Online vs. In Person Relationships

Online relationships that start online are fine, I have no issue with that and they have every opportunity to become real. It's the part before you've involved all your senses, including touch and sharing the same actual physical space, sharing real life experiences where you don't want to get carried away. Yet! I have met a handful of people that started from relationships online - one turned into me moving quite a distance. Relationships can start online, and grow and progress into something real. Absolutely they can. I have some experience with this - meeting people that you think you know really well for the first time, anyway. I try to meet and share the same physical space at least once. I like to make it real.

Sometimes you never meet them and there are never any plans to meet. It's the ones that stay online and never progress or plan to progress into reality I'm comparing to a film. The emotions are real and what you feel isn't fake, but there is still so much you don't know. You're indulging your fantasies with just what the person is presenting you just like a film and it won't go any further than that, until you do go further than that. Not going further than that is fine too I think as long everyone understands what they are experiencing and not kidding themselves. Also, I really want to stress that you not waste too much time on the romantic ones that you could be using to find a genuine authentic connection with someone real - which may or may not start online. I think that is my point, the most. Time starts to move fast. You get attached and fantasy a lot of the time cannot hold a candle to reality, and it's hard to let go. That is all.

I'm not saying that online only relationships are a bad or dangerous thing to experience. They're different. They can still be very special.

I am in no way saying that my online friendships aren't real or the people aren't real. I love my friends, and I plan to see the special ones I haven't met yet, obviously :p trying to make that work with some people now. No rush though. I'm at peace with that, knowing life will clear a path for that to happen someday. xx
 
I think Hush expressed my ideas on the subject rather well. Thanks @hush, saves me work. :<3:

Friendship and relationships are intimate, loving connections between you and another human being. It is empathy, compassion, openness and acceptance personified. Of course, it does require the both of you to show up as your authentic selves, but that's no different between offline and online companionship. Perhaps it's even easier to show up as your authentic self online, because all the superficiality of the social construct and taboo are stripped away. For example, how many people come out as gay, or admit to having mental health problems online before ever doing so offline? Aren't they more real online than offline in these instances?

What causes people to feel connected to each other? That seems to be different for different people. If I may pull out science once again, psychology describes 5 love languages, being:
- Words of affirmation (compliments, acknowledgements, appreciation)
- Acts of service (doing something for someone else)
- Gifts (giving and receiving gifts)
- Quality time (giving your undivided attention, talking with each other)
- Physical touch (hugs, high fives, pat on shoulders)

Words of affirmation and Quality time both have a strong linguistic component; they work just as well verbally as in writing, and hence work well online. In contrast, acts of service and physical touch are impossible to execute online.
Gift giving.. well, there is always Amazon.com :grin:

If I may be so frank, I think Sadie has physical touch as one of her primary love languages and thus feels a deficit online, where Charlatan prefers quality time and hence feels no such deficit.
As someone who has words of affirmation and quality time as primary and secondary love languages, I feel very much connected online. :blush:
 
I think you can develop very strong, positive feelings for someone online. I have two German guys I have talked with for 3 years online, almost everyday. However, I do think you have a bit of hesitancy to say "I know them" when you have not met. There is always a feeling or knowing that you are missing some vital data / information about that online person because you have not met in real life.
 
I really appreciate all the varied perspectives on this topic. It's providing me with different ways to look at this and causing me to think about how I feel about this topic. I really feel that people make their relationships what they are, whether online or in person. We create our own possibilities and our own limitations.

I have to admit, I previously felt the way @Pin wrote, "online relationships aren't real". But then some people, who I met online and only knew online, whom I had never met and may very well never meet, really showed up for me while I was going through one of the most difficult periods of my life.

As I came out of this difficult period, I looked back over the emotional support some of these people gave me, a total stranger, and it brought tears to my eyes. I thought to myself, how could people I've never met and probably never will meet, touch my life in such a profound and personal way. This experience caused me to rethink my original position that "online relationships aren't real". And I found myself questioning, how can this happen, how can total strangers, on a computer, offer me emotional support that helps me through one of the hardest times in my life.

As a result, I had to start re-evaluating how I perceive online relationships. Their pros and cons and how they can and cannot work for me. Their limitations and possibilities. I'm still in this re-evaluating period. The folks who showed up for me are like the sort of people you would meet in person who put their hand on your shoulder when you're really down and out and don't look at what they have to gain, and don't even have much to say, you just know they feel your pain and generously offer their compassion. Y'all, forced me to change my mind about online relationships.

