Okay, I'm going to sound  like Carrie Bradshaw when I ask this, but can you fall in love with someone online or are you just falling in lust?  Is it not love even though you've talked to people on instant messengers and the phone, or is that lust too?  I'd LOVE to know, because right now I'm in love with someone, but I'm not sure if it's love or lust, since I haven't met them? 
I've been told several times that you can't fall in love online, that it's just lust.  You can only truly fall in love with someone if you meet them.  I don't agree with that, because I think you can fall in love with someone you've met online.  If you talk to them on instant messaging and talk to them on the phone you do have that attachement.  Yes, meeting them is a plus.  If you can't fall in love with people online then several people I know shouldn't be "in a relationship" if they've never met.  It just totally makes my head spin and it confuses me. 

It's hard to say - I've been in this situation a few times, but I never fell in "love" with someone until I really got to see who they were in person. That really makes a big difference. Their personality may be nice and tolerable over the net (and even over the phone), but if you meet them in real life and find you just don't feell anything for them, then you may regret whatever kind of love talk you had over the phone or the net. It's best to keep it platonic until that first meeting. That just seems the best way to do it in order to not have to live up to certain expectations.

I agree with what Ultraviolet said. There may be some parts of his personality that you may love but until you actually meet him, you don't know if there is a spark or not. And just a word of caution-people aren't always what they seem to be. All of us here can contest to that.




Cat

thenewwavechick, just my 2 cents, but there are different types of lust.  there is sexual (can I say this word on here) lust, and and there can be a strong desire for a relationship, friend, companion. It can be easy to get attached and really like someone online or phone, but I would say that you gotta meet and relate in person to label it as love. That is my own opinion. Also, online a person can be more expressive than in person, sometimes easier for me to write what I want to say, or what I feel, than to say it. I would say, don't be hasty. As the old song goes "fools rush in, where wise men never go, but wise men never fall in love, so how are they to know". Take your time, listen to all these wise women on here. You're smart to ask. good luck 

I totally agree with Cat and Krissy....very wise words.  I will tell you that I have met some real wackos online (which I totally regret)...however, I met my husband online. I kind of met him through a friend, they would talk online...and she introduced me to him...and we talked and just so happened to live in the same town...and we met and started hanging out...and the rest goes from there. You have to be really cautious with online people...but that doesn't mean that they are all crazies...I mean, we have a bunch of us here on this website that seem pretty darn normal....I think! :D ;D

For Me It's a little bit of both.I love my girlfriend and I love her for who she is but I guess I lust over her body.You could say it's both. ;D

I totally agree with Cat and Krissy....very wise words.  I will tell you that I have met some real wackos online (which I totally regret)...however, I met my husband online. I kind of met him through a friend, they would talk online...and she introduced me to him...and we talked and just so happened to live in the same town...and we met and started hanging out...and the rest goes from there. You have to be really cautious with online people...but that doesn't mean that they are all crazies...I mean, we have a bunch of us here on this website that seem pretty darn normal....I think! :D ;D



Who you calling normal?  :D :D :D :D :D




Cat

Who you calling normal?  :D :D :D :D :D




Cat


haha that's exactly what I was going to say!!!

I totally agree with Cat and Krissy....very wise words.  I will tell you that I have met some real wackos online (which I totally regret)...however, I met my husband online. I kind of met him through a friend, they would talk online...and she introduced me to him...and we talked and just so happened to live in the same town...and we met and started hanging out...and the rest goes from there. You have to be really cautious with online people...but that doesn't mean that they are all crazies...I mean, we have a bunch of us here on this website that seem pretty darn normal....I think! :D ;D



*Stops loading up white unmarked van with candy*

W--what? Oh.. yeah.. normal.

I lust more because I'm more attracted to her sexy body. ;)

Well, there is a possibility that I might be meeting one of my online friends, but it won't be until possibly the spring or summer.  He's going on a road trip and he's planning on stopping here.  He was supposed to come last year, but he got sick and cancelled his trip. 

First of all, I don't see how you can lust after a person if you've never seen them...

lust
n.

  1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
  2.
        1. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
        2. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.
  3. Obsolete. Pleasure; relish.

A strange thing to consider... Definition 2.1 makes it seem like Lust is just a synonym for Love... Anyway, moving on.






I think that a fitting idea to ponder upon concerning this issue is "Which person really is the person? Online or off?" This sounds confusing at first...but everyone is different online, for the simple fact that there is a backspace key. Take me, for example. I don't talk like this in real life (most of the time), but online, I can, because I have time to think about what I'm saying. I'm still thinking of everything that I'm saying, only I don't have to think about it while I'm saying it. However, when I'm offline, I don't say much, since I find it hard to come up with the words that I want to use in order to describe exactly what I'm thinking. Thus, the reason why I pause so much while I'm talking, as some of you noted during my voice clips.  :P

So who am I, really? The quiet, offline Justin, or the more outgoing, online Justin?

