you have to continue to love and sacrifice (agape) for them, otherwise the relationship crumbles.

Did I just post two posts with the exact same argument? Dang.

Edit:

Another greek word for love: Etheleo: to choose or prefer; to wish; be inclined to; to desire, intend, list, love, mean, please, have rather (well that's just an all-around useful word)

Hebrew/Chaldee words for love:
'âhab: to have affection for (sexually or otherwise); like, friend
châshaq: to cling, i.e. join; to love, delight in; to deliver; have a long, set in love
râcham: to love; to have compassion upon
dôwd: from an unused root meaning prop. to boil, i.e. (fig.) to love; well-beloved (like a friend or family)

That's all I can find now.

[Rory Storm]

I don't believe in love. It just seems to far fetched for me.

Than again, I have never, and can never, experience it. I've tried, it just doesn't click. It's like when you are trying to figure out a math problem and then it clicks, only in this case it doesn't, and it leaves you puzzled, frustrated, and you just give up. Or like a propane powered grill. The electric start just keeps clicking...and clicking...and no flame comes from it.

[Linzoy]

Love itself is recent idea. Not to long ago it was very acceptable to marry for money or social status. Love was seen as optional. It still is in many other cultures. People today see love as something they deserve, instead of something they should earn, and they become very self centered because of that additude.

I think most people are very different than the people they where as teenagers, so I don't think teenage dating is a problem. I don't really know why teens are so obsessed with dating. I've never really been upset about being single. I've never been on a date, but I've never really tried to get anybody intrested in me. I don't want to pretend to be passionate about someone I'm only kind of intrested in just so I can test out the idea of being in a relationship or get higher social status. Maybe I just don't have much of a sex drive, I don't know.

[Nevermore]

I seriously think I have already found my soulmate at age 16.

[töm]

hey nevermore. where have you <i>been</i>? i was just wondering about what became of you the other day.

[Liz]

Love itself is recent idea. Not to long ago it was very acceptable to marry for money or social status. Love was seen as optional. It still is in many other cultures. People today see love as something they deserve, instead of something they should earn, and they become very self centered because of that additude.

I think most people are very different than the people they where as teenagers, so I don't think teenage dating is a problem. I don't really know why teens are so obsessed with dating. I've never really been upset about being single. I've never been on a date, but I've never really tried to get anybody intrested in me. I don't want to pretend to be passionate about someone I'm only kind of intrested in just so I can test out the idea of being in a relationship or get higher social status. Maybe I just don't have much of a sex drive, I don't know.

And yet, I have respect for cultures where there are arranged marriages and such out of social status and money. Because still, this couple is staying together the duration of their lives and learning to live with eachother and be intimate. ANd yeah you're right our culture thinks everyone deserves love. God, it reminds me of another forum I go to where everybody will insist that love is a requirement to life, infact there was an argument there the other day concerning that.

If being passionate with someone doesn't come naturally with the person, it is pointless. All the things I have done sexually I have been uncomfortable with to an extent. I've always gotten bored making out or having sex (Yes I get bored having sex. I have always also been all like "this is lame"). Except with one person, who I haven't done anything explicitly sexual with.... but so far he's the only person I've kissed who I wasn't bored or uncomfortable with.

But yeah, I have never been on a technical date either....
I guess my point is that in order for intimacy to matter at all it has to be with the right person, someone with which you feel connected and mentally intimate. I don't think love is a requirement for passion but I do think that if you do have a special bond with someone, passion will come naturally. Give it time. I'm not normally a "passionate" person either, and I've always been pretty unpassionate being "intimate" with people.

[Rory Storm]

I don't think that I am capable of being passionate. I just don't know how to. I don't know how to be intimate, I don't know how to love. I know how hate, be sad, be happy for short times, but never those other things. Partially I think I don't want to be in 'love' or whatever. I just don't know, don't have the desire, or, maybe, just don't care. I have always wanted to go out on a date, have fun, blah blah blah. But then I realize that I am incapable of the happiness that is seen between two people hugging, snuggling, holding hands. I think all this and then I realize I have always had my soulmate:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/RoryStorm/Picture1412.jpg

[Vile]

Oh, poppybull. You'll find someone. No one is "incapable" of any emotion.

[Awesome McManly]

Tater no longer wishes to rape me.

I go stab my head with baguet now!

[implode]

When young people are in and out of relationships, they are accustomed to making and breaking commitment based on an emotion and a whim. A lot of people have the perspective that true love never ends, so they have this expectation that when they are in love with someone they are not ever going to stop liking them. "true love", as worms already mentioned, i suppose, is not a constant with a specific set definition - since your interpretation of love is completely arbitrary, you can be suckered into believing that the initial endorphin rush will last forever. without specific distinctions of what you're feeling, your perspective on your mental state can begin to look a lot more depressing than it is. like the loss of the little flutter your heart does when you see her could be interpreted as "growing apart", when in actuality it's growing closer, since your mental state is no longer changing to accomodate a specific person. i don't know if it's teh case with everyone, but the early stages of a relationship almost seem like a character building exercise in the first few chapters of a book. instead of just being yourself, you be the person she inspires you to be. you're far more open to suggestion than you would be in any other type of relationship, simply because there's something at stake that actually matters in this one (whether it be sex or committment or whatever.) while this is very nice, it's not forever, and it's only when you become accustomed to her company that you can truly gauge whether your feelings for her are stronger than the simple desire to be around the one who makes you so goddamned happy all the time.

Meanwhile, the reason, I think, why true love never ends is because it is a decision. It is putting someone else before yourself and loving them no matter if you have those feelings for them anymore.... respecting them and wishing the best for them whether you like them or not. i, actually, happen to think that this is a very nice interpretation of "true love", although i have known those who contemptfully refer to this as "attachment." if it weren't for the bit about it being a decision, i'd totally agree with all of this, but in my opinion if you have to conciously decide that you care about somebody, you can't care about them THAT much. the idea of "caring" in the first place is that your brain gives heed to issues that are not its own, and if you have to do decide to do this, it's like deciding to care. which is silly. you either care or you don't. if you have to think about whether you should care, it's not caring, it's posing.

