That leap of faith...

[Laura_and_IanM 0]

Well, what's there to wonder about here anyway, really?

There is always fate, destiny or whatever one chooses to call it in every aspect of life. Whether it be making friends, finding a lover, getting a job, even winning the lotto.

Suffice it to say that intuition maybe plays a big part in things? I know that was a big part of it for me. But I use my intuition in all aspects of my life.

Trust? Fiddlesticks. I say you can be schmoozed to your face and if the liar is bent on manipulation, you won't see it coming. I don't see geographical nearness as some plus there.

So what really makes it so hard to grasp this concept? Is it really the circumstances of meeting on the web that bother some of our members, or the tone of the post? By that I mean whether or not the poster sounds 'starry-eyed' rather than 'eyes wide open'.

Whether you met your love next door or in the next 'window', I believe that falling in love is always a 'leap of faith'. There's no other inner place where one is more vulnerable. And if the inner place opens up first with 'words on a screen' that leads to more.......well then.... to me that's just a blessing of this brave new world.

one thousand percent agree....especially on the trust part...

My situation...went to a music chatroom out of boredom, starting talking to seemingly nice person. We talked friendly in the chatroom for a few weeks....he didn't even know I was female. My user name was real non-descript...not girly...hehe. I knew he didn't know, so I kinda made it obvious because I wanted to talk to him some more....we progressed to MSN chats, email and then graduated to the phone. Our first call was SIX HOURS! After about 5 months, he was kinda hinting at wanting me to visit him. I was nervous about that, so I decided to invite him HERE first...for a much later time. In May of 2002 I invited him to visit during the holidays. So after about 1 year of talking online...we met. He stayed for two weeks and proposed. I knew before I met him, that I was falling hard and it was just meeting him that confirmed that I couldn't let him go. I knew I wanted him in my future. I visited him, he visited me, and 2 years to the date we met online, we were married. We'll be married 3 years this year.

Like Rebecca and so many others have said...a lot of things in life take a leap of faith, including "traditional" courtships....but wait, what is THAT again? And can ANYONE on this site say they've done things the traditional way?

I like your style lol. Traditional??? What the hell is that again??? Hmmmm now let me go back to my catholic teachings and TRY and remember what traditional originally was thought to be...OK..Man and woman meet. Man and woman like eachother. Man and woman continue a 6 month courtship. After 6 months, there is a proposal by a man on bended knee who btw must also get permission from said womans father. Then begins 6 months worth of planning and then the BIG day comes. Man and woman get married. Then the BIG night comes where the chasity belt comes off said woman and she is then permitted to freely give herself for the first time ever and to her knew husband. Oh yeah..did I forget to mention that BOTH must be virgins??? PALEAAAAAAAAAASEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!! Who honestly does things the so called TRADITIONAL WAY??? Even living together is considered to be a sin by the traditional catholic standards (for which traditional catholic churches barely exist anymore). I must protect myself here and will now add a clause saying that it isn't just catholic religion that believes the same Traditional way of doing things so NO BASHING here lol.

Jesus who are we kidding here?? lol . Thanks for that laugh Frances. I am going to be laughing at that all day now. Traditional...so love your style.

Laura Mitchell

[LenJayUS 0]

Jenn, of course you can talk face to face. I think you know what those of us who made that point are meaning..that's ALL you can do is talk, and possibly(but not always) people seem to talk longer and more in depth online. Maybe that stems from a longing to want to be together, from not having that physical contact, whatever...but I've always found that Craig & I talked online WAY more than on any date or at least much more often...

That said, some people meet his/her match face to face and have just a just as intense of a relationship in person...it really all depends on the couple I suppose.

For us, personally, I always thought Craig & I (along with many others here,no doubt because of the similar situation)had a much deeper relationship after talking about nearly every issue we could think of online before even meeting, than anything I've had in "real"(up to that point) life. M.

I understand what people are saying about those of us that have met, and falling in love, mostly through the internet.

I didn't fall in love with Jay because of her looks, or her accent, or what material things she may of had, or for the way she moved her body during certain... fun things. I fell in love with her because of her personality, for her sense of humor, for her soul that I felt so connected too - with her being so far away. I loved her before I ever laid eyes on her on her first trip here.

Is it possible to have such a connection with someone that you meet first? Sure... anything's possible.

I've loved... I mean really loved, not this so called fake love.. two women in my life (women might be the wrong term.. I was a teenager for the first one lol). Obviously Jay, who I really do think is my soul mate, and an old girlfriend named Dena. But I find it a bit funny that both of them had something in common... lots and lots of communication.

