NEW MESSAGE BOARD TOPIC!!! (Comicality) Oct 30,99
Okay, here goes, and be HONEST, cause I'm curious. You talk to someone that you haven't met, maybe on the net, maybe through email, or snail mail, or phone calls, whatever. And in them you find everything you're looking for in a mate. You fall in love because you know everything about them. But when you meet...maybe they're not as cute as you thought. Maybe they have a handicap, maybe of a different race, maybe blind, maybe deaf, maybe effeminate, maybe overweight, maybe underweight, or too short, or too tall, older or younger than you thought, too hairy, or any number of things that you didn't expect.
The question is...
Does it really matter?
What changes?
Could you still love them, or does the physical attraction mean more than you originally thought?
Remember, be honest, this isn't a test or a way to show that you're a 'wordly and accepting person'. You are each entitled to an opinion, and I hope we can all respect that. The board is open!
My response, 11/15/99 – never posted.
The word ‘love’ is like the word ‘friend’. I don’t know what you mean by it when used out of context.
A fascinating question came up Saturday on C’s BB. I tried to respond at several points, as I saw that you did also (sure is nice seeing your name come up, it makes the sometimes bizarre and impersonal Web a much friendlier place). I’ve returned back to the board several times since then to see how the responses were progressing. Wow! The concophony of responses. I thought C’s proviso was quite simple and to the point:
Proviso:
1) You talk to someone that you haven't met, maybe on the net, maybe through email, ...
2) ...you find everything you're looking for in a mate. You fall in love...
3) But when you meet... maybe they're not as cute as you thought – fat, hairy, too tall, short, etc.
Problem statement:
1) Does it (their physical appearance) really matter?
2) What changes?
3) Could you still love them, or does the physical attraction mean more than you originally thought?
Condensed, the proviso involves falling in love with someone that you’ve never met in person simply via intercourse on the Net and then meeting that person in real life for the first time; nothing more. Straying from the topic gets us into a discussion about human interactions that mankind has written about for, what, four thousand years. Greater minds have developed entire philosophies grounded in this subject. I don’t want to develop a new philosophy, just want to explore the problem without getting lost.
Assumption: I’m not going to consider all the different forms of love, just one, and I consider it the highest form and the most difficult to achieve as it includes, as sub-sets, all the other forms of love. It seems clear that the proviso is referring to the Love wherein you “find everything you're looking for in a mate.” Hence, it’s the kind that fulfills an intrinsic need; the kind of fulfillment that, once experienced, you’re sure that you can’t survive again without.
The most important issue in addressing the problem statement is the definition of this Love. I choose to define it as follows:
My Love is that essential someone, that amigo, beloved, soul mate,
1 The one who resides with me, inside of me and in spite of me,
2 The one who completes me,
3 The one who is an essential part of who I am,
4 The one who I admire and put above and before myself in all things,
5 The one who accepts me and loves me in spite of my numerous failings,
6 The one who forgives me when I err and picks me up when I fall,
7 The one who is always by my side even when we are apart,
8 The one who fills my dreams and assures the promises of tomorrow,
9 The one who talks to me and who I understand,
10 The one who I talk to and who understands me,
11 The one who loves me and admires me in return,
12 The one who kisses me for no reason at all.
13 The one who smiles at me as I approach, who embraces me and welcomes me back,
14 The one who I cause to laugh and contribute to his happiness,
15 The one who challenges me, encourages me, cheers for me,
16 The one who never takes me for granted,
17 The one who tends to my needs when I am sick or depressed,
18 The one who heals me and I him,
19 The one who is a part of me and I a part of him,
20 The one who allows me to be unique and admires my uniqueness,
21 The one who I fulfill,
22 The one who is the only object of my fantasy,
23 The one who makes my fantasy irrelevant because he is so much more,
24 The one who I hold near, who holds me near, the one who sleeps with me,
25 The one with whom, communication has no barrier,
26 The one with whom, I share my time, my happiness, my sorrow,
27 The one whose touch makes me shiver inside and too, when I touch him,
28 The one whose smell is unique to him and I drink him in as the finest wine,
29 The one whose taste warms my soul and my tongue can never get enough of him,
30 The one whose problem is also mine,
31 The one without whom I am no longer a whole being,
32 The one without whom I would shrivel and die within,
33 The one without whom the world would be without color and purpose,
34 The one without whom I exist in the physical sense alone,
35 The one without whom the future is a never ending winter.
36 Us. Together, we give our lives a meaning.***
Whew! There’s got to be more. Can you think of some others to add to the description?