I think in modern society, we have no respect for humankind, we have no respect for eachother, and we have very little real love. It is disgusting and selfish, I think, to view love as an emotion that is only different from other emotions because it will last forever, when in reality, nothing lasts forever unless you make it last. a lot of things are disgusting and selfish, though - writing all this out and proposing it as an idea about love is "disgusting and selfish", in a way, because it's YOUR idea about how things are and you operate under these standards because it appeases YOU. you have to let go of worrying about selfishness, sometimes, because when it comes down to it, almost everything you do, you're doing it because you believe you will benefit from it, somehow. the beauty of "love" or whatever we're calling it in this paragraph is that you become concern with issues that will in no way effect you beyond the fact that someone you care about is upset, and that makes YOU upset. it's still selfish, of course (the fact that you're upset) but the beauty is that it's inorganic - you care about someone else so much that their feelings on something that shouldn't effect you, do. connections between people are the most important things in the world. if you don't have those connections, there is really no reason to live beyond building and bronzing your legacy. everything you do will be for you. you'll never touch anyone elses life. no one will ever be able to benefit from what you have to offer them, you'll just horde it all to yourself and look back later and have no one to tell you whether it was a success of not. care about others. do not actively deny caring. never think twice about feeling for someone. even if it hurts you.

Do you think, ultimately, teenage dating has more positive or negative effects? depends on what you get out of it, like everything else. nothing is independently positive or negative besides electrical charges. if teenage dating eventually gives you a pessimistic outlook on actively living, i suppose it could be considered "negative", but only if this pessimistic outlook you hold dear is unsatisfactory to you. it is possible to be happy with being miserable. it's all in the outlook.

Do you think it correlates to divorce? maybe, but then, "divorce" is hardly a big deal in the first place, until you involve children. which is 400 more words i'm not interested in getting into, since everything i've said here seems to be a reprise of what everyone else has said. blah. all that matters is that love keeps the brain chug-chug-chuggin' along, which is all you can really ask for in this world.

[tater]

Tater no longer wishes to rape me.

I go stab my head with baguet now!
Dude. I pared down my sig like a month ago. I just figured it may not hold true anymore. These things have to be reaffirmed every year or so, you know. I'll put it back once I get my license and registration taken care of or you give me permission again. Which ever comes first. :)


Worms, I will admit that I have never really seperated the two ideas. Mostly because of my own experiences. I have never thought of myelf as in love if I was not willing to sacrifice for them. However, I am willing to sacrifice because I love them. I am drawn to them and care about a person first and find myself falling in love with them and growing slowly more attached and/or attracted. For me, the passionate or egocentric love has always come out of a caring or self-less love and even makes the self-less love stronger and deeper than before, lending itself to a more passionate love ... and the circle continues. I can not seperate the two, for one leads to the other.

Veronica, I didn't mean to imply that love was the only reason that women stayed with abusive men. All of your reasons are certainly valid and even more prevalent. I was simply giving an example of the bad side of love.

Also, I love you forever 'plode. Just cuz.

[Charnye West]

I must admit, I really didn't care for OnTopic until this thread.

Carry on.

[TheTallestBlue]

Casual dating, i.e. going to the movies is acceptable. But coming from a broken family and judging from other poor social situations, I have to say that if a teenager finds the 'love of their life' and gets married, the marriage will fail. End of story.
There are a few exceptions, of course, but teen marriages (and yes, relationships) aren't mature or stable and will break without question. Another reason this is an increasing problem is that there are so many kids that have a soul about as deep as an evaporating mud puddle. But, sadly, there's no cure for being shallow. There needs to be a class in high school called Commitment 101. =p

[robot]

i don't like how people have to pair off in accordance to these strange rules and all of this ettiquitte and worried and bullshit. thats the one thing i don't like about teenage relationships. everything is a ceratin way. i don't think i'm explaining things as well as i can, but...

why can't people just let things as they happen? it's strange to me to see a guy meet a girl and then ask her out. it seems like theres a big gap in the evolution of their relationship thats missing because they never really get to know eachother. most dating i see seems silly to me.

but i'm in love and i'm happy and i have no sense of direction and i'm a lost teenager just like everone else

you know?

[Dr. Badman]

No one is "incapable" of any emotion.Wrong.

Some people physically lack the brain chemicals required to emote.

[Liz]

I don't think they entirely lack the chemicals, I think they are just muted. I think emotions are instinctual and a neccessary part of survival and evolution. Fight or Flight, anyone?
I'm kind of lucky to be able to have been on so many medications, they have it now so you can pop a pill and experience a whole different range of emotions. It lets you see the world from quite a spectrum. Abilify for example is a pill for Bipolar or Psychosis, and for some reason I am on it even though I am not bipolar or psychotic. It selectively opens and closes Dopamine synapses, dopamine being a happiness chemical that enfluences a variety of emotions. When there is too little dopamine, it opens up the synapses, preventing sadness or anger or emotional pain. When there is too much dopamine, it closes off some synapses preventing joy or excitement.

It's all really fun. It kind of makes you emotionally indestructable. I think Abilify should be the next Valium.

[Dr. Badman]

I mean that since emotion exists as a chemical reaction, people who lack the actual brain chemical simply cannot feel the emotion.

[Magenta]

it seems like theres a big gap in the evolution of their relationship thats missing because they never really get to know eachother. most dating i see seems silly to me.
Thank you! I'm not the only person who believes that relationships where you are FRIENDS with someone before you date them turn out better. None of this "going on the first date and finding out you hate them" business.

