February 11, 2001

12:04 PM

Couples who click online,notably Meg Hourihan and Jason Kottke. Photo as well.
posted by jhiggy (53 comments total)

Man, if that doesn't make you go "aawwwww", check for a pulse. Snif. Sweet.
posted by frykitty at 1:07 PM on February 11, 2001

I'll have to take your word for it. It says "to enter our site you must have cookies and JavaScript enabled"--which of course I do, but the site can't figure that out. JSP problem? Clueless developer problem? Go figure.
posted by rodii at 1:16 PM on February 11, 2001

Try the print page. You don't get the megnut/kottke cuddle pic or the hyperlinks, though. (Both pages loaded fine for me in Opera 5.)
posted by dhartung at 2:07 PM on February 11, 2001

I meet my girlfriend next week when she flies out here to Dublin. She's from Kansas, USA. I'm from Dublin, Ireland.
We've had a thing going for about a year now, but have known each other from a mailing list, since about 1998.

I'm nervous and excited....but it should be good!!
posted by tomcosgrave at 3:46 PM on February 11, 2001

I agree with fry: that picture is very high on the awwwwable quotient.
posted by hijinx at 3:46 PM on February 11, 2001

Some people meet and fall in love. Why should someone be interested in this? Its hardly news and this article doesn't mention anything that might considered particularly unusual or unconventional about these relationships.

My wife and I met online, but I don't see why that, in itself, should be particularly interesting to people who don't otherwise know us.
posted by normy at 4:01 PM on February 11, 2001

normy, I think the point is to show that the internet isn't all amazon and ebay, and that people actually meet real life partners through it. And that said partners don't actually turn out to be 45 year old unemployed plumbers in Akron, OH, posing as your 24 year old dream date.

The photo is certainly oozing with cuteness, though it looks like they're products in a Pottery Barn catalog. :)
posted by mathowie at 4:11 PM on February 11, 2001

mathowie, I think that anyone who still thinks that meeting potential partners online is something new and unusual needs to get out more (or online more, maybe, or something...). But of course, I'm a biased snob. :)

My comment was a long-winded way of saying I thought it was a boring article.

Agreed about the photo, my first thought was breakfast cereal commercial.


posted by normy at 4:55 PM on February 11, 2001

That is such a cute photo! How sweet are they! Awwwww!!!! But I have to say that Tom and I will have much nicer photos taken! ;)
posted by FAB4GIRL at 5:00 PM on February 11, 2001

Insulin. . . quick. . .
posted by rodii at 5:47 PM on February 11, 2001

I first had an online girlfriend in 1990. Everyone thought I was nuts to drive from Detroit to Seattle to meet her. Actually, I was a 21-year-old virgin, which is more or less the same thing as being nuts. I agree that this sort of thing is hardly news these days.
posted by kindall at 6:08 PM on February 11, 2001

Well, as far as "newsworthiness" goes, let's keep in mind that this is a human interest profile in a fairly obscure online mag. It's not the cover of the New York Times. And judging from a quick look at the rest of the site, it's not exactly targeted toward the I33T, so maybe it IS news to some of their readers that meeting someone online is not necessarily the dicey proposition it's made out to be. Either way, I think the article's a pleasant little piece of fluff. That picture, however, is another story entirely.
posted by Optamystic at 7:30 PM on February 11, 2001

er...l33T....Which I am clearly not.
posted by Optamystic at 7:42 PM on February 11, 2001

I guess if you live in a cave this article might be interesting.

Even though I love computers and the Internet, and work in that field, I'm relieved I didn't meet my fiancé on-line. I would be so embarrassed to tell people how we met. It sounds so “Jerry Springer”.