This said, and in full consideration of the restriction to full communion set in the proviso, the next step might be for me to identify the ‘quality’ of these elements (not the ‘validity’, as I’ll save that for later) in light of the ‘filtering’ imposed by the various forms of communion.
Note: by filters, I’m referring to the restrictions and barriers to pure communion imposed by different methods of communication.
Communication: intercourse, a commingling or intimate connection or dealings between persons, communion between individuals in it’s highest form.
Filters:
The ‘me’ filter – in as much as ‘I’ am the receiver and sole interpreter of you, my fears, expectations, pre-conditioning, and the CONTEXT of the day or CONTEXT of the moment shape my perception of you and distort my interpretation of what you’ve just said to me.
The ‘time’ filter – as our understanding and perceptions are context sensitive, that which I interpret in today’s context will differ from my interpretation of the same thing in tomorrow’s context – or yesterday’s context. Time also distorts our memory of the past partially because we remember events but cannot remember the subtleties of context in to a sufficient level of detail. Hence, my memory of what HAD been said is flavored by whether I was happy, angry or sad at that time.
Methods of communication:
The written word – lowest level of communion, interpretation with nearly the highest density filter of what you are attempting to convey to me and of what I perceive of you. Communion is confused by mental constructs – fantasies. ‘You’ become much of who ‘I’ am in terms of how you fulfill my needs, both physical and emotional. You cannot challenge the written word in the current context, it stands as you’ve interpreted it. When an answer is received to a challenge, the context has changed and the time filter distorts the interpretation. Great care must be exercised in achieving the original meaning of the message.
The spoken word – in most regards, is much better than the written word, interpretation enhanced by intonation. Here, emphasis that he places on words and phrases, pauses between words, pauses before a reply, the ‘ah’s, um’s , all these communicate thoughts, ideas and your state of being more effectively and reduce the degree by which the ‘me filter’ distorts the communion. I try to imitate the spoken word, while writing, when I insert ‘...’ pauses, purposely misspell words, use idioms, quote marks, smiley faces, capitalize words, emphasize with underlines and bold font, etcetera. "I lov ya, bud" doesn't necessarlily carry the same connotation as "I Love you"
Face-to-face – interpretation enhanced by facial expression, body language, intonation and location. A frown, a smile, the crook of his mouth, teeth, tongue, the focus of his eyes, the depth and length of eye contact, tears; his hands, the tilt of his shoulders, a hand shake, a touch, a kiss, a hug, a shout, a whisper, the distance between our faces, he’s standing up, he’s sitting down, he’s shaving, he’s just awakened, all aid in communicating intent and better define your state of being. Problems with context are reduced but still present. The ‘me’ filter is still very powerful, but less opaque. Maybe I become aware of ‘me’ in the course of discussion and strive to move beyond it toward the ‘you’.
Love - the highest level of communion, filtering is at it’s lowest level. ‘I am you, you are me, we are one.’ I strive to know you because you pervade my existence. I consume and am consumed. I’ve never been more aware of my physical being, the gnawing in my stomach when you are away, the weight on my chest when you appear; the heat of the skin of my neck that grows, enveloping my ears, my forehead, my cheeks; the sudden loss of one hundred pounds when we kiss; a full out of body experience when we make love. I can fly!
I’m reminded of a common expression when we try to express our admiration or confusion. The phrase is “ words fail me”. For lovers face-to-face, words are not required. I can express my thoughts through a simple smile, an embrace, a kiss. I can express my self by simply burying my face into the place you provide under your chin. I can express myself by simply lying beside you in your embrace or you in mine.
In light of this compellation, I’ll try to address the first question, ‘does their physical appearance really matter?’