[töm]

yeah, i think it's nonsense too. i think you'd have to be friends before you make that leap. heck, i'd probably have to think that i were "in love" before i even approached anyone with such a proposition. i don't understand dating as it exists in its form as, "hey, you look hot. let's go to a movie together." i also think that it might be a good idea, in terms of chosing a spouse, to also be "best friends" with them. if you're not, you ought to be marrying your best beer budy or shopping partner instead.

[Shaman King]

And yet, I have respect for cultures where there are arranged marriages and such out of social status and money. Because still, this couple is staying together the duration of their lives and learning to live with eachother and be intimate.

How is that admirable at all?

[Liz]

because they are learning to tolerate someone, and it isn't based on whims and emotions?

[the Worms]

Liz, is Klein really gone?

Anyhow, I always thought that there was something wrong with arranged marriages. It's more like co-workers than friends because you put up with them but never really make friends with all of them. Friends are chosen, and as much as you put into a relationship, there is something lost in not having chosen your spouse.

[Liz]

Well yeah. Overall, arranged marriages arent a good thing, but there is something to admire about them, even if choice marriages are preferable. I'm not saying we should practice arranged marriages, I just respect the idea.

[robot]

i dont know what to think about arranged marraiges, dude... have you ever seen that movie "Osama"?

[Shaman King]

because they are learning to tolerate someone, and it isn't based on whims and emotions?
So what? They're learning to tolerate someone that they've been forced to live with so that their families can get money or social status. They're being used as pawns. That's something to aspire to. And since when are whims and emotions a bad thing?

[Dr. Badman]

Liz likes being used, it seems.

[Liz]

Well yeah. Overall, arranged marriages arent a good thing, but there is something to admire about them, even if choice marriages are preferable. I'm not saying we should practice arranged marriages, I just respect the idea.
.
Rather, I admire people who are in arranged marriages, and who make the best of it. Because it would be hard to do.

And Badman, yes I do. Actually, perhaps I just have a tendency to be used. It really doesn't take a genius to observe that, you know.

edit: I think we should respect other cultures regardless of whether we agree with them or not. Of course, I think arranged marriages are horrible in ways, they do go against the American idea of love, but aside from that, there is something to admire about people who are in them. It's not their choice, and yet they put up with it.

[Dr. Badman]

That was in response to ChupaChipmunk - a point that he was questioning was why you'd agree with people being used. From an observational point it looks like you enjoy it, which would explain why you approve of it.

It's a mental condition most common in females. I forget it's name. Basically they allow themselves to be used, then absorb all the attention from victimising themselves. The sad thing is their future, or lack thereof from just repeating the above until no-one cares and they commit suicide as a last cry for attention.

[Liz]

read my edit in my last post....
Sounds kind of like Borderline. Attention needyness it very common in (teenage, atleast) females, obviously. I'm not as bad as plenty of people. My friend was talking about how she wants to get in a car wreck and break her leg or something so people will feel sorry for her and give her attention. I'm not that bad.

My little sister is going to be horrible, she is so spoiled and needs attention CONSTANTLY. She just won't shut up. She and I are opposite ends when it comes to the reason.... she has my mom constantly focused on her and our family runs based on their emotions. And now my mom tells me when I was a baby or whatever, other people used to comment that my mom neglected me. There can be different reasons for similiar behavior.

[Dr. Badman]

From what I know of your personality (turning every possible thread into something about you - much like Vile does), paired with your self mutilation history makes you 'that bad'.

[Liz]

Hmm well, Vile does it and I am rather fond of her despite that fact, and she blatantly asks people whether she is ugly. Perhaps some people have multifaceted personalities and others don't so much.

Narcissism is very self-centered, but so is its polar opposite self-hatred. A lot of people overlook the second one, and if you told anyone who hated themselves how selfish they really are being, they'd be furious.

[MST3Kakalina]

everyone loves to hear about themselves, narcissism/BPD/what have you aside.


why do you think LiveJournal is so popular?

[Liz]

mannn LJ pisses me off. I have had one since 2002 and I didn't have any friends added and every post was private so it was just for me, and now I find out you're supposed to use it to whore yourself out and make other people read about your life.

I do that here!

[reef]

i use livejournal because

um

hmm

i really don't know anymore

[Liz]

Dude. So I went to church today (I am not a christian) and my pastor said some things that reminded me of this thread. That made sense.
Just something to think on that he said...
he was talking about how people living together before they are married is a bad practice because you are saying "Okay, well, I'll test it out first, and if you pass the test, THEN I'll marry you"; meanwhile, he stated that real love (and, coincidentally, the kind of love Jesus supposedly gave and gives) is when you love and accept someone for who they are *first*, and then want them to be the best they can be, instead of the other way around.

Of course, I thought, "there has to be some kind of testing of a person before you marry them, otherwise everyone would be equally eligible". I meant to ask him about it...
He also said some really great statements about christians... about how a lot of christians think you earn your way into heaven, and how Jesus' love is actually the inverse of that, how he loves you at the moment and the change of behavior is something that is the result of that, not the cause of it. About how christians aren't supposed to think they are better than other people, if anything they should know their sins and downfalls better than anyone else. It really condemned a lot of christians, but it was a really great sermon. The guy himself is really humble and not usually at all about condemning anyone. He just made some really good points. I've had some of the best, most deep conversations with him.

[Rory Storm]

Yeah that test is going on a really long car trip across the country.

That will test even the strongest of nerves.

[MST3Kakalina]

blah. i disagree with his comments on living together. yes, it's sort of like a test, but that's not BAD (unless you have an over-idealized version of love). isn't it good to know you're NOT making a mistake about one of the biggest decisions of your life? now if you're convinced that the good Lord will make everything all right for you if you pray hard enough, then i guess you don't need a trial period, but as for me, i'll take a test drive, thanks.

his argument sounds like it breaks down to, "if the other person has some real problems and is bringing harm to you, it's your responsibility to change them," and i don't like that.

