Introduction

An Extreme Example of a Non-Internet Society

Relationships in an Internet Society

Conclusion

Next...

-- By BrettJohnson - 24 Dec 2009

Introduction

By providing readily available choices the internet may have the effect of shortening peoples’ attention span. As discussed below, this shortened attention span may affect not only entertainment choices but also personal relationships--resulting in a decrease in the number of long term intimate relationships.

The issue of whether a reduced number of long-term relationships is good or bad is far beyond the scope of this essay. While some people tend to assume that long-term relationships are beneficial to society it is impossible to set forth such a blanket rule. Instead, each relationship would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Undoubtedly there are times that it is better to end the relationship—such as in cases of abuse—or even unhappiness and dissatisfaction with the relationship. On the other hand most would probably agree that a long-term relationship should not be ended because of a minor argument. Thus, the resulting inability to set forth a blanket rule.

An Extreme Example of a Non-Internet Society

The effect of the internet on personal relationships may be demonstrated by first looking at what occurred in a very non-internet society. I grew up in a tiny town in Wyoming and graduated from high school with eighteen classmates. The closest stoplight was 30 miles away; we had one convenience store/gas station, a church and a post office. The sign entering “town” said “Population 100” but when I returned to visit a few years later it said “Population 200,” which leads me to believe, based on the round numbers, that the census methodology may have been suspect. There was no satellite television and cable was not available. We had a single television station (NBC), and our 19” tube television, adorned with tin-foil antenna, allowed us a fuzzy (black and white in my early years) picture. Competing with the television was one FM radio station and two AM stations. Under those circumstances, we were willing to tolerate poor quality television because it was the only game in town. We would sit loyally through atrocious local commercials, blackouts, and poor quality programming.

Similar to a lack of entertainment choices, my home-town provided a very limited supply of potential dating/marriage partners. Persons who were no closer related than second cousin were fair game as a potential mate. Because of a lack of other options, there were many pairings of people who probably did not have a lot in common and would most likely have not even associated with each other had there been other options. Just as we watched poor quality television programming, however, people accepted what was available in the dating/marriage department.

Relationships in an Internet Society

With the internet, we have become a society of instant gratification as a natural consequence of the number of options that we have at our disposal, resulting in a lack of patience for something/somebody that/who is not currently meeting our needs. With respect to personal relationships, there are websites specifically devoted to meeting and dating, Match.com, EHarmony and Plenty of Fish as well as the social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook. After the initial connection—via the internet—or otherwise, there are cell phones, text messages, emails, and IMs.

Commentators have speculated upon the effect that the internet has on the way in which people meet and begin personal relationships. Some have specifically suggested that the existence of the internet has made infidelity in relationships more common and have explored the specific type of infidelity, called cyber infidelity. Moreover, “[m]atrimonial lawyers have reported seeing a rise in divorce cases due to the formation of such Cyberaffairs” See also Quittner, J. (1997, April 4) Divorce Internet Style. Time, p. 72.

Todd Kendall has written a paper on the effect of the internet on long term relationships and divorce. He notes that “[o]ver the last decade, as home internet access has spread, anecdotal reports of infidelity and divorce associated with the worldwide web have become widespread.” Id. at 2. Kendall further acknowledges that “in such a[n internet] model, the cost of searching for romantic partners, both before or after marriage, is a crucial parameter, and indeed, it may be argued that the internet has lowered these costs substantially.” Id. However, Kendall argues that the internet provides features that will also have the effect of reducing the divorce rate such as providing better and longer searches for a long-term partner, which ultimately results in better matches. Id. at 4-5. Kendall ultimately concludes that the varying long term effects and ultimate long term consequences of the internet on divorce are ambiguous. Id. at 16.

I do not disagree with Kendall’s ultimate conclusion that there is not a sufficient amount of information to reach an ultimate conclusion on the effect, if any, of the internet on long term relationships. However, I do tend to agree with the numerous commentators (Kendall citing commentators but ultimately disagreeing with their conclusions) who have speculated that the most likely effect will be to decrease rather than increase long-term relationships. While everyone seems to acknowledge that search costs are an important component in the longevity of relationships Kendall appears to be one of the few who argues that better search ability prior to entering into a relationship provided by the internet increases the success of long term relationships. While this factor would admittedly appear to favor longevity it does not seem to be a sufficient advantage to overcome the detrimental effect of reduced search costs for replacing an existing partner. This seems true in part because, based on my own observations of peoples' behavior in my home-town, as well as the observations of others--that often the reason that people stay in relationships is a perceived lack of options rather than the desire to be with that person. Consequently, the availability of potential new partners to replace an existing partner presented by the internet may decrease the number of long-term relationships.

Conclusion

Even if it is correct, however, that the number of long-term relationships will be reduced in the future, this is not to suggest that there will never again be sixty-year long relationships. Undoubtedly, there are connections where both people desire to be together in a monogamous relationship with the same person for their entire lives. However, for better or worse, the condition of the internet society, making relationships easier to replace may cause a reduction in the number of future long-term relationships.

Oh, Brett. I recognize that there isn't much to say about your paper that Eben hasn't covered, but I feel compelled to comment--- your paper is simply too offensive not to. I won’t repeat what he’s said, but I just want to say that if you expect to be taken seriously as a person or as a scholar, you might want to consider toning down (if you can’t bring yourself to drop it) the blatant and frankly kind of weird sexism pervading this piece. It’s just gross.

On another note, hi, I’m from Wyoming, too, and I’ll be damned if we don’t have TV, radio, and gee, even the Internet (and for the record, I have never once considered dating my cousin, thank you very much). It’s not that I don’t think being from a rural place, particularly Wyoming, doesn’t mean something different in the very technological age in which we live (I do), but your depiction of Wyoming as a place entirely removed from “technology” writ large is not true now, if it ever was. It’s as unfair and inaccurate as anything else in your paper, which means it warrants revision.

-- DanaDelger - 23 Jan 2010

Dear Dana,

I am going to post a revised version of the paper that will most likely eliminate the parts that you found so “sex[ist]” and “gross” in large part because I do not have the space to analyze all of the issues and address Professor Moglen's comments so I have divided the topic. However, in light of your allegations please explain exactly what you found “sexist” and “gross.” Was it my observation that men are generally bigger and stronger than women? Was it my observation that me generally used to have an advantage in jobs that required physical labor such as throwing 100 lb bales of hay over their head onto a buck-wagon all day long and that physical advantage is no longer an advantage in most careers? Is it my observation that women are no longer finically dependant on men as they once were? If so, I stick by those observations.

Frankly, I feel that it is a very cheap and immature tactic to rely on allegations of sexism in lieu of real analysis to support your position. Since you took the time to comment on my essay please quote language from my original essay, explain the meaning that you attribute to such language, and explain why that language is sexist or gross.

With respect to the Wyoming issue I was certainly not disparaging the state. I hope to retire there one day. The technological picture I outlined was simply a recounting of my childhood. Also, if you would like to visit my home-town I will be happy to introduce you to more than one couple who are married to their second cousins. That is not disparaging—it is simply a fact.

-- BrettJohnson - 24 Jan 2010