 |
|
 |
|
  |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CANADA | BRITISH COLUMBIA | ALBERTA | SASKATCHEWAN | MANITOBA | ONTARIO | QUEBEC | NEW BRUNSWICK | NOVA SCOTIA | NEWFOUNDLAND | PEI VANCOUVER | TORONTO | MONTREAL | VICTORIA | EDMONTON | CALGARY | HALIFAX | ATLANTIC PROVINCES |
||
| Copyright © 2000-2010. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact superdyke | Advertise on superdyke | ||
Yes it is possible to fall in love with someone you've never met. ..
We must love one another, yes, yes, that's all true enough, but nothing says we have to like each other. It may be the very recognition of all men as our brothers that accounts for the sibling rivalry, and even enmity, we have toward so many of them.
Peter De Vries
'I thought younger women were supposed to be a lot more emotionally mature than we were a couple of generations ago, and I'm losing hope here...)'
How is that not judgemental? That is the main thing that bothered me.
Anyways, I'm happy to work it out via private message but you should know that I'm not someone who likes to argue, I would honestly like to know how you're losing hope and seeing emotional immaturity. I'd like to understand.
Cheers.
The way people are becoming quick to judge others in this online context is surely relevant to the discussion of whether we can love those we have not met in person.
ps - if nothing else, this will teach me to carefully mind myself when I ask questions about how people are reading questions...
Well, I must say I'm entertained - but I don't know that I've ever been accused of being accusatory, hypocritical, judgemental and offensive before - at least not by someone who didn't know me very well!!!! Wasn't sure that others wanted to get caught up in the angst. But if you're all willing to play it out in public and find out whether everyone can play nicely in the sandbox, count me in!
i hope this argument doesn't have to go into private messages, either, as (not to sound judgmental or anything) 98% of all of us find this to be entertaining.
I think Audra MacDonald's facial expressions in 'Down with Love' say everything there is to say about love -- ha ha ha ha ha -- (she's brilliant)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYE-gSTwB20
does this argument HAVE to go into private messages? It's entertaining me.
clean_sober_transguy, if you read my post again, you will see that I specifically address my comment to 'women'. Sorry I left you out of my commentary - sure didn't mean to be offensive to you, or anyone else.
Are you taking everyone else's comments so completely literally, or are you determined to find offense in my comments only? Hmmm, I hope not ...
At any rate, I go back to my query about whether or not the majority of the (everyone included this time) People commenting on this question have read it and interpreted it the same way I have - sans judgement - as a question about love in general, without attributing the romantic context so prevalent in their responses. Okay? Still offended? Please send a note to let me know, and we can hash it out if you like.
I've been in several relationships where there was a significant age difference and if I've learned anything, it's that after a certain point, age and emotional maturity are two different things! And love? The only time I knew I'd love someone before I met them, was when I was on my way to meet my dog for the first time. Two legged people take time.
On that note, it's been very interesting reading the range of responses and interpretations of this question.
Minx, not everyone on SD ID's as female, some of us are transmen (As SD is trans inclusive). Also, I think that it may be wise to ask if people are equating love with in love instead of making an accusation that '98%' of the people (Women and transpeople) who answered have equated the two. And then to label almost everyone on the thread as emotionally immature? It seems slightly hypocritical.
As a younger person who knows the difference between love and in love, I feel your post to be judgemental and offensive.
Oh, and by the way, issyvoo, thanks for (I think) getting it... I like a gal with brains.
I must say, I'm still intrigued by the fact that about 98% of the women who answer this question equate love with being 'in love'. Surely on the whole we're not that emotionally immature. Please tell me it ain't so! Can we all just grow up already?! (Not to sound judgemental or anything, but Please - - I thought younger women were supposed to be a lot more emotionally mature than we were a couple of generations ago, and I'm losing hope here...)
issyvoo and sate should just date already. garsh.
nope
and thus, issyvoo not-so-tacitly touches upon the ethical and moral underpinnings of the well, somewhat certain, coming failure of humanity.
I think more often than not, when it's someone you've never met it's like the placebo effect.... if you believe it's possible, and you want it badly enough, you can convince yourself you're in love no matter how you meet.
Oh, but I did, Sate, because I can.
I think i would a little tired of looking because i meet a lot of girls. i love meeting people though. I meet the best people sometimes. even of the internet. i met someone of line (not in person) a year and a half ago. we talk on the phone and online. we know what each other looks like. I think of her as one of my best friends. and i love her like a friend.
lmao... well... i seem to be entertaining everyone.
oh snap!
no you did-n't, issyvoo!
Tired of looking? Well, it is true that one does weary of the plethora of those who don't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're' and the dearth of those who do.
I am in total agreement with noname...that was well-said, very succinct.
