Love in Second Life, Writing "The End"

Yes it is, but the generated heat is sufficient

I think this is one of the many questions for which there is no universal answer. Some people need to meet in the flesh to fall in love, others don't.

Some of those who need to meet face-to-face in order to love have difficulty understanding the experience of those who can fall in love without such meetings. There are 18th century novels that explore both the issue of falling in love through letters, as well as the possibility of denying that such experiences are really love. The internet, and SL, are not new in that regard.

You tied it up in a bundle with a pretty bow Thanks, Petronilla

I do think your idea of the similarity in falling for a fantasy figure, as in a book has some validity. In the same way that people fall in love with film stars, or more correctly, with the character that they portray.
There is no denying that this can develop further into RL feelings when you meet, but it can also be just as much of a let down as meeting your favourite film star.
There is also the male female divide question.
a lot of men are very much focused on the physical looks, whereas women seem to be more focused on personallity. ( can you tell I am male )

So the answer is Yes, No and maybe, depending on who you are asking

This and other comments here beg the question: What IS love? Is it different for each of us? I think so.

Yes - first of all I will contribute a *glare* at you for the juxtapositioning of you and Aes discussing the topic.. followed by your (alleged) seduction techniques!

A lot of good points already made in the thread. I think the answers are going to depend to an extent on how people like to interact with others in SL.

Some like to chat in voice and use internet phone and webcam with their SL friends, and their romantic relationships are probably quite a lot like a RL one.
Other folk like to maintain some separation of RL and SL, so perhaps they find it easier to maintain SL relationships at a bit of a remove. A sort of "reality+fantasy".

I tend to agree with Treasure that online, and in SL in particular, it's the person's mind that attracts. I would definitely add humour and an ability to be playful with words and language to the intelligence requirement, plus a dash of empathy and kindness - all those traits are very attractive in my opinion.

Myself, I enjoy text communication and wouldn't mind at all never seeing what someone looked like in RL if I get on with them. If they can string sentences together in some semblance of coherent English, and make me laugh as well as have the odd more serious discussion about anything under the sun, I don't care too much what they look like. In fact a RL photo can often jar with the mental impression I get from their written conversation.

Someone once said to me that SL is like writing your own screenplay, being executive director and at the same time also starring in the lead role in your own personal film. That chimes with Zillow's comment about good novels - with the important addition that in SL the other characters are all writing their own script and you are still always dealing with real humans and real feelings.

--
Aes

I agree - each person loves in their own way.

Welcome to the forum - interesting thread.

--
Aes

Definitely for men v women. Women love to get all things from one man. Men love to get one thing from all women. giggles

I think if what you said were true, then we wouldn't be able to form friendships in SL, either.

There is a real person behind the avatar, and you can get to know that person. And when you do know them, you can either like them, or not, or feel indifferent or a thousand other feelings.

Now, that being true, how could you NOT fall in love with some of the people you meet in SL?

Before joining Second Life, I played on MUSHes, text-based virtual worlds, since the early 90s. Young(er) and innocent (sorta), I developed crushes on people I met on MUSHes.

I eventually got over doing that though. In Second Life, I know many people I adore, but nothing on the level of having a crush.

I think that, from my perspective, there were a combination of factors that made it easier to develop a crush over a MUSH than in Second Life.

1) Since the MUSH was text-based, I think imagination played a much larger role in the relationship; the graphical nature of Second Life takes something away from the imagination factor (like some people might argue that television inspires less imagination than radio dramas, for example).

2) To develop a crush, I did need some sort of personal connection with a person, like the real life picture, or a talk on the phone. But a picture or voice works with my imagination in a text-based environment; my imagination subsitutes the picture and the voice. Second Life graphics, though, somehow interfere with that for me. Even with a few SL friends I know in which I have their real life pictures, I can't talk to them without seeing the cartoon-like avatar. Cartoon graphics make it seem less real than no graphics.

