Should I reply back?

[FrustratedGuy91]

Long story short, I was in a long distance relationship with a girl for 4 years. We ended up drifting apart. Our last conversation was something like:

 

Her: I wanna be single again

 

Me: Done

 

Her: You met someone didn't you?

 

Me: No, but I'm guessing you did Now if you don't mind I'll just delete you from everywhere, it's for the best.

 

Her: It was nice while it lasted.

 

Me: It was. Good luck with your life.

 

We both knew we could meet someone else along the way, and since we were really far away and with no chance of seeing each other in the close future.. no hard feelings.

 

To be honest I did move on with my life, but always thought of her and sometimes missed her or remembered her with nostalgy.

 

The break up was around 3 or 4 months ago. Today I check my e-mail and I see one from her saying "Just wanted to say hi". My question is, should I reply back? Why is she contacting me again? Any thoughts?

[Mtlgrrl]

Are you interested in keeping her as a friend? If so, sure why not...otherwise what's the point? As you said you arent planning on seeing her again ...

[CherryT]

Did you guys ever meet IRL? Or was this a virtual/online relationship? It's hard to have a real relationship if you haven't met, especially for as long as you did. I believe you can definitely fall for someone but to have a relationship for that long without seeing eachother may be a fantasy. The reason I say this is because the "break up" conversation seems so non-chalant for a 4 year relationship.

 

With that being said, if you've never met and she's someone you enjoy speaking with then maybe there's a friendship there?

[FrustratedGuy91]

It may sound crazy but we were actually in love. I was planning on going to the states to meet her, but I had major setbacks which made it impossible in a near future. In all those 4 years we had only one small break up that lasted around a week. It was the worst week of my life like I had actual physical pain, and aching, I couldn't eat, barely sleep or get out of bed... So yeah it was kinda serious.

 

But I guess we could be friends because when we actually broke up I didn't feel the way I felt on that week sort of break up...

[umirano]

If you have never met, you don't know her completely. Virtual relationships entail a filtered reality. So you probably both loved someone who doesn't really exist.

[AngrySpider]

I guess it could be inferred that if she's contacted you out of the blue after a few months,she's been thinking about you enough to at least send you an e-mail.While it may have just been intended on her part to be friendly with you,I wouldn't rule it out that she may be missing you in a more-than-friendly way.Four years is a long time to be involved with someone,whether the relationship is seen by others as being "virtual" or not.So her wanting to say "hi" may be a way for her to try and get her foot back in the door,so to speak.

 

I don't see any harm in replying to her.From what I read of the last conversation you had with her,it doesn't seem that things ended on a bad note.It could end up leading to a friendly relationship or things could pick up again and that "spark" could end up coming back again.

[AngrySpider]

If you have never met, you don't know her completely. Virtual relationships entail a filtered reality. So you probably both loved someone who doesn't really exist.

 

To a point,I agree with you.The problem is,you could be with someone for 20 years in a more up close and personal relationship and never completely know them neither.Sometimes,the term "virtual relationship" gets under my skin because there are some couples in LDRs who aren't able to meet each other for a while because of circumstances beyond their control.It doesn't mean that the people involved aren't real and that there aren't genuine feelings there on the part of both of them.Yes,anyone can be anyone online and say that they're this or that,when in reality,it could be a different story.But that isn't always the case.

[HeavenOrHell]

You're going to know someone far far better if you've cuddled them, held hands, shared intimacy, shared baths or showers together, cooked together, slept in each other's arms, gone shopping together, watch movies, spend time with friends together, done things together which you enjoy doing ie visiting places, eating out, climbing mountains, or whatever your passions are etc etc.

 

I know you can have strong feelings for someone you've not spent time with face to face, but it doesn't come anywhere near close to spending time *with* someone, it is impossible to have as close a bond with someone you've not met to someone you have.

 

If you've no interest in being with her, which is how it sounds by the blunt why you reacted to her when she wanted to be single, then why does it matter that she sent you a message? And if you want to be friends then reply and say that.

 

 

To a point,I agree with you.The problem is,you could be with someone for 20 years in a more up close and personal relationship and never completely know them neither.Sometimes,the term "virtual relationship" gets under my skin because there are some couples in LDRs who aren't able to meet each other for a while because of circumstances beyond their control.It doesn't mean that the people involved aren't real and that there aren't genuine feelings there on the part of both of them.Yes,anyone can be anyone online and say that they're this or that,when in reality,it could be a different story.But that isn't always the case.

