Female INTJs and Getting Asked Out [Archive]

rwyatt365

11-15-2007, 10:20 AM

OK, I'll weigh in from the male perspective.

I think that Firelie has a valid point when speaking about the qualities that many men look for in a woman. It's a societal stereotype that many (if not most) men adopt as their own. It's the old "Me Tarzan, you Jane" model that has been promoted by cultures (and now, primarily western culture) for millennia. I would hazard a guess to say that the basic "blueprint" for this tendency is encoded in our genes.

INTJgal, since I don't know you I'll have to generalize based on things written in the forum by other INTJ females, and an attempt to extrapolate from you own mindset. But…

I would guess that you are fairly independent and confident in your dealings with people in general. You've stated that you are socially adept, and physically attractive so those things are not barriers to attraction. My guess is that men are somehow intimidated by your "presence". That innate male desire for submission and emotionality from a female partner steers the guys to "easier targets". Think of the car thief in a car lot. He will choose the most desirable car to break into, but will select the car that presents the least trouble and affords the quickest get away. You may be a Ferrari in the midst of Nissans, but if your doors are locked and your alarm is blinking the thief will choose the unlocked Maxima instead.

But, as Firelie also said, there are some "thief's" out there that relish in the challenge in order to get the Ferrari! But such aficionado's are few and far between. The question is, are you willing to wait for the purist, or settle for the amateur?

BTW – it's not your fault, most men are pigs, or dogs, or (choose your favorite disgusting animal) that will do whatever they can to get what they want for as little effort as possible. An INTJ woman takes "effort" to get to know (as do INTJ men). Find someone that is up to the challenge that you are!

Firelie

11-15-2007, 10:32 AM

Ooh, good analogy, rwyatt.

What he said! There was a guy I knew a few years ago that thought he was hot shit because all of the women he knew would at least make out with him (if not sleep with him). He told me one time that I was intimidating to him because I consistently ignored his attempts to hit on me. I may have been too young to know why I behaved the way I did, but I took his comment as a compliment. :D

[Edit: I guess it was more than a few years ago...this was when I was 18]

Tarrick

11-15-2007, 11:32 AM

I dunno about the "normal" male perspective, I ain't normal, but I would guess that Paul and Rywatt are about right. Normal guys are freaked out by abnormal girls because the expect social and psychological roles are not set as they normally are. This probably is especially true of guys that "have experience" with girls, and thus aren't seeing what they normally expect to see.

Santana28

11-15-2007, 11:37 AM

I have the same problem... its kind of interesting when i think about it. Its like i have this natural "intelligence" filter :) Normal guys don't even bother hitting on me. I work with mostly guys in their younger 20s... we joke around and flirt, but they just seem to naturally look at me differently than they do my other female coworkers. They treat me more like "one of the guys." Only two of whom have actually flirted with me..one was some sort of I/J combination, and the other was an E/J combination.

To be honest, i have never "dated" in all my life - but i've also never been alone for very long at all. I seem to attract interesting, intelligent NTJ types and after a while i've always ended up getting somewhat involved with them seemingly spontaneously. When i'm out alone, i get the occasional looks but no one ever approaches me. I'm not bad looking - but I come across as very independant and secure. I don't "look" as if i'm out there trying to hook up. I don't dress up, because that is essentially bait for people who value looks above all else... I don't wave the bait, and i don't get the bites. But instead, i get other intelligent, independant guys who notice i stand out from a mile away, while hiding :) I like it.

Solaris

11-15-2007, 11:39 AM

Being an ENTJ is no easier. I am around guys constantly in the activities I pursue, and most jobs I've held. Granted, I was in a committed relationship until a year ago. Then, I sort of had it in my head that I would wait a year before dating again, so as not to do something stupid and go too far in the opposite direction from the type of man I was with last. However, I'm very out of touch with how to date in the adult world (I was in college last time I dated). I used to detest the idea of dating my friends, however, I see its value as an adult. I can't let go of the fear of losing friendships I value though, so I'm kinda stuck. There's one friend I'd like to discuss such things with, but I'm still too afraid to do so. (yeah yeah, I know I'm an E and not "supposed" to be afraid of this sort of thing, but refer to the fear of losing important friendships....so few people "get" me, who I also "get" that I don't want to ruin that)
Buh.

Incidentally, I feel it's just fine for a woman to ask out a man. I think a strong, intelligent man would not be threatened by this, and if he is, he won't end up liking who I am in the long run anyway.

I honesetly don't know if I attract a particular type. I know I attract guys who would just like to get in my pants because they like the fit, redhead with intelligence and confidence that they see before them. But I don''t want something so shallow.

Tarrick

11-15-2007, 11:45 AM

If approaching an INTJ is like approaching a hardened bunker, then is approaching an ENTJ like approaching a tank?

BloozeGit

11-15-2007, 11:46 AM

BTW – it's not your fault, most men are pigs, or dogs, or (choose your favorite disgusting animal) that will do whatever they can to get what they want for as little effort as possible. An INTJ woman takes "effort" to get to know (as do INTJ men). Find someone that is up to the challenge that you are!

I take offense at that! I like dogs...

Guess everyone else so far has made the point that most "player" guys would pass, and that's probably a good thing if you consider the long run.