Plus- more as a sign of the times than anything unique to Second Life- I think users today are more guarded about giving out personal information online than years ago. Sometimes I think back to my early days online and consider myself lucky that I wasn't stalked and killed- I made it so easy for anyone to do.

In my personal experience- this was back in using MUSHes- on the occasions when I met my online "crushes" in real life, we were almost universally disappointed in each other in real life, and that kinda killed the crush for both sides. I think we often found out that we had less in common than we previously thought, and we were better typers than talkers.

One of the things I learned in my undergrad Communication 101 class is that "90% of all communication is non-verbal." If that's the case, we are only communicating in Second Life one-tenth as effectively as if we were face-to-face. That has to limit our depth of communcation, and thus relationship, within Second Life.

To me, there is a limit to the level of depth that a purely online relationship can have. I have fun with my real life friends, I care about them, but it doesn't reach the emotional depth of a real life relationship. I think personal contact is necessary to develop emotional depth, and I'm thus wary of reports of "love" with someone known purely online. A "crush" I can believe- a romantic attraction, but with a low level of emotional depth. And for me, a "crush" on an online lover centered around an idealization of what it would be like to have a relationship with that person in the real world.

If one is in love with the person known only online, does that mean that one would be content with that online relationship for the rest of one's life? I doubt that is true for most people. If one is using "love" to mean that one believes a real life meeting with the person would produce a situation in which one would want to live for the rest of one's life, to me that doesn't truly describe love- it describes longing, at best.

To take a story of Second Life "love" and make it into a classic Harlequin romance, the story could not end in Second Life; it would have to end with the lovers meeting in real life and discovering that their feelings developed online translate into the real world.

(And I do not deny that the feelings one has about what they do in Second Life are real feelings. I just think when it comes to relationships- be it lovers or friends- the depth of emotional connection purely within Second Life is limited. The deepest relationships need some aspect of shared physical space.)

I have to agree with this...the test of internet romance is RL time, just like any other kind.

I may be misinterpreting your point though. I THINK you mean that these things are assessed in retrospect, not that there's nothing to them. In the same way, the difference IRL between a Mad Instant Crush and Love At First Sight is how (and if) the relationship played out, not how intensely it was felt at the time.

If your point is that people currently engaged in a torrid SL romance aren't really feeling what they think they are...then I disagree. "Love" probably isn't the right word for it, but it's the one we have for a lot of not-exactly-the-same things.

Thanks. And I agree. Interesting thread. I'll probably add some more thoughts that have come to me but I'm so tired now. Gotta get some sleep.

Strongly disagree.

And you are universalizing your experience even though you say it is your "own".

There can be no one description. Unfortunately for you, you mistake desire for "falling in love" and think other people do as well, which is rather sad. Putting any such definition like you have on "falling in love" is really really ignorant as we are all but a sum of our own experiences, and your experiences have obviously led you to believe what you do about love - but please do not label it as "a person can very much like and even love..." when really what you mean is how YOU feel and how YOU work with the feelings of love and what constitutes it.

This "huge desire" to be with someone doesnt even happen for me until way later into a relationship - its not something immediate and therefore has no impact or no connection to falling in love at all....nothing to mistake there.

When you LOVE someone, you want to be closer to them to form a closer more physical or emotional connection in some way, shape or form. Which is not exclusive to the feelings of falling in love. But to say that the feeling of "falling in love" is borne out of pure desire to be together, is rather putting the cart before the horse.

I've never wanted to be with someone in RL that i just met in SL - even when i had strong feelings of love for them. After damn near a year of being with Nina, hell yes i have strong desires to want to be with her in RL, but that came LONG AFTER we were in love and married in SL.

Sorry you feel that way Phil.

