Dear Dr. Holmes:

I used to chat a lot, as in I stay online from 9 in the evening until the wee wee hours of the morning. I even had a boyfriend online. I stopped. It's not because some of my friends called me pathetic and lonely; it's because I outgrew it.

Although I still want to know why I felt the way I did then. Do you think people who are addicted to chatting (Internet chatting) are just lonely people? Are we all really lonely people basically? I mean, chatting might just be an outlet to let go.

Is that the reason why other people tend to create new identities? The kinds they had wished they had been? They pretend to be something they are not. And most girls take it as it is. Emotions bared and all, they fall in love so easily. Why is that? Is it because you can exactly tell how and what a person is mostly by the way he answers; his thoughts and views? Is chatting better than the telephone or even personal meetings? Because when you chat, words won't choke you or make you nervous since you are in front of the computer.

Thank you, Dr. Holmes and I look forward to hearing from you.

Lonely Girl

Dear LONELY GIRL:

Thank you very much for your letter, which ranges from the (seemingly) mundane to the sublime. And while there are many ways to answer your question, I prefer to go the simplest (though, hopefully, not the most simplistic) route: which is to answer your questions as you ask them:

QUES 1: Do you think people who are addicted to chatting (Internet chatting) are just lonely people?

ANS 1: I think people addicted to *anything* are just, basically, lonely people or, rather, people looking for answers outside themselves rather than from within. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "addicted." In some quarters—science that actually *discovers* and not merely replicates, writing that shimmers and/or illuminates rather than merely informs-- "addiction" may be the very thing you need to succeed.

But let us not be philosophical here (at least, not just yet as your other questions seem to demand that one becomes so) and define addiction in the no-nonsense manner as an unhealthy and unwarranted dependence on something one doesn’t need to live on/with, okay? In which case, I stand by my above answer.

QUES 2: Are we all really lonely people basically?

ANS 2: It depends on what definition of (wo)man you have. Some religions say we are all basically lonely people until we unite with the Supreme Being. Some psychoanalysts would say we are all basically lonely people, searching for the all accepting, all consuming love we once had (or thought we had) from our mothers, doomed to be disappointed in relationship after relationship because nothing can replicate the mythical all accepting love we had as infants.

QUES 3: Is that the reason why other people tend to create new identities? The kinds they had wished they had been?

ANS 3: No. That is not the reason some people tend to create new identities. Most people want to come across as attractive, successful people to others. How far they are willing to go to project that image depends on many things—their abilities, their resources, and their unwillingness--or willingness--to stretch the truth. The more willing you are to stretch the truth, the more of a con man you are likely to be. Whether you actually *do* become a successful con man, however, depends not only on willingness but also ability. Ability to lie, cheat and quiet your conscience when it starts to get uncomfortable at all the lies you are telling.

QUES 4: Why is that (women believe and fall in love so easily)? Is it because you can exactly tell how and what a person is mostly by the way he answers; his thoughts and views?

ANS 4: Not all women believe the lies (or truths) people tell them on the Internet. But those that do are usually vulnerable to that sort of thing to begin with. That is, if they were not vulnerable to begin with (lonely, looking for something to fill what was missing in their lives), they would not be victimized quite so quickly or quite so easily, no matter how good a liar, how much of a *bolero* the guy was.

QUES 5: Is chatting better than the telephone or even personal meetings? Because when you chat, words won't choke you or make you nervous since you are in front of the computer.

ANS 5: Chatting can be better for the ultra shy or for those who are not so articulate, for the very reasons you mentioned. Chatting or, rather, e-mail (when you have time to compose and edit and re-edit your letters before actually sending them) can also be better for people who think deeply and beautifully but not quite so quickly and thus would benefit most from the extra time and opportunity e-mail gives to re-cast these beautiful thoughts into just-as-beautiful words.

QUES 6: (which you didn’t really ask, at least, not *directly*): So how can women protect themselves from such con men?

ANS 6: First of all, it isn’t only "professional" con men that women should protect themselves from. Perhaps, the ones they should protect themselves most from are ordinary decent human beings like themselves who make promises they intend to keep but later find they are unable to. It is difficult, but not quite so painful to write off a con man as a bad experience you hopefully learned a lesson from.

What is even more devastating is falling in love with a guy you know *isn’t* a con man, wants to live up to what he’s promised you, but finds he is unable to.

Is there any way you can protect yourself from the latter (the non-sleazeball who hurts you nonetheless)?

There is no sure-fire guarantee that you can protect yourself from anyone, but here are a few suggestions to lessen your chances of getting hurt on the Internet. I am, of course, talking about ordinary precautions against ordinary sleazeballs. I am afraid I do not have the expertise to give the right advice to people who want to protect themselves from evil people--child abusers, thrill seekers, etc.--who also surf the net):

(1) Remember that "water seeks its own level." The more psychologically healthy you are, the more self esteem you have the more likely it is that you will have the wherewithal to have that "bullshit detector" Ernest Hemingway says all writers, and Margarita Holmes wishes all women, need to get on in this world.

Or, to put it negatively, the less needy you are, the less likely it is that you will be hoodwinked into believing the lies people tell you.

(2) Remember, too, that talk is cheap and words are a dime a dozen. Anything, in fact, that doesn’t get "used up" is cheap and thus doesn’t mean anything even if it is heaped generously on you. Thus, a guy who writes you eloquent letters doesn’t necessarily mean he is one in a million--he could’ve cribbed these letters from someone else, or be writing the same letters to other impressionable young women.

A guy who stays up chatting with you till 3:00 a.m. everyday isn’t necessarily in love with you--it may just mean he has nothing better to do, has lots of time to kill, doesn’t have a job or school, or has one (or both) and doesn’t care how well he does at it.

Of course, it is also possible that he has a wonderful job, does well at it and has trained himself, out of a great love for you, to get by on three hours sleep a night just so he can stay up till 3:00 a.m. every night to chat with you, but that is more the exception than the rule which bring s us to the third and final suggestion...

(3) Time is of utmost importance. Most con men cannot withstand the test of time or, more accurately, are not *interested* in passing any test of time.

These are hit-and-run experts so it’s best you make sure they aren’t interested in running before you allow them to hit (on you).

Other men--who devastate you with the promises they make but are, alas, unable to keep--would have less capacity to hurt if you let the relationship take time to develop.

As in all things in life, the really good things take time, effort and patience. Good luck!

--MG Holmes

(BodyMind Vol. 1 No. 10 - First posted: 12-28-97)

---