From a male perspective, highly attractive women present more of a psychological barrier to the average guy because they seem more likely to be taken already or high maintenance (or both). Especially INTJ males, being the more analytical sort, are probably going to rationalise in all sorts of ways and come to the conclusion that the potential consequences of asking you out are too life-threatening to even consider.

You never know, there might be some average guy out there still rationalising about the thought of asking you out who just needs something to push him over the edge (for the sake of discussion lets not consider courage-enhancement supplements in liquid form). This sounds silly but if you think there's anyone who might fit this category, perhaps they just need a sign to let them know you're looking to go out. And no, we males (especially INTJ) can't tell if you're single and available by the way you walk, hold your bag, flick your hair, sip your tea or (insert mundane daily activity).

Or...

...you could just ask him out.

Jennywocky

11-15-2007, 11:46 AM

If approaching an INTJ is like approaching a hardened bunker, then is approaching an ENTJ like approaching a tank?

*stares in wonder*

You'd approach an ENTJ?!

(reminded of Tienneman Square)

Santana28

11-15-2007, 11:49 AM

If approaching an INTJ is like approaching a hardened bunker, then is approaching an ENTJ like approaching a tank?

My ENTJ friend is a complete social butterfly - on his own terms. Many times he will be in the middle of a crowd of people, but totally "to himself." If he doesn't want to talk to people he goes to the side of the room or somewhere off to himself. But then he seamlessly jumps right back into crowds of people and becomes the center of attention again. Its really weird. Where as myself, i am okay with being in the middle of a crowd of people, i still prefer to stay off to the side by myself and i never make a point of going out of my way to be social. Its funny because we kind of met by being the only two people hiding off to the side of a room... if you know what to look for, you can find us :)

oh yeah... and i coudln't ever be the center of attention even if i tried. LOL. I have. It just doesnt work for me for some reason.

rwyatt365

11-15-2007, 11:51 AM

*stares in wonder*

You'd approach an ENTJ?!

(reminded of Tienneman Square)

It's obviously a highly theoretical scenario. And only with appropriate protective gear.

Solaris

11-15-2007, 11:52 AM

If approaching an INTJ is like approaching a hardened bunker, then is approaching an ENTJ like approaching a tank?

LOL

Well if I'm a tank and INTJs I know are bunkers, then what better match?

However, another perspective of your analogy (which is oddly apropos), is that both a bunker and a tank are "hard, cold" objects. What everyone forgets is that both hold mortal humans inside. Plus, how in the hell do you tell if a bunker or a tank is friend or foe??

Santana28

11-15-2007, 11:54 AM

LOL

Well if I'm a tank and INTJs I know are bunkers, then what better match?

However, another perspective of your analogy (which is oddly apropos), is that both a bunker and a tank are "hard, cold" objects. What everyone forgets is that both hold mortal humans inside. Plus, how in the hell do you tell if a bunker or a tank is friend or foe??

not to mention, the bunker is the base and the tank is the one sent forth to overcome the opposition ;) i like this analogy.

Solaris

11-15-2007, 11:55 AM

My ENTJ friend is a complete social butterfly - on his own terms. Many times he will be in the middle of a crowd of people, but totally "to himself." If he doesn't want to talk to people he goes to the side of the room or somewhere off to himself. But then he seamlessly jumps right back into crowds of people and becomes the center of attention again. Its really weird. Where as myself, i am okay with being in the middle of a crowd of people, i still prefer to stay off to the side by myself and i never make a point of going out of my way to be social. Its funny because we kind of met by being the only two people hiding off to the side of a room... if you know what to look for, you can find us :)

oh yeah... and i coudln't ever be the center of attention even if i tried. LOL. I have. It just doesnt work for me for some reason.

Wait, so why aren't you dating this guy?

Of course, I can throw this right back at myself. I just thought I'd ask though.

Tarrick

11-15-2007, 11:57 AM

Plus, how in the hell do you tell if a bunker or a tank is friend or foe??

True. And the answer is their IFF of course. :)

(Identification Friend or Foe).

Santana28

11-15-2007, 11:59 AM

Wait, so why aren't you dating this guy?

Of course, I can throw this right back at myself. I just thought I'd ask though.

uh... we did. we were friends for 3 years until he kissed me completeley out of the blue one day. i was completely oblivious to the fact that he was interested in me that way... i wrote it off as impossible (as similar as we are, we lead COMPLETELY polar opposite lives).

Basically, he's terrified of commitment. He's one of those manipulating serial dating guys... its all a game to him. Then he pretty much fell head over heels for me. Freaked out. "Never wants to see me again, ever." Actually, tomorrow i will be seeing him for the first time in almost 2 years. He invited me (through someone else) to his next show (he has a band). Should be interesting to say the least.

Solaris

11-15-2007, 12:03 PM

uh... we did. we were friends for 3 years until he kissed me completeley out of the blue one day. i was completely oblivious to the fact that he was interested in me that way... i wrote it off as impossible (as similar as we are, we lead COMPLETELY polar opposite lives).

Basically, he's terrified of commitment. He's one of those manipulating serial dating guys... its all a game to him. Then he pretty much fell head over heels for me. Freaked out. "Never wants to see me again, ever." Actually, tomorrow i will be seeing him for the first time in almost 2 years. He invited me (through someone else) to his next show (he has a band). Should be interesting to say the least.