So, here I am re-evaluating my original perspective. I'm sure it will continue to evolve. Thank you all... very, very much. Feel free to keep on with the posts on this topic. Outside of my personal experience, it really is a very interesting topic in itself that I think a lot of people grapple with... how real are online relationships. Damn real, in some ways, and not real at all in others, and just about everything in between. Sounds just like relationships to me, but with a different twist and flavor all its own.
 
I think online relationships are just as real as offline ones. By online, I mean relationships conducted on a computer without the intention of ever meeting in person. If they intend to meet in person someday or have in the past, I would consider it a long-distance relationship and class it differently.

The emotions are the same. Voice and video are easy enough; the only thing that is really missing at this point is actual physical touch. You can have avatars touch each other and the brain may interpret that similarly; however, I do not think that one can ever get the full emotional effect without having someone there in person no matter how much they RP or ERP (as fun as those are).

There are a couple of issues though that make online relationships really difficult and different from in person relationships, which ultimately make them problematic in my view. First, if the person you are in love with is going through some hardship, you may not be able to help them with it at all due to being so far away. You will just have to watch them suffer day after day, year after year, helplessly. Second, after being with the same person for a long period of time, it might get to a point where you start to feel like you are not getting anywhere since that person will not be able to be there for you when you go through some hardships or for important offline things. Our society places so much value on offline relationships and certain benchmarks that go with them, so if you desire those, you may feel like you are missing out.

The other thing about them is, since society often does not consider them real, there is often a stigma against them. They are not viewed as legitimate, so the feelings surround them are dismissed. The person you love dearly and have been in a relationship with for years, have voice and/or video chatting with every day for years, could die- and people would not care about your feelings since it was an online relationship. To get any understanding, you may have to not mention that the person is an online relationship.

There is one very big bonus in my opinion, which is that, in online relationships, you are able to focus purely on the soul of the person in question and disregard their body. Physical appearance is not so important in online relationships. It does not matter so much if your partner has medical conditions and such that would be an issue in real life, and it does not matter if they would be considered conventionally unattractive. All that really matters online is personality, so in that regard, I think online relationships are more pure and interpersonally superior to in person relationships where people regularly dismiss otherwise wonderful partners out of hand because of their medical issues, level of physical attractiveness, etc.
 
Faye said:
There is one very big bonus in my opinion, which is that, in online relationships, you are able to focus purely on the soul of the person in question and disregard their body.
Click to expand...

All that really matters online is personality, so in that regard, I think online relationships are more pure and interpersonally superior to in person relationships where people regularly dismiss otherwise wonderful partners out of hand because of their medical issues, level of physical attractiveness, etc.
Click to expand...

Uh oh. You made the bolder claims that Fidicen thought I was making but that I turned out to never quite go as far as making :) although I suspect the non-pedantic/intended meaning might be the same thing as my own in the end.
I probably stop at interpersonally equal, because I assume that one can enter into in person relationships without the "in person" part being primary or even relevant.

But yeah, this is super related to my sentiment. Relationships are incredibly emotional things, and honestly when I've met people I talk to daily online (since they're in town briefly), it's almost odd how to incorporate the in person part.

I think I just don't find online relationships to be abstract, because they yes, abolish the physical component mostly, but they don't ignore the emotional side at all. Closely being in tune with what someone is feeling makes it anything but some abstract ineffable thing.
 
Late to the party! Need to take time out to read every response here!

Was hoping to read the article before posting (cookies and annoying long adverts got in the way) so apologies if I'm not addressing the actual question or for rambling.

Online relationships are real - of course. There's something here about accountability for me (for those times when relationships prove to be challenging and only a face to face conversation will do). Also, I have a desire for good endings/closure (when relationships naturally come to an end - regardless of whether the closure is positive or negative outcome).

There's also a convenience about online relationships that makes it too easy (not that easy isn't a good thing). I love the convenience and flexibility of this forum but would prefer to see and chat with you all in person. Yikes!!

I don't like the anonymous/mysterious nature of doing relationships online. A friend of mine has just found out that the person she was seeing (in real life) isn't the person they claimed to be - so this of course happens in real life too but the situation was addressed almost immediately because of other factors (other witnesses, observations - too long and complicated to go into now) - not sure how the event would've turned out if this was online, length of the deception and who knows what the consequences would've been????

