286 replies to this topic

[erikk]

they really don't work. I mean, they can last a while, but unless someone is moving close to the other one, it just cannot work

[Sweeney]

they really don't work. I mean, they can last a while, but unless someone is moving close to the other one, it just cannot work

Always nice to see a unilateral declaration of fact in a debate thread.

[Sida]

Second, they're shy and don't need sex? More like, they're shy so they cope with not having sex. Sex is a basic biological requirement. It's hardwired into us, like eating and shitting. Denying that need is a good way to repress your humanity. As an aside, there are a very small minority of individuals who are truly asexual, but this is rare in the extreme.

I don't see how you can say that really. Look at the huge variety in sexual activities. There are people who go without sex because they get far more turned on by urinating on expensive cars and masturbating while lying in it. Sexual requirements are hard-wired into us, but sex isn't necessarily for everyone.

Lol! Believe me, I've contemplated that existence. It's easy to say 'yeah I have a girlfriend/boyfriend' as a way of getting out of social engagements, even though you've never personally, physically met your SO. Further, this type of behavior, wherein a shy, net-centered individual makes meaningful connections solely though the internet, is highly irregular and unstable. Google closed shell syndrome for a highly accurate, albeit fictional account of what the internet can do to people.

The age of this couple wasn't mentioned. Maybe the distance is too much for them at their age? And there are plenty of other excuses to use other than "I have a girlfriend".

This plays a large role in forming relationships, particularly casual hookups.

We're not really talking about casual hookups. While the majority of normal people couldn't last with a purely online relationship, there are still those that could. For example two people who are extremely shy to an almost unhealthy level that are perfectly happy with their lone-term online relationship are probably better off than a couple who argue every day and rarely see each other but subconsciously smell each other's pheromones.

[Frizzle]

Well to be fair, it's the equivalent of having a baked potato for a girlfriend.

[Rainie]

One of my best friends met her boyfriend, who she's still dating, through Deviantart and they're still going pretty strong. In an age where Skype is pretty much universal, I think it's definitely doable. It probably helps that they're both pretty shy people who don't really need sex, so I think it really depends on who's looking for a relationship and why. They're not in a relationship for social status among their friends, or because they want each other's bodies, but because they get along really well and teach each other things about themselves. Someday they plan to meet, even though they live on opposite sides of the country, but it's been going pretty well so far for them.

Ne.. even if Skype is "pretty much universal," what happens when somebody's just feeling down or something and wants comfort/sweet words from their partner? You can't expect both parties to be on Skype 24/7.
From what you're saying, it seems like those two people would make good friends, but not necessarily beyond that.

Online relationships would rely too much on trust imo. How would you honestly know if the other person doesn't already have a girlfriend/boyfriend, possibly is even married, or decides to cheat on you? How would you know if anything they say is actually the truth? It just seems too easy for somebody to lie about something like that.

[Sweeney]

"I'm sorry, I can't date you. I feel like our relationship would be based on too much trust."

What.

[Sida]

How would you honestly know if the other person doesn't already have a girlfriend/boyfriend, possibly is even married, or decides to cheat on you? How would you know if anything they say is actually the truth? It just seems too easy for somebody to lie about something like that.

You think that's all magically fixed irl?

[erikk]

I know from experience, it really can't, I mean, unless there is some plan of someone moving close to the other person, it just gets wayy too hard to deal with. I mean, some people can do I am sure, but more power to them

[Kat]

Well to be fair, it's the equivalent of having a baked potato for a girlfriend.

Who doesn't like baked potatoes? Now if only you could marry one..

[Bone]

Who doesn't like baked potatoes? Now if only you could marry one..

It's a slippery slope. One day it's baked potatoes, the next raw potatoes, and then cauliflower, for the love of god.

[kittycat]

What works for one person may be completely different than what works for another. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not it is the right path for them.

[Bone]

lolwut.