^ very true, Justin. I met an online friend (who eventually became a love interest) and when we got together, the talking aspect was okay - but it just seemed he was limited with what he liked to talk about (think about someone who likes to talk about motorcycles all the time - this was the same kind of thing - but just a different topic). It was really hard to keep conversations going when this one topic was always the "core" of everything in his universe. It drove me bananas. So, I ended up breaking things up and he has been somewhat devilishly civil with me since then, but I know he thinks I broke up with him to be with someone else.. and you know what... I am rambling, but ya get my point, I hope.

The point being that sometimes your online personas can chnage once you meet in person. The man I'm with now I envision as someone who I feel truly at home with. Yes, we have our disagreements, but at least we TALK to eachother on the same level.  ;D

Yeah, you can find Love on the internet, as long as the person is genuine. However, you may find a different person in real life. The internet has that interesting affect... and so does love. It brings out a different person.

I think Lust exists online just as it does offline.. I mean, it's a different kind, but you can still feel sexual desire from seeing pictures instead of a tangible being.

I'm actually in love with a girl online right now.  It's not a lustful thing at all, although I'm sure lust can exist on the Internet.

I'm actually in love with a girl online right now.


It's Dom, isn't it?

It's Dom, isn't it?


;D

I"ll just say this.  There is a person I've met online...I just sigh every time I read what's written....where were you when i was looking for someone!
soo frustrating.

Lust

Lust:  That feeling of "gotta be with so-and-so" that lasts about two years.
Love:  That feeling of "might as well stick with so-and-so" that may (or may not) last longer.

There's plenty of good evidence to believe that lust between two partners is an evolutionary advantage.

The argument for the evolutionary advantage of lust is reasonably straightforward:  It's how complete strangers get together, and stay together for just long enough for mating (1-3 months), gestation (9 months), and the raising/weaning of offspring (ca. 12 months) to take place. Offspring whose mothers have a second hunter/provider (typically the male, who's as "in l(ust) with" the female as the female is "in l(ust) with" the male) during gestation and the first 12 months after birth, stand a better chance of living to adulthood. 

More often than not, the female mates with a male who's the better (genetic) choice, and shares the costs in raising the offspring with the male who's the better provider.  In modern culture, this is typified by the relationship involving the female that  mates with the "hot biker dude" unbeknownst to her "stable boring accountant husband who's a good provider".

There's little evidence to explain the survival advantage of  love:  And yet -- given the evidence for the existence of love, it's reasonable to suppose that it not only exists, but that it must confer some survival advantage.

I'd hesitate to guess that iin either females or males, long-term pair bonding increases the possibility that genetic material can be passed down more than once. (Two mates who are "in love" are likely to produce offspring with the same survival advantage as described above, but they can do so more than once, whereas being "in lust" typically lasts only long enough to produce one offspring.)

Very probably, homo sapiens (and for that matter, none of the other great apes) haven't been around long enough for evolution to determine which strategy is optimal.  If we survive another million or two years, we might find out.

In the meantime, as evolution has yet to select for the better of the two options, your mileage may vary:  as a reminder, I'd remind everyone reading this that neither you your your partner need be slaves to your genes.  You might even want to consider walking away from the whole game and watching from the sidelines. 

No matter what you choose... good luck.

Lust:  That feeling of "gotta be with so-and-so" that lasts about two years.
Love:  That feeling of "might as well stick with so-and-so" that may (or may not) last longer.



What a very sad view of love you have, 'might as well stick with', poor you.

What a very sad view of love you have, 'might as well stick with', poor you.

Knowing that the sky is blue due to Rayleigh scattering doesn't make a blue sky any less pleasant to look at. 

As for love, the theory that "the intense feelings that lead almost inevitably to reproduction tend to last only as long as necessary to produce offspring" is one of the few reasonable explanations that human behavioral ecologists have come up with as to why primate pair bonds tend to change over time.  It probably confers some survival advantage to the offspring to have two providers, even past the age of weaning, but it's just as likely that it increases in the odds that the male gets to reproduce more than once, while ensuring a steadier food supply for the female, regardless of who she actually reproduces with.  (For a good time, google around for the studies that correlate testosterone levels in human males with facial shape, and the correlation between "what kind of man a woman finds attractive" and ovulation cycles in human females.)

On love, the only species whose opinions we can ask is homo sapiens.  We've got a pretty big sample set.  A lot of humans have pair-bonded and observed that the love they feel for each other changes after the first couple of years.  The effects reported, and time period during which "love" changes from eros to something more resembling phileo and/or agape, is approximately the same, and it does not appear to be a function of whether or not the pair has mated, let alone reproduced. 

Love exists.  It's very pleasant, and it's pleasant for a very good reason:  it encourages the sort of pair bonds that tend to lead to reproduction.  But how it's experienced changes over time, and it changes for the very same reasons, and we're only just beginning to learn that it does so in ways that both the lover and the beloved ought to be aware of before their brains start writing checks their genes haven't been willing to cash for the past 2-5 million years. 