Jay lives in England, away from me. I can't just roll on up to her house and visit. I've gotten about... 12 weeks maybe, of being with her since Feb 2002. So all we can basically do is "talk." I can't show her how much I love her, I have to tell her. I have to talk about my feelings (and damn I hate doing that lol) because she's not here, she can't see me. Dena... well, we spent hours upon hours talking to each other, usually on the phone. Long story short... we were highly attracted to each other... But at first I had a girlfriend, and I wouldn't leave her (one of my rules) so Dena and I remained friends. Then when I was free... she had a boyfriend... so we spent about 2 or 3 years as very close friends... probably a lot closer then her boyfriend liked. We'd talk for hours on the phone at night, usually hung up in time to get a shower and go to school.

None of the other ex's in my life have I ever had any kind of bond with, not even my ex-wife, then I did with Dena, and definately not with Jay. The love I have for Jay is... undescribable.. it easily eclipses what I had for Dena.

I think what I'm trying to say is... I really feel that for anyone to develop such a deep emotional bond to someone, the traditional physical aspect in a relationship needs to be seriously lacking. I know once Jay gets here I'm going to have to make a conscious effort to continue to tell her how much I love, respect, need, and want her.. not just trying to show her.

In relationships, I don't think it's true that actions speak louder then words.

/end rant

[Jaylen Brit 0]

Jenn, of course you can talk face to face. I think you know what those of us who made that point are meaning..that's ALL you can do is talk, and possibly(but not always) people seem to talk longer and more in depth online. Maybe that stems from a longing to want to be together, from not having that physical contact, whatever...but I've always found that Craig & I talked online WAY more than on any date or at least much more often...

That said, some people meet his/her match face to face and have just a just as intense of a relationship in person...it really all depends on the couple I suppose.

For us, personally, I always thought Craig & I (along with many others here,no doubt because of the similar situation)had a much deeper relationship after talking about nearly every issue we could think of online before even meeting, than anything I've had in "real"(up to that point) life. M.

I understand what people are saying about those of us that have met, and falling in love, mostly through the internet.

I didn't fall in love with Jay because of her looks, or her accent, or what material things she may of had, or for the way she moved her body during certain... fun things. I fell in love with her because of her personality, for her sense of humor, for her soul that I felt so connected too - with her being so far away. I loved her before I ever laid eyes on her on her first trip here.

Is it possible to have such a connection with someone that you meet first? Sure... anything's possible.

I've loved... I mean really loved, not this so called fake love.. two women in my life (women might be the wrong term.. I was a teenager for the first one lol). Obviously Jay, who I really do think is my soul mate, and an old girlfriend named Dena. But I find it a bit funny that both of them had something in common... lots and lots of communication.

Jay lives in England, away from me. I can't just roll on up to her house and visit. I've gotten about... 12 weeks maybe, of being with her since Feb 2002. So all we can basically do is "talk." I can't show her how much I love her, I have to tell her. I have to talk about my feelings (and damn I hate doing that lol) because she's not here, she can't see me. Dena... well, we spent hours upon hours talking to each other, usually on the phone. Long story short... we were highly attracted to each other... But at first I had a girlfriend, and I wouldn't leave her (one of my rules) so Dena and I remained friends. Then when I was free... she had a boyfriend... so we spent about 2 or 3 years as very close friends... probably a lot closer then her boyfriend liked. We'd talk for hours on the phone at night, usually hung up in time to get a shower and go to school.

None of the other ex's in my life have I ever had any kind of bond with, not even my ex-wife, then I did with Dena, and definately not with Jay. The love I have for Jay is... undescribable.. it easily eclipses what I had for Dena.

I think what I'm trying to say is... I really feel that for anyone to develop such a deep emotional bond to someone, the traditional physical aspect in a relationship needs to be seriously lacking. I know once Jay gets here I'm going to have to make a conscious effort to continue to tell her how much I love, respect, need, and want her.. not just trying to show her.

In relationships, I don't think it's true that actions speak louder then words.

/end rant

awww

[Sister Fracas 5]

Jesus who are we kidding here?? lol . Thanks for that laugh Frances. I am going to be laughing at that all day now. Traditional...so love your style.

heehee, glad I could oblige.... *curtsies*

awww

[CarolineM 0]

I think this whole topic is quite interesting.

I think any marriage these days is a ####### shoot - no matter WHERE you meet your SO.

[Fandango 1,440]

I think this whole topic is quite interesting.

I think any marriage these days is a ####### shoot - no matter WHERE you meet your SO.

I agree with that!