[Liz]

nah, he was saying that a lot of people try changing people so that they can love them, and he said if anything, you should do the opposite. Which I agree with. He used the example of a father who conveys that he won't love his kids unless they do well in school; and he was saying the father should love the kids in the first place, and *then* help them do well in school.

Like, you love them whether they jump through hoops or not. The passage from the bible that he was preaching on was john 8 1-11 I think, which is the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" adultress thing. I guess the whole change thing pertained to the fact that the adultress was in essence harming Jesus by sinning, but he showed love to her by keeping her from being killed for sexing, despite the fact that he didn't know her. And then afterwards told her to change her ways (because she was in fact sinning and harming him because of the whole "jesus died for our sins" thing).

But yeah, I mean, in order for you to choose who you are going to spend the rest of your life with, you obviously have to value and gauge some things. You can't just happen upon the first person you meet and decide to spend the rest of your life with them, so *something* has to determine that love in the first place.
I do, though, believe in loving everyone in the sense that I think that you should respect everyone even if you disagree with them. Not hold them as correct or right or anything, but I think you should appreciate differences and disagreements and not think less of someone for disagreeing.
So cliche.

He did make a good point about society trying to change people in order for them to love them, instead of loving them regardless of the change.

[MST3Kakalina]

yeah, you love them whether they jump through the hoops or not, but do you still love them if you find out they drink a lot or are abusive or whatever? though, you'd probably know that before you lived with them. he just seems to quick to say, "EVERYONE who lives together before they're married doesn't love their partner as much as people who don't." and that's not really fair.

[Liz]

Ah.
Nah I have a lot of respect for the guy. He just noted how it's a common thing and he wasn't really preaching against it just used it as a generic example for a trend in our society, is all. A behavior that *tends* to inspire or reflect a, to him, unsavory form of love.
I don't think the intention was to motivate you not to live together.

I'm not saying I agree with him about everything, I don't just accept what I hear but I thought he made good points and it did make me think. But like I mentioned, there are some faults in the example that I see.

[implode]

he just seems to quick to say, "EVERYONE who lives together before they're married doesn't love their partner as much as people who don't." and that's not really fair. quit taking personal offense and look at what he's saying. his biggest problem, AGAIN, it seems, is that his definition of "love" might not be yours. he's saying that if you have to test your love by seeing if you can tolerate each other on a day-to-day basis, then maybe it's not really "love" in the sense that you care about the person so much that whatever he/she does, its effect on <i>you</i> will not be as important to you as its effect on him. i... think, anyway.

in order for you to choose who you are going to spend the rest of your life with from what i've heard, it's very rarely a decision.

[Liz]

well yeah but at some point you are going to say "this is the one", so there IS something about them that makes them "the one". So you do have to be selective to an extent, I guess. There is something about one person and not another that will make you fall in love with the one. You can't just fall in love with anybody.

And yeah that's like exactly what he was saying, plodeypoo.

[implode]

well yeah but at some point you are going to say "this is the one", so there IS something about them that makes them "the one". So you do have to be selective to an extent, I guess. There is something about one person and not another that will make you fall in love with the one. You can't just fall in love with anybody. right, but i've said "this is the one" before and meant it. whether it's reciprocated from the other side is important, too. there can certainly be more than one "the one", which will surely terrify the greeting card industry and sappy housewives everywhere when they figure it out. a LOT of people can connect with you in such a way where you can "know" that you love them and want the best for them no matter what. when "the one" doesn't turn out to actually BE "the one", you need to reevaulate exactly what "the one" means, because "the one" seems to just follow the old model of marrying one person, living the rest of your life never getting close to anyone else because What Would The Neighborhood Think?, and dying. buh. fuck that. "the one" is someone you genuinely connect with, feel content knowing that IF you knew this person for the rest of your life, you'd always feel the same way about them that you do now, as you're thinking about it. "the one" is many, but the only real "one" is you.

[Liz]

Yeah. I was going to say something a long those lines but I guess it wasn't too relevant to my point. I think you can develop romantic love with a multitude of people. But you probably only end up developing it with a few.

My pastorman has a very idealistic view of love, but this Jesus guy is a pretty hard role to live up to, heh.

It was pretty awesome thoug when he said how the general christian, and overall religious, view that you have to jump through hoops and do good deeds to get to heaven, totally counters "god"s view of love.

[implode]

the internet helps. i love YOU. in the sense, anyway, that i care about what you do (good and bad) and probably always will. of course, it sucks, too, because the internet could implode and i could never hear from you again, so i'd live out the rest of my life wondering what's become of you and if you were okay and ever ended up happy or not. it's happened to me before. it.. egh. maybe i just love too easily.

[Liz]

Haha I do that toooo.... I don't know if it's really really "love" because I do get selfish and annoyed with people under certain conditions (which I need to work on) but I care about people like forever. People I haven't heard from in years, and I doubt they even remember me, I'll think about them one day and hope they're doing okay. Then I get sad because I doubt they remember me or were ever affected by me like I was affected by them.

[implode]

eeegh. i get annoyed, too. it's impossible to be placid all the fucking time. it's love. or. it's whatever you want to call it. it's different than fondness, anyway - to use a silly example, i like fat mike (NOFX lyricist) but i could give a shit if he lost the lease to his house and had nowhere to go, or whatever. i wouldn't invite him over just because i think he's a good songwriter. i just don't care. i guess it's because we don't have contact, though, so a better example might be the people i work with, sans one of them. they're all nice people, and i have fun with them, but i don't empathize with their problems and they don't with mine. we're associates. friends are love. you love your friends.

my view, it seems, were it personified, would be fuzzy and frilly at the same time.