Two things. First, Skype is not universal. It has ~660m registered users, among which there are probably 5-10% inactive accounts, 1-5% corporate dummy accounts, and 2-5% repeat or reregistered accounts, which would bring the total amount of users down to something like 580-600m. That's still a lot of people, but there are over 7 billion people on earth. That's 7 with nine zeros after it. Hardly Universal. Universal would be Microsoft Windows (which ominously enough, owns Skype).

Second, they're shy and don't need sex? More like, they're shy so they cope with not having sex. Sex is a basic biological requirement. It's hardwired into us, like eating and shitting. Denying that need is a good way to repress your humanity. As an aside, there are a very small minority of individuals who are truly asexual, but this is rare in the extreme.

Lol! Believe me, I've contemplated that existence. It's easy to say 'yeah I have a girlfriend/boyfriend' as a way of getting out of social engagements, even though you've never personally, physically met your SO. Further, this type of behavior, wherein a shy, net-centered individual makes meaningful connections solely though the internet, is highly irregular and unstable. Google closed shell syndrome for a highly accurate, albeit fictional account of what the internet can do to people.

As far as the original argument goes, here are some additional points. Something like 90% of human communication is nonverbal, meaning that the majority of what you communicate to your significant other is not encoded in the words you speak. That 90% includes tone of voice, body language, eye contact, appearance, volume, whether or not you are directly facing the person, and scent. On the subject of scent, let me say that pheromones are real. Humans release pheromones that other humans can subconsciously smell and pick up on. This plays a large role in forming relationships, particularly casual hookups. Barflies get good at determining who is in the mood, so to speak, by their scent. There's something that you can't get over skype.

Anyway, my opinion is almost exactly the same as it was on page one (if you can't tell).

^{[citation needed]}

[Applepi]

Online relationships would rely too much on trust imo. How would you honestly know if the other person doesn't already have a girlfriend/boyfriend, possibly is even married, or decides to cheat on you? How would you know if anything they say is actually the truth? It just seems too easy for somebody to lie about something like that.

As someone who did a long distance relationship for over a year (we're still together, just in the same city now) I can say that trust really isn't an issue, especially if you do the mature thing and talk about the relationship, I know there's nothing stopping them from lying to you, but remember that theres nothing stopping you from lying to them. This become kinda empowering after a while, I dont think our trust in each other has ever been stronger.

The hardest part of the distance relationship with that inability to see each other in person. For some people it might not be a big deal but I definitely hated that I couldn't call him to hang out after having a bad day or we couldn't lay around on the couch all day watching movies or other things that people might take for granted. If the two parties are ok with not having that physical contact/connection, then more power to them. However, its not for everyone.

[redlion]

^{[citation needed]}

If I wanted to write a research paper, I would have, dolt.

You've managed to say absolutely nothing in this thread worth reading.

I don't see how you can say that really. Look at the huge variety in sexual activities. There are people who go without sex because they get far more turned on by urinating on expensive cars and masturbating while lying in it. Sexual requirements are hard-wired into us, but sex isn't necessarily for everyone.

I think you're being a bit more literal than I was. When I said sex I didn't necessarily mean traditional man-woman missionary position sexual intercourse. I simply meant physical sex.

The age of this couple wasn't mentioned. Maybe the distance is too much for them at their age? And there are plenty of other excuses to use other than "I have a girlfriend".

True, the age of the 'couple' wasn't mentioned. But I hesitate to call them a couple when they have not and most likely will not ever engage in coupling. Anyway, if you're too young to have sex, you're too young for internet relationships. The age of majority usually falls around the age of consent (except in backwards America).

As far as excuses to not socialize go, you're right there are other excuses. But for a shy person who maintains an online relationship, the SO excuse has to come in high on the list when your friends go out looking to socialize and potentially find a mate. The SO excuse is the number one reason my friend K didn't want to go out to the bars with me for the past year, and it's use is demonstrated in countless movies and tv shows. It's heavy use is not hard to imagine.

We're not really talking about casual hookups. While the majority of normal people couldn't last with a purely online relationship, there are still those that could. For example two people who are extremely shy to an almost unhealthy level that are perfectly happy with their lone-term online relationship are probably better off than a couple who argue every day and rarely see each other but subconsciously smell each other's pheromones.

