love on the internet is it possible?

I think it's possible i haven't found it but it is possible. I've seen several hook-ups via the web. Like this couple i know from the one of the forum i used to hang out at. The girl moved to england to be with the guy. He's from their. Another couple i know who met on the web just had a kid and i know this forum has it own web couple in ska and Mem.

^ Yea...but they've met each other.

yeah but most of them met on the net then in real life.

It's 2010. Meeting someone off the internet is not as skeezy as it used to be. Especially in our demographic.

Dude...it's totally possible. HOWEVER...since most of the internet is in TEXT...if you want to find a nice girl, you need to work on your spelling/grammar, fer realsies. Not a put down...just some sage advice.

That's not what I'm saying, though. They met each other. I'd say transcending platonic can only be done meeting face-to-face.

Silent K wrote:It's 2010. Meeting someone off the internet is not as skeezy as it used to be. Especially in our demographic.

Dude...it's totally possible. HOWEVER...since most of the internet is in TEXT...if you want to find a nice girl, you need to work on your spelling/grammar, fer realsies. Not a put down...just some sage advice.

i wasn't thinking of myself but duly noted.

I met Andy on the internet. We've been together for 7 years.

We talked for probably a month before we actually met up.

I second the spelling thing though.

BlueMaxx wrote:That's not what I'm saying, though. They met each other. I'd say transcending platonic can only be done meeting face-to-face.

I don't agree at all. Take Kristin and Kerouac for example: They were totally into eachother....and dare I say...a couple before ever meeting in person...amiright, folks?

Seriously though...if you talk on the internet...which will more than likely move to talking on the phone....if the connection is there, and all that's missing is the in-person face-to-face contact (which is important, no doubt), there's no reason to deny that connection.

It happens.

Silent K wrote:

BlueMaxx wrote:That's not what I'm saying, though. They met each other. I'd say transcending platonic can only be done meeting face-to-face.

I don't agree at all. Take Kristin and Kerouac for example: They were totally into eachother....and dare I say...a couple before ever meeting in person...amiright, folks?

Seriously though...if you talk on the internet...which will more than likely move to talking on the phone....if the connection is there, and all that's missing is the in-person face-to-face contact (which is important, no doubt), there's no reason to deny that connection.

It happens.

my thoughts exactly. To me it starts on the web, then to phone, then face to face and moving to where the other person is or visa versa.

I met my wife on JDate.com and we've been together since 2002 and we've been married for almost 6 years.

It does happen, but you do have to be careful. I was decieved by a girl that told me she was in her early 20's had medical issues and lived with her brothers. We talked on the phone, shared pictures, etc, etc...

One day she called me up crying like crazy and revealed that the pictures she sent me were not of her, she was in her 30's had no medical issues and was married with 2 kids and wanted to give it all up to be with me.

Ummmmm.........no.

C's Lady wrote:But we continued our phone relationship. We would watch the same TV shows, play internet games together, even buy or rent the same dvds and do our best to time the starting just right. We even ate together on the phone. What awesome nerds we are!! So that kept up for like 2 years, and finally Mr C got the opportunity to move here to be with me. Yes, we are going through some rocky times right now, but I have no regrets, and I love him enough to keep working at it.

When I first heard that Kerouac and Kristin watched movies together over the phone, I thought it was kinda gay...but it really works. You're experiencing the same thing at the same time, and even though you can't be in the same place, it's still a connection and time spent.

I'm glad to hear you and the Mr. are working on things. I hope it's what you both want, and I hope he keeps his fucking nose clean for the rest of eternity. (Love you, Mr. C)

Denim wrote:It does happen, but you do have to be careful. I was decieved by a girl that told me she was in her early 20's had medical issues and lived with her brothers. We talked on the phone, shared pictures, etc, etc...

One day she called me up crying like crazy and revealed that the pictures she sent me were not of her, she was in her 30's had no medical issues and was married with 2 kids and wanted to give it all up to be with me.

Ummmmm.........no.

That's fucked, Juan. There are still skeezes out there. I'm sure you THOUGHT you were being careful...but just the same...she could've lied to you like that in person, and might have given the chance.

There's plenty of ways to cut the bullshit. There are so many outlets online to get to know someone before getting into anything...forums, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

I mean, really...internet hookups have a stigma...but is there really a better way to meet someone that might be just right for you? Previously, the best ways to meet someone would be going to clubs/bars, the workplace, chance meetings, or through family and friends. With the internet, your options are limitless...you're not confined to the finite number of people within your immediate reach. Why should I go to a bar and hope that 1 out of the 100 females that are there is to my liking...and then pray to God that she'll talk to me, when instead, I can befriend someone on the internet that has similar interests, tastes, and who I connect well with, cultivate that relationship, and then go from there?

