EptonicTermplor
09-01-2008, 01:43 PM
I was just reading a post written by our rather insighful friend JoeC and I decided to post it on here.
During discussions of relationships, it would be immensely helpful to have a standard by which to refer to friendships. For example, in a discussion of the limitation that should be set upon a guy/girl relationship, one may say that it is acceptable for a guy and girl to be close friends, while another may vehemently disagree. After much arguing, the two participants in the argument will ultimately discover that they agree, but only had varying definitions of the term "close friends."
Therefore, I set forth a motion to use this new classification method as a universal method of classifying friendships as to forever rid us of these semantic arguments. Here is the blog post which contains the classification system, compliments of JoeC.
Friendships are funny things and it is really quite hard to categorize them. This one is someone you enjoy, this one is a best friend, and that one over there is a 'close friend.' Sound vague? I think so and thus I have taken it upon myself to establish a definition to guide at least my own self in categorizing friends.Acquaintances: Individuals you know my name, face, vocation, interests or whatever else but have no real connection to beyond such.
General Friends: Individuals whom you get along with and can enjoy time in their company.
Particular Friends: As the title suggests, those whom you particularly enjoy, whom you would prefer to hang with. Good friends.
Close Friends: Not far from 'particular friends', but ones whom you feel a little more akin to - perhaps feel a little free-er to be your own self around. Enjoy some openness with, some level of intimacy.
Intimate Friends: The highest level of friendship, a David and Jonathon type relationship. The souls of each are 'knit together.' Each is completely open with the other and feels free to bear one's soul. They are open about their innermost feelings and struggles. They help each other and understand, they sacrifice. Most people do not arrive at this type of relationship outside marriage, though it is for the having. Some do not even seem to desire it, though it is my belief that it is good, if not necessary, for the emotional and developmental health of an individual to arrive to this degree of friendship with at least one other outside of marriage sometime in his or her lifetime.
Clickable Friends: Those very few people with whom a certain chemistry just seems to take place. You know what I speak of, so I will not go into further delaberations to explain myself. In many cases you 'click' from day one - for this reason 'clickable friends' may be on any level of friendship before mentioned and usually progress very quickly to a 'particular friend.' They could very easily become close or even intimate friends given the right conditions.
So there you have it! Of course, these are just general definitions and medians exist between each. Naturally there are going to be those who fall inbetween somewhere. But hey, take it for what it's worth and let me know what you think
Go ahead and post your thoughts. However, I am decided that this should definitely be a universal system of classification. Who's with me?
During discussions of relationships, it would be immensely helpful to have a standard by which to refer to friendships. For example, in a discussion of the limitation that should be set upon a guy/girl relationship, one may say that it is acceptable for a guy and girl to be close friends, while another may vehemently disagree. After much arguing, the two participants in the argument will ultimately discover that they agree, but only had varying definitions of the term "close friends."
Therefore, I set forth a motion to use this new classification method as a universal method of classifying friendships as to forever rid us of these semantic arguments. Here is the blog post which contains the classification system, compliments of JoeC.
Friendships are funny things and it is really quite hard to categorize them. This one is someone you enjoy, this one is a best friend, and that one over there is a 'close friend.' Sound vague? I think so and thus I have taken it upon myself to establish a definition to guide at least my own self in categorizing friends.Acquaintances: Individuals you know my name, face, vocation, interests or whatever else but have no real connection to beyond such.
General Friends: Individuals whom you get along with and can enjoy time in their company.
Particular Friends: As the title suggests, those whom you particularly enjoy, whom you would prefer to hang with. Good friends.
Close Friends: Not far from 'particular friends', but ones whom you feel a little more akin to - perhaps feel a little free-er to be your own self around. Enjoy some openness with, some level of intimacy.
Intimate Friends: The highest level of friendship, a David and Jonathon type relationship. The souls of each are 'knit together.' Each is completely open with the other and feels free to bear one's soul. They are open about their innermost feelings and struggles. They help each other and understand, they sacrifice. Most people do not arrive at this type of relationship outside marriage, though it is for the having. Some do not even seem to desire it, though it is my belief that it is good, if not necessary, for the emotional and developmental health of an individual to arrive to this degree of friendship with at least one other outside of marriage sometime in his or her lifetime.
Clickable Friends: Those very few people with whom a certain chemistry just seems to take place. You know what I speak of, so I will not go into further delaberations to explain myself. In many cases you 'click' from day one - for this reason 'clickable friends' may be on any level of friendship before mentioned and usually progress very quickly to a 'particular friend.' They could very easily become close or even intimate friends given the right conditions.
So there you have it! Of course, these are just general definitions and medians exist between each. Naturally there are going to be those who fall inbetween somewhere. But hey, take it for what it's worth and let me know what you think
Go ahead and post your thoughts. However, I am decided that this should definitely be a universal system of classification. Who's with me?