Love happens in the mind and in the heart and has nothing to do with distance or being able to physically see that person in the flesh. Knowing them by thought, by word, by action is all that is required. In the end, when you love someone you love them, however which way you define and display your love, it is what it is. And to put some parameter on it or redefine what is happening may be o.k. for you and how you wish to organize your own world, but do not be so ignorant as to think your own definition of love, or my own or any one persons applies to you as a law or rule. Love is what you make it and true love no matter how and or where you meet, starts in the heart and in the mind - not in the eyeballs or after something called desire or lust.

As for most loves, it's about the inside of the human, not the appearances. This is proven by e.g. SL or letters or phone started relationships.
A person that might not be in your lane of physical attractiveness, could make you love him, e.g. his/her appearance is hidden by an avatar that doesn't reasemble the real looks.
Still you get to know the real person (if you dive deeply enough), and see the beauty. once you feel attracked to this person in a loving way, and you receive pictures of the real person, you still automatically change perspective in terms of physical attraction. Most see that person more beautifull as they would expected, in relation to their normal attractiveness they allways thought they had. You see this in effect towards friendships too.
E.g. if you allways repulsed fat people, and you would not even dare to walk beside them. Once you get to know the person inside this fat body, you automaticaly change perspective towards acceptance of the body surrounding this person.

All in all, the inside counts heavier than the outside, that's universal.
And furthermore the outside can easily be changed mostly. (different clothers, makeup, different hair style etc, can change the appearance very much.. but the inside cannot be changed that easily. It mostly carved in throughout time. Like characteristics.
And it's the inside that makes the body move, talk, think, feel.
Or in otherwords, that's the element your interacting with on the long term. The body is just a bag to cary the inside.
I don't say it's not of any importance, the physical element is also elementary for attractiveness etc.. but less compared to the inside.
70/30 (inside/outside) on the long term.

So there is not a difference in the end, if it comes to where or how you got to know the other, it's about that you are attracked to this person (in a love way) because of the elements mentioned.
A universal aspect of humans, in relation to relationships.
(online or not)

one other proof this is true:
imagine this example, you have a relationship, in complete terms.
Namely, fysical and mental. The other has an accident, and his/her face is burned for most part, or he/she becomes handicapped (e.g. legs/arms/parralized. Does this appearance difference, makes you leave this person relationship wise? NO, since the person remains the same, from the inside. The outside changed, but as said before, you automatically go along with that, and still feel attracted physically, because you know the inside.
Friends or lovers, it doesn't matter.

Heck no. The feelings are *very* real, but they can't be realistically described as being "in love" with the person, imo.

To my way of thinking, when a person is "in love" with someone, they really do want to spend the rest of their life with the person. The point I made is that, we can believe that to be true at the time, but we are deceived by the strong feelings of desire to be physically with the person. I've done it more than once (not online though), and even with someone who I'd spent time with, after which we were in different countries for a while, and the remoteness caused such huge feelings that I believed I was in love with her - but I wasn't.

Loving someone is different to being in love with someone. We can easily get to love a person and we can easily love many things about a person, and hopefully we do that a lot, but being "in love" with the person is different. We love some people, we think some people are wonderful, but that's not the same as being "in love", and it doesn't mean that we want to actually marry the person and commit the rest our lives to them, which being "in love" with someone is about.

Love is...
Pie

No one person has the answer to your questions, Zillow, because it is different for everyone, no matter how much any one person thinks their views are the only correct views on the subject.

It's what makes finding love with another person, wherever you find it, so incredible.

I think there's much truth in what you say. Love is something that most of us believe is real and have experienced but it may be different for each of us.

OK Zillow....your turn. Link us up to your blog and list of books we can buy.

Ohhh, Phil. I hope whoever loves you now doesn't read this.

Well I found the blog entry in your profile. I have to admit to having more than a little trouble with the content. Without starting a flame war that would only end badly, I have to voice my opinion on at least ONE of your lines;

"Night managed to steer him off course, but guilt began to set in. Shortly thereafter, she came to what I think most would say was the best decision."