As I said in my original post here, I'm not trying to insult anyone. But at what point does romanticism give way to realism? Someone here mentioned a woman who married an online love only to find out he abused her daughter. Now I for one don't think I could bring myself to try an online thing after that. Lest of all an online thing where the other is in another country where it's 'hi nice to finally meet you, here's where you'll be living'. Do you agree? Disagree?

I suppose what I'm really getting at is the nature of this relationship that most of us have or have had. There's no dating period. There's no 'pick me up at 8' and gradually getting to physically know somone. Sleeping in the same time zone under different roofs. So it's balls to the wall time, basically. You fall in love with a person and then it's affadvait of support time.

[Jenn! 918]

SO, if you find yourself in a situation that doesnt follow the "norm" and you know it's right, why question those others whose situation is different than your own?

Because we all stand in the same line together.

Do you mean the immigration line? The paperwork processing line?

Are you saying that those relationships you find odd, you perceive them to be less 'real' than your own? That they are more likely to fail?

That those who met on the same geographic plane should have their petitions be put before those who did not?

Well?

Yes, I meant the immigration line. And before I get totally slammed, let me reiterate that what bothers me is not whether the couple "met on the same geographic plane", but whether there has been sufficient time for the couple to get to know each other in person.

I really don't care who people marry, it's their business. But I think the rules should change when immigration is involved. There seem to be so many K1 petitions flooding the system where the couple has only met briefly in person and on only one occasion. To be truthful, I do feel that couples that have an established relationship (i.e. having lived together or at least in the same city for an extended period of time) should be put ahead of these others in terms of priority. If you think that the leap of faith for couples that have only met once is the same size as the leap of faith for couples that have spent a long time together, living real life together, then that's what you think, and let's agree to disagree on that point. I also realize that not everyone has the financial means for extended stays in foreign countries, but I don't know what to tell you about that. IMO, K1 requirements are far too loose. When I'm affected, that's when I get bothered.

That said, I also feel K3s should be significantly faster than K1s, and also that beneficiaries from Canada, and perhaps the UK should be given priority as well.

I'm fully aware that most of you will take offense to what I've said. Just be thankful that I have no power to make real any of my opinions on this matter. And if I were in any situation other than my own, I would probably feel differently as well. But I'm not, and that's the way I feel about it.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I know if I had my petition recalled because of IMBRA, I'd have steam coming out of my ears - that really is unfair to those with more established relationships

[rebeccajo 14]

SO, if you find yourself in a situation that doesnt follow the "norm" and you know it's right, why question those others whose situation is different than your own?

Because we all stand in the same line together.

Do you mean the immigration line? The paperwork processing line?

Are you saying that those relationships you find odd, you perceive them to be less 'real' than your own? That they are more likely to fail?

That those who met on the same geographic plane should have their petitions be put before those who did not?

Well?

Yes, I meant the immigration line. And before I get totally slammed, let me reiterate that what bothers me is not whether the couple "met on the same geographic plane", but whether there has been sufficient time for the couple to get to know each other in person.

I really don't care who people marry, it's their business. But I think the rules should change when immigration is involved. There seem to be so many K1 petitions flooding the system where the couple has only met briefly in person and on only one occasion. To be truthful, I do feel that couples that have an established relationship (i.e. having lived together or at least in the same city for an extended period of time) should be put ahead of these others in terms of priority. If you think that the leap of faith for couples that have only met once is the same size as the leap of faith for couples that have spent a long time together, living real life together, then that's what you think, and let's agree to disagree on that point. I also realize that not everyone has the financial means for extended stays in foreign countries, but I don't know what to tell you about that. IMO, K1 requirements are far too loose. When I'm affected, that's when I get bothered.

That said, I also feel K3s should be significantly faster than K1s, and also that beneficiaries from Canada, and perhaps the UK should be given priority as well.

I'm fully aware that most of you will take offense to what I've said. Just be thankful that I have no power to make real any of my opinions on this matter. And if I were in any situation other than my own, I would probably feel differently as well. But I'm not, and that's the way I feel about it.

That's what I thought you meant. So if this is done, where do you draw the line? Do they have to have known each other for say - 3 years? 5 years? Do they have to have spent so much of that 'knowing' time in each others physical presence? What else do you want for proof?

You're entitled to your opinion I guess - even if it's completely impractical. Not to mention self-righteous.

K-3 takes longer than K-1 because there are additional steps taken by DHS. Pure and simple. It's not preferential treatment for the visa type. It's paperwork.

[Jenn! 918]

Not to mention self-righteous.

Just had to throw that in there, huh?

You're really starting to get on my nerves, as I'm sure I am on yours.