[CherryT]

I completely agree with this. No one is saying you can't fall for someone you've never met irl and have only had great conversations with. But to have a real, long lasting relationship, you have to merge your lives together. I understand that there were circumstances that prevented you from being together, but 4 years is a long time to not be able to plan to even meet in the middle.

 

I'm in a LDR relationship, but I see my bf once a month. I know there are people on this forum that go multiple months in between - that to me is so so hard and I commend them for doing it. Although we met in person, we built our foundation through communication as it was over a month before we could see each other again. Now that we've been together for about 8 months, I don't see myself being able to have a relationship where there's no touch. We went on vacation together and I fell in love with him more than that I thought I had originally. It's because I was physically there to see the way he treated his family, how he treated me in person, etc. This love wouldn't have been as intense without being able to experience moments with him. I'm now close with his family and friends and vice versa. Even though we spend a lot of time apart, we are very much a part of each others lives. His family is always asking me to visit (and move officially), they email and text me meals that i'm missing with them and say "wish you were here". It's very real (both when we're apart and together). Something that is completely online, to me, is almost a double life. There's this person you're in a "serious long term relationship" with, that no one who is close to you in your "real life" has ever met. This is probably why the break up was so "easy" (ok you want to be single? Fine)... So, I say, go ahead and talk to her and she can become a friend. But if you're planning on getting back together, I hope you have a plan in the near future to meet.

 

 

 

You're going to know someone far far better if you've cuddled them, held hands, shared intimacy, shared baths or showers together, cooked together, slept in each other's arms, gone shopping together, watch movies, spend time with friends together, done things together which you enjoy doing ie visiting places, eating out, climbing mountains, or whatever your passions are etc etc.

 

I know you can have strong feelings for someone you've not spent time with face to face, but it doesn't come anywhere near close to spending time *with* someone, it is impossible to have as close a bond with someone you've not met to someone you have.

 

If you've no interest in being with her, which is how it sounds by the blunt why you reacted to her when she wanted to be single, then why does it matter that she sent you a message? And if you want to be friends then reply and say that.

[bluegreen]

To a point,I agree with you.The problem is,you could be with someone for 20 years in a more up close and personal relationship and never completely know them neither.Sometimes,the term "virtual relationship" gets under my skin because there are some couples in LDRs who aren't able to meet each other for a while because of circumstances beyond their control.It doesn't mean that the people involved aren't real and that there aren't genuine feelings there on the part of both of them.Yes,anyone can be anyone online and say that they're this or that,when in reality,it could be a different story.But that isn't always the case.

 

 

Thank You

Just that thank you ...

[AngrySpider]

I definitely agree with what you both have to say.Relationships that occur "in real life" are more ideal in the sense that there's physical contact and plenty of other opportunities to interact and,henceforth,to know the other person aside from what they're telling you.

 

CherryT,you said:

 

But to have a real, long lasting relationship, you have to merge your lives together.

 

I put "real" in bold print for a reason.The LDR that I've been in stands out from a lot of my local relationships because it's been chock full of learning experiences and it has provided me with the opportunity to examine the nature of relationships themselves.I think that a lot of people-especially those who have never been in a LDR-define a "real" relationship as being one where two people are in close geographical proximity,have intimate contact,and see other on a regular basis.After examining my past relationships with local girlfriends and the relationships of other people I know,I had to reassess what constituted as being a "real" relationship.

 

Rhetorical question:How is a local relationship,where there is cheating on the part of one or both parties involved ,more "real" than a relationship that is carried out entirely or mostly online between two people who are genuinely in love with one another and are faithful? While the couple in the LDR have the disadvantage of not being able to have that physical intimacy all the time,they have all of the other items of critical importance in a relationship (love,trust,communication,and loyalty) which would make theirs more of a "real" relationship than the local scenario where there's much in the way of betrayal and deception.

 

I've been cheated on in just about every relationship that I've been in.Even though my exes and I did some of the things that,HeavenOrHell,you had listed earlier as a couple,it was those acts of cheating that knocked the reality right out of it all.I may have had some good times and lots of physical contact with them,but the cheating made the memories bittersweet and the intimacy seem less intimate because it was not shown just to me.And,while along the way,I had acquired some knowledge of them as individuals via frequent association with them,there was still a part of them that was just an illusion to me because they tried to keep some of their true colors out of the Crayola box for me to see.

