Seriously thoughtful Personal Interactions in Internet

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

While reading this thread, and considering some of the relationship questions posed, I keep thinking of the incredible variety of relationships that could be involved in these considerations. I'm reminded, for instance, of the school-age kids I see in my area, and the way they are much more inclined to touch, to hug, to be closer and more socially-physical than the kids I grew up with... things change.

Also, gender relationships have changed a lot... or, I should say, a wider variety of gender relationships are acceptable in public and private, than when I was growing up... or when my parents were growing up. Things change.

Bottom line, I couldn't make effective observations or make effective judgments about what people should and should not do online, with anyone save myself. And where I might not do whatever, there's no reason why someone else should not do whatever if they want to... and I wouldn't consider myself in any position to tell someone else what they should and should not do.

I've read enough about pen-pals and email-pals over the years to be able to understand how someone could get into a serious online relationship. I wouldn't consider it a big deal, though obviously, there are risks involved with someone you've never actually met... that's something that's never changed. Yet, distant relationships have always happened, and still happen, and manage to survive that risk on a regular basis.

I've also never felt embarrassed about something I was writing online... though sometimes I'm amused by my wife's tendency to look over my shoulder to see what I'm writing!

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by beppe

I would like to take what you wrote out of the polemical contest and recast it as:

... online relationships are not all about "fun," there are other points to them. They can provide emotional support, or can work towards shared goals, or can help each other out in times of need. They are not entirely individual, they can be connected to a person's family life.


This is what I get out of your post. I think it can be useful.
Again, thank you.

I'll see your context and raise you one example.

Not only can online relationships be about something other than "fun", if there are real feelings involved they can be seriously painful. If your relationship exists primarily online, it's likely because a physical analog isn't possible, usually (though not always) because of distance.

Shel and I fell in love online not because we chose to; quite the opposite, we had no choice in the matter. There were several starts and stops over those first couple of years, and sh!t got real a few times like the time I suspected it was not she to whom I was talking but an archenemy of hers impersonating her (they lived in the same house at the time). There were times we decided it just wouldn't work out, and we'd stop talking for a few months (or more). Finally, things got so bad on her end that I launched a pre-emptive strike and bought her a plane ticket. 2 plane trips and an ice storm later, we were finally together. Of all the things we recall about our online-only past, the word "pleasant" doesn't rush to mind.

You know what though? Take out the "online" part of it and it could be any other relationship. We still argue sometimes, and it's still split about evenly between her hormones and my insecurity (also, our jobs suck). The fact that it all "just works" is what makes it so romantic/cool/wonderful/fill-in-your-favorite-superlative. Online, on the phone, long-distance love-letters...they all just serve the purpose of the communications medium; it's what gets communicated which determines whether it works.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

<...>

You know what though? Take out the "online" part of it and it could be any other relationship. We still argue sometimes, and it's still split about evenly between her hormones and my insecurity (also, our jobs suck). The fact that it all "just works" is what makes it so romantic/cool/wonderful/fill-in-your-favorite-superlative. Online, on the phone, long-distance love-letters...they all just serve the purpose of the communications medium; it's what gets communicated which determines whether it works.

I'd like to add - and I'm talking about relations in general, not only romantic relationships - to me, the Internet simply gives me more offers of modes of communication. It gives me more (and cheaper) options of meeting interesting people and communicating with them. So there is no essential difference between Internet relations and relations in physical life, just slightly different modes of communication. People are people, both in the virtual and physical aspects of life.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by phenomshel

Please do, Ea, now I'm curious!

In relation to this reply:

Originally Posted by badgoodDeb

Sorry ... I/we thought that's what the initial question was about.

I completely fail to see what is was in the original post that made people think that the OP wanted to discuss a hypothetical online (and implied illlicit) romantic relationship. It appeared to me that the thread was all but hijacked by a handful of people who wanted to discuss this specifically - even when the OP explained otherwise.

It strikes me as interesting in itself, that for some people "Internet relations" so obviously equals a romantic relationship. My own experience of Internet relations is quite the opposite

[taming]

My husband and I met on-line. We're in our late 50s and have been married for ten years. Both of us had been divorced for over a decade when we became aware of each other on a tech support forum. PMs became Emails, then phone calls, then international f2f visits. I married him, quit my (very good) job, sold my house, and moved from the US to Canada faster than I'm willing to tell anyone I don't know very well.

