Excellent, Raven! That dismally low success rate ought to give serious pause to people who think they are ready to alter the very fabric of their lives and that they're deeply in love after a few weeks' correspondence. They had been pray to the gods of fortune, because they're going to need an astounding amount of luck, in my opinion.
Of course, the fact that you and your "love correspondent" lasted several months greatly improves the odds that you'll hit it off in person. I think they call that "pre-selection bias" or something...?
Thanks, V. I have to say, I didn't have high expectations, but I was very surprised. These are good songs that could easily receive play-time on the radio. Kind of a mix of James Taylor and Phil Collins?
Nice seeing you around, my friend. You know, I should confess that I've been keeping tabs on you a bit. First, I took note that you don't like hand-holding (I thought that was generally true about you, but I may be misremembering). Now not wanting to share a bed....
Exactly the opposite of me, it seems, and yet...not do dissimilar when I think about my sleeping style, which traditionally has involved "my space" - that is, not a lot of cuddling or contact during the night, if any. And lately I've chosen to reconsider that preference, and have decided - with this person at least - that I in fact do want, even crave, nightly contact. Go figure. And of course I like hand-holding, but only when it means something to me (again, it means something with the person now in my life).
So, I guess I'm curious, T, for starters, what do you find objectionable about sleeping with someone?
Funny, when I call a girl "hot," that usually means I want to spend my life with her. Of course, I don't have a lot of precedent to go by, since I've only called one lady "hot" (to her face) in the last forty years...
Agreed, Shed (not about the idiot part ). As I've said so many times before, 99% of a relationship consists of communication, and if there isn't chemistry there it won't exist elsewhere; and if it IS there, it almost must exist in the physical realm (assuming you have a good idea from several photos what the other looks like...it is conceivable you could have great personality chemistry and just not be physically attracted to someone...hence the proviso that in order for that first in-flesh meeting not to have unpleasant "chemistry" surprises, you should have a very clear idea of what the other looks like).
The basic thing is that for some people the in-person meeting only confirms what they knew before; their perceptions, in such cases, were clearly accurate.
For others, the in-the-flesh meeting refutes what they thought they knew about each other.
I think one's experience this varies from individual to individual, and is largely contingent on the depth and accuracy of the couples' perceptiveness. It requires a lot of work and honesty to get to know someone well "virtually," and if you don't put in the time and effort, you will likely be rewarded by unpleasant surprises.
In theory, Merc, you should know enough about a person from intensive communication online/phone/etc. that you won't be basically surprised. There will be SOME surprises, but they ought to be minor.
I'm with what Arlene said: you can *start* to fall in love online, but the process continues and his confirmed by an in-flesh meeting. There are, after all, many degrees (and even kinds) of love.
You're in for some exciting times when you and the Shedman finally meet.
RE: How can two fall in love from the internet?