|
I'm in love with a friend and I don't know what to do (pg. 19)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Intangible |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
LOL...
It's got nothng to do with insulting animals...
It's got to do with that attitude making ignorant ppl disrespect other life on the planet...
Plus it's plain incorrect...
Humans share some 98% of DNA with that chimp you didn't want to be compared to... |
I think they are now saying 95% :p
And isnt our DNA 75% similar to a nematode??
Would you compare yourself to that? |
|
|
| RobSt*r |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
If you're conscious of how you approach relationships, and make efforts to maintain boundaries, there's no reason why men and women can't have truly platonic friendships.
|
|
|
|
| 1dawoman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Intangible
And isnt our DNA 75% similar to a nematode??
Would you compare yourself to that? |
haha...
I can think of a few people in this thread that I could |
|
|
| evil_cookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Intangible
I think they are now saying 95% :p
And isnt our DNA 75% similar to a nematode??
Would you compare yourself to that? |
LOL please stop.
It's painfully clear that you don't understand evolutionary biology or genetics. |
|
|
| feelgood |
| quote: | | I'm in love with a friend and I don't know what to do |
Isn't this the question of the ages?
Watch Scrubs. It deals with this kinda stuff. |
|
|
| jchung52 |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
It depends on how you view the opposite sex to begin with. Do you see women/men as sex objects first? Do you see them as your equal? Or do you leave it completely open to interpretation at the time of meeting individual females/males?
If you view the opposite sex as a sexual partner first and foremost, you're most likely going to approach relationships with them in a corresponding manner.
Furthermore, one should be perfectly capable at this point in life to keep their "signals" in check, and be able to pick up on what kind of signals they're getting from members of the opposite sex.
I truly think it's ridiculous to think one has no choice in the matter of attraction to another individual. Do you honestly believe humans are that mindlessly driven by sex?
If you're conscious of how you approach relationships, and make efforts to maintain boundaries, there's no reason why men and women can't have truly platonic friendships.
I don't buy the whole "you can't help who you're attracted to" line. What a crock. Do people not realize how stupid that makes them sound? Totally irrational. It takes a mental commitment to have desire for somebody beyond that initial instinctual reaction. |
|
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
If you're conscious of how you approach relationships, and make efforts to maintain boundaries, there's no reason why men and women can't have truly platonic friendships. |
wow. i didn't think you were such an idealist. |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
It depends on how you view the opposite sex to begin with. Do you see women/men as sex objects first? Do you see them as your equal? Or do you leave it completely open to interpretation at the time of meeting individual females/males?
If you view the opposite sex as a sexual partner first and foremost, you're most likely going to approach relationships with them in a corresponding manner.
Furthermore, one should be perfectly capable at this point in life to keep their "signals" in check, and be able to pick up on what kind of signals they're getting from members of the opposite sex.
I truly think it's ridiculous to think one has no choice in the matter of attraction to another individual. Do you honestly believe humans are that mindlessly driven by sex?
If you're conscious of how you approach relationships, and make efforts to maintain boundaries, there's no reason why men and women can't have truly platonic friendships.
I don't buy the whole "you can't help who you're attracted to" line. What a crock. Do people not realize how stupid that makes them sound? Totally irrational. It takes a mental commitment to have desire for somebody beyond that initial instinctual reaction. |
Yep.
Yep. All I'm saying is if I'm attracted to her and she's not interested in me in that way I cannot be friends with them. Same if they were into me and I wasn't into them.
Only way Platonic friendships work imo is if both parties aren't attracted to eachother physically or if they are it's not to the point where it gets to be awkward. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
wow. i didn't think you were such an idealist. |
I'm not, it's called being rational. It's not that hard to separate sexual feelings from friendships. Unless you're a troglodyte. |
|
|
| VDub |
| quote: | Originally posted by Intangible
I think they are now saying 95% :p
And isnt our DNA 75% similar to a nematode??
Would you compare yourself to that? |
I found out what a nematode was and in this research I discovered someone elses answer to your stupid question...
| quote: | Now, with regards to your specific questions. No, nematode DNA is not "75% similar to a persons". Such a statement is meaningless unless rigorous definitions are used. Where these statements usually come from is some news atricle that says something like "we share 75% of our genes with worms". Even this is inacurate. A more correct way of saying this is that for any given gene in the human genome about 75% of the time we can find an analogous gene in the nematode, through sequence similarity and functional comparisons. The actual sequence identity between the human and worm gene in question will vary dramatically. This is not unusual and is a prediction of evolutionary theory. That is very different to saying our DNA is 75% the same. Consider for example that the human genome is 30 times bigger than the nematodes and that outside the actual coding regions of the genes there is very little sequence similarity.
The situation is very different when we compare the human and chimp genomes. Over vast stretches of the two genomes (some 2.4 billion base pairs) we can line up the two DNA sequences side by side (genes and the far more substantial non-coding regions). On average we see close to 99% identity i.e one single nucleotide (eg a C instead of a T) change every 100 base pairs. We share over 99.9% of our genes and those genes at the nucleotide level are highly similar. All together this adds up to about 40 million base pairs difference, Sounds like a lot but when you consider that any two humans vary by at least 3 million base pairs, it's not that much.
|
|
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
I'm not, it's called being rational. It's not that hard to separate sexual feelings from friendships. Unless you're a troglodyte. |
well you are assuming everyone in the world is not a neandrethal but unfortunately most are. that to me is being an idealist. you assume everyone is as mature and developed in relationships as you. and that definitely is not the case.
i agree with you. platonic relationships should be possible with people that are mature and rational about them. there is no reason this shouldn't happen. but people are not mature and rational. you expect way too much from the idiots of the world.
i mean there shouldn't be war over religion but there is. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| on a side note. does anyone listen to the dean blundell show in the morning? |
|
|
|
|