WHY would MOST say that was the best decision? I will admit to not knowing the ins and outs of the blog in question, but do YOU know the state of her RL marriage? Do YOU know the reasons she chose to go to SL in the first place? Do YOU know her RL husband--his habits, his beliefs, his treatment of women in general (Night in particular)? I think this idea that "most would say was the best decision" just oozes with "-ist".

As for Night's final post--I think that it speaks of a very conflicted woman, but not ALL of us are "conflicted." Not all of us give only a certain percentage of ourselves in RL BECAUSE of our involvment in SL. Night's case is hers--I got the impression from your post that were attempting to paint all of us with the same brush, albeit with opaque paint.

Sorry, but my visceral reaction to your blog left me with a bad taste that will probably not be eased with a simple gargle of rhetorical mouthwash.

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but here's my comment:
I do have an SL partner, and yes, I love him dearly. His avie is unimportant, it is the person behind the keyboard I care about. Granted, the day we first met a little over a year ago, it was his avie that first attracted my attention - because how he had chosen to present himself in SL (and how he worded his profile) said something about him as a (RL) person, and this was someone I felt I wanted to know better. We became friends, we became partners, and I have to this day yet to meet someone I cherish more, RL or SL.

While I can not imagine feeling differently about him after having met him, I am not ignoring the fact that face-to-face communication in RL offers factors that cannot be replaced by SL, text or talking on voice/phone. It's just one of those things we'll have to figure out when that day comes.

It's VD day so I'll pop into this thread and repeat what I have said in the past.

People have been falling in love with each other with nothing more then the written word for a couple of thousand years. Ever heard of a love letter? A page or two here and there and the next thing they know they are moving across continents or traveling across the world to happily marry. I haven't ever heard of a survey showing that a marriage with such a foundation has any less chance for longevity as opposed to growing up together or a few feverish physical dates. Romance in SL has nothing to do with the appearances of the avatars involved or pose balls, it is all about the words that are exchanged.

It depends on the people and the circumstances, I guess. In RL, I had a long-term relationship with someone who I could only see face-to-face in the Summer months and on an occasional weekend. For 70% of the year, direct contact was impossible. Yet we dated steadily, and monogamously, for three years, before it became possible to see each other regularly in-person. We later got married, and still are, to this day. In RL, I am completely monogamous and committed to my RL mate.

In SL, it can, for some people, be like having a romantic pen-pal in another country. You exchange feelings, thoughts, fears, hopes and dreams - and somehow "connect" mentally, even though you have never seen each other in-person, and mayhaps never will. It's a perfectly valid form of romantic love between two people, enhanced by the aspect that in SL, the contact is real-time, and has a strong visual component. If SL had been available when my sweetheart and I were doing our long distance tryst, we probably would have loved it!

On the other hand, some people can also have committed, long-term relationships *between avatars* in SL, that have nothing more than purely Platonic friendship between the actual people. My SL Partner and I are like that. We've never met in RL, don't particularly plan to, and if we ever did it is highly unlikely we would do anything more racy than exchange a hug. We agreed from day 1 that all the actual people were offering to each other was a non-sexual, Platonic friendship. Yet our avatars have had a strong romantic relationship in SL for more than 3 years, and in other venues for 3 years or more before that. To us, that relationship between the avatars is a work of fiction that we both contribute to, and both enjoy reading/experiencing. That it is accepted by both of us as fictional doesn't make it any less enjoyable. I consider myself to be a fiction author and actress, and my friends feel I am quite good in that regard.

Some people can not maintain that degree of separation, however. Many in SL see their avatar strictly as a virtual extension of their real self, and not as a fictional character at all. For them, having an "online affair" while at the same time having a relationship in RL with someone else could be a very dangerous thing. I have seen RL couples winding up in divorce from such situations.

I do think that "most" people would say that trying to work out her marriage and focusing on that was the best decision in this case, given that Night clearly felt guilty and conflicted about what she was doing. Note I didn't say "all" would feel the same way.