I think you can love the IDEA of someone you've never met. I believe that the attraction and wanting to be with someone that we experience at the beginning is more infatuation than love. It's the excitement of getting to know someone new and all the possibilities that represents. IMHO, love is something that is built over time through getting to really know all that someone is - good AND bad. And, I think that love is also about the interaction you have when you're with someone in person - the way you look at each other, the way you casually touch each other in passing, how you relate in everyday life. I'd say that it's difficult to have those things in a long-distance situation.
LOL kaiden--good one. man did i laugh when i read that.
of course you can !
hmm. well yea. by then your tired of looking. I see.
ahhh.
Only 11 years older, Kaiden? I've dated someone 22 years older and someone 14 years younger. By the time you're middle aged, everyone's a peer.
What bugs me is how some people (like my ex) are afraid of the younger ones. not all of us are bad. Half the time people are quick to judge. You can fall in love with someone you never met. Even if you just talk online, because you have a connection with that person through words. I meet people and yes, I have made judgments. You lose an opportunity of a lifetime even if you blow someone off, for their age, looks or what they say. People need to get to know a person to fall in love. You don't just pass judgments. I'ver dated people 11 years older because of the connection we've made... my advise would be don't blow an opprtunity when it's there, because then theres the feeling like you made the wrong choice, by then it's too late.
Oh how I believe,,, its happened just to bad it was a long distant thing. We did end up finally meeting and wow I was a lucky person to have meet a wonderful woman we are still friends to this day and that was 9 yrs ago. Like I said the only reason we never carried on was the distance
sate.......you're hilarious.
I don't think so, because the reality is about testing each other's space and getting a sense of the things you don't experience until in person.
how about the GLEE version of 'Somebody to Love'? since they won at the Golden Globes last night -- 'this is for anybody who ever got a wedgie in high school' --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEaP-HrnP04
walt and albert step aside... over the puddle of truth misidentified as cynicism
No, I do not believe it. I not only have to meet a person but I have to bond and be friends first.
I guess that is why I missed numerous opportunities or crashed on a friend who wanted to stay a friend...
unnoticed and unappreciated.
hey... maybe that's why you drink bourbon. i drink bourbon to ease the pain of social isolation that comes from the inflection in my keystrokes going largely unnoticed.
Ah, but, see, what causes you to drink bourbon? Some variation on the woe that comes from cynicism, I'll bet. Thus, cynicism causes hangovers.
what a relief. i thought it was caused by drinking bourbon.
Cynicism doesn't fill the belly, though I'd say it's often the cause of a hangover.
i love cynicism. except for when i'm hung over. then i love pancakes.
i love when people try so hard lol well done
Well, since we're quoting Shakespeare on love, in Othello, Iago says that love is 'merely a lust of the blood and a permission of the will.'
And since we're quoting pop music, Leonard Cohen said that 'The duty of lovers is to tarnish the golden rule.'
There's today's cynicism.
yes if chatted online and cell lots . yes
Even in a minute: so full of shapes is fancy
that it alone is high fantastical.
(Twelfth Night)
it's gonna getcha getcha getcha one way or another
(Blondie)
well researched issyvoo. lol i looked it up too
thanksos, issyvoo.
That was well put issyvoo, People need to know what kind of love their talking about. 90% of the girls i know will fly in a relationship and a week later they will say their in love. How does one know the real meaning of love? It's complicated.
Sate, you're talking about the classic distinction of the three kinds of love: agape, eros, and philos. Eros, sexual love, from which we get the word 'erotic,' is considered the most selfish kind. Philos, 'brotherly' love, is the middle type (and is the one that gave Philadelphia, 'city of brotherly love' founded by the Quakers, aka, The Religious Society of Friends, its name). Agape is 'god-like' unconditional love, the one for which we are all supposed to strive. I think people here are saying that agape and possibly philos are possible without having met a person but eros is not. Others are simply thinking that the question refers only to eros.
ok, fine:
'Are lesbians unable to differentiate Agape from Sexual involvement?'
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowellyessssssssssssssssssssssssssssometimesnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonotalllesbiansbutssssssssssssssssomei'mprettygoodatitbutonlybecauseihavemadealotofmistaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakeslikenotbeingabletotellwhensomeoneisintomeandthinkingthatsomeoneiswhentheyaren'tsoithinkigottheagapegoingonbutitistheromantickindorrrrrrrrrrihavethehotsforsomeoneandtheyfeelthesamewaybutinasortofadmirationkindofwayyyyyyyyyyyybecauseiamsoeffingarticulate.iguessicanonlyreallyspeakformyselffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffregardingthisquestion.blahblahblahblahblahblahblah.ishouldgetbacktowork.
sate.
we can givve it a try .....all who havnt met me yet ........ im ready to be loved
Absolutely! I just married my 'Superdyke' and we talked for months before we met.
lol - Awww - c'mon sate! We've got time!
Nope!
yes.
i wanna answer minx's question!
but it would take WAY too long.
haha!
The question is whether we can love, not whether we can Fall In Love.