 

My own mother mocked me this past Christmas for having an "imaginary girlfriend." Meanwhile,her last relationship was with a guy who-unbeknownst to her-was married.She may have seen him on the regular and had physical relations with him but he was her "imaginary boyfriend" because he was having an extramarital affair.I think that a couple who resides hundreds or thousands of miles away from one another and yet love and commit to one another is certainly more "real" than that.Even if there's a period of time where they can't meet for one reason or another.

[butterflylover]

I don't see a problem with it,if you still want to be her friend,then by all means go ahead.

[CherryT]

Look, I totally understand your stand point and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just challenging the thought a little further. I am also in a long distance relationship and don't get me wrong, I would say it's the most REAL relationship that I've ever had - including my "local" relationships. Although I try and see my boyfriend once a month (6 weeks tops), the only way we can get to each other is on a plane, the commitment we have for one another is unparalleled to any of my past relationships.

 

To your point, my ex cheated on me and we lived blocks from one another. My boyfriend and I have all the things that my ex and I didn't have (or he didn't have). We have the trust, communication, loyalty etc and to the 10th degree because of our obstacles such as the distance... and I would rather miss the hell out of my bf today and get to see him on a limited basis until we can be together 100% of the time, then try and date someone locally. He covers all my needs despite the distance. I feel immensely supported, loved, taken care of, etc. more than any boyfriend I had locally. Which takes me to my point: Everyone has different needs, but the majority of women do have the same needs. There's a huge part of us who want to get married, have children while having an amazing companionship and partnership. Again, I see myself doing this with my boyfriend (despite us being in a LDR right now) because he's the most real, raw, love I've ever had.... More so than when I thought I was in love in past relationships.

 

But after 4 years without meeting... I don't know. How are all your needs met? There was absolutely no way within 4 years that you both could've met in the middle? Was it income? or was one or the other person reluctant? The style of how non-chalant the break up was screams not real... especially for a 4 year relationship. Perhaps it was one side? Or perhaps there were legitimate reasons for the distance? But unless both parties decide that having a online relationship is all they want... it can't be fulfilling their needs and at the end of the day there are two lives being lived. One where your SO is a part of and one that they're not.

 

 

CherryT,you said:

 

 

 

I put "real" in bold print for a reason.The LDR that I've been in stands out from a lot of my local relationships because it's been chock full of learning experiences and it has provided me with the opportunity to examine the nature of relationships themselves.I think that a lot of people-especially those who have never been in a LDR-define a "real" relationship as being one where two people are in close geographical proximity,have intimate contact,and see other on a regular basis.After examining my past relationships with local girlfriends and the relationships of other people I know,I had to reassess what constituted as being a "real" relationship.

 

Rhetorical question:How is a local relationship,where there is cheating on the part of one or both parties involved ,more "real" than a relationship that is carried out entirely or mostly online between two people who are genuinely in love with one another and are faithful? While the couple in the LDR have the disadvantage of not being able to have that physical intimacy all the time,they have all of the other items of critical importance in a relationship (love,trust,communication,and loyalty) which would make theirs more of a "real" relationship than the local scenario where there's much in the way of betrayal and deception.

 

I've been cheated on in just about every relationship that I've been in.Even though my exes and I did some of the things that,HeavenOrHell,you had listed earlier as a couple,it was those acts of cheating that knocked the reality right out of it all.I may have had some good times and lots of physical contact with them,but the cheating made the memories bittersweet and the intimacy seem less intimate because it was not shown just to me.And,while along the way,I had acquired some knowledge of them as individuals via frequent association with them,there was still a part of them that was just an illusion to me because they tried to keep some of their true colors out of the Crayola box for me to see.

 

My own mother mocked me this past Christmas for having an "imaginary girlfriend." Meanwhile,her last relationship was with a guy who-unbeknownst to her-was married.She may have seen him on the regular and had physical relations with him but he was her "imaginary boyfriend" because he was having an extramarital affair.I think that a couple who resides hundreds or thousands of miles away from one another and yet love and commit to one another is certainly more "real" than that.Even if there's a period of time where they can't meet for one reason or another.

Edited January 31, 2013 by CherryT