Perdition Catch My Soul But I Do Love Thee

Love's so hard to grasp - like an eel.

But we are all commenting on multiple threads about it. Let me see if I can pose a question on it in a slightly different way.

I think, in our real world, we are going through a redefining of love - like the Elizabethans did in their own time; the critic and teacher, Harold Bloom, argued that Shakespeare invented the "human" and so establsihed modern terms of love, ambition and hate. Maybe it is time we looked at this process again.

Nowadays, many young people do not want the defined and established parameters of love that suited their parents (even "young" parents like my Mum). We are casting about seeking for "something" not easily defined as yet - or even "permitted".

In real terms, we now have same-sex marriages. We have established laws allowing for equality in the contracted marriage. A woman has matrimonial rights over her own body. We can choose our time to have a child (if we even want one). The Pill liberated our Nannas and our Mums. The crucial laws of wills and entailment have all been drastically altered over two hundred years. So ...

Must we depend upon a "real" partner? Is Sl or a robot or any other electronic avitar sufficient?

Can we actually take another step on our "journey to the stars". Some of us will demand the tradtional marriage, but others will not (or cannot). We do not have to meet our sl partner "across a crowded room". Cyber sex works. We can even have multiple partners - a real one and an sl one without the expected and anticipated guilt trip.

Women don't need a man to validate them. And the same goes for men. It is possible a virtual creature with a real brain is all that is required. Maybe this Brave World is getting a little closer each day.

What do you think?

There is absolutely no substitute for being physically close to someone. There is no substitute for seeing a genuine, spontaneous facial expressing. There is no subsitute for the physical flaws and quirks that make people unique. And there is no substitute for real touching. There is no substitute for someone showing they care by taking the phyisical time and energy to be with you.

Virtual worlds can be fun, but they can never, ever provide true intimacy, whether for romantic relationships or for friendships.

virtual can be a stepping stone to reality, but nothing can ever replace reality for me.

I have tasted both worlds, seeing my husband only in pixel form, then on a webcam, then finally meeting in person.

there is nothing to compare to be able to reach out and touch him, or just walk across the room to give him a hug and kiss and tell him how much I love him

nothing in SL, nothing via webcam, or phone, nothing I have experienced thus far can ever replace being together in our reality.

(and the same goes for any relationship, be it romantic, or otherwise)
I would much rather be able to be in the same room with my brothers, than chat over a webcam, but being I can not be in the same room, the webcam gives me more than a phone could, or a letter, or no contact at all

I have followed some of these thought forks at times...

Some people you meet in SL want a physical RL connection- Maybe it is possible, maybe not for the same reasons we all know. Some then see this, SL, as a settling. As in, it is what is possible.

But- I will add that it can stand alone. I believe the relationships we have here have merit on their own and while they might benefit from a flesh presence, the lack thereof does not lessen the import of this nor diminish the sense of fulfillment we feel when with our loved ones virtually.

There may be no substitute for the real thing, this I agree to and it is preferable for me, however, I agree with Amara. I believe and have experienced in SL relationships which were very fulfilling that I knew would only be an inworld one and I was comfortable with that thought. Both suited me at the time, filled my needs and desires for that time period. The relationships were no less important to me than any of those I've had in the flesh. Just different.

In the end, I'll take the messy, sweet stickiness of reality any day but if my life were as such that a virtual one was the rule rather than the exception? It wouldn't be such a terrible situation to find one's self in. Love, is wonderful where ever you find it.

I have been so disappointed in the inability of partners (of all sorts and in both sl and rl) to cast aside crass selfishness - because modern society not only allows them to, but encourages it - that I think that we are likely to revert to a more animalistic society wherein the less instinctual individuals choose to avoid relinquishing their freedom by commitment. This appears to be the case from my observations of sl society, and if reflected in rl is likely to lead to the "rule" of the dumb, or the parthogenetic women.

Pie (Either way, I want none of it)

Wow that's deep. I wonder if any of those partners were ever disappointed in you, as well? Enough so, to make them say 'I want none of it'. And, if they were, if you cared? Just curious about that. People often don't seem to realize/understand/care that disappointment in the relationship isn't necessarily a one sided situation.

Now you're just making fun.

/me is too dumb and selfish to look up 'parthogenetic'

One important aspect of RL love that we often forget about is chemistry. A kiss from someone you love really does release brain endorphins and bolsters the immune system through subtle chemical exchanges we are not even consciously aware of, except to know it feels really good. Or so I have read anyway.

This is partly responsible for the giddy high feelings we have during the first flush of new love in real life. Maybe a little of that happens in the virtual world, but I don't see how it could be as profound.