You win the weird Meg Ryan Movie Moment. I thought I had that award clinched with somebody I know, but wow. Maybe he's...grown up now? Good luck, I do hope it goes well, it sounds like you two go well together if he could get his shit together.

Being an ENTJ, I can say that sometimes I have manipulated people because I could. Sometimes I don't realize it, sometimes I do. I don't actually like to do this, but if a particular ENTJ thrives on power (I don't), then I could see how this behavior would develop.

Solaris

11-15-2007, 12:05 PM

True. And the answer is their IFF of course. :)

(Identification Friend or Foe).

Except both wait for the other side to answer, fearing getting blown to bits. :/

Santana28

11-15-2007, 12:13 PM

You win the weird Meg Ryan Movie Moment. I thought I had that award clinched with somebody I know, but wow. Maybe he's...grown up now? Good luck, I do hope it goes well, it sounds like you two go well together if he could get his shit together.

Being an ENTJ, I can say that sometimes I have manipulated people because I could. Sometimes I don't realize it, sometimes I do. I don't actually like to do this, but if a particular ENTJ thrives on power (I don't), then I could see how this behavior would develop.

yup, ding ding ding... we have a winner.

Actually, 3 weeks ago we were both at the same concert. The entire night he avoided me like i had the black plague - it was funny watching him try to get past me without me seeing him all night. I was just there to have a good time and if he didn't want to see or talk to me then i wasn't going to push it. Well, just when i thought i wasn't going to talk to him - at the end of the night he comes up behind me, touches my side, smiles and raises a beer to me. I mean, i totally freaked out. I was speechless - blew all my plans for the night to pieces. I didnt even say anything...i just nodded.

2 days later, i get an invite through someone else to his next show - specifically, by name.

I really have no idea whats going to happen... hes quite possibly the only person i have ever met who can mess with my head...

Yeah - he needs to grow up. And yes, he gets a power trip on messing with people. I think he thinks i'm immune to his games... he doesn't realize the extent that he actually gets to me... i play it too cool :) Well, usually.... until 3 weeks ago...LOL

Kfbr

11-15-2007, 01:09 PM

Seems to me that most guys are afraid of confident and intelligent women, at least I know my friends are. My last long term relationship ended back in the summer and it was because I couldn't really hold a conversation with her without having her get defensive and feeling like I was attacking her. I wasn't, I just wanted to know how she thought about things.

Confident and intelligent women are ridiculously hot, but even as a fellow INTJ I can see the barriers from a mile away and am sometimes intimidated myself. I'd much rather wait for the right person than to just be with someone because there's nothing else to do, so don't worry!

Gabrielle

11-15-2007, 01:35 PM

My personal experience?

Apparently I'm "intimidating". Not in "rawr I'm a dominatrix and I'll whip you in black leather suit" type, but my height (5'9" is kinda tall-ish? I never thought so), the fact that I model (or modeled, because that was in the summer), I'm in medical school, and I'm pretty knowledgeable in both the arts and sciences makes me look like this person who'd stare at the guy and say "ew! heck no!". It never occurs to them that I might ACTUALLY be interested in them.

That, and the fact that I SUCK at reading signs. Every single one of them that I will talk about actually had to say these words "I'm attracted to you". Otherwise I'd have gone my merry way, just thinking "oh, they just want to be my friend".

There are four males who have approached me in my life. The first one was my debate partner. He is a genius, good looking, and tall. For some reason he approached me then backed out. To this day I haven't figured out why.

The second modeled, goes to Oxford, is from a good Oxford family, went to Eton. We went out (he happened to know exactly which buttons to press... he asked me out with "Fix You" by Coldplay, which is one of my favourite songs). Unfortunately we were still in high school, and then he went back to UK to go to uni. Then he went a la liberal extreme with sex and alcohol. Things kinda fell apart from there.

The third IS a model. He's cocky. He looks uber good (too bad he's kind of brainless apart from how to seduce women). He has NEVER had a female say no to him before (except me). But obviously he's really confident with himself.

The fourth is a computer hacker. He had dated models before. Due to the age difference (he's 21, I'm 18, I REALLY don't see the problem here but oh well), he backed out.

I'm guessing that guys with overflowing confidence like INTJ women, because they know they can handle us... but alas, most guys aren't that confident. Therefore they go for more timid women.

Dunno. I haven't had a functional relationship before. But I seem to attract older men (not THAT old, like 4 years maximum).

If guys don't approach you and you want a relationship, you'd have to approach them. And even then most likely you'd get rejected (personal experience). But who knows? If you don't take a shot you'll never score.

Someone once said to me, "the more girls fall in love, more beautiful they become. The more they cry, stronger they become". I always remember those words when I start liking a guy and I get my hopes dashed. I'd rather try and crumble than be timid and never crumble (and god knows how many times I've crumbled), because I'd rather be able to love than not be able to love at all.

Remember, those who love are MUCH stronger than those who are loved.

Headstrong

11-15-2007, 03:16 PM

Charlie Mc.

11-15-2007, 04:25 PM

I often feel that very attractive women are out of my league. That being said, I love women who are intelligent and independent. I have often said, I don't want a woman who needs to be with me, I want one that can be happy with herself, but chooses to be with me. In some of my best relationships the woman has made the first move. This is good for me because I, like most people on this board seem to be, am completely clueless when it comes to reading signs of attraction. INTJgal, speaking from my perspective if you see a man who you find attractive and interesting ask him out. It may be that he would love to go out with you, but figures you wouldn't be interested in a guy like him.