[Vile]

Hmm well, Vile does it and I am rather fond of her despite that fact, and she blatantly asks people whether she is ugly. Perhaps some people have multifaceted personalities and others don't so much.

Narcissism is very self-centered, but so is its polar opposite self-hatred. A lot of people overlook the second one, and if you told anyone who hated themselves how selfish they really are being, they'd be furious.

Aww, I'm fond of you aswell. Yeah, I am vain. I'm working on it. It DOES hurt to read it coming from people I like, but I know you're all right. I can't help it. I don't really notice when I'm doing it, and it doesn't help when you all go along with it.

[Liz]

I notice when I do it sometimes. I'm like, "all my posts revolve around me.... and I post just to post about myself". Quite a few times I add in a question or something to try not to be an idiot, but I don't really give a shit about the answer.

[Vile]

I blame it on the fact that I'm a fifteen year old hormone bomb who's been nothing but spoiled all of her life.

OHMYGOD we should make a "DON'T TALK ABOUT US IN THIS THREAD" thread.

[Liz]

See, I'm the opposite, I were underspoiled. Now cry for me. yesss.... <i>YES!</i>
Yeah. And we can be like
"So how's the weather?"

[Vile]

Oh man. haha.

You know what we just did? We derailed the thread by talking about ourselves.

[Liz]

but we didn't start the thread yet. This is THIS thread, not THAT thread.

let's have a contest to see who can go the longest without saying "I"

[Magenta]

I CAN WIN THAT CONTEST.



<small>dangit.</small>

[Vile]

The quick red implode jumped over the lazy brown reef.

[Shaman King]

Rather, I admire people who are in arranged marriages, and who make the best of it. Because it would be hard to do.
Just because something's hard to do doesn't mean it's worth it. Maybe I'm selfish, but I don't think sacrificing my happiness so my family can get a nice dowry is something admirable.

edit: I think we should respect other cultures regardless of whether we agree with them or not.
If the Aztecs were around today, you wouldn't be saying that we should respect their culture of human sacrifice (or maybe you would, whatever).

Of course, I think arranged marriages are horrible in ways, they do go against the American idea of love, but aside from that, there is something to admire about people who are in them. It's not their choice, and yet they put up with it.
Slavery wasn't the choice of the Africans, but we don't admire those who put up with it, we admire those who rebelled against their masters. I'm probably going to get yelled at by someone for using slavery as an analogy, but whatever. The point is, putting up with things is bad.

[Nevermore]

hey nevermore. where have you <i>been</i>? i was just wondering about what became of you the other day.

Gaia has taken over. What with their rofl smiley and all.


I think I'll start frequenting once again. :)

[MST3Kakalina]

ah, gaia.


the best part about gaia is all the threads in the Life Issues forum about how this 14 year old girl just broke up with her boyfriend and she's devestated because omfg he was totally the one.

[Liz]

Yes, I think we <i>should</i> respect the Aztec's human sacrifice practice. It was the way of the culture at the time. We americans have a big value for individual life, and at the time, they apparently didn't so much. Probably including those who were sacrificed. I doubt you heard them complain as much as if that was practiced in America today.

I admire the slaves who put up with it as well as those who rebelled, there is something admirable about each, although different. You can't just say This one's good, this one's bad. They're different.

[MST3Kakalina]

lots of the people who were sacrificed were honoured to be a gift to the gods.

but just because cultures are different doesn't mean we can't condemn aspects of them. relativism is kind of a bad thing, to me. just because people disagree doesn't mean there's no right answer.

wow, that's not really relevant to what we're talking about, though.

[Shaman King]

wow, that's not really relevant to what we're talking about, though.
Mutating topics are far more interesting.

but just because cultures are different doesn't mean we can't condemn aspects of them. relativism is kind of a bad thing, to me. just because people disagree doesn't mean there's no right answer.
Exactly. Relativism, or at least tolerance of others, is important to some degree, but it's not something you can apply toevery situation. There <em>are</em> universal human rights, and it's more important to uphold those than it is to be culturally sensitive.

[Liz]

I don't believe humans have any value, I think everything is a coincidence and I don't think individual life means squat in the long run. Elevated conciousness doesn't make us have any more value than things without any conciousness, it's just a trait. All thought and morals and values and emotion is is electric charges passing between synapses.


...IMO.

[Magenta]

Just because something's hard to do doesn't mean it's worth it. Maybe I'm selfish, but I don't think sacrificing my happiness so my family can get a nice dowry is something admirable.
Maybe I'm the only one who trusts my parents or something. My mother and I have talked about this before and she has told me, "if i had the choice, you'd marry ____ or maybe ____" and the like. Its not always someone I like, but always someone that I respect the morals of, and if I were in an arranged marriage with, would love.

I'm sorry, I forgot I'm talking to the rebellious angsty teens of today.
If the Aztecs were around today, you wouldn't be saying that we should respect their culture of human sacrifice (or maybe you would, whatever).
I see a different in respecting a cultural aspect about "who chooses your husband" and respecting a cultural aspect of "OKAY MURDER = GOOD".

[BeastDad1987]

Okay I'm gonna go back a bit and mention Magenta's post about the Greek words for love. I can read Greek (I usually don't know what I'm reading but I know the alphabet) and know some super basics. But still correct me if I'm wrong because I probably am.

I was taught that there were three forms of love: eros, philos, and agape. Eros is obviously erotic love, love based on lust or physical attraction. Philos is happy friendship love, the kind of love you experience with close friends. Agape is more like a holy, divine, and unconditional love.

And I'd say more, but I really don't feel like typing it. I'll just say that I find it incredibly rare for teens-- or adults, for that matter-- to experience agape. As much as I'd like to think that my boyfriend and I were made for each other, agape seems more like the love you'd have for a god. The love my boyfriend and I share is certainly not holy. So yeah. With teens, it's prolly eros. Maybe philos. Not agape.