Answer: Of course it matters! The underlying assumption for the following is that you meet all of the conditions set down above. I have already made you my choice for my soul mate for the rest of my life. You fulfill most of the 36 of the conditions of love set down above and not long after you will fulfill at least all and likely more.
It matters because the ‘real life you’ is juxtaposed my mental image of you; my fantasy, my construct, and the image I have been building, both on a conscious and subconscious level throughout the course of time that it took to develop our relationship on the Web. During the time of ‘construction’ and due to the lack of verbal, but more, the lack of face-to face communion, the filters were their most opaque. The ‘me’ filter dominated and constructed a ‘favored’ image that, on the conscious level may be recognized as improbable and maybe foolish, but on other levels of consciousness, it satisfies my most hidden desires and targets for fulfillment.
As for me, the approach to the time of a physical, real life meeting will be fraught with anxiety. My first glimpse of you and you’re glimpse of me will be written in our faces, stamped on our soul – if only for a moment before the conscious mind regains control. That first moment tells me that meeting eye-to-eye makes a difference.
***Note: As I see it, the moment you meet this person is a moment of truth. All those filters you mentioned project an image that is incomplete. I think in a way what the Internet does is comparable to light casting the shadow of an object on a wall. What exactly this shadow looks like is determined by the object that casts the shadow and, most importantly, which angle the object assumes towards the light. You can look at the shadow as long as you want, if you cannot see the object that is casting it, you will never know what it looks like. Assuming the object is not static, but in movement, you might be able to gain an understanding of it’s form, just by looking at the shadow. But you will NEVER be able to figure out it’s texture, it’s color, it’s material, it’s smell. Your imagination will fill these hidden attributes with what you consciously or subconsciously would LIKE them to be. The real object might surprise and even disappoint you. More importantly, you might find a beauty in the shadow that is not contained within the object, but only in the shadow itself, that only exists through the projection of the object. But you may like the object anyway, once you see it.***
The second question: What changes?
Answer: When we meet for the first time, you may be beautiful exceeding my fantasy, you may be quite different but still satisfying because my fantasy is easily ‘morphed’. I could simply go temporarily insane, through my arms into the air, run to you, embrace you, tears my flow down . It may scare the hell out of you. Your facade will react to me, you’ll smile and embrace me if only to minimize your embarrassment and to hide your disappointment. You’ll do this too, for me. You too may be overcome with joy, no pretence now, well display our joy and love to one another.
You may not satisfy my fantasy of the ‘physical’ you, at all. But, regardless of how your persona fulfills my fantasy of you, time will bring about changes. My experience of you will be enhanced by the many visual clues that you send me via face-to-face communication. You will become ‘you’ making my fantasy irrelevant if I fall deeper in love or more relevant as I begin to recognize the differences from my mental construct of my personal Adonis.
Your physical appearance matters because of my natural requirement for physical and sexual fulfillment. All of those magnificent and essential qualities of touch, kiss, embrace, arousal, massage, intercourse, and oral fulfillment depends upon you. What you represent in this regard at the moment of our meeting depends upon how much importance I place on the physical aspects of my love for you (my need to share ‘me’ with you) or that I place on your love for me (my need to experience your love for me). This can all change, the emphasis my redirect, reorient as we begin to absorb each other. Time here plays a positive role allowing us to discover the many secrets that we’ve hidden while communicating on the Web.
Note: You are meeting a new (the whole) person, only that you have a lot of hopes and assumptions attached to them. You are in a way very prejudice. Now the process begins in finding out which of your assumptions were right and which wrong. And what this changes or doesn’t for you.
The third question: Could you still love them, or does the physical attraction mean more than you originally thought?
Answer: No answer, this is something that we must both discover for ourselves. If the question were, ‘Is it POSSIBLE that I could still love them?’, I can answer with a definite yes providing the ‘chemistry’ is there. Chemistry?... It means ‘IF the chemistry is working. Isn’t that what I’ve been discussing all along – multiple needs, multiple fulfillment, communion, filtering. Isn’t this Chemistry?
Chuck
*** I am indebted to Hal for reading and commenting on this little thesis. Several of his suggestions have been added... especially his alegory of the shadows.