TeddyBeer Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Hi everyone, I read some topics on the LDR subforum here, and some of them I thought, well, they are more not-so-long-distance relationships! So I wonder what you guys think are actually long distance relationships! Me I would say if you are able to travel by land to your SO and you can do it within 6 hours, it is not a long distance relationship, because that is very doable. Everything over, by land, is long distance. When you actually need to fly, I would call it long distance easier, because then it is a lot more expensive and difficult to be with each other physically. Also do you think for an LDR, you need to have actual physical contact at some point in the relationship (I think you do btw). How about you guys? Link to post Share on other sites
d0nnivain Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 For me an LDR is a 4+ hour land drive or the need for a plane. Link to post Share on other sites
hippychick3 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Well...mine is a 3 hour drive, sometimes less with no traffic. I consider it an LDR because we can't really see each other during the work week and round trip is 6 hours of driving. My bf minimizes the distance, but in reality it is an LDR. If there is no physical contact between the two people, I don't consider that a legitimate relationship. It's a fantasy. Link to post Share on other sites
amaysngrace Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 A long distance relationship is one you have to get on a plane for. Link to post Share on other sites
LittleTiger Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 I'm not sure why anyone thinks there needs to be a definition of an LDR. It's a bit like asking what defines a big age gap between a couple ie "how long is a piece of string?" I think it's personal and relative. To me, a LDR is any relationship where you can't see one another easily or frequently because of restraints on travel. My own relationship is over 10,000 miles and involves around 28 hours travelling by air to see one another. I doubt anyone would question our LDR status. At the other end of the scale there are students and teenagers with very little money or independence. They may find it difficult to see their boyfriend/girlfriend who lives fifty miles away because they don't have a car and can't afford the bus/train fare more than once every two weeks. To them that's probably an LDR, especially if all their previous girlfriends/boyfriends lived in the same town or even went to the same school. So, a relationship is a LDR if you 'feel' it's a LDR. With regard to 'do you have to have met IRL'. It also depends. You can have a great friendship with someone long distance (and a friendship is a relationship) but, I think, you need to actually meet in person in order to determine chemistry ie to turn it into a romantic LDR. 5 Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 LittleTiger nailed it. There is no single answer to this. For me? I wouldn't bother if it was more than 45mins drive. Though I'd drive further if he lived somewhere fantastic and was fine with sleepovers Link to post Share on other sites
d0nnivain Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 I call the ones less then 4 hours, GUD -- geographically undesirable. It's just too much effort to see the other person but it's not an LDR 1 Link to post Share on other sites
devilish innocent Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 If you live far enough away, that you can’t make plans to see each other after work in the evenings, I tend to think of it as a long distance relationship. I’d say roughly anything more than 50 minutes away. My husband and I lived three hours apart when we were dating. It’s strange for me to see that most commentators wouldn’t consider us to be long distance. When we started dating, phone calls were still very expensive if they were outside of your area code. We didn’t even get to hear each other’s voices other than when we got to see each other. We were only able to do that once a month or so. Then we would spend two or three days together, and the following day after that would always be really rough. When Skype was invented and we were able to call any time we missed each other, it completely changed our entire dating experience. I find that to be a very different relationship from couples who can stop by and see each other on the spur of the moment any time they want to. Link to post Share on other sites
LittleTiger Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 I call the ones less then 4 hours, GUD -- geographically undesirable. It's just too much effort to see the other person but it's not an LDR That's an interesting way to look at it. I can't imagine any amount of travelling being 'too much effort' to be with the man I love. Link to post Share on other sites
d0nnivain Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I can't imagine any amount of travelling being 'too much effort' to be with the man I love. My answer didn't say anything about love. If you are truly in love the distance will never be insurmountable but short of true love, if it's too inconvenient, it's not going to happen. Link to post Share on other sites
Popsicle Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 30 mins. I'm needy. Link to post Share on other sites
HopeForTomorrow Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) 30 mins. I'm needy. Me too. Fifteen minutes. [] Edited March 25, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator Link to post Share on other sites
LittleTiger Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 My answer didn't say anything about love. If you are truly in love the distance will never be insurmountable but short of true love, if it's too inconvenient, it's not going to happen. Fair comment...although I can't imagine why anybody would bother with a LDR if they're not in love. So I guess I need to refine my own 'definition' of a LDR to include the 'in love' element. A 'LDR' where the two people aren't in love is either a long distance friendship, where meeting isn't necessary, or it's 'Long Distance Dating'. I agree, that 'LDD' would be way too much effort. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
