Flip_FTW wrote:Julie Skywalker wrote:Just because there's an inability for certain physical aspects of a relationship doesn't make my relationship "not count" or "pointless." People always preach about how relationships have to be more about communication and emotional attachment than sex, but a long distance relationship "isn't a real relationship" because I can't have physical aspects and it's entirely communication and emotional attachment?
I don't care who you are, if you're not me or my significant other, then you can't define my relationship...
It's not pointless to me..
From my experience I would say that long distance relationships are actually stronger relationships for that very reason
I'm kind of lucky that my girlfriend doesn't live "that" far away (it's about an hourish, maybe just less than an hour but including the return journey it's two hours or so of travel per visit). We see each other at least once a week, sometimes just over that and sometimes just less than that (rotas and free time not withstanding). But I still feel as strongly about it all when we are apart as I do when we are together and I think it takes a strong bond between two people to maintain that and really the longer you can keep up with that just goes to prove how right you two probably are for each other.
That's my two cents... Or two pennies, as it were.
Thanks.. that's my experience so far, too. Obviously it would be bad to NEVER have any physical aspects, but for me the point of a relationship is to have someone who loves and supports you, and honestly, I get more love and support from overseas than I have ever gotten here. It's more important to me to know that someone cares out there, and even though I am impatient to be closer and I do hate the distance, I would never trade what I have for some local mook.. The emotional aspect is what's most important to me.