The Rose

11-15-2007, 05:00 PM

I've been thinking about it. I was never very socially proper. I used to ask guys out. I didn't get asked out very much.

Solaris

11-15-2007, 05:11 PM

I've been thinking about it. I was never very socially proper. I used to ask guys out. I didn't get asked out very much.

But does it matter if it's socially proper or not? I mean, if asking guys out gets women the men they want, why is that bad?

Paul V

11-15-2007, 05:15 PM

But does it matter if it's socially proper or not? I mean, if asking guys out gets women the men they want, why is that bad?

If you're good looking and confident, and ask a guy out, we immediately think either "How much do you charge?" or "What do you want from me?". It's just incredibly uncommon, that's all.

Solaris

11-15-2007, 05:20 PM

If you're good looking and confident, and ask a guy out, we immediately think either "How much do you charge?" or "What do you want from me?". It's just incredibly uncommon, that's all.

Interesting, I've never gotten that impression. Most guys seem surprised, but appreciative.

I never know for sure if a man thinks I am attractive or not. I've noticed that red hair and freckles tends to be something that men are rarely neutral about. I can tell if they like who I am or not, that's easy. If they continue to seek my company, talk to me, and respect my opinions, etc then they like who I am. That doesn't equate to physical attraction in my mind, however.

The Rose

11-15-2007, 05:28 PM

If you're good looking and confident, and ask a guy out, we immediately think either "How much do you charge?" or "What do you want from me?". It's just incredibly uncommon, that's all.LOL! That's funny! All of a sudden I'm horrified at what guys must have been thinking of me!

In my opinion, there's a few different levels of "beauty".
1 - beautiful
2 - pretty
3 - cute

I fall into the cute category.
However if I really work at it, I can crossover into the pretty category.

Paul V

11-15-2007, 05:31 PM

Interesting, I've never gotten that impression. Most guys seem surprised, but appreciative.

I never know for sure if a man thinks I am attractive or not. I've noticed that red hair and freckles tends to be something that men are rarely neutral about. I can tell if they like who I am or not, that's easy. If they continue to seek my company, talk to me, and respect my opinions, etc then they like who I am. That doesn't equate to physical attraction in my mind, however.

Well, of course. Once they've figured out you're genuine, there's no way in hell they're passing that opportunity. Unless they think you're too much for them to handle. :P

Charlie Mc.

11-15-2007, 05:32 PM

If you're good looking and confident, and ask a guy out, we immediately think either "How much do you charge?" or "What do you want from me?". It's just incredibly uncommon, that's all.
I disagree with this. That may be how some guys react, but certainly not how I do.

Interesting, I've never gotten that impression. Most guys seem surprised, but appreciative.

I never know for sure if a man thinks I am attractive or not. I've noticed that red hair and freckles tends to be something that men are rarely neutral about. I can tell if they like who I am or not, that's easy. If they continue to seek my company, talk to me, and respect my opinions, etc then they like who I am. That doesn't equate to physical attraction in my mind, however.

Redheaded women are the most attractive women out there. I am a redheaded guy and am convinced I will marry a redhead. Got to keep those genes going. Only 2% worldwide are redheads, that isn't nearly enough ;D

Solaris

11-15-2007, 05:49 PM

Redheaded women are the most attractive women out there. I am a redheaded guy and am convinced I will marry a redhead. Got to keep those genes going. Only 2% worldwide are redheads, that isn't nearly enough ;D

You just gave my theory more weight! ;P I have noticed that redheaded men tend to prefer redheaded women. However, redheaded women don't seem to express a particular preference for redheaded men. But there's more than hair color that makes for physical attraction.

That's the part that I don't get. I just cannot tell if man wants to be my friend or wants to date me, or maybe I do and just second-guess myself? I don't know. I guess that's why I eventually just go ahead and ask out the one I want, or simply reveal my attraction.

qwerty

11-15-2007, 06:07 PM

hurricanereno20

Just a quick question.... Guys that back out...
What do you mean?

If I'm rejected by someone I don't bother anymore or I wait for a change in their attitude to me.

Lance Kilkenny

11-15-2007, 06:23 PM

I would say I am not a "normal" male. Nor have I know any. really my friends are kinda like me we would be classified as geeks I guess. So I am sorry I can not give any advice on that subject. After reading the other post in this thread I feel that most INTJ's (at least myself) would prefer a strong woman I have very little tolerance for the... for lack of a polite saying "air head" types. I think that we are just bad at Interpersonal Skills. I know a few of my friends would drop dead if a woman asked them out.

Charlie Mc.

11-15-2007, 06:27 PM

You just gave my theory more weight! ;P I have noticed that redheaded men tend to prefer redheaded women. However, redheaded women don't seem to express a particular preference for redheaded men. But there's more than hair color that makes for physical attraction.

I agree that there is more to attraction than hair color. Red hair does not make a woman attractive on its own, but I do like attractive redheads.

Kfbr

11-15-2007, 08:15 PM

Oh man, I've got it bad for redheads.