d0nnivain Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 A 'LDR' where the two people aren't in love is either a long distance friendship, where meeting isn't necessary, or it's 'Long Distance Dating'. I agree, that 'LDD' would be way too much effort. That is what I never understood about people who claim to be in love but who have never met. I needed to date to get to know someone & fall in love. It would not work for me the other way around. If I met somebody & they lived too far away I wouldn't give them a chance. I did a bicoastal LDR for about 1.5 years but we'd known each other for about 4 years & had been dating for about 1 before he relocated. Link to post Share on other sites
LittleTiger Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 That is what I never understood about people who claim to be in love but who have never met. I needed to date to get to know someone & fall in love. It would not work for me the other way around. If I met somebody & they lived too far away I wouldn't give them a chance. I did a bicoastal LDR for about 1.5 years but we'd known each other for about 4 years & had been dating for about 1 before he relocated. I don't think you can be in love with someone you've never met because being 'in love' involves physical chemistry and that's impossible to determine until you meet for real. It can be a fast track from friendship to love though, once you do meet. My guy and I clicked instantly online and became great friends long distance. Initially we were 12,000 miles apart and the idea of a relationship with him never entered my head. Two months (and about 300 hours conversation) later he flew to meet me. We spent three weeks together and the rest is history. Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 That's an interesting way to look at it. I can't imagine any amount of travelling being 'too much effort' to be with the man I love. I wouldn't get emotionally involved with someone who lived far away, so this takes love out of the equation. Or, if they lived close and moved, I would end things because I don't want a partner who puts our relationship lower than work or whatever else takes him away. Many years ago I had a summer romance with a cool guy who lived 7 hours drive away. I didn't allow myself to have any feelings other than fun and lust because I knew that I would not do a long distance thing. Unfortunately, he thought there would be a future for us so I had to let him down on that one. Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Someone once said to me "but what if the perfect guy lived far away?" My response was that he would not be perfect if he lived far away. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
LittleTiger Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Someone once said to me "but what if the perfect guy lived far away?" My response was that he would not be perfect if he lived far away. Different people have different priorities - and, I think, if you can 'choose' not to love someone, that's not love - not by my definition anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
Author TeddyBeer Posted March 22, 2016 Author Share Posted March 22, 2016 I'm not sure why anyone thinks there needs to be a definition of an LDR. It's a bit like asking what defines a big age gap between a couple ie "how long is a piece of string?" I think it's personal and relative. To me, a LDR is any relationship where you can't see one another easily or frequently because of restraints on travel. My own relationship is over 10,000 miles and involves around 28 hours travelling by air to see one another. I doubt anyone would question our LDR status. At the other end of the scale there are students and teenagers with very little money or independence. They may find it difficult to see their boyfriend/girlfriend who lives fifty miles away because they don't have a car and can't afford the bus/train fare more than once every two weeks. To them that's probably an LDR, especially if all their previous girlfriends/boyfriends lived in the same town or even went to the same school. So, a relationship is a LDR if you 'feel' it's a LDR. With regard to 'do you have to have met IRL'. It also depends. You can have a great friendship with someone long distance (and a friendship is a relationship) but, I think, you need to actually meet in person in order to determine chemistry ie to turn it into a romantic LDR. Alright very fair response! I just like to know what people consider to be long distance, because there is quite a few instances where I am thinking: it is so easy for you people, and they call it long distance. Where I am envious of their situation. And that kinda bothered me. But very wise words. I think it is relative to your situation, yes! I might be able to travel by public transport easily, others can't, make it harder on them and all, might make a not so long distance still long distance for them.. (also 28 hours damnnnnn... that is tough! The traveling part at least really bothers me as I am terrified of flying and always need to fly around 10 hours.. but even when you are fine with flying that is just awful!!). Yes the meeting in person I do still find important. I grown up on forums, and having these group meets and all.. and you always find out that people are so different 'offline' (although very very painfully the moderators and admins from the forum all stuck together in groups watching us 'users'...). And I have had online relationships before too, and meeting them and we just didn't have that connection that we had online. It can be so different. So I think actually meeting makes all the difference. But yea you can have a relationship online, but if you don't go out and meet.. Myself if I had just online relationship ever again I don't think I'd take it as serious until we actually met, from earlier experiences.. Link to post Share on other sites