[desertblues]

I think honesty is the keyword in all.
Honest to yourself: why are you joining a forum?
But also honesty to the posters= real people on the forum. Don't cultivate a picture of yourself that's not you.
Also honesty to your partner: my husband knows and can read over my shoulder if he wants. I sent the 1000-post celebration-thread as a link to him; to let him share in the fun LCJ and I had thinking the business of celebrating up.
I also think Beppe is honest in trying to define for himself where he wants to go and to ask on the forum to explore this subject a bit more.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by desertblues

I think honesty is the keyword in all.
Honest to yourself: why are you joining a forum?
But also honesty to the posters= real people on the forum. Don't cultivate a picture of yourself that's not you.
Also honesty to your partner: my husband knows and can read over my shoulder if he wants. I sent the 1000-post celebration-thread as a link to him; to let him share in the fun LCJ and I had thinking the business of celebrating up.
I also think Beppe is honest in trying to define for himself where he wants to go and to ask on the forum to explore this subject a bit more.

I like your post, even if it is about relations as such and not on Iternet relations in particular and even if I do not share your opinions completely. That's the beauty of it all.

Let me comment on your points one by one.

I think honesty is the keyword in all. 100%. no need to elaborate

Honest to yourself: why are you joining a forum? There is a thread that allows us to have an idea on why we post on MR, which is not exactly why we join a forum, but quite close to the spirit of the reminder by desertblues.

But also honesty to the posters= real people on the forum. Don't cultivate a picture of yourself that's not you. This is undoubtedly a very good advice. But ... The image comes out any how. One should be aware of it. If he/she is not aware of this simple fact of life, than it does not matter. It's his/her problem really. I like that under an Avatar and a nickname one can escape from a day to day routine and have a bit of Carnevalia. I do not want to elaborate more on this. I might open a side thread (not serious of course). So on this point I agree in principle but not completely in practice.

Also honesty to your partner: my husband knows and can read over my shoulder if he wants. I sent the 1000-post celebration-thread as a link to him; to let him share in the fun LCJ and I had thinking the business of celebrating up.

this is the most important of all. The more easy and the more difficult to manage while at the same time one tries to live a full and meaningful live, as individual, as spouse, as provider as parent/grandparent, as son (not me anymore, but she as a daughter, and the problems there are not in need, these mothers ...), as a citizen. Tough. And the priorities have to keep shifting with time, situations and occasions. If there is trust everything becomes smooth and easy. Difficulties are always behind the door anyway. We would never think of looking behind each other shoulders if uninvited. We often invite each other, on matters that we think could be amusing or gratifying. Like the first answering posts on this thread were commented and laughed at the table. So I agree with you, and than there are all those cultural effects to take into account.


Thank you warmly for what you say about me being honest.

[beppe]

I just saw that the Cart of Tendre that I have attached at the bottom of the first post in this thread has been downloaded 22 times. Which is both good and bad. I put it up again here and I let myself write few things about it.

Tendre is an imaginary location, it is the country of Tenderness and it is made of
three towns with the same name and of the many villages on the paths that lead to those destinations, starting from a common starting point that is a New Friendship. So the objective of the game or of the excercize is to reach the Tenderness, avoiding the teriible Sea of Enmity and the deadly boring Indifference Lake.

It is a game or a metaphor about friendship, that practice of contact among individuals that is somehow lost in our modern times, submerged as we are by love. Love is the articulation of relationships in our times. It was friendship at the times of the map. Love of this and love of that, as in I love peanut butter. As far as we know now also sex is a very visible articulation.

No love in Tendre. It might be in the Unknown Territories, together with Burning Passions and other prodigies of human fantasy. The other side of a Dangerous Sea.