The ones I've dated are batshit insane though. Which can be a good thing.. but they are hard to snag, I thought you redhead girls had it easy :D

Solaris

11-15-2007, 08:29 PM

I agree that there is more to attraction than hair color. Red hair does not make a woman attractive on its own, but I do like attractive redheads.

Oh man, I've got it bad for redheads.

The ones I've dated are batshit insane though. Which can be a good thing.. but they are hard to snag, I thought you redhead girls had it easy :D

(yay for multiquote, thanks Jezebel for explaining it)

Well if easy means attracting creeps, sure. :/ (note, I am not calling you creeps -- I am referring to the sort of men I generally attract in public)

But you are both still supporting my point, there is little to no neutrality in men for preference of redheads.

So the percent of men that 1) Are into redheads and 2) Are into women like myself and 3) Are attractive in mind and body to me is very small. This is not easy at all. If you figure out a way for me to make this easier, please let me know, I'd love to hear it.

Gabrielle

11-15-2007, 08:43 PM

hurricanereno20

Just a quick question.... Guys that back out...
What do you mean?

If I'm rejected by someone I don't bother anymore or I wait for a change in their attitude to me.

No, he told me that he liked me, I said I liked him, then they came up with reasons why it wouldn't work out. Bastards.

Charlie Mc.

11-15-2007, 08:45 PM

Kfbr

11-15-2007, 08:51 PM

(yay for multiquote, thanks Jezebel for explaining it)

Well if easy means attracting creeps, sure. :/ (note, I am not calling you creeps -- I am referring to the sort of men I generally attract in public)

But you are both still supporting my point, there is little to no neutrality in men for preference of redheads.

So the percent of men that 1) Are into redheads and 2) Are into women like myself and 3) Are attractive in mind and body to me is very small. This is not easy at all. If you figure out a way for me to make this easier, please let me know, I'd love to hear it.

I'm quite the gentlemen, I'll have you know!

I think it's the Irish in me that's attracted to redheads, I have no idea. I also don't really care for blondes, so my tastes may be a bit different than other men. The best thing I can say is don't change who you are. I've changed, or at least appeared to have, for women before (men in your case) and I always end up disappointed. I'd rather be alone than with someone who doesn't fully understand and appreciate me.

I feel your pain as an INTJ male, like I said before.. redheads get to me bad but the ones I've dated are insane. Hottest girls but I couldn't hold a conversation with them.

I'm not worried, one day I'm going to meet miss Lucky that has it all and the wait will be worth it. I know this cheer happy bullshit doesn't work for us, but it gets me by :D

Nomad

11-15-2007, 09:06 PM

I had a telling moment a few years ago. I'm not bad looking,fit, I'm interesting, and I've traveled extensively. I can converse about art, music, literature,history, politics and religion. I can dance, I know which wine goes with which food, which fork to use and I know how to dress myself to the point where I have friends ask me for advice while clothes shopping. I remember to leave the toilet seat down. I'm quite a good cook and I enjoy it. I do my own laundry and i believe my chores are mine to do, I don't like people cleaning up after me. Not much of this is very INTJ, but I made a great deal of effort to get here, to learn these things.

So, no girlfriend. my friend K, whom I've known since before I can remember ( there is a picture of us in diapers playing in a kiddie pool) tells me me this is because I'm intimidating, and I seem "as if I have other things to do". I flat out scare them away.This, quite frankly, baffles me. I've never done anything to any girlfriend to make them afraid of me. I don't even like verbal conflict. I used to get into fights in school because some dumbass treated his girl badly, and I stepped in, because I thought it was wrong ( my mother was abused by her first husband.)

Maybe, you are just a little "too much, too intense" as my friend put it.it''s frustrating, I know. I go through the same thing.I'm trying to smile more.

Nomad

Solaris

11-15-2007, 09:20 PM

I'm quite the gentlemen, I'll have you know!

I think it's the Irish in me that's attracted to redheads, I have no idea. I also don't really care for blondes, so my tastes may be a bit different than other men. The best thing I can say is don't change who you are. I've changed, or at least appeared to have, for women before (men in your case) and I always end up disappointed. I'd rather be alone than with someone who doesn't fully understand and appreciate me.

I feel your pain as an INTJ male, like I said before.. redheads get to me bad but the ones I've dated are insane. Hottest girls but I couldn't hold a conversation with them.

I'm not worried, one day I'm going to meet miss Lucky that has it all and the wait will be worth it. I know this cheer happy bullshit doesn't work for us, but it gets me by :D

I absolutely will not ever compromise who I am for any person. Nor will I allow anyone to do that for me. In fact, this is the exact reason that I broke off my last relationship. I realized that we were both just fine, but completely unable (at this point) to ever give each other what the other needed. We couldn't even communicate, so I got frustrated with that, and we were done. I learned a lot, and carry that forward.

And yeah, the cheer happy bullshit certainly doesn't get us anywhere. I do generally try to be optimisitic though. I have noticed that INTJs tend to be a bit more on the pessimist side of realistic than I like to be. However, I am secretly in that same place, I just seem to have more hope. :/

Tarrick

11-15-2007, 09:21 PM

This all seems to be a common trait with INTJs: Intimidating, odd lack of ability to see "the signs", socially awkward.

Looks a lot like me. Hmmmm.

I dunno. I mean, I have standard to which I hold people to before I consider dating them, but I also just seem to not "see" people that I would even consider dating. And so far, I've only been asked out once. And that did not end well.