But that's just me. I'm old fashioned I guess.

posted by gtr at 7:43 PM on February 11, 2001

Uh...it doesn't matter if it's old news or not. Hello? Valentine's Day is this week. I'm surprised they didn't hold the story a few days. Got nothing to do with being original, and everything to do with Hallmark. :)
posted by frykitty at 7:48 PM on February 11, 2001

Good point. I guess on-line dating is not very romantic to me, nerdy yes:)

But again, that's just me.
posted by gtr at 8:03 PM on February 11, 2001

I always thought it was 1337. Oh well.
posted by gleemax at 8:12 PM on February 11, 2001

<bitterness>Ahh, Valentine's Day . . . the perfect argument in favor of envelope-carried bioweapons.</bitterness>
posted by aramaic at 8:25 PM on February 11, 2001

1 4m '//4y 700 31337 4 411 0f U!! =P
posted by ookamaka at 8:49 PM on February 11, 2001

Access Magazine is a Sunday edition newspaper insert mag, like Parade (which is why the story is on the web today and not Wednesday). Most readers have probably never heard of blogging, and many are likely not even online. What's old news to us is a completely new phenomenon to many people.

And the pic is cute...
posted by iblog at 9:00 PM on February 11, 2001

I get to meet my "online romance" this weekend right here in Waterloo...a year and a half worth of chatting online and phone calls, and finally I get to experience her in person.

People act like it's not "real", to have an online relationship. I guess this weekend I get to prove them all wrong.
posted by Succa at 9:26 PM on February 11, 2001

I think whatever works for other people is wonderful, and I'm sure ver "real" for them.

Just wouldn't ever be an option for me unless I couldn't leave the house.
posted by gtr at 9:34 PM on February 11, 2001

Oh, you don't have to prove anything to anyone, but if you were trying it would take longer than a weekend:)
posted by gtr at 9:36 PM on February 11, 2001

The photo gets three and a half Sutherlands.
posted by ed at 10:00 PM on February 11, 2001

What I want to know is, whose apartment is that in the photo? I need someone with taste as a consultant...
posted by anildash at 10:14 PM on February 11, 2001

> Couples who click online ...

There are a few 'cl' words that you have to be careful with, because the 'cl' can run together a bit, at least if you've got eyes like mine (or is it just a dirty mind?), and they can end up looking like a d.


posted by pracowity at 3:13 AM on February 12, 2001

There are a few 'cl' words that you have to be careful with

Yes there are Pracowity, but I was thinking along slightly different lines when I read your first sentence >;-)
posted by tomcosgrave at 7:34 AM on February 12, 2001

Just to sway completely off-topic for a moment- in comic books (where most writing is capitalized), the letter combination to be careful with is "LI", which can look like a U. Don't name your superhero CLINT FLICKER.
posted by dogwelder at 7:58 AM on February 12, 2001

well.. beings I rarely see a comic-characters name in all-caps.. that shouldn't be TOO big a problem.. :)
posted by Dn at 8:03 AM on February 12, 2001

What about the opposite end of the online dating spectrum? Meeting someone online is a tricky proposition, especially if you want to move forward in the relationship.


posted by Taken Outtacontext at 8:05 AM on February 12, 2001

> the letter combination to be careful with is "LI"

Yeah. I've noticed that one in headlines and movie ads with CLINT EASTWOOD capitalized.
posted by pracowity at 8:16 AM on February 12, 2001

Call me grouchy, but I think that annoys me most about these articles is that they almost all tend to focus on how *wonderful* the in-ter-net is for people who're in love and met online. Having largely experienced internet love (what can I say, I'm socially underdeveloped), I just wish for once that an article would point out how big a pain in the arse the whole experience can be. People get just as shafted by relationships online as by those in real life, but that's ignored, usually.

Then again, I might be a little confused about what the net is, cause I go by what I read in stories like this. Isn't it that big porn-and-bombmaking collection that's monitored by the feds?
posted by captainfez at 8:30 AM on February 12, 2001

Probably for the same reason, Captainfez, that the news channels don't show when something doesn't catch on fire and when the girl walking to her apartment late at night doesn't get murdered and the oil tanker that doesn't crash and empty it's payload destroying beach and wildlife.
posted by amanda at 10:30 AM on February 12, 2001

I see your point, amanda - but this piece isn't meant to be news, is it? It's probably meant to be a lifestyle piece. And surely in a lifestyle piece, the downsides need to be covered, too? Why should articles on the subject continue to suggest that only good stuff comes out of internet relationships? It ain't necessarily so.

I think you'll find that even the news occasionally runs feelgood pieces to prove that good things happen in the world, to redress that balance somewhat.
posted by captainfez at 11:10 AM on February 12, 2001

Why should articles on the subject continue to suggest that only good stuff comes out of internet relationships?