Silent K wrote:I mean, really...internet hookups have a stigma...but is there really a better way to meet someone that might be just right for you? Previously, the best ways to meet someone would be going to clubs/bars, the workplace, chance meetings, or through family and friends. With the internet, your options are limitless...you're not confined to the finite number of people within your immediate reach. Why should I go to a bar and hope that 1 out of the 100 females that are there is to my liking...and then pray to God that she'll talk to me, when instead, I can befriend someone on the internet that has similar interests, tastes, and who I connect well with, cultivate that relationship, and then go from there?

not only that the net is all about inward beauty and not so much on the outward. The outward is just frosting on the cake.

kidspider2099 wrote:
not only that the net is all about inward beauty and not so much on the outward.

What internet are you using?

Foxy, you're fucking KILLING it today.

Silent K wrote:
I don't agree at all. Take Kristin and Kerouac for example: They were totally into eachother....and dare I say...a couple before ever meeting in person...amiright, folks?

Seriously though...if you talk on the internet...which will more than likely move to talking on the phone....if the connection is there, and all that's missing is the in-person face-to-face contact (which is important, no doubt), there's no reason to deny that connection.

It happens.

How do you disagree? You just proved my point.

Platonic can mean a strong connection, like with friendships, but not intimate. Intimacy's something you kind of have to do personally. For if you don't, it'd just be to the extent of your imagination that you're romantically involved with someone from what little you're given from their typed words. And that's not real. You have to experience someone in person to truly fall in love with them. Hence the mutuality of the latter part of that proverb.

Not saying there is anything wrong with finding someone over the internet at all, but how far would their relationships have gone if they never met? They'd all be buddies still.

Foxy wrote:

kidspider2099 wrote:
not only that the net is all about inward beauty and not so much on the outward.

What internet are you using?

apparently a candy coated one.

BlueMaxx wrote:

Silent K wrote:
I don't agree at all. Take Kristin and Kerouac for example: They were totally into eachother....and dare I say...a couple before ever meeting in person...amiright, folks?

Seriously though...if you talk on the internet...which will more than likely move to talking on the phone....if the connection is there, and all that's missing is the in-person face-to-face contact (which is important, no doubt), there's no reason to deny that connection.

It happens.

How do you disagree? You just proved my point.

Platonic can mean a strong connection, like with friendships, but not intimate. Intimacy's something you kind of have to do personally. For if you don't, it'd just be to the extent of your imagination that you're romantically involved with someone from what little you're given from their typed words. And that's not real. You have to experience someone in person to truly fall in love with them. Hence the mutuality of the latter part of that proverb.

Not saying there is anything wrong with finding someone over the internet at all, but how far would their relationships have gone if they never met? They'd all be buddies still.

How did I prove your point? My point was...Kristin and Kerouac were well past platonic before ever even meeting. All of my relationships began on the internet, then on the phone, then in person...you best believe they were not just platonic prior to the face-to-face meeting. There can be sexual attraction and chemistry without ever being in the same state. That's the opposite of platonic.

I may have mispoke when I said "all of my relationships"...but it's complicated. Still...the point holds true.

Silent K wrote:

BlueMaxx wrote:

Silent K wrote:
I don't agree at all. Take Kristin and Kerouac for example: They were totally into eachother....and dare I say...a couple before ever meeting in person...amiright, folks?

Seriously though...if you talk on the internet...which will more than likely move to talking on the phone....if the connection is there, and all that's missing is the in-person face-to-face contact (which is important, no doubt), there's no reason to deny that connection.

It happens.

How do you disagree? You just proved my point.

Platonic can mean a strong connection, like with friendships, but not intimate. Intimacy's something you kind of have to do personally. For if you don't, it'd just be to the extent of your imagination that you're romantically involved with someone from what little you're given from their typed words. And that's not real. You have to experience someone in person to truly fall in love with them. Hence the mutuality of the latter part of that proverb.

Not saying there is anything wrong with finding someone over the internet at all, but how far would their relationships have gone if they never met? They'd all be buddies still.

How did I prove your point? My point was...Kristin and Kerouac were well past platonic before ever even meeting. All of my relationships began on the internet, then on the phone, then in person...you best believe they were not just platonic prior to the face-to-face meeting. There can be sexual attraction and chemistry without ever being in the same state. That's the opposite of platonic.

yeah it can happen.


When i said i hadn't found love on the lack. I've tried with little success. I did meet a girl on line. We started with emails, then letters, then, phone calls, did meet eventually but we ended things cause she was nuts.

Dude...they're all nuts. You just have to find your right kind of crazy.

Sometimes, I just wanna fuck the internet.

I've dated/slept with quite a few girls that I met on the net, sites like nexopia, facebook were prime for e-mingling. Once they met me they usually wanted to bone me by the end of the night.