Face to Face

Finding Your Way

Two things happened, a couple of days apart.

I got an e-mail note from a loyal reader of Into the Centre, and I was heartened to hear that she missed the issue that didn’t go out the week I was at pd seminars. One of the odd things about writing is that it’s intensely personal, then it’s printed or e-mailed and a lot of the time, that’s it. Gone. Much like therapy; you never get to know the end result. Which is why I ask for feedback, and was glad to get this note.

She also asked me to comment on cyber relationships.

Tuesday a client was talking about a guy at work she finds interesting. They talk, they e-mail. She doesn’t know what to do next. I suggested conversation (there’s a surprise, right???) She said, "I get it. I’ll invite him over. I’ll tell him it’s nearly winter, my back door leaks and needs weather stripping, and if he came over and offered a "male viewpoint" on weather stripping, I’ll provide the wine."

There’s a link between these two topics.

Really.

Here it is.

Relationships take much effort and much direct communication.

One of the greatest problems with cyber relationships is the veracity factor. I’ve never had a client come in specifically for a cyber relationship problem; however, many clients at my northern office, which is a little off the beaten track, are in cyber relationships. So the topic comes up a lot as a side issue.

What they report is how much time is taken up by the relationship; there is an almost addictive quality to their chat line or e-mail experience. Yet, in a sense, they are talking into a void. There is another person at the other end of the conversation, but until the contact shifts to the phone or preferably to actually meeting the other person, you can’t even be sure of their sex, let along how "real" the person’s written "perception of self" is. (We talked about "real" ("objectivity" in brackets) several weeks ago.)

I did a consulting job for a corporation recently, and my contact sent the material via a high-ranking HR person. As she was heading to a meeting in the town next to Elmira, I suggested she stop for coffee at my home office on her way through. The brief meeting ended up being two plus hours; we talked about the project, then ourselves, then life in general.

That conversation has continued by e-mail. I notice, with e-mail, I am more likely to be sarcastic, ironic, or dropping innuendos than in face to face conversation. It’s almost an artificial intimacy, to make up for the off-putting nature of the media. I suspect that I got a better "sense" of the woman from our two hour meeting that I’m getting through our e-mails, although the e-mail has continued our contact and therefore deepened our relationship. Yet another paradox.

As to my client, I asked her to tell me, again, about the guy at work. She said she found him interesting and different. I then asked her what that had to do with weather stripping. She laughed and said, "What do you want me to do? Tell him I find him interesting?" I said that this was exactly what I would do, but I wasn't sure what she should do. I said that I’d say, "I find our conversations interesting and I’d like to know more about you. How about getting coffee at Timmie’s and having a talk?" (Timmie’s is a Canadianism for Tim Horton’s, a major donut chain in Canada.)

She said, "But my way, we can sort of just fall into a conversation. Your way, he could say no." I agreed there was no doubt that the way I said it meant that I wanted to learn more about the person through face to face conversation. Her way, on the other hand – weather stripping and wine at her house – has the potential for a much wider set of interpretations – sort of a Mae West, "How’d you like to come upstairs and realign my weather stripping" kind of thing.

What I’m getting at is this: relationships are difficult enough without making them more difficult. It seems to me essential that people meet eyeball to eyeball, knee to knee, in conversation. And that conversation, to be valuable, needs to be stripped of pretense and game playing, so that what is said is accurate, honest, open and descriptive of what is felt.

Cyber relationships, even the ones that include phone calls, are hidden behind a protective layer of technology. There is a certain safety in the once-removed-ness of the technology. When I was about 10, I listened to my baby sitter break up with her boyfriend over the phone. I thought that was cool, so I called up my "girlfriend" (at 10, that means we liked each other and talked) and broke up with her like my babysitter did. I felt pumped -- having said things I’d never have said in person.

That Sunday, her dad came up to me at church and reamed me out, and deservedly so. I had no idea what the effects of my words was on her, until he told me a bit of it. Later, when I was 18, she and I talked about it (I was slow and thick back then . . . ;-) ) and she could still feel the pain I had been totally unaware of. Had I said those words to her face (of course, I wouldn’t have – that’s my point), I’d have seen their effect.

So, all of you in cyber relationships, cool. So far as it goes. Don’t however, confuse them with real relationships. No matter how badly you want to.

And for all of you contemplating face to face relationships, try being honest, instead of playing games. Ask someone out for coffee and conversation. Be straight with people – "I’m interested in continuing this conversation and being your friend, but for me this is not about romance," for example.

Some people won’t like it or want to play by the honesty and openness rules you want to use. OK. Move on. Seek those who are willing to open up, or who are at least willing to explore opening up.

In the end, our future is determined by how well we are willing to be open and honest in this moment. This requires being physically present with our partner, and the willingness to be open and vulnerable. It requires observation and a sharing of feelings. Anything that gets in the way, whether it is technology or weather stripping, means "living life once removed." And life, simply, is too short for that.