I'd rather drop this at this point. I was reluctant to post my last post, and obviously should have trusted my first insticnts.

Edited May 18, 2006 by jenn3539

[Cassie 8]

I'll just say that I disagree with many things in jenn3539's last large post and leave it at that.

[MichelleandCraig 1]

Well, I won't flame as you think will happen, but I will say I happen to think that THEORY sounds ridiculous to me.....and I honestly think I would have that position if I were in your situation too.(I say think because I feel VERY confident that I would not...but, since I'm not in your position I don't know for SURE).

What about the fact that people get divorced after 1 year together, 5 years, 50 years?? Being together in person a long time, is by NO MEANS a way of saying that the relationship is going to work. In fact, I have a best friend here that stayed over a couple nights last week just to talk...she had been with her boyfriend(at that time) for six years when they married. Next week they will have been MARRIED for nine years....they are still together, but through talking, we determined that she's been unhappy for 2/3 of her relationship, and even had some doubts on her wedding day...but she went ahead with it, because she DID love him...and thought it was just cold feet. I dunno...the point I'm making I guess is just that knowing one another for a long time before, certainly doesn't guarantee future success any more than being together a short time...I very much think people can KNOW after a short time that they were meant to be together, and then WORK in their relationship, to make sure that that happens...and then, like in the case of my friend, you can be together or live together for years first...and it still might not work. My 14 cents today. M.

edited to add: and not everyone has to have doubts like my friend did either...some KNOW they want to get married(after being physically together a long time) and have no doubts...but for some reason, they don't work out in a few years either. SO...why should anyone be able to jump the line? Marriage is work, no matter how or why you met....to me it sounds like you're saying they should be given favoritism because they have better 'odds' of lasting. Definitely not so IMO. M.

Edited May 18, 2006 by MichelleandCraig

[Jenn! 918]

....to me it sounds like you're saying they should be given favoritism because they have better 'odds' of lasting. Definitely not so IMO. M.

Favoritism not because of better odds at lasting, but lower risk of fraud.

[rebeccajo 14]

Not to mention self-righteous.

Just had to throw that in there, huh?

You're really starting to get on my nerves, as I'm sure I am on yours.

I'd rather drop this at this point. I was reluctant to post my last post, and obviously should have trusted my first insticnts.

Jenn, you're not getting on my nerves. You made the initial statement, in a vague manner, and you needed to clarify it - for me at least.

....to me it sounds like you're saying they should be given favoritism because they have better 'odds' of lasting. Definitely not so IMO. M.

Favoritism not because of better odds at lasting, but lower risk of fraud.

Fraud is an entirely different matter from what we have been discussing. Or at least from what I THOUGHT we were discussing.

If you are unhappy with the way the present system works, I think you should be MORE unhappy that beneficiaries from certain countries go through more stringent, time-delaying checks than people from another part of the world.

Edited May 18, 2006 by rebeccajo

[perfect 39]

Also, it's largely dependent upon how people spend their time together. You can have people who have had an ongoing relationship for years who don't "really" communicate effectively and don't know one another as well as others who have known each other less time but spent their time communicating more productively.

My first husband I used to spend time with on a very regular basis when we were dating "traditionally". He even lived with me and my parents for three months so that we could get to know him properly. However, once we had married he was a different person and it transpired he was manipulating who he was in order to get married - had done it before and was in every sense a "psychopath".

I was a single parent thereafter for 14 years when I unexpectedly met my now-husband on-line. I refused to send him a picture of myself for 4 months as I wanted him to get to know me for who I was not what I look like. We talked and talked both on-line and on the phone for hours every day and "really" got to know and trust each other with every aspect of ourselves and our lives, because we had nothing to loose. We also agreed that there had to be a chemistry between us when we met for it to go any further, but we knew one and trusted one another so well, that we had already discussed marriage. When we met, as so many have said, it was like we had always know each other, we were just a part of each othe mentally, emotionaly and the physically came naturally anyway because of all the other things.

I don't feel you can judge anyone's relationship purely on the basis of how long you have spent in one another's presence physically. My now-husband was married to his ex for 14 years and he says that before we even married, we were closer emotionally, mentally, physically and the physically was never in question because we knew and trusted one another so much. We didn't actually meet until after we had been getting to know one another for 6 months andthen got married ten months after meeting, so we had plenty of time to know whether what we had was real.

We have both said many times we are glad for the way we met and got to know each other - we know who and what we REALLY are, without the physical/emotional/irrational getting in the way and blinding us to reality, as can happen when you are with each other all the time during the "traditional" dating process.