Okay, we? You're going to tell me what I was talking about? I get that the thread might have originally been about online relationships (which could be as simple as 'Hey, wanna cyber?") but we have digressed considerably from that topic.

I was elaborating on the uses of pheromones, and the settings in which they have a maximum impact. First time acquaintances in a moderate to heavy intoxicated state are more likely to trust their instincts/nose than their rational mind when evaluating a potential mate.

[Sweeney]

I was elaborating on the uses of pheromones, and the settings in which they have a maximum impact. First time acquaintances in a moderate to heavy intoxicated state are more likely to trust their instincts/nose than their rational mind when evaluating a potential mate.

Which is better than making a comparatively rational decision based on a long friendship over the internet?

You're making the argument, as far as I can see, that relationships "need" physical contact for things to work. But you're not recognising that, for a lot of people, that ranks far below having someone intelligent, with similar interests, to simply talk to.

[jargon]

I don't think a relationship solely based online will work. But relationships that result from meeting and being friends online first is totally plausible. I actually know some people who have met their spouses online.

[Sida]

I think you're being a bit more literal than I was. When I said sex I didn't necessarily mean traditional man-woman missionary position sexual intercourse. I simply meant physical sex.

Physical sex with a partner is what I was talking about, not positions.

True, the age of the 'couple' wasn't mentioned. But I hesitate to call them a couple when they have not and most likely will not ever engage in coupling. Anyway, if you're too young to have sex, you're too young for internet relationships. The age of majority usually falls around the age of consent (except in backwards America).

I don't agree with that. Most people were in a relationship before the age of consent, or at least most that I know, and some did/didn't have sex. If anything it's better for them to have an internet relationship at a younger age and move on to a standard one later as it eliminates the sexual aspects.

As far as excuses to not socialize go, you're right there are other excuses. But for a shy person who maintains an online relationship, the SO excuse has to come in high on the list when your friends go out looking to socialize and potentially find a mate. The SO excuse is the number one reason my friend K didn't want to go out to the bars with me for the past year, and it's use is demonstrated in countless movies and tv shows. It's heavy use is not hard to imagine.

Okay, we? You're going to tell me what I was talking about? I get that the thread might have originally been about online relationships (which could be as simple as 'Hey, wanna cyber?") but we have digressed considerably from that topic.

You're going to complain about my use of the word 'we', and then use it yourself?
It's common for people to not go to bars etc because they want to stay home with their SO, internet relationship or not. I don't think it's so much a 'shy person's excuse' as it is a totally normal thing to do.

[redlion]

Which is better than making a comparatively rational decision based on a long friendship over the internet?

You're making the argument, as far as I can see, that relationships "need" physical contact for things to work. But you're not recognising that, for a lot of people, that ranks far below having someone intelligent, with similar interests, to simply talk to.

You're putting words in my mouth with that first line.

I'm making the argument for physicality, yes. However, I'm not arguing that this is necessarily the best way to go about finding a mate, nor that it is better than rationally making decisions regarding potential mates. I have not made any evaluative or comparative statements regarding the best way to find a mate; rather I have argued that physicality and senses other than hearing/seeing (i.e. the senses you can use through the internet) play a large role in finding one.

Believe me, I recognize that many people value intelligence over sexual attractiveness. I didn't think I would have to say that. Obviously everyone finds mates in their own unique way, with the factors weighted for their specific tastes. It couldn't happen any other way. What I'm saying is simply that physicality is so innately essential to human beings that I don't think a romantic relationship can really last without at least nominal physical contact. Even if it's only once, there has to be that 'We'll always have Paris' moment for people to stay interested.

Physical sex with a partner is what I was talking about, not positions.

I'm not talking about positions either. You said that people go without traditional physical sex in favor of alternative kinds of sex. I don't see the difference. Sex is sex, regardless of how you do it. If there's sexual gratification, it's sexual activity.

I don't agree with that. Most people were in a relationship before the age of consent, or at least most that I know, and some did/didn't have sex. If anything it's better for them to have an internet relationship at a younger age and move on to a standard one later as it eliminates the sexual aspects.