Because it's almost Valentine's Day. The timing is everything.
posted by megnut at 11:31 AM on February 12, 2001

It seems they might try to find people who met on-line and have actually been married a couple of years. That might give the article a little more weight.

Or maybe it's suppose to be the fluff piece it is...

posted by gtr at 12:03 PM on February 12, 2001

"instead we get a very cute picture of a very cute couple who has already been featured in a big national magazine."

Maybe they're the only couple anyone can find, or the only couple who want the details out there for everyone to read.

Who knows.

posted by gtr at 1:44 PM on February 12, 2001

Or maybe they didn't feel that running a story of soul crushing heartache and misery would be appropriate for well, ya know...um....Valentine's Day.
posted by Optamystic at 4:50 PM on February 12, 2001

Or, maybe... this is balance. I'm sick of all the stories about all the sickos and freaks that one finds or might find on the internet. Those stories seem to be in the majority.

This story is a lifestyle piece and for that reason it doesn't need to be objective or have balance. And, actually, I think that online relationships that grow into "real" relationships are far more newsworthy than those that don't. I don't think anyone really expects these types of relationships to work.
posted by amanda at 4:57 PM on February 12, 2001

Yeah, you want the other side, you get it about every two weeks like clockwork on Ann Landers. Of course, SHE makes a big deal out of the fact that it's the IN ... TER ... NET, somehow failing to note that she's been fielding adultery and breakup letters for most of the last half century.
posted by dhartung at 5:38 PM on February 12, 2001

I think the reason bad stories are the "majority" is because bad results are in the majority. That's just logical.

And as far as it being Valentines, meeting online is simply not romantic to me.

If others get gooey over it I'm happy for them.
posted by gtr at 6:40 PM on February 12, 2001

And as far as it being Valentines, meeting online is simply not romantic to me.

Well, it's not particularly romantic to me either. Neither is going grocery shopping, or working, or college, yet all of the above are places people hook up. If the Internet is as much a part of your daily life as grocery shopping, then of course you're going to meet people that way. What is romantic is not the way you meet someone, but what you do with the relationship once it's begun.
posted by kindall at 9:09 PM on February 12, 2001

Hey! Some of youse guys are depressing. Now stop it. ;)
*Adjust the rose colored glasses...ahhh perfect*
posted by oh posey at 11:42 PM on February 12, 2001

"If the Internet is as much a part of your daily life as grocery shopping, then of course you're going to meet people that way."

But I LIVE on the internet and I don't look for dates on-line. It's just not right for me.

But I'm not being depressing:) As I said before, if it works for ya, I'm happy for ya.
posted by gtr at 5:08 AM on February 13, 2001

I could never develop an online relationship. I don't want to get to know those "nerds" any better!
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:59 AM on February 13, 2001

But I LIVE on the internet and I don't look for dates on-line. It's just not right for me.

Well, it's not so much a matter of "looking for" as "stumbling across." That's been my experience, anyway.
posted by kindall at 10:55 AM on February 13, 2001

Is it my imagination or is Kottke attempting to break out of a headlock?
posted by Chairman_MaoXian at 11:23 AM on February 13, 2001

"If the Internet is as much a part of your daily life as grocery shopping, then of course you're going to meet people that way."

Do people meet people grocery shopping?


posted by rodii at 3:44 PM on February 13, 2001

Do people meet people grocery shopping?

I hear some people do. In fact it's apparently so common that some stores have singles' nights.
posted by kindall at 4:08 PM on February 13, 2001

I don't understand how those work. I mean, I have enough trouble remembering how many eggs I have left, let alone remembering to be reasonably calm and not slobbering over the fact that Hey! There are women looking for dates here!

(Course, this comes from the guy who's current girlfriend had to virtually hit him over the head with a 2x4 before he clued in to the fact that he had a chance :-)
posted by cCranium at 4:27 PM on February 13, 2001

I don't understand how those work. I mean, I have enough trouble remembering how many eggs I have left, let alone remembering to be reasonably calm and not slobbering over the fact that Hey! There are women looking for dates here!

Well, it gives you something obvious to talk about, especially if you're a typical bachelor and know little to nada about cooking.
posted by kindall at 2:14 AM on February 14, 2001