Author TeddyBeer Posted March 22, 2016 Author Share Posted March 22, 2016 30 mins. I'm needy. I am also very needy. But I can live with getting my needs on WhatsApp and Skype (okay sexual needs not so much no, but I don't think they are as important as emotional needs. and when you finally see each other again you will devour each other :D ). And we send each other sweet gifts back and forth! He always knows just how to pick out the most personal, sweet gifts.. Link to post Share on other sites
Author TeddyBeer Posted March 22, 2016 Author Share Posted March 22, 2016 That is what I never understood about people who claim to be in love but who have never met. I needed to date to get to know someone & fall in love. It would not work for me the other way around. If I met somebody & they lived too far away I wouldn't give them a chance. I did a bicoastal LDR for about 1.5 years but we'd known each other for about 4 years & had been dating for about 1 before he relocated. I don't think you have ever been in the situation where you could fall in love with someone online, because I think it could happen to every single person. The thing is; online is most of the times not completely direct, so people can think of how they want to represent themselves. And they might want to represent themselves as being more interesting and better than they are, or adjust their personal interests and everything to yours. And that is the tricky part of it. I never wanted to fall for anyone online. Never. I still did though, multiple times. Always have had a great 'offline life', going out with friends and all, but also an online life and you sometimes just come across interesting people and get to know them better and fall for them. My current boyfriend I knew 2 years before even being remotely interested in him, I was in a relationship myself and he was really my best friend that time. Then when I was single we could talk more things and yea just fell for him, and in real life he was exactly the same. And we just loved and love each other still so much. Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Different people have different priorities - and, I think, if you can 'choose' not to love someone, that's not love - not by my definition anyway. No, it's not about choosing not to love a person. It's about not getting involved with a long distance person to start with. You can't fall in love with someone who you don't know. Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 My definition is if you can't see them more often than once every 1-2 weeks despite both people doing their best. So it's more situational than just pure distance. For instance, if you were only 150km apart and at least one of you has a car, then not a LDR (I was in this situation before, and I didn't consider it a LDR). But if you are 150km apart and both of you are students without cars, and the public transport between your places is just once a day and takes 3 hours one way due to a long route... then I'd probably call it a LDR. If you are 150km apart and one of you has a car but they are in different countries and there are visa restrictions that prevent you from traveling whenever you want, also a LDR. So on and so forth. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
LittleTiger Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 No, it's not about choosing not to love a person. It's about not getting involved with a long distance person to start with. You can't fall in love with someone who you don't know. 'Not getting involved' with anyone you don't see in person on a regular/frequent basis is completely unrealistic in this day and age. In addition to the friends I have at home, I am currently in the following relationships, all of which I consider long distance: * My fiancé who is in Australia while I'm in the UK (I spend several months a year with him and we talk for about an hour on video at each end of the day). * My parents who are a 2hr 45min drive away but, because of work and many other constraints, I see them only a few weeks every year and we talk on the phone a couple of times a week. * My brother and sister and their kids, same distance as my parents, see them once a year maybe and chat on the phone once a year. * Six very good friends I've had for between ten and thirty years who I keep in touch with online/phone but rarely get to see. Two of them live only 45 minutes away. * One great friend, who I met online completely by accident five years ago. We've never met in person but we video chat at least once a month. My guess is, most people are 'involved with a long distance person', even if it's not a romantic relationship...and who knows where romantic love is going to strike. At 35, I married a man I met when I was seven years old. We kept in touch as 'long distance friends' (phone, post card etc) for twenty plus years before we got together as a grown up couple. Should we have not stayed in touch in case we 'got involved'? Absolutely not! Sadly, he's now dead, but he was the best friend I ever had. Link to post Share on other sites
LittleTiger Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Alright very fair response! I just like to know what people consider to be long distance, because there is quite a few instances where I am thinking: it is so easy for you people, and they call it long distance. Where I am envious of their situation. And that kinda bothered me. But very wise words. I think it is relative to your situation, yes! I might be able to travel by public transport easily, others can't, make it harder on them and all, might make a not so long distance still long distance for them.. (also 28 hours damnnnnn... that is tough! The traveling part at least really bothers me as I am terrified of flying and always need to fly around 10 hours.. but even when you are fine with flying that is just awful!!). I don't think it helps to compare your own relationship with others. We all have our own challenges to face. How you feel about your own situation is what's important. Sure, some LDRs are easier than others...that's life. (I'm terrified of flying too! That's how much my guy means to me! :laugh:) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts