Re: [分享] 另一種角度看出軌(代shunnPO文)
嘿,大家午安,我是楚門
我們家勾錐嗆辣的shunn又被檢舉惹,所以由我幫他代PO
至於原因詳見至底公告,對於這一切我只覺得好無聊啊zzzzz
以下是shunn的正文:
又被檢舉桶七天,不能發文XDDD
想說這吵架想想也是無聊,就覺得無所謂不要同意TW先生的檢舉好了,
但不能發文還是好不舒服啊=3=
我剛好有訂閱Matthew Hussey的電子報,這週剛好寄了這封,
跟我之前想要跟大家討論的主題很相似,是關於男女純友情以及所謂忠誠的發表,
在這邊做個簡單的翻譯給大家看。
———————————————————————
In a moment I'm going to tell you how to use my Whiskey Test to know
if a man and woman can just be friends...
But first, we need to talk about attraction.
在我告訴你如何用威士忌測使法來知道男女間是否有純友情之前,
讓我們先來談談吸引吧。
If we're in a relationship with someone,
we don't necessarily feel comfortable with them having friendships with
the opposite sex. We're worried there might be something more there --
attraction.
如果我們在跟某個人交往,這並不代表我們會對對方擁有異性朋友感到舒適,
因為有可能友情並非只是友情。
I feel there's a somewhat childish assumption that
our partner will never be attracted to anyone else -
and shouldn't be attracted to anyone else.
大部份的人都會有一種很幼稚的假設,認為我們的伴侶不會被其他人所吸引,
亦或是,根本不應該被其他人所吸引。
When you think this way, we attempt to suppress one of
the most basic of instincts in our partner: his instinct to
be drawn to attractive qualities in people.
當你這樣想的時候,我們試圖去壓抑我們身為人類的最基本的本能:
一個被有魅力的人吸引的本能。
I believe that we prefer to spend time with people we find attractive.
It may be on a physical or intellectual level.
我相信我們喜歡花時間跟我們覺得有魅力的人來往,不管是肉體上面還是心智上面。
I don't think that it's realistic to assume that we'll
never be attracted to qualities in anyone other than our partner.
我並不覺得假設我們自己不會被其他有吸引力的人吸引是一件實際的事情。
But, we can be loyal.
但,我們可以保持忠誠。
Our loyalty is something that we exercise when we are in a relationship.
It has nothing to do with the friendships that we have.
我們的忠誠是在我們跟人交往的時候需要練習的東西,這跟友誼一點關係都沒有。
You can be attracted to your friends in some ways.
Chances are if you weren't, you wouldn't have chosen them
in the first place. That doesn't mean you're going to do anything
about it or that you want them over your partner.
你其實某種程度都有被你的朋友所吸引,因為如果不是的話,
你不會和他們成為朋友。但這不代表你要對被他們吸引的這個事實
做出什麼動作,或是你喜歡朋友勝過你的伴侶。
It just means you found something about them attractive.
這很簡單就只是你覺得他們有某一方面很令人喜歡。
Let's stop debating friendships and attraction.
我們不要再吵男女是否有純友情了。
The question isn't: Can men and women be friends?
我們該問的問題不是「男女之間是否有純友情」
The question is: Are men and women willing to just be friends?
而是「男女之間是否願意只當朋友」
Your man's loyalty isn't defined by how many people he's not attracted to.
It's defined by the amount of people he can be attracted to
and still be loyal to you.
你的男人的忠誠度不在於他沒被多少人吸引,而是定義在他在被
多少人吸引之下,還能對妳忠誠。
It's about being in the relationship and remaining faithful.
That, to me, is what loyalty truly is about.
我們在討論的是我們能對一段關係有多少信任,至少對我來說,這才是忠誠的定義。
Genuine loyalty exists.
最純粹的忠誠絕對存在。
There's no award for someone never being attracted to other people.
一個完全不會被別人所吸引的人一點也沒什麼好值得嘉獎的。
Think of it this way. If you're the only one in the world
your partner is attracted to then by default he's with you.
When someone is attracted to many people and still chooses you,
that is genuine loyalty.
這樣想吧,如果你的伴侶在全世界只能被妳吸引那麼他是
「被設定就是要跟你在一起」。如果你的伴侶被很多很多人吸引
但仍然選擇跟妳在一起,那麼那就是最純粹的忠誠。
Now he's sticking around by choice,
not because he hasn't found anything better.
他在你身邊是做選擇後的結果,而不是他沒找到更好的。
So now we're ready for my Whiskey Test…
那我們現在來講那個威士忌測試法吧。
If you can drink ten shots of whiskey with someone you're attracted to,
and at the end of those 10 shots, neither one of you attempts to sleep
with the other person, you can just be friends.
如果你可以跟一個吸引你的人一起喝十杯威士忌shots,
在喝完那十杯之後,你們兩個人之中任何一個人都沒有想要跟對方上床,
那麼你們就可以維持純友誼。
That's not to say that there isn't any attraction between these two people.
That is to say that even once they've lost their inhibitions -
even once they're in a state of weakness where they could be
vulnerable to doing something -- they choose not to.
但我們並不是說這兩個人之中沒有任何的吸引力存在,
而是說在失去一定的理智之後,他們仍還能夠選擇不去做某件事情。
That's when you know that you have someone who really
sees the relationship as just a friendship.
這時候你才會知道,原來你們是可以保持純友誼的。
Whether it's you, your partner, or anyone else.
不論這是你、你的伴侶、還是任何人。
補充:[泛科學] 這真的是我要的婚姻嗎
http://pansci.tw/archives/36359
——————-
Dana’s Lifeingredient
http://danaslifeingredient.wordpress.com/
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 140.119.134.137
※ 文章網址: http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/CATCH/M.1401959622.A.64E.html
→
06/05 17:20, , 1F
06/05 17:20, 1F
推
06/05 17:27, , 2F
06/05 17:27, 2F
推
06/05 17:39, , 3F
06/05 17:39, 3F
推
06/05 18:06, , 4F
06/05 18:06, 4F
推
06/05 19:06, , 5F
06/05 19:06, 5F
推
06/05 19:12, , 6F
06/05 19:12, 6F
推
06/05 19:31, , 7F
06/05 19:31, 7F
→
06/05 19:31, , 8F
06/05 19:31, 8F
→
06/05 20:35, , 9F
06/05 20:35, 9F
→
06/05 20:36, , 10F
06/05 20:36, 10F
→
06/05 20:37, , 11F
06/05 20:37, 11F
→
06/05 20:37, , 12F
06/05 20:37, 12F
→
06/05 20:39, , 13F
06/05 20:39, 13F
→
06/05 20:41, , 14F
06/05 20:41, 14F
→
06/05 20:41, , 15F
06/05 20:41, 15F
→
06/05 20:42, , 16F
06/05 20:42, 16F
推
06/05 20:51, , 17F
06/05 20:51, 17F
你可以站內信跟他要,要有誠意喔:)
→
06/05 22:22, , 18F
06/05 22:22, 18F
這是分享文耶,符合板旨啊
況且他是因為推文跟人家槓上才被捅
跟文章本身無關吧,而且水桶當然有意義啊
不能推文討論很痛苦捏XD
→
06/05 22:33, , 19F
06/05 22:33, 19F
→
06/05 22:35, , 20F
06/05 22:35, 20F
→
06/05 22:36, , 21F
06/05 22:36, 21F
→
06/05 22:37, , 22F
06/05 22:37, 22F
→
06/05 22:39, , 23F
06/05 22:39, 23F
→
06/05 22:40, , 24F
06/05 22:40, 24F
感謝您的熱心指教,只是我覺得沒有完全會錯意,只是翻對一半
因為原文的主詞是"We",我想這除了我們自己外,也包含了伴侶
所以他這樣翻我覺得也沒錯,只是意思不夠完全:)
推
06/05 23:29, , 25F
06/05 23:29, 25F
推
06/06 00:40, , 26F
06/06 00:40, 26F
推
06/06 00:59, , 27F
06/06 00:59, 27F
推
06/06 01:02, , 28F
06/06 01:02, 28F
推
06/06 01:43, , 29F
06/06 01:43, 29F
→
06/06 01:44, , 30F
06/06 01:44, 30F
推
06/06 08:32, , 31F
06/06 08:32, 31F
→
06/06 08:33, , 32F
06/06 08:33, 32F
→
06/06 08:34, , 33F
06/06 08:34, 33F
→
06/06 08:36, , 34F
06/06 08:36, 34F
→
06/06 08:37, , 35F
06/06 08:37, 35F
→
06/06 08:38, , 36F
06/06 08:38, 36F
感謝你的提醒~你這樣說清楚多了啊
剛剛已經跟shunn討論過囉,已修正,感謝熱心版友們
願你們幸福:)
※ 編輯: truman254 (140.119.134.137), 06/06/2014 09:55:40
推
06/06 10:07, , 37F
06/06 10:07, 37F
推
06/06 14:29, , 38F
06/06 14:29, 38F
推
06/06 15:55, , 39F
06/06 15:55, 39F
推
06/06 20:15, , 40F
06/06 20:15, 40F
推
06/06 20:22, , 41F
06/06 20:22, 41F
→
06/06 20:22, , 42F
06/06 20:22, 42F
推
06/06 22:02, , 43F
06/06 22:02, 43F
推
06/08 14:32, , 44F
06/08 14:32, 44F
推
06/10 20:56, , 45F
06/10 20:56, 45F