[Magenta]

See, I was taught something similar but...different. That philos is the affection thing, and agape is more of a choice, where you choose to love someone.

Like the verse in the bible that says "Husbands, love your wives" is a COMMAND for them to love them, as in....sacrificing for them, putting them above yourself, etc. Same idea.

[Shaman King]

I don't believe humans have any value, I think everything is a coincidence and I don't think individual life means squat in the long run. Elevated conciousness doesn't make us have any more value than things without any conciousness, it's just a trait. All thought and morals and values and emotion is is electric charges passing between synapses.


...IMO.
I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm an atheist and a strict materialist. I don't think there's any special meaning to life, or that things are more than a coincidence, either. That being said, people can still suffer. If you prick your finger, it hurts. Causing pain is bad, because while there might not be any cosmological significance to it, it makes the other person's life worse, or truncated.

I'm sorry, I forgot I'm talking to the rebellious angsty teens of today.
That's ok, I forgot I was talking to the pompous teens who type in annoying font colors, and don't understand analogies. Of today. :D

[-LOST-]

i could never get into gaia

[Dr. Badman]

I'm sorry, I forgot I'm talking to the rebellious angsty teens of today.Hahahah.

[Magenta]

<3

I mean I HATE YOU. (woops, sorry, that just slipped out. I can't seem to think straight)

[exemplary citizen]

Like the verse in the bible that says "Husbands, love your wives" is a COMMAND for them to love them, as in....sacrificing for them, putting them above yourself, etc. Same idea.
*starts and stops a few times*

I... we've had this discussion before, I know. But I fundamentally think this is a dangerous concept.

[implode]

hm? what? caring? <i>we</i> haven't had this discussion before, dammit.

[Dr. Badman]

<3

I mean I HATE YOU. (woops, sorry, that just slipped out. I can't seem to think straight)Ah, memories...

[Magenta]

MEMORY! All alone in the moonlight...I can smile at the old days, I was be-

oh wait.


Nevermind.

[Dr. Badman]

'kay.

[Liz]

Do you peoplekids think it is possible to love someone over the intrarweb?

[tater]

Umm ... I'm moving in with my internet "boyfriend" in August. I've never been more in love. The only contact I had with him for the first two years I knew him was on-line.

*thinks about Koba and Ami*

I'd have to say ... yes. ;)

[Liz]

Ami has an internetlove?

[exemplary citizen]

Yep. I've been living with him for over a year now, and am most likely getting married to him in the forseeable future.

So yeah. <i>I</i> think it's very possible to love someone over the grand interwebulous. To me, a more intellectually based relationship like that seems much more preferrable to something based on "wow, that guy has nice hair, I'd really like to tap that" (turns out that my internet love <i>is</i>, in fact, a smoking hottie, but I didn't know that until we'd been accquainted as friends for quite a while). And, if you think about it, you're probably more likely to get picked up on by a crazy rapist at some kind of happy-hour mixer, anyway.

[tater]

AMI! ...... MARRIED! I didn't know you guys were talking about such things. Any type of time frame yet or just talking?

And do I get an invite? :)

[Shaman King]

Do you peoplekids think it is possible to love someone over the intrarweb?
Definitely, for basically the reasons Ami gave.

[exemplary citizen]

SHHHHHH. *blushy* there's only been talk about it, don't break out the bridesmaids dresses. sheesh.

[tater]

*keeps her squeaking to a low roar* <small>Holy cow, woman! You should ... call me .. or something. We really need to talk more often. I'd call but I know you're busy with school stuffs ... blargh! I want to hear all about this and soon!</small>

[Liz]

I think you can fall in love online but I do think it is common for preteens and stuff who are desperate to utilize the internet as a way to get clingy unrealistic relationships. But there certainly are genuine relationships that begin online, and or occur online, and you just meet people online and you never really know what will happen.

[exemplary citizen]

Yeah, I mean, I didn't go out looking for "my soulmate" or anything. I just made a really good friend by chance that turned out to be a perfect match for what I was looking for in a partner.

[töm]

there's only been talk about it, don't break out the bridesmaids dresses. sheesh.but i want to look beautiful. :( call me when you have them picked out, too.

[Magenta]

Do you peoplekids think it is possible to love someone over the intrarweb?
I still have my belief of "if you meet them over the internet, they could be crazy stalker people" but I have developed friends over the internet, and I could see (and can see) how people develope deeper relationships.

However, I do believe that, to really form a strong relationship, you should meet them and develope a one-on-one relationship outside of the internet, kind of to...prove that each of you are who you say you are are act how you act online.

[Linzoy]

I was in a pretty good internet relationship, not exactly a boyfriend/girlfriend thing but he was a good friend of mine who I've met in real life more than once. Then he disapeared and I don't know what happened. That's the main problem of the internet.

[exemplary citizen]

I still have my belief of "if you meet them over the internet, they could be crazy stalker people"
I guess I fail to see why this rationale remains so prevalent. I mean, that is sort of the standard response you get whenever somebody mentions "meeting people from the internet". Like I said before, I would think you'd be far more likely to meet some kind of crazy stalker daterapist down at the local watering hole (where alcohol and other kinds of silly garbage becomes a factor) than you would in an environment where you can really feel out somebody's personality over a length of time and in a way that provides a safe amount of distance until both parties are ready to close that gap.