Here is a description of the Geography of Tendre. There are 3 ways to reach it. Directly, following the river Inclination (Tendre Upon Inclination), the route that I personally prefer, but that is possible to follow successfully only if ...
On the left a road leads to Tender upon Reconnoisance. You do good things and you achieve what you aim for. Here is the name of the villages and their name translated. Complaisance Kindness, Soumission Submission, Petit Soins, Little Attentions, Assiduitè Attendance, Empressement willingness, Grand Service Great Service, Sensibilitè Sensitivity, Tendresse tenderness endearment, Obeissance Obedience

You will note that they are virtues. On the right there is an other road. It leads to Tendre sur Estime Tendre Upon Esteem. You might get there if you pass through Grand esprit Great spirit, Iolis Vers Nice Verses, Billet galant, gallant notes, Billet doux sweet notes, Sinceritè Sincerity, Grand Coeur Big Heart, Probitè Probity, Generositè Generosity, Exactitude Truth, punctuality, fidelity, Bontè Goodness. Here the virtues are even more evident. It is a good road, if I cannot descend the river of inclination I would rather go this way, it is more congenial to my ways. But attention. It is also easy to be lead astray, to the Indifference Lake if you let yourself being diverted to Negligence Negligence, Inesgalitè Inequality, Tiedeur Tepidity, Legeretè Levity, Oubli Oblivion. And the new friendship is for ever forgotten. Even worst if you happen to follow the path guarded by the rock of Pride. It passes through Indiscretion, the worst error in the developing of a New Friendship. I found interesting, while I engaged the talent of Google as translator, to record how it translated it: indiscreet, intrusive, inquisitive, prying, nosy, obtrusive, meddlesome, inquisitional, indelicate. This will bring to a sure disaster, passing by Perfidie perfidy, Medisance Slander, Mechancetè Wickedly, arriving to the Sea of Enmity where the little ship will loose sails and masts and be at the mercy of the terrible waves.

I got my copy of this map when I was taken to Paris by the brother of my mother after my apparently brilliant High School graduation. I bought the map on one of the quays. I was already quite interested in these matters and familiar with some of the implications and applications. Since then I have used this map to study approaches and even seduction strategies when I was much younger and eager, to understand the geometry of relations and the beauty of it when I started to realize what friendship can be and how sweet.

[Lemurion]

I have some friends on the Internet whom I've never met but I consider friends anyways. I have a friend of over two decades with whom I now only communicate over the internet. Are the relationships real? I think so.

They're not the same as physical friendships - but they're not that different from penpals of another era. Humans are good at finding ways to have relationships over all sorts of media - the internet is just another way to expand one's circle.

[beppe]

I think it's the moment for me to wrap up this thread, or at least try to draw some conclusive remarks. I said to myself this morning:

you weren't all that pleased with the way it turned out....
at the end yes, but the discussion was really tiny.
Exactly. Have to draw in the right people first, ...


Also I think the thread paid the price of having been started without much structure. I did not know, when I prepared the first post, what there was to learn and to discuss, I just knew that the theme fascinated and fascinates me, and I hoped to receive light and stimulating discussion. I got some, very much appreciated by the way. And maybe too much of a holy war against wife cheaters and family destroyers.

I got also a number of case testimonials, which although interesting by themselves were not always lifted to a more abstract plane of discussion.

So what did I learn that I did not know already?

Some of the stories had enough depth and real feelings and consequences attached to demonstrate that it might be that interpersonal relations in physical world and on the Internet are the same and the differences are just the obvious ones. This was also stated clearly. Not much. I would have liked a discussion on what there is at the next level of this.

Elfwreck obviously knows the aspects of this world, and as obviously, she did not find enough discussion material to stay in the thread longer than she did. This is clearly the shortcoming of my piloting the discussion. Well, it is a learning game.

I learned that there are not only the aspects and the problems of who wants to start and develop a relation in Internet, but the problems and the reactions of Internet itself. This was totally unexpected.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by beppe

Elfwreck obviously knows the aspects of this world, and as obviously, she did not find enough discussion material to stay in the thread longer than she did. This is clearly the shortcoming of my piloting the discussion. Well, it is a learning game.

I've been reading; I'm not up to arguing much about "online relationship" not being the same as "romantic interests hidden from spouse."

I learned that there are not only the aspects and the problems of who wants to start and develop a relation in Internet, but the problems and the reactions of Internet itself. This was totally unexpected.

Almost any meta-discussion about the internet draws a large collection of tangential ideas about how-the-internet-works, and there's usually a collection of "you don't understand; MY method is the one that really works" reactions.

People--almost all of us--are prone to forgetting that the internet is big. It was huge 8 years ago when I was active on several dozen Yahoogroups and a handful of Delphiforums and a couple of messageboards; it was huge five years before that when Usenet was popular at colleges; it certainly hasn't gotten any smaller.