Solaris

11-15-2007, 09:22 PM

We all need remedial dating classes. I don't know if that's funny, sad, sarcastic, or true. Ha!

Tarrick

11-15-2007, 09:27 PM

I think it's all the above, Solaris.

Aoiluna

11-15-2007, 09:57 PM

I, personally would like to believe that I always know if a guy is interested in me or not. I usually see the signs before anyone else does or before that person is willing to let me know. Its just a change I seem to notice I guess. The problem is they always end up being my friends, you know, the people who actually are able to talk to me.

The one guy that I actually dated was an unconfirmed esfp, and I knew right away that he was interested. Apparently I baffled him, and he could never really figure me out. It ended badly, we were too different. I would have had to change myself to be with him, (he felt like he always had to protect me or something) and i would never be happy. As of now, im having trouble meeting guys that im interested in. Im terrified to even start a dumb conversation.

I have had other guys ask me out, but its rare. Ive been told that im too intimidating and I come off as a bitch (which im not in any sense of the word!) but when they actually meet me, they change their minds. I dont usually pay attention to my facial expressions, so I guess maybe I should smile more. Im really bad at faking it though.

Aoiluna

11-15-2007, 09:58 PM

p.s. remedial dating classes would be great

Kfbr

11-15-2007, 10:00 PM

I absolutely will not ever compromise who I am for any person. Nor will I allow anyone to do that for me. In fact, this is the exact reason that I broke off my last relationship. I realized that we were both just fine, but completely unable (at this point) to ever give each other what the other needed. We couldn't even communicate, so I got frustrated with that, and we were done. I learned a lot, and carry that forward.

And yeah, the cheer happy bullshit certainly doesn't get us anywhere. I do generally try to be optimisitic though. I have noticed that INTJs tend to be a bit more on the pessimist side of realistic than I like to be. However, I am secretly in that same place, I just seem to have more hope. :/

Haha I'm so glad I found this forum, I don't feel like such a freak anymore. I'm totally pessimistic about everything but I know my own capabilities and limitations so that I'm never disappointed in life.

But what you said.. that's why I had to end my last relationship. Everything lined up: we were in love, she was smart, sexy, independent but we never fully communicated, I couldn't devote an entire life to that - it would be unfair to both her and myself.

I love to talk.. debate about everything and anything. She was born Catholic and myself Mormon - hate it or love it, religion has a massive impact on our lives more than we know - but every time I wanted to discuss these kind of things in life she took it as a personal assault. You and I both know that when we talk about things it not personal, we are just curious and want to expand our knowledge. Right now I'm single again, and I miss the hell out of her but I know she and I both are going to find someone better for each other.

Don't worry, we don't need other people to validate our existences ;)

Henry

11-15-2007, 10:44 PM

Hey. I'm new to the board. Totally familiar with MBTI, though.

These Are The Facts:
*I'm an INTJ female
*I'm not socially awkward, but totally socially confident (these skills took years of study, but I swear they exist!)
*I have learned to dress so that I accentuate my physical assets in a respectful but attractive manner (I'm very fit, so this helps)
*I never get asked out

So, I'm trying to figure out why this is. I've used my extreme deductive skills to realize that perhaps staying home more weekends than I go out is a contributing factor, but what else am I doing that is detracting from guys wanting to ask me out?

Girls, can you weigh in with personal experience? Successes, failures and what you did/didn't do?

Guys, can you weigh in with insight as to what might be the issue with a reasonably physically attractive INTJ female never getting asked out?

Any and all discussion on the related topic is welcomed.
Thanks!

Conjecture:

If you're confident, hot, and wicked smart, then you're likely intimidating a lot of men. And you're also probably perceived as a difficult lay, which I don't know if you're trying to project or not.

Being hot will almost always get you more attention from the opposite sex. Being confident may or may not help as a woman. Being smart definently will not, especially from the SP types who aren't so smart; speak in single-syllable words

Pickup The Art of Seduction by Greene. You'll learn a lot, and he's a good writer and entertainer.

Henry

11-15-2007, 10:55 PM

LOL! That's funny! All of a sudden I'm horrified at what guys must have been thinking of me!

In my opinion, there's a few different levels of "beauty".
1 - beautiful
2 - pretty
3 - cute

I fall into the cute category.
However if I really work at it, I can crossover into the pretty category.

You're forgetting an entire ranking. There's

It goes something like this

1. Gorgeous
2a. Beautiful 2b. Pornstar
3a. Pretty 3b. Hawt
4a. Cute 4b. Butter Face

thegnat

11-16-2007, 05:49 AM

My problem is apparently attracting guys that think I'm easily manipulated or that all they care about is my looks (I consider myself cute) and/or clingy/emo types (last guy all 4, another told me they thought I'd be easy, that was really quick)....Hence the reason I really haven't had a relationship.

And apparently guys around here think that girls don't like to be asked out. At least that what I've heard...

The Rose

11-16-2007, 05:58 AM

... I also don't really care for blondes...That reminds me. Back when I was dating, for some reason I have never been attracted to blond men! And I don't like blue eyes either. That's kind of weird because back when I was young it seems like blond hair and blue eyes was supposedly everybody's "dreamboat". And I couldn't be intimate with a guy with long hair either. Weird how we're wired.

