Geneviette really loved going to the beach. Took her to a beach on the windward side and it started raining so we just drove up the coast for nearly an hour 1/2 until we found a beach that wasn’t raining — Waikiki. It started raining after about 30 minutes but she still had a lot of fun.
Song for the day: Sleep… Don’t Weep… My Sweet. - Damien Rice
jeremydavies:danielfaraday:ginobambino:irishtexan:6od:
Presented without comment.
Depending when this was taken depends on the humor level of it.
How many people do you know? How did you meet them? What does it mean to “know” someone? We live in a different world than we did 30, 20 even 10 years ago. The nature and state of human interpersonal relationships have evolved just as the way we communicate has evolved. We can communicate in instantaneous methods that would have been unimaginable just 20 years ago yet we still maintain the same standards of the make up of a relationship as we did before. We can communicate in new ways previously impossible yet we have not changed our expectations of the results of said communication.
For the sake of exposition of the problem at hand we can create a small case study of the details of the relationships of two separate pairs of people. Take these two sets of people, two separate relationships if you can at a minimum pass over the obstacle of accepting that these are in fact relationships, and examine the details of these sets of people with a connective personal relationship built on love, “like”, interest in each other or just a general mutual desire to be together and learn about the other person. These two groups of people communicate primarily via phone and internet due to the unfortunate fact that they are currently not living in the same location or even in a close by drivable distance. Thanks to modern technology like Skype they are able to communicate over video calls as well. Both groups talk every single day. They always say goodnight before going to sleep and talk again very shortly after waking up the next morning. We will assume we can all safely consider the two groups as in fact having a relationship so they will be referred to as couples from this point on. Each of these couples are identical in their commitment and intensity for one another. For all intents and purposes they are in what is commonly labeled, and publicly accepted, as a “distance relationship.” They each know everything there is to know about the other person. They each value and appreciate the qualities of the other person. They each talk as much or more every single day than a couple not dealing with the added burden of the distance relationship. They define themselves and feel the same way as a couple in a non-distance relationship by calling each other boyfriend and girlfriend. They are fully committed to making this temporary obstacle that is a distance relationship work. They are probably even more attentive than most because they are aware of the fragility of the situation.
Most people have been in a distance relationship at some point for some duration of time. We all know the difficulties and high chance of failure. While everything has been detailed on the equivalence of the two couples and not the differences, it may seem as though there is no point to this case study. There is one difference though that has not been revealed. Couple B has not yet seen each other in person yet. They met online either through work or friends and due to current insurmountable odds are unable to see each other in person quite yet. We’ve already covered all the details of the relationships and agreed that they are equal in all respects and were justly classified as the commonly accepted relationship type of a “distance relationship.” Yet if you get either member from Couple B to tell one of their friends or family the situation there is the immediate and inevitable question that arises: “Have you met him/her before?” What does that mean when you ask, “have you met him/her before?” How could they know each other if they never met? “No, No,” says the friend, “Have you met him/her in person?” Therein lies the rub.
The golden standard of a face-to-face meeting, a handshake or a hug. By the old world standards you have not “met” someone until you have met/been introduced to that person IN person. Of course, there was no other way to communicate in as rich a method as good old fashioned face-to-face. Now however, there are multitudes of ways to communicate in equally as productive and rewarding a method as in person, but we still have a stranglehold on those old expectations — that golden standard of “meeting in person.”
Let’s assume for a moment that couple B have been talking everyday with few exceptions for 5 years. They know more about each other than any person that they know in their “real life.” Even their families do not know them as well as they know each other. They have done this diligently and with love for 5 years. Do we still say they “haven’t met?” Because according to this golden standard of meeting face-to-face do we say they don’t really know each other? Suddenly couple A is now not only better than couple B, but couple B is suddenly invalid and no longer qualified to be considered a couple. How does this logically make any sense? How can we judge couple B and discount their relationship down to nothing? The couples are exactly the same in commitment, knowledge of each other, love and care for the other person. They are no different except couple B has only spoke over video call and not in person. Once couple B “meets” in person is there a magical dust that falls on their heads and annoints them by the common social standard as finally actually being a couple? How does this magical process work? Does anything actually change in their minds or hearts at that point? Is there a certificate mailed to their residences from the central relationship validity authority council?
Put aside your preconceived notions of what it means to “know” someone, what it means to “meet” someone and what truly defines a relationship, and think about it rationally, logically and objectively. To make things easier for you I will hold your hand and walk you to to finish line on this one: There is absolutely no difference. There is absolutely no change. There is no magic metaphysical gateway that is passed when light is projected into the back of your eyes where your optic nerve then transmits the collected sensory data to the brain where the brain then translates this data into a visual representation of what is physically outside of your body, thus becoming a person, according to the golden standard, that you have in fact “met” — in person that is. To point out the asinine nature of this irrelevant and outdated methodology you can take the tenants of actually “meeting” someone and apply it to a blind couple. It may sound ridiculous but think about it for a moment. The depth of their communication is not more visually validated than couple B. In fact, couple B has seen each other in real time while talking thanks to video call technology while the blind couple has never seen each other. Do we say the blind couple haven’t really “met?” Of course not. That sounds ridiculous by any standards. Yet we as a society tell couple B that they do not “really” know each other. They have never “met.”
”How can you really know someone you haven’t met before?” “How can you be in a relationship with someone if you’ve never “met” them ?” Don’t discount anyone’s feelings that are not your own. Couple B have “met.” They are in a relationship just like couple A. Next time a friend or family member wants to tell you about a person who they feel strongly for and really care about and you catch yourself about to ask, “have you actually “met” him/her?”, or even further say, “How can you be in a relationship with someone you’ve never met?”, stop yourself and take a moment to consider the whole situation and all of the factors. Because while you question the validity of the relationship they are telling you about, the relationship between you and the person that is sharing their story with you that you are unjustly judging, in person I might add, may be absolute shit in comparison to that “not real” relationship that you deem invalid from atop your Olympus of stalwart authority.
Emergency alert siren on Oahu at 6:00am 27 February 2010 for the impending tsunami.