Of course there have been a handful of cases where some 40 year old guy is preying on a 12 year old through an internet chatroom. But lets' face it -- 12 year olds are stupid. When we're talking about adults with a lick of sense, I think the danger is pretty well negated. And you don't hear nearly as often about the random murders, rapes, and stalkings that occur when people are out for "real life" relationships on the news, because frankly, they aren't as "weird" as when that kind of thing involves the internet, and the horror of "new technology gone wrong" always drives the sensationalism through the roof. Who cares about the 30-something that got raped by an acquaintance after a party when we can do a story about some guy from Des Moines whose internet girlfriend turned out to be "OMG A MAN???!!1" (as if that doesn't happen in real life from time to time, too)

Having had a "non-internet" boyfriend before that <i>did</i> start stalking me after we broke up, yeah. I'd have to say the internet is WAY safer than the popular notion would let on.

[Nadine]

Although I have to stress that I have almost no expertise (I've hardly dated) and my opinion is more theoretical, I think the answer to Liz's question is "yes and no." As a "relationship medium," Internet correspondence and face-to-face interaction reveal different types of information more readily, and people seeking romance may unrealistically "fill in the gaps" regardless of how they meet the other person.

People may criticize solely face-to-face relationships as being too reliant on outward appearance and social skills, since people aren't likely to give others an opportunity to demonstrate their intelligence and "soul" unless they're at least moderately attracted to that exterior.

Conversely, it may be difficult to get a wholly accurate picture of a person when one uses the Internet; important qualities such as ephemeral personality traits, manner, and even appearance may be absent or obscured. Even though people can dismiss in-person qualities as "shallow," I do think that they matter, even if some people do overstress them. I can picture two people being intellectually compatible but completely unattracted to each other in person (I mean this subjectively; they might find other people who appreciate their personalities or looks). Also, while it is definitely possible for people to conceal their "true selves" in "real time" face-to-face conversations, I think that it's even easier to present a false or distorted picture online.

Finally, there are additional practical challenges that might arise in Internet relationships, even if the underlying romance is good; like any problem, these might test the strength of a relationship somewhat. The most obvious ones that come to mind are the stigma of online dating (although it has decreased) and the problems that might arise from a long-distance relationship (which is naturally likelier to occur when people have met over the Internet, without geographic boundaries).

I am <I>not</I> saying that Internet relationships are invalid. However, I think that it is more difficult to cultivate a genuine and strong relationship online. I personally would much prefer to become acquainted with any potential dates in "real life" rather than online.

[exemplary citizen]

See, I think my situation was different because neither of us were going into the whole thing looking for a relationship. It actually started because we're both artists and we were talking about pretty technical stuff having to do with the trade. The friendship and the romantic relationship came WAY later. So, neither of us had any reason to be putting on a facade for the other one. Turns out, he's exactly the same in real life as he is "online", and he's said the same for me. Just from my experience, you're probably just as likely (if not more) to find people putting on their "game face" to attract a mate in real life as you would be anywhere. Especially if you're an attractive person, people are naturally going to go out of their way to impress you.

So, I'm really not buying the idea that it's easier to "fake" it for another person online than it would be in real life. It probably has more to do with whether one of the involved parties has something that they're really after out of the interaction. There seem to be a lot of expectations attatched if you go looking for company at your typical "meat market" kind of place, and those exist both online <i>and</i> in "real life". I mean, whether you go down to the dance club or to 'eHarmony" or wherever, you're sending out signals that say "I'M LOOKING FOR A MATE" in big bold letters. And there's gonna be people lining up around the block to fill that want and get a piece of the action, and you can bet some of them will do whatever they can to jockey for position. I think that's just a crappy part of human nature that you have to deal with no matter how you go about it.

[Nadine]

I know what you mean, but I think I was contemplating something slightly different. I think that everyone has a natural tendency to want to hide their flaws in front of other people <I>regardless</I> of personal attraction or desire for a relationship, even if that desire is intensified when you want to impress somebody. The Internet might allow people to present a better "public face," since you can double-check mistakes and aren't as likely to subconsciously give hints as to what you're thinking (blushing, losing your train of thought, or whatever). I'd agree that people will try to "fake it" in person as well, but I do think that it's harder (though still possible) when you're face-to-face and interacting with someone in real time.

[exemplary citizen]

Yeah, I guess my major roadblock with the "real-life" dating is that physicality aspect. When I was officially "back on the market" as far as interested parties were concerned, I found no shortage of guys that claimed to be "into" the same things I was (which I rapidly found out meant that what they'd rather be "into" was my ladybits, and we'll work the rest out later). I think it has to do with the approach to dating in general; I for one don't "do" the whole short-term "let's just have fun now" kind of dating that a lot of the people in my age group seem to be into, because that seems like a giant waste of time for me. What I've always really wanted out of a parter had more to do with them being a best friend first and foremost, and someone I could be on equal footing with and have enough in common with that neither of us would have to compromise in the relationship because of different viewpoints. And I ended up getting that, but accidentally. I just think it's really important to know somebody as a friend FIRST, and then if there's attraction there, great. Not the other way around.

That had nothing to do with the internet. Oh well.

[Young Jeff Bridges]

i think relationships have to be built on looks to some extent
it isnt fair to say someones shallow just because they lose interest in someone after maybe finding out
they arent
physically enjoyable or eyepleasing to some degree
i mean, say you sit around with a person you slowly fall in love with
and the sexual and physical stuff has a major role to play with that
you dont want to mess with them physically if they end up turning into a 400pound
disgusting
thing
or sexually
thats not arousing
pleasing
enjoyable to any degree

[exemplary citizen]

That's why you swap pictures. ;)

Hey cutie. 'sup.

[Magenta]

I for one don't "do" the whole short-term "let's just have fun now" kind of dating that a lot of the people in my age group seem to be into, because that seems like a giant waste of time for me. What I've always really wanted out of a parter had more to do with them being a best friend first and foremost, and someone I could be on equal footing with and have enough in common with that neither of us would have to compromise in the relationship because of different viewpoints.
I had nothing more to say until I saw this. And now, all I have to say is GO YOU. I'm tired of people who meet someone and their first reaction is "THEY WILL BE MY BOYFRIEND". And the same thing of people refusing to date their guy friends. I mean...I can see being hesitant, as it can make a situation awkward for a while afterwards, but isn't it more important to like someone than to be attracted to them? I mean, in a marriage, when that "attraction" starts to deteriorate, if you really love the PERSON, won't it be easier to salvage the marriage than if you only loved them because you were attracted to them?