I had a telling moment a few years ago. I'm not bad looking,fit, I'm interesting, and I've traveled extensively. I can converse about art, music, literature,history, politics and religion. I can dance, I know which wine goes with which food, which fork to use and I know how to dress myself to the point where I have friends ask me for advice while clothes shopping. I remember to leave the toilet seat down. I'm quite a good cook and I enjoy it. I do my own laundry and i believe my chores are mine to do, I don't like people cleaning up after me. Not much of this is very INTJ, but I made a great deal of effort to get here, to learn these things.Wow! You sound PERFECT to me! You do windows, too, right? ;-)

So, no girlfriend. my friend K, whom I've known since before I can remember ( there is a picture of us in diapers playing in a kiddie pool) tells me me this is because I'm intimidating, and I seem "as if I have other things to do".I used to be this way a lot more than I am. I had a friend who taught me to slow down. I had to learn to appreciate people-ness more.

I flat out scare them away.This, quite frankly, baffles me. I've never done anything to any girlfriend to make them afraid of me. I don't even like verbal conflict. I used to get into fights in school because some dumbass treated his girl badly, and I stepped in, because I thought it was wrong ( my mother was abused by her first husband.)

Maybe, you are just a little "too much, too intense" as my friend put it.it''s frustrating, I know. I go through the same thing.I'm trying to smile more.

NomadYeah we are intense. Find an ISTP. They're not intimidated.

Chainsaw Dundee

11-16-2007, 06:08 AM

As your attorney, I think you should go on the "offensive". Im not saying you should go rape somebody, but be more flirtatious and active in choosing your mates, rather than expecting them to do so. Im sure quite most guys are intimidated by your confidence, so use this to your advantage.

Also, post pics.(it's the interwebs, I had to add that :p)

Solaris

11-16-2007, 07:17 AM

Rei

11-16-2007, 08:12 AM

I find that I'm only socially awkward when other girls are around, because I have to be more careful what say. I act a lot more natural when I hang out with guys because they don't usually get offended by my crude comments. Which is also probably why I have more guy friends than girlfriends.

I'd like to think of myself as very good at know what looks good on me and what is comfortable at the same time.

Okay, I definitely have random people trying to pick me up who don't get that when I talk to them, I'm not flirting, it's just how I act normally. But on the long run, these are never people who know me long enough to be creeped out which means they don't know me long enough to be sincere.

I think our excess use of logic totally creeps the regular guy out. The other thing is that I think I look/sound ridiculously more confident than I really am; it really cuts the approachable factor to shreds.

Experiences. Let's just say no guy who has ever approached me was in any way of interest to me. I can't even say there's a trend, half of them were ridiculously egotistic and I just wanted to hack them to bits... the other half was reserved and... just not right.

I'm not sure what you mean by failures. I've only ever been in one relationship... and oh dear... failure is an understatement. We 'went out' for a month, and I realized we just didn't click so I ended it there.

Gabrielle

11-16-2007, 09:15 AM

In my opinion, there's a few different levels of "beauty".
1 - beautiful
2 - pretty
3 - cute

I thought that beautiful meant "I love you", cute meant "I want to ask you out", and "pretty" meant "let's just be friends" in guy lingo?

Solaris

11-16-2007, 09:28 AM

Maybe, you are just a little "too much, too intense" as my friend put it.it''s frustrating, I know. I go through the same thing.I'm trying to smile more.

Nomad

My best friend tells me that I have two settings: On. Off. So yeah, I guess I'm known to be rather intense.

Actually, I smile a lot (guess it might be my more extroverted nature). I laugh a lot. People only really start to wonder when I am not. People who know me, know what it means when I stop -- because it's usually written all over my face.

I can't hide anything on my face. Maybe that's why men don't ask me out, unless they are idiots. They see the "if you are compatible, I'll tell you so" look on my face and run away?

Kfbr

11-16-2007, 09:36 AM

I had to force myself to learn how to be social and now I pretty much flirt unintentionally with most of the girls in the office. I went out a few times with a couple of them but they tell me most of the girls are intimidated when they see my 'serious face'.

I thoroughly enjoy ripping people to shreds in meetings but it's not personal - it's just business. I can't imagine how much tougher it is for the INTJ female. I personally like women who stand up for what they believe and back it up, though, most guys are too afraid of getting their egos shattered.

Solaris

11-16-2007, 09:40 AM

ScottH

11-16-2007, 09:41 AM

In my experience, INT[J/P] types don't "get it" when a girl is available, or even interested. If you want to attract those types, be overt.

But, I doubt you'll find a lot of INT's at the bar peddling their latest pickup lines, or thinking about romance at the grocery store.

My relationships have all formed from getting to know somebody as friends, until there is enough comfort and understanding to risk making a move (asking out, whatever).

Besides simple physical attraction (lust), it always takes me a long while to know someone's mind well enough to be interested. I wouldn't risk asking someone out unless I was impressed by them--and I mean their minds.

That's my 2 cents :-)

Solaris

11-16-2007, 09:49 AM

radioactivez0r

11-16-2007, 11:35 AM

I was hoping to add something to this thread, but I really don't think I can. Mostly I just read through it, nodding every once in a while. I guess I'll toss in a few anecdotes, though.

A couple of female friends told me several months ago how bad I am at recognizing interest from someone. I believe the word used was "eyefuck", and how oblivious I am to it. I wanted to disagree but I'm sure they're right.