Lust:  That feeling of "gotta be with so-and-so" that lasts about two years.
Love:  That feeling of "might as well stick with so-and-so" that may (or may not) last longer.



That's not love, that's resignation. 

That's not love, that's resignation. 


It's as close to love many of us will get...

Love IS possible. Highly uncertain, but possible.

Lust is almost inevitable. May not last too long, but almost always happens.

Be cautious in who you choose.
I made the mistake of meeting someone from the Internet, and I nearly had to go into the Witness Protection program.
She claimed to be a Joan Jett impersonator, with a taste for heavier men, a sense of humor, and into certain sexual practices I am very vulnerable to.
Turns out she was a 6'3", African American woman, who had been recently instituitonalized for schizophrenia. She stalked me for a year, and I finally had to leave the state, and relocate something along the lines of "Midnight Express", without killing anybody.

So, please! I say again: be cautious. You never know who's who, or what is.

;D


I'll take your smiley laugh as a strong 'yes'.

Knowing that the sky is blue due to Rayleigh scattering doesn't make a blue sky any less pleasant to look at. 

As for love, the theory that "the intense feelings that lead almost inevitably to reproduction tend to last only as long as necessary to produce offspring" is one of the few reasonable explanations that human behavioral ecologists have come up with as to why primate pair bonds tend to change over time.  It probably confers some survival advantage to the offspring to have two providers, even past the age of weaning, but it's just as likely that it increases in the odds that the male gets to reproduce more than once, while ensuring a steadier food supply for the female, regardless of who she actually reproduces with.  (For a good time, google around for the studies that correlate testosterone levels in human males with facial shape, and the correlation between "what kind of man a woman finds attractive" and ovulation cycles in human females.)

On love, the only species whose opinions we can ask is homo sapiens.  We've got a pretty big sample set.  A lot of humans have pair-bonded and observed that the love they feel for each other changes after the first couple of years.  The effects reported, and time period during which "love" changes from eros to something more resembling phileo and/or agape, is approximately the same, and it does not appear to be a function of whether or not the pair has mated, let alone reproduced. 

Love exists.  It's very pleasant, and it's pleasant for a very good reason:  it encourages the sort of pair bonds that tend to lead to reproduction.  But how it's experienced changes over time, and it changes for the very same reasons, and we're only just beginning to learn that it does so in ways that both the lover and the beloved ought to be aware of before their brains start writing checks their genes haven't been willing to cash for the past 2-5 million years. 
Good Grief..............

Lust is a physical/psychological attraction/response.  It takes us over and it's the feeling that is in charge.  It's great to give into it...for awhile.  But it doesn't last and often doesn't leave much when it leaves (if the relationship is based on that).

Love is a decision.  A purposeful effort.  In a lifetime relationship(like marriage), one would hope that there's some lust involved...sexual chemistry (though some people might not care so much)....but it's the decision to support, encourage, become vulnerable to, struggle with a person that signifies love.  Love is active over the long term and despite the other person's faults or mistakes.  Unfortunately, in our culture we portray lust as if it was love and I think that's one reason for so many lonely people and failed marriages.

As far as love through the internet.  I think it's possible but agree with the caution.  I have fallen in love with someone on the internet -- in a very legitimate way.  But Internet relationships are a bit deceiving even when they're honest because there's lots that never gets in the way -- mostly the day to day issues that come up because you have to actually interact in a person's life more directly -- what I mean is, you choose when to come on-line.  You can say "Oops, gotta go!" if you don't want to continue a conversation.  You can be gone for three days and show up again.  It's a relationship with alot of convenience -- and that doesn't necessarily translate when the relationship is brought into real time.

It's Dom, isn't it?


You've got it backwards... I'm in love with her.

You can fall in love online . . . however, you can also get very idealistic too.

You can fall in love online . . . however, you can also get very idealistic too.


Yeah.. you don't really see the whole person and you romantify them more then you would a real person.

Yeah.. you don't really see the whole person and you romantify them more then you would a real person.


If you have pictures of the person involved and you post each other discussing thoughts/views and feelings, it's certainly enough to fall in love with someone. However, what isn't there (the chemistry, the physical side, the voice if you haven't reached the point of calling each other) is where the idealism takes over and fills in the gaps.

I'm more involved with her physically,emotionally,and sexually.That's both. :)

Well, I categorise must common human motivations into two categories: instinct or emotions. Lust is instinct, love is an emotion. What is the difference? I don't really know... Emotions are easier to ignore... But emotions can be used to control your instincts.

I wish that I had neither  :-\\

Yeah.. you don't really see the whole person and you romantify them more then you would a real person.


That's very true. My last relationship was very much like that. I was trying to be more sensible, but he was building things up before they ever occurred. In the end, I think I let him down when we met because I wasn't as mushy and lovey as he hoped I be. It's hard to be so if you've just met them the first time - no matter how long you've talked for years online.