Nevertheless, I do think relationships are evolving as Jig points out. We live longer than ever, with more room to stretch and experiment with differing types of relationships. And the global community that is developing (one can hope) may help contribute to relationship diversity.

Hmm.. So putting aside the assumed sarcasm and answering the content...


If only! It is the forced civility and civilization's veneer that has pushed us so far into pretense - further- if "less instinctual individuals" do forsake "relinquishing their freedom" as u put it. wouldl that not signal the end of the human race as we know it? Did we not, basically, evolve as pack animals? Does not, belonging to a pack (relinquishing freedom) generally entail a dominant pack member or Alpha (extrapolated to some form of governance), and those that follow, thus contribute to the good of the pack and ensure its survival and thus also the individual's survival?

I for one would welcome more instinctual behaviors - without a total descent into absolute animalistic behavior.





This I won't even attempt to decipher as I do not want to delve into the use of pathogenetic in this context.

All in all, a lovely mental exercise- thank you

Don't bother- it is actually pathogenetic and it's a slap at at the distaff side, although I am sure u are just teasing. Here, you can accept the sarcasm since Pep was just inviting hostile reaction for giggle's sake. How you handle having those buttons pushed can be a growth experience .

Oops- stand corrected- to be sure, did look up Parthogenetic and it is a word in genetic descriptions - have not pinned down a definition and am close to deciding i had chosen best when i chose to let it be -

/me laughs. I have found it so, yes. Lol.

(& yes I was)

I was thinking also of relationships that can be highly successful in a virtuality yet be rife with problems in reality - a very old woman with an extremelly young man, for exammple. It reminds of of Rider Haggard's novel "She" - mental sexuality does diminish; it's teh body that wears out. In a virtual world, the woman can feel loved and desired again. Even an older man can have a wealth of experiences with a young woman in cyberworlds. People who have mental illnesses can experience some contact (at least) with others.

Touch is not everything. Our minds and our angels can cohabit also.

(I am beginning to hate correcting myself's typing, by the way)

Oh but Jig, seriously- u have such interesting perspectives- though I have not commented, i am one that too will just by pass others' comments when they are too tasking to decipher. Teh doesn't bother me really since i often mess that one u as well as just like jsut etc- and not to compare u to him- forbid! But Jumpman could write the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything" and I will never know, because I simply will not waste my life reading him.

I was replying as you were editing. I'm sure Pep meant parthogenic, referring to a time when women will ba able to reproduce without the necessity of involving a male, thus rendering his own gender superfluous.

I wondered...(but then why specify female).

Thank you much- thus the reference to cancerous i found since cancer cells reproduce on their own- thus also not really a slap at women.. hmm- a deeper disconcert there- well- i then wholeheartedly disagree- women need men and men need women - if we each did not we woudl not be who we are.

This however leads me to offer up -Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis - excellent reading - I recommend.

http://www.amazon.com/Xenogenesis-Dawn-Adulthood-Rites-Imago/dp/1568650337

http://biology.kenyon.edu/slonc/books/butler1.html

LMAO! I would have thought you of all people, Amaranthim, who knows me best of all the Forumites, would have known better than to try correct me in public. Those of you who do not know what parthogenesis (or alternatively parthenogenesis) is have missed the point of my argument . . .

Pie ( . . . and may be doomed to have a future world population of Jigs as a consequence)

Wouldn't a self reproducing being be neither male nor female?

The possible slap would seem to come from (responding to the notion of) women not needing men...But the OP did specify neither really needs the other...Which is a whole Friday-thread in itself. Er, potentially.

What was that movie with Dennis Quaid and Louis Gossett Jr...

(Oh I still got the tone Pep/Pie - something abhorrent to nature)

Males can not reproduce parthenogenetically.

Pie (So the future population may spend its time shopping for shoes)

And dear Pep- don't you know me enough by now to know I will be who i am regardless? If i make a mistake, do i not own up to it? I have no problem with correcting u- u r not infallible - if i err, do i not - have i not, always admitted it and corrected it? When have u ever seen me duck responsibility?

Enemy Mine

There are parthenogenetic beings already? (Must be lower life forms/plants?) (ETA: Just remembered. Worms can do this)

Parthenogenetic sounds more scientific, rings a vague bell.

How is a being female if it has both capabilities?

(ETA: Yes! Amaranthim, thank you. Wasn't that one male to start with?)

Pathogenesis is the step by step development of a disease.

Pie (Perhaps *this* is what Jig is describing; or perhaps what *I* am?)