I completely agree with you about balance, and everything else. This wouldn't be much of a life if we didn't have a world outside of cyberspace. Could we have anything interesting to say if we didn't have interesting lives? Would we seem interesting, or sympathetic, or genuine if we weren't truly that way? People obviously can assume personas designed to deceive, but can they keep these up over weeks or months without letting hints of their true personality slip? I don't claim to know the answer but I know there are people I like in this computer suburb and people I don't. The people I like, I figure I would like whether I met them face to face or here.
And I really enjoy hearing differing male points of view, and being able to talk to men without worrying about the sexual dynamics of the situation. I think "When Harry Met Sally" is correct in its premise that it is difficult to be "only" friends with members of the opposite sex. Our own biology is constantly working against us in these situations and its the physical proximity that makes things dangerous. Here, the attraction is mental and there are no proximity issues, a perfect environment.
As far as the "reality" of relationships here are concerned, how "real" are most friendships? I have friends that I know I cannot discuss emotional topics with; some I know don't like to be imposed on for favors; some who I never physically see anymore but with whom I keep in touch by e-mail, etc. All, I think, have equal measures of reality as affection of one sort or another binds us together. I can feel affection for people I have never physically met, my goodness, I feel affection for characters in books! Some great relationships were started through letters, real relationships, magnificent relationships (C.S. Lewis) so I think to limit oneself to a narrow definition of what is "real" is unnecessarily confining.
I have gone on much longer than I originally intended, but the ideas you raised were so interesting.
Alexa |