Twitter's semi-seriously being considered as a possible backup to DNS, because enough computers are connected to it at any one time that it could, potentially, be used to re-create the entire structure of the internet if the big companies' servers go down.

The idea that all that tiny chatter is "not real relationships" is a limited and short-sighted view. They're not what a lot of us care about (I have a twitter account that I look at about every six months; I don't tweet), but obviously, a great many people enjoy the short comment exchanges. They're certainly a lot closer to real relationships than a lot of the talking I do at work.

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Twitter's semi-seriously being considered as a possible backup to DNS, because enough computers are connected to it at any one time that it could, potentially, be used to re-create the entire structure of the internet if the big companies' servers go down.

Not going OT but where did you hear that? That sounds like a very shaky proposition since Twitter averages only 80 million unique visitors in a good month; there are are approximately 125 million total registered domain names as of the end of November and that's just the US-based TLDs.

In both technical and real-world terms, the only thing that can do the job of a DNS server is a DNS server.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Not going OT but where did you hear that? That sounds like a very shaky proposition

Semi-seriously in the sense of, "hey, Twitter has a LOT of activity... umm... could we do something useful with all those connected computers?" Not in the sense of "here's an actual plan to do something DNS-related with Twitter users."

The impression I got was a conversation that went something like, "hah ha, twitter's so big and active it could do DNS hosting... nah, don't be silly... wait, Twitter is awfully big..." Nothing cohesive, just actual thought in the direction of possibilities.

In both technical and real-world terms, the only thing that can do the job of a DNS server is a DNS server.

There's a group working on distributed DNS: Dot-p2p. I am not a computer geek; I don't know how DNS works; I have no idea how feasible or not this is. I am just fascinated by the idea of "taking back the internet" from large telecommunications companies.

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Semi-seriously in the sense of, "hey, Twitter has a LOT of activity... umm... could we do something useful with all those connected computers?" Not in the sense of "here's an actual plan to do something DNS-related with Twitter users."

The impression I got was a conversation that went something like, "hah ha, twitter's so big and active it could do DNS hosting... nah, don't be silly... wait, Twitter is awfully big..." Nothing cohesive, just actual thought in the direction of possibilities.

Ahhhh, I gotcha now. My wife mentioned something similar along the lines of distributed computing e.g. SETI@Home, Folding@Home, BOINC, etc.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

There's a group working on distributed DNS: Dot-p2p. I am not a computer geek; I don't know how DNS works; I have no idea how feasible or not this is. I am just fascinated by the idea of "taking back the internet" from large telecommunications companies.

I just happened to be looking into that earlier this week, as well as dashcom which looks to take the actual naming process away from ICANN should they prove, as many people now suspect, of being incapable of neutral behavior.

You bring up a valid concern (especially in the U.S.), and your timing is uncanny; see this thread and read up on COICA for why.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

You bring up a valid concern (especially in the U.S.), and your timing is uncanny; see this thread and read up on COICA for why.

It's the COICA stuff that brought all this to my attention; it'd bounced around the discussion groups I'm in, and I'd mentioned not being much worried about it, because of the Cute Cats Theory of the Internet. Any big gov't (or any other group) attempt to shut down large "infringing" sites (whether infringing means copyright, trademark, sedition, hate speech, or state secrets) is going to be met with outcry from a lot of people who were using those resources to share pictures of their cats.

(Wikileaks was perhaps not used so much for cats. But the wikileaks *data* is still available, mirrored across a dozen filesharing sites & methods. Shutting down the central repository just means less gov't awareness of what's going on; the info's still being swapped around.)

Of course, given the Grokster & Pirate Bay rulings, it's fairly clear that gov'ts are more interested in punishing facilitators than people actually breaking the laws they claim are important. (It's so *hard* to track down individuals. And they're doing so little, each of them; easier to stomp on the people who help them find each other. Because that will certainly discourage anyone else from stepping up to help them find each other, right?)

I'm firmly in agreement that "the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it;" neither laws nor code is going to stop data exchange.

There *is* info that isn't available online--because the people who have it, are convinced of the importance of secrecy. The problem with gov't docs is that employees often aren't so much convinced about the importance of secrecy as they are afraid of the consequences of getting caught leaking info. And eventually, someone's going to take that risk.