As I've been told: "How you catch the man is how you keep the man".

[exemplary citizen]

EXACTLY. I mean, bumping uglies feels great, but it'd be nice to actually have a few things in common to talk about in addition to that. 'cause... y'know. You can only have sex for a certain percentage of the day. :robot:

[MST3Kakalina]

I am not saying that Internet relationships are invalid. However, I think that it is more difficult to cultivate a genuine and strong relationship online. I personally would much prefer to become acquainted with any potential dates in "real life" rather than online.


but it's not like internet relationships and real life relationships are always two separate things. say someone gets involved with someone online (LIKE, I DUNNO, ME). i'm not talking like a "regular Friday night cybering session" involvement, i mean like, a relationship with the intent of seriousness. it's not a relationship that will remain online forever. eventually, the face to face meeting happens, and it evolves into a "regular" relationship, and you fill the physicality gaps that way. it's not as awkward as you might think.

Poonchy: if physical attraction had a significant part in starting a relationship, i'd never get laid. :(

[exemplary citizen]

See, Koba totally got what I skipped over. I feel dumb, now.

[Nadine]

but it's not like internet relationships and real life relationships are always two separate things...

Yeah, that's true. I was mostly separating them for the purpose of argument.

I would agree that it's important for people in a relationship to genuinely share interests and passions, and I would agree that casual dating is overrated (like I said earlier, I don't exactly have a lengthy dating resume).

Finally, I'm thinking of "physicality" in a fairly broad sense, encompassing not only attraction, but also intangibles like personality (while personality comes across online to an extent, a lot is lost in the translation).

[exemplary citizen]

(while personality comes across online to an extent, a lot is lost in the translation).
Yeah, see, my view on that is completely different. Then again, my significant other never talked like "OMG LOL u r so rite", so maybe it's different if the other person is less articulate.

[Nadine]

Well, my feeling is that, even if a person is articulate, you don't get their spontaneous reactions when they're filtered through (self-censored) text. Because the Internet theoretically gives a person more control over how they present themselves, there's more of a risk of artifice, even if a person isn't trying to be deceitful. I try to present myself more or less "as I am" online, but, even so, aspects of my behavior remain obscured.

To be fair, there are tradeoffs both ways, since it is easier to skip formalities and go straight to substantive discussion online, particularly if a person is introverted.

[MST3Kakalina]

i don't know. mentioning weird personality traits that don't come across online were often a subject of discussion with Mecha and me.

Mecha also would like to point out that if what's lost in translation is in character with what DOES come across, then it's not really a problem anyway.

[Dr. Badman]

However, I do believe that, to really form a strong relationship, you should meet them and develope a one-on-one relationship outside of the internet, kind of to...prove that each of you are who you say you are are act how you act online.Im kind of exactly like my online 'persona' in life.

'06, baby...

[Magenta]

If you aren't in the biosuit, I'm going to be sadly disappointed by how much you've lied to me.

[Dr. Badman]

As I will be if I find out you're not a pinkish gelatinous blob.

(Or we could call it even)

[Nadine]

It was smart/responsible for you and Mecha to confront issues of personality and behavior before meeting each other. I'd wager that most Internet-created relationships that work are the result of taking steps to overcome any potential challenges that spring from the fact that the couple met online.

I don't mean to unfairly disparage online relationships; I've even been in an Internet relationship myself. I do think it's important for people to be cognizant of the specific risks of starting a relationship online, for the same reasons that it's important to have a "reality check" when they start a relationship in person.

On a personal, individual level, I am sort of wary of online dating. I don't necessarily worry about bringing creepy stalkers into my life, but I am concerned about the other risks. In particular, I don't feel comfortable dealing with the stigma and potential gossip that might come from an online relationship.

[exemplary citizen]

Golly. I just can't see the stigma at all, I guess. Maybe that's just because I usually run in circles of artsy-geeky people that either think it's a delightful notion, or just couldn't care less. I can't see being marginalized because of something as trivial as where I met my partner. I mean, even within my own family (who are predominantly conservative, button down traditionalists), I didn't even get a funny look or anything when the subject came up. The general reaction I get from older generations is usually "Really? I've been hearing that a lot of people are doing that now."

I think if it's still there at all, the stigma is at least rapidly disappearing.

[Nadine]

I think that the stigma is much less significant than it was years ago, but I still observe it on occasion. I have heard plenty of minor jokes or snide remarks about other people's online relationships.

[Magenta]

I think the main thing with online relationships is to observe the same caution as you would in real life. Until you really know a person, you know, you shouldn't just...wander off with them and such.

That sort of thing.

[tater]

Golly. I just can't see the stigma at all, I guess. Maybe that's just because I usually run in circles of artsy-geeky people that either think it's a delightful notion, or just couldn't care less. I can't see being marginalized because of something as trivial as where I met my partner. I mean, even within my own family (who are predominantly conservative, button down traditionalists), I didn't even get a funny look or anything when the subject came up. The general reaction I get from older generations is usually "Really? I've been hearing that a lot of people are doing that now."

I think if it's still there at all, the stigma is at least rapidly disappearing.
I don't know about that. It's not quite as ... bad as it used to be, but the idea of meeting people online is still very much a geekish custom. Everytime I get asked about how Drew and I met, there is that awkward look and you can just feel the judgments pouring out. It takes a few minutes of explaining that I would visit my girlfriend an hour away and meet up with him then to make anything even remotely comfortable again.