My absolute preference wold be for real life relationships - by that I mean, in person, in real time, eye ball to eye ball and face to face. :smile:For me there's always a sense of wanting to know the heart of the person that I'm having a conversation/relationship with. Yes we have the capability to connect with each other on an emotional level, impart knowledge, share information, understand each other etc but for for me it has its limitations and feels somewhat unsatisfactory - I want MORE!!
 
charlatan said:
Uh oh. You made the bolder claims that Fidicen thought I was making but that I turned out to never quite go as far as making :) although I suspect the non-pedantic/intended meaning might be the same thing as my own in the end.
I probably stop at interpersonally equal, because I assume that one can enter into in person relationships without the "in person" part being primary or even relevant.

But yeah, this is super related to my sentiment. Relationships are incredibly emotional things, and honestly when I've met people I talk to daily online (since they're in town briefly), it's almost odd how to incorporate the in person part.

I think I just don't find online relationships to be abstract, because they yes, abolish the physical component mostly, but they don't ignore the emotional side at all. Closely being in tune with what someone is feeling makes it anything but some abstract ineffable thing.
Click to expand...

That can certainly be the case, but how often is it? It seems like physical attractiveness is foremost in what people look for and what they value in their partners. It is what society teaches people to value at the very least. How many people would lose their partners if they were to suddenly lose their looks?

I am really cynical, but I believe that many people do not actually love their partners despite what they say. I think they love their bodies or things about them but not the person themselves.
 
Faye said:
That can certainly be the case, but how often is it? It seems like physical attractiveness is foremost in what people look for and what they value in their partners. It is what society teaches people to value at the very least. How many people would lose their partners if they were to suddenly lose their looks?

I am really cynical, but I believe that many people do not actually love their partners despite what they say. I think they love their bodies or things about them but not the person themselves.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is something that is taught intentionally. I think it is something that is picked up on though. At least it is not that way when that plotline is actually done well. Besides that - that is if we're talking movies, theatre and such (can't know if you meant that, just because I can't think of anything else) - looks are merely employed by film industry (producers), because they only want to surround themselves with attractive people (I just remembered, the fashion industry is the same, but I kind of get that - apart from the unethical treatment), rather than choosing actors by talent (you must admit, it's not the same with European actors). It's the same thing with money.

Despite the shallow teachings, we are actually educated to think differently. Of course there are [probably too many] people who rate potential partners by attractiveness (which back in the day was actually something that ensured survival of the gene pool, won't get into that now), but I don't believe that everyone is a write-off. Yet.

Edit: As for not loving partners, I have too little specific knowledge about examples of people to make general assumptions.
 
Faye said:
That can certainly be the case, but how often is it?
Click to expand...

You're 100% right, as a matter of empirical fact that in most cases, a majority of people's attitudes seem disappointing :) and I was just clarifying in principle. I'm a huge fan of your point/always am telling something very similar/in some cases the same to my friends.
I think most people I've encountered at least are to partners as to the idea of having kids -- kinda just do it cuz it's a thing you do.

I forgot if this thread was about friendships-included or relationships in the romantic sense, but I definitely have been found recommending to friends who engage in the latter that, if someone loves them despite some decrease in the pragmatic utility, the probability is higher that there's the love of the soul you describe.
I just always throw in the saving-clause of on principle, this is totally unnecessary, just to avoid the inevitable angry rant that misses my point.

Generally there are two things I don't understand: superficiality and competitiveness, in relationships. It's possible to not be superficial but still be very elitist. I endorse that only in terms of things like seeking kindness, as in that case, the only argument against is the poor one about "you're being judgmental of the judgmental!" (Uhm duh -- logic: judgmental means an excess of judgment. Thus, to judge the judgmental is to judge -- not to be judgmental, since your judgment of calling their judgments excessive is not itself excessive if theirs is already excessive.)
(More generally, this leads to one of those postmodern anti-rational views to morality.)

I always advocate the principle of loving as people would love their child -- as unconditionally as possible. And you're right in practice this is a good vetting tool to figure out if that's really happening.
 
