or, would I?
The website has coughed up another guy. So far, Museum Guy seems smart, maybe a bit nerdy, but he's a history nerd who volunteers at museums, which makes him all the more interesting. The potential problem is that he lives about 100 miles away. Now, I've heard the stories, just like you have, of people wooing each other from much greater distances than that, and, after that adrenaline-filled first meeting, carrying on and getting married. Enter the "happily ever after."
But, that's not the norm. It can't be. The pure logistics of long-distance dating are troublesome. Then again, we're talking 100 miles. It's a bit of a drive, sure, but it isn't the moon. Besides, there are two cities between here and there which would work for meet-in-the-middle type scenarios. I'm not saying it can't be done. Still, a two-ish hour drive isn't all that convenient. We like to think that love conquers all, but sometimes logistics wins the day.
At this point, the question is more a hypothetical one. Two e-mails does not true love make. I just can't help but wonder if there's a real chance that, assuming all else goes well, dating from 100 miles away is really feasible? We already know that my brother is about to answer this question when he moves to Florida and his girlfriend stays in Colorado. How much difference does it make whether the relationship started off long-distance or became that way? Hrm... Any thoughts?
3 comments:
I think it is easier to date someone who lives 100 miles away than it is to date someone who lives 50 miles away. Sure, your interaction would be limited primarily to weekends but it is also a sufficient distance to restrict you to weekends without the temptation of closer distance.
All that being said, I think that it is ill advised to start an e-lationship that way because all of the communictation that is a prerequisite for the first meeting. It creates false expectation and diminishes critical thinking because of the pressure to validate the prior time spent.
Good points.
Post a Comment