Here I have to admit I was arguing for the sake of arguing. Still, what are you trying to say? That's its better for someone to identify with someone over the internet that they've never met, never seen, never experienced firsthand than to be in a relationship with the girl sitting next to them in math class? Because that's utter shit. Hi, my name's Chris Hansen. Why don't you sit down?

You're also arguing my point when you call physical relationships standard.

It's common for people to not go to bars etc because they want to stay home with their SO, internet relationship or not. I don't think it's so much a 'shy person's excuse' as it is a totally normal thing to do.

Aye, it's common, that's exactly my point. The difference between declining the invite to stay home with your SO and declining to stay home with your computer is that when you're tied up in a 'relationship' with your 'girlfriend' halfway around the world, certain physical needs aren't met. At least, one would think they aren't for a shy introvert.

[Sida]

I'm not talking about positions either. You said that people go without traditional physical sex in favor of alternative kinds of sex. I don't see the difference. Sex is sex, regardless of how you do it. If there's sexual gratification, it's sexual activity.

It's pretty obvious the initial comment you replied to was talking about sex in the sense that most people do, two people having intercourse. If you were talking about any kind of sexual activity then there lies the confusion.

Here I have to admit I was arguing for the sake of arguing. Still, what are you trying to say? That's its better for someone to identify with someone over the internet that they've never met, never seen, never experienced firsthand than to be in a relationship with the girl sitting next to them in math class? Because that's utter shit. Hi, my name's Chris Hansen. Why don't you sit down?

You're also arguing my point when you call physical relationships standard.

I've never once said that an online relationship is better than an in-person one, nor have I said it's standard. I'm trying to say that it's not as impossible as you think.

Aye, it's common, that's exactly my point. The difference between declining the invite to stay home with your SO and declining to stay home with your computer is that when you're tied up in a 'relationship' with your 'girlfriend' halfway around the world, certain physical needs aren't met. At least, one would think they aren't for a shy introvert.

Whenever someone declines an invitation to stay home with their SO, it's not always to just get laid you know?

[redlion]

I've never once said that an online relationship is better than an in-person one, nor have I said it's standard. I'm trying to say that it's not as impossible as you think.

I invite you to look over your own post: you definitely said something to the tune of 'move from an internet relationship to a standard one.' I'm paraphrasing now, but you're reinforcing my argument by calling physical relationships the norm.

As to saying an online relationship is better in general, you didn't say that (nor did I accuse you of doing so) but you did say it would be better for people under the age of consent to have relationships over the internet instead of in person.

Whenever someone declines an invitation to stay home with their SO, it's not always to just get laid you know?

Sure. However, my point was that when you decline an invitation to stay home with your computer, you CAN'T get laid.

[Sida]

I invite you to look over your own post: you definitely said something to the tune of 'move from an internet relationship to a standard one.' I'm paraphrasing now, but you're reinforcing my argument by calling physical relationships the norm.

As to saying an online relationship is better in general, you didn't say that (nor did I accuse you of doing so) but you did say it would be better for people under the age of consent to have relationships over the internet instead of in person.

Sure. However, my point was that when you decline an invitation to stay home with your computer, you CAN'T get laid.

Not at all. You're misunderstanding my argument if you think I was saying an online relationship is the norm, or that a physical relationship isn't.
As for the second thing, my bad, I meant something more like "may even be better for people under the age".

[onethreezerotwo]

I have a buddy who recently married a girl he met on eHarmony. He's from CA and she's from AR. They met in an airport.

[Sida]

I have a buddy who recently married a girl he met on eHarmony. He's from CA and she's from AR. They met in an airport.

How long before they met?

[AudioDayDreamer]

I personally don't think they work out. People have needs that can only be put off for so long. There is no real date involved with an online relationship. You can't feel their embrace when they *HUG* you. You don't have their shoulder to cry on when you need it. Some people may be okay with that but again I personally don't think they work.

[havocide3]

E-relationships don't work. They just don't. There is a physical part of a relationship that you don't get over the internet