To me, many of the previous responses, which focus on being 'in love' rather than on the question at hand, which is about love in general (which can be spiritual, familial) etc) are a reflection of why the lesbian community often has difficulty with ongoing relationships - we don't know how to define and identify the many types of love (such as Plutonic, Agape, etc) and apply them to what we feel towards friends, aquaintances, and people we haven't met (such as ancestors, distant family, supportive family friends, online friends) who have come to have deep meaning to us on a very emotional level.
Are lesbians unable to differentiate Agape from Sexual involvement?
Tell me it ain't true, gals! Let me know we generally have a basic grasp of emotional intelligence (or else just keep on bringing out your U-Hauls on your first dates, and even when you meet Aunt Jenny for the 1st time!!!!!!!) lol
The potential to fall in love can be present right from the start but sometimes becoming infatuated too soon can actually reduce the likelihood of the relationship developing into real love because first impressions are often baseless.
But of course! Me and Olivia Wilde are a match made in heaven.
yes. I love those killed who were gay. Never met them... but to be in love? it's tricky
By the way, Whitefox, Salma's mine! We're just the right height for each other.
you can always love .... being inlove is a different story
define love...
i do believe that you can love someone you have met. i dont however believe that that love will always end or flow the way that traditional senses of love do. i believe that you can fall in love with someone you have never met but i don't necessarily believe that you always know who you are in love with. just because of a lack of physical touch/presence is there doesn't mean your heart beats any slower, your breath catches any less, it just is based on different situations
OMG LOL It's a pretty simple question.
damn that Salma! -- then again, Spanish, Lebanese and Money are her first languages. And let's face it, money talks the loudest.
Actually, whitefox, it should be 'whom,' not 'that' or 'who.'
i agree.
well, personally I think that we should really look at the word 'that' in the question -- because Salma Hayek says it should be 'who' (oh! she just said 'I love you' to me again -- telepathically, of course)
good one. let's define 'never met' and 'love'. and then we can discuss the possibility of 'love' within the context of 'never [having] met'. but only if we get really clear on what 'believe' means. personally, i think the term 'believe' will inhibit the flow of the discussion of the question the most.
I like what Minx has to say. People are assuming this is a question about online communication vs. in-person meetings but that may not be so. People are also assuming this is a question about romantic love which also may not be so. We need, then, to define what we mean both by 'never having met' and by 'love' before we can really even engage in this discussion.
I think energy is energy and I think it can be felt just as easily online as it can be in person. Although online can only go so far before you need to meet them in person to increase that connection and chemistry. So in short, yes I do believe it's possible.
We can absolutely love people we haven't met. Love is very different from physical attraction and the two shouldn't be confused with each other. Communication sans meeting is not restricted to online interaction. There are many means of communicating that existed prior to being online, jsut as there are many types of love other than romantic. Even the old ways of developing relationship love took time and allowed people to cultivate relationships without having sex or cessing out chemistry.
There are many forms of love. Don't make the mistake of thinking that 'loving' someone, means 'being in love'. How many times have some of us thought we were 'in love' because of great chemistry that didn't withstand the test of time, or learning that we had different values/expectations?
Real love is many-faceted, not sexual nor romantic. When those things are also incorporated, it's fantastic!
cheers!
Xquisite, I couldn't agree more!
i don't think that you can love, per say, someone you've never met. you may be attracted to ideas you have about them or have fantasies about how they really are. but you can never know exactly how a person is solely through online interaction, or telephonic interaction. people can change their responses with the tap of a backspace, hide their facial expressions, tone of voice, and true feelings. all of these things contribute to how you perceive someone and they're just not there. there is also no chemical biological attraction that can be formed when you're not even there to exchange pheromones or other chemical releases. real human biological love and bonding occurs in person and, currently, we don't have a way to change that. so, no, i don't think you can love someone you've never met.
I think the development of deep romantic feelings are possible (or just the development of interest--hey--why would we bother with sites like this if they didn't facilitate a bit of imaginary-driven interest based on text, other asynchronous communication methods, and images), and i think you can love someone in the agape sense of love that you have never met (deeply care about them, want the best for them as a fellow human being, ad infinitum), but i think those romantic feelings (just like feelings of mere interest) can only be validated via real-time, face-to-face tom-foolery. romantic love, i think for any couple, whether their initial encounter is face-to-face or online, just takes loads of work beyond the aforementioned tom-foolery. there's just this potentially imaginary chemistry/interest step that online folks have to wade through.
not that i know anything about this bwa ha ha ha!
I need to meet the person in order to fall in love.
I feel it takes a little time to fall for someone. Shared time and space, not to mention interests. Gotta know someone at least a little bit, fall for the idosyncrasies....
well, I know for a fact that Salma Hayek is totally in love with me, yet I have never met her. (by the way, I am writing this from prison.)
I think it's possible to know that you could, at some point, have strong feelings for someone if they become a part of your 'real-time' life. But I don't believe I can romantically love someone/fall in love with them without having met them. I'd rather do that in person ;)