Last edited:
Ginny said:
I don't think it is something that is taught intentionally. I think it is something that is picked up on though. At least it is not that way when that plotline is actually done well. Besides that - that is if we're talking movies, theatre and such (can't know if you meant that, just because I can't think of anything else) - looks are merely employed by film industry (producers), because they only want to surround themselves with attractive people (I just remembered, the fashion industry is the same, but I kind of get that - apart from the unethical treatment), rather than choosing actors by talent (you must admit, it's not the same with European actors). It's the same thing with money.

Despite the shallow teachings, we are actually educated to think differently. Of course there are [probably too many] people who rate potential partners by attractiveness (which back in the day was actually something that ensured survival of the gene pool, won't get into that now), but I don't believe that everyone is a write-off. Yet.

Edit: As for not loving partners, I have too little specific knowledge about examples of people to make general assumptions.
Click to expand...

I meant we are socialized into it. It is not just movies and theatre; lookism is real and everywhere. Looks by Gordon Patzer goes into detail on this subject. Not sure what you mean when you say we are educated to think differently.
 
The YUUUGE problem with online interaction is this: most communication is 90% (? don't quote me on this) non-verbal, so, in essence, body language. The very subtle things that just words do not convey.

I've had this problem. Met a girl, had a great connection, until we met, and when subject to her energy field, it was horrible. Her chakras were out of whack. She was a spiritual mess, and I could feel it. The vibes were just not there. It sucked.

That's one thing people don't understand. Someone might tell you all of the right things, but at the end of the day, I'm only interested in meeting face to face. Ideally, first and foremost. The paradox - us oddball types don't like to initiate conversation in person. And it's just easier to interact with people online.

So what do we do?

Keep suffering, haha.
 
Online relationships are limited. There is no reasonable way to "work around" the fact that you are not with someone physically.

I enjoy my online friendship a lot and the affection but I had to (and still do) work on keeping the limitations of this arrangement at the front of my mind. I mean that I actually have to acknowledge that the relationship is online and different. There is a lot of temptation to try and create some good ol internal fantasy about shit and then you are driving the KooKoo train in Looney land of the tracks.
 
souvenir said:
IMO saying even if it's just by principle to love your partner as you would your child will doom their sex life.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I don't at all think love and sex need to mix. If the person someone loves most isn't someone he/she wants to have sex with, that's fine by me.

So I guess I would shrug my shoulders at your remark and say who knows, maybe that's true for some people, but ideal love might be something you get upon deep reflection, whereas what is sexually appealing might just be a primitive drive. Sometimes people are sexually into a very aggressively domineering personality but want to love someone who is the opposite of that. I have no problem if those two are different people/as long as everyone's OK with everything and being safe of course.
 
Another brief clarification is I'd say the child analogy isn't necessarily to be taken super literally. It's just about showing a kind of unconditional, pure love.
It certainly applies to other human beings, not just children, just wanted an example that's easy for illustration.
 
I’m extremely late to the party, but thought I would share my views. Coming from experience, my ex and I were an example of an online relationship/ long distance relationship for almost a good majority of the duration of our relationship. I met him on Facebook since we both had mutual friends, but he lived in another state. At first we became friends and enjoyed each other’s conversations and company, then we later started playing video games together and that’s how things progressed from there. So dealing with long distance is not an unfamiliar concept to me, and have done it for years.

The emotions that we both felt were very much real and meaningful like any other typical face-to-face relationship—or even probably even more intense since the relationship was purely based on each other’s personality and not for just the sex, so it made it a lot more profound and rather beautiful. Long distance is just like any normal real relationship, but of course the physical aspect is just missing.

My ex and I made it work somehow through commitment, respect, loyalty, and patience; and of course, making plans to see other in person as much as we can. We loved each other very much.

Playing videos games and watching Netflix at the “same time” were our lifeline, and also phone calls, texting and Skype.

However I must say, if anyone does decide to go into a long distance relationship or is in one, you both need to figure out when to decide to end the gap, otherwise over time, it will get more difficult to cope without the other person’s presence. Loneliness was a difficult thing to cope some days.

The problem with my previous situation was that my ex and I didn’t really have an idea on when to close the gap due to his path going in a different direction, and so was mine. Which then later turned into doubt, frustration, resentment, and uncertainty— and those feelings became frequent arguments.

Closing the gap is very important because it not only gives two partners to look something to look forward to, but also that relief that the relationship will no longer be just a glass half-empty situation, you will soon be permanently reunited.

Would I be in another long-distance relationship? Ehhh idk. Perhaps, I’m undecided. I would have to REALLY like the person or know that they are for sure someone I see myself with. And just as long as I know there is a definite future and set date on when on closing the gap, then yeah. I would go for it again.


Long-distance is just like any other meaningful relationship as long as you both have the same mindset, wants and expectations, and are willing to put in the effort and commitment—and most importantly, setting the date on when to be permanently together.
 
Last edited:
Online friendships have been on my mind recently, so I'm happy there is a thread for it here.
I know a lot of people online whom I've never met in person, and call a few of them 'friends'. I don't feel like anything is missing. There is something to be said for friendships where if you're going to be friends you need to be open and maybe a bit more vulnerable than with those you see in person, because you can't do activities together to form a bond. Obviously, this only happens after a long time of screening each other, but you have to click from the beginning on some level. If a friend is having life issues she can discuss it with me without worrying that what she has shared will become part of the fray, because in most cases I don't know any of the people involved in the drama, except as vague acquaintances on social media. It's comforting. The friendships are real. In contrast, my closest friend I see face-to-face regularly is not someone I click with on a deep level, but we share principals of friendship - loyalty, doing things for each other, accepting each other, having fun together, etc.

I've had a gaming friend for several years. We play a few different games together, and he is inclusive and generous - he helps me out a lot. We met while playing a game that I can only describe as an experience that brings out one's "core self". We clicked (and we didn't know each other's gender. We just got along well.) In that fandom, people are warm, open and share, but he doesn't. He is introverted and guarded. He likes being mysterious. We chat in messages, so I know a little about him (such as general age and occupation), but after many years I don't know enough about him to call him a friend, despite the hours we spend together and how well we get along. I've been trying to figure out his MBTI for years. He is an exceedingly kind and generous introvert, a bit moody, technical, and detail-oriented to the point where he seems like a genius. While I understand that gaming companionships can stay "in the game", in some ways I want to behave childishly and stop gaming with him because he is still secretive after years of 'friendship'. It makes me distrust him. In contrast, a group of people I've been gaming with for a few months all know each other's first names, careers, SO's names, where they live, whether they have kids, etc. I'm perplexed by the state of this friendship. Does anyone else have a similar situation?
 
Asa said:
I've had a gaming friend for several years. We play a few different games together, and he is inclusive and generous - he helps me out a lot. We met while playing a game that I can only describe as an experience that brings out one's "core self". We clicked (and we didn't know each other's gender. We just got along well.) In that fandom, people are warm, open and share, but he doesn't. He is introverted and guarded. He likes being mysterious. We chat in messages, so I know a little about him (such as general age and occupation), but after many years I don't know enough about him to call him a friend, despite the hours we spend together and how well we get along. I've been trying to figure out his MBTI for years. He is an exceedingly kind and generous introvert, a bit moody, technical, and detail-oriented to the point where he seems like a genius. While I understand that gaming companionships can stay "in the game", in some ways I want to behave childishly and stop gaming with him because he is still secretive after years of 'friendship'. It makes me distrust him. In contrast, a group of people I've been gaming with for a few months all know each other's first names, careers, SO's names, where they live, whether they have kids, etc. I'm perplexed by the state of this friendship. Does anyone else have a similar situation?
Click to expand...

That's a little unusual I guess, but if I were in your situation I can't say I would necessarily distrust this person because he doesn't share much about his personal life. I'm probably a bit biased because I tend to be fairly guarded about the details of my personal life too.

This will probably sound impersonal and cold in context, but I've found that I tend to make friends that fulfill specific purposes or needs in my life. I have a circle of 3-4 close friends I can discuss pretty much anything with. Beyond that, I have Music friends, Gaming friends, Sports friends, MBTI friends (lol) etc. It's not that I don't care about these specific-purpose friends or what they're up to in their lives. I just typically don't feel the need to extend the scope of the friendship beyond that thing or two we have in common. I rate these folks differently than mere acquaintances; these are people I look forward to seeing and will schedule time with. But am I going to ask how their family is doing, or talk for hours about our jobs or our daily issues or hopes and dreams? Probably not.

I can certainly see how this mindset might be offputting for others as it more or less precludes "deep connection" with those people in a broader context. I think I can only maintain a small handful of deep connections at any given time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top