And not to hijack the original intent of the thread...but one of those girls is my best friend, and of course as it happens I'm crazy about her. Every once in a while I'll torture myself over someone, refusing to admit my feelings to them because I'm terrified of the friendship being irrevocably altered -- probably because once, I asked a friend out, and after that she didn't feel comfortable being alone with me hanging out. It doesn't help that she (best friend) doesn't see me in that light in the slightest (I called her hot once, and she said that was kinda weird because I'm like her brother) :[ Oh, and where can I sign up for that class?

Solaris

11-16-2007, 11:45 AM

radioactivez0r

11-16-2007, 11:51 AM

The Rose

11-16-2007, 12:03 PM

I thought that beautiful meant "I love you", cute meant "I want to ask you out", and "pretty" meant "let's just be friends" in guy lingo?I don't know about that.
I guess I was talking about my own standard.

Solaris

11-16-2007, 12:12 PM

I usually give in and just confess - it's sort of liberating, and it certainly helps take the weight off my mind...I just have to trust that they won't feel weird around me, you know? I'd like to think that the closer the bond, the harder it is for it to break.

I guess there's always that .000001% chance the feeling is mutual :)

And in the meantime, I'll just keep strengthening the friendship. When I see it's worth the risk, I'll take it. Or he'll take the risk first, who knows. I know he's more of a dating women he already knows kinda guy. It makes sense, if you can't friends, how can you expect to be more?

GOD

11-16-2007, 01:09 PM

Hey. I'm new to the board. Totally familiar with MBTI, though.

These Are The Facts:
*I'm an INTJ female
*I'm not socially awkward, but totally socially confident (these skills took years of study, but I swear they exist!)
*I have learned to dress so that I accentuate my physical assets in a respectful but attractive manner (I'm very fit, so this helps)
*I never get asked out

So, I'm trying to figure out why this is. I've used my extreme deductive skills to realize that perhaps staying home more weekends than I go out is a contributing factor, but what else am I doing that is detracting from guys wanting to ask me out?

Girls, can you weigh in with personal experience? Successes, failures and what you did/didn't do?

Guys, can you weigh in with insight as to what might be the issue with a reasonably physically attractive INTJ female never getting asked out?

Any and all discussion on the related topic is welcomed.
Thanks!

INTJ women are always going to have problems. Being introverted is NOT a good way to meet other introverts.

And introverted guys aren't particularly good with pick up lines.... In fact many introverted guys are "picked up by women".

Given INTJ women comprise 0.5% of the population (of women) and approx 40% of them are in the top 2% of IQ and that women virtually always look for a intellectual equal (or better)... its no wonder the type of guys you seek are rarer than hen's teeth.

If you want to attract guys... then start getting into visual clues.

GOD

11-16-2007, 01:31 PM

Solaris

11-16-2007, 01:46 PM

Ok Women,

The absolute starter in the getting "picked up" stakes is to... *drum roll*

ALWAYS reply to guys with OPEN ENDED STATEMENTS. Each reply of conversation should be the START of another conversation. Don't be "efficient" with your speech... and look for commonality of interests... and guess what.. he might just invite you along.

Making friends with guys is easy. In fact, I'm not sure that's the problem for most of the women here. It's getting beyond that. Finding ways to spend time with them, easy. Talking to them, easy. Getting them to ask us out, not easy. Figuring out if they'd be ok with us asking them out, not easy.

I'm just going to make my own! I give up! Frankenstein look out!

GOD

11-16-2007, 02:07 PM

Making friends with guys is easy. In fact, I'm not sure that's the problem for most of the women here. It's getting beyond that. Finding ways to spend time with them, easy. Talking to them, easy. Getting them to ask us out, not easy. Figuring out if they'd be ok with us asking them out, not easy.

I'm just going to make my own! I give up! Frankenstein look out!

Sorry, but if they talk to you and they are not interested enough to ask you out then they are not interested. Simple.

An INTJ guy evidently designed the film "Cherry 2000"... " In The Year 2017, A Good Woman Is Hard To Find. A Cherry 2000 Is Even Harder".

...actually... aren't all these plastic surgery women not a remake of Frankenstein??

Solaris

11-16-2007, 02:17 PM

Sorry, but if they talk to you and they are not interested enough to ask you out then they are not interested. Simple.

I disagree as this has been proven incorrect (in my experiences) several times. In most instances, they weren't sure how I felt and/or were just afraid to ask.

Charlie Mc.

11-16-2007, 02:49 PM

I disagree as this has been proven incorrect (in my experiences) several times. In most instances, they weren't sure how I felt and/or were just afraid to ask.

I second this Solaris. There have been plenty of times I was interested in a woman and didn't ask her out. There are plenty of reasons besides not being interested for not asking a girl out.

GOD

11-16-2007, 04:23 PM

I disagree as this has been proven incorrect (in my experiences) several times. In most instances, they weren't sure how I felt and/or were just afraid to ask.

Theres a difference between men and mice. I don't think INTJ women like mice.

One thing that I think people are getting mixed up with here is that INTJ women have generally no greater problems with getting guys to ask them out than any other type.

If you feel as an INTJ women you come across as "wooden" and more like the guys "mother" then advice can be given. But if you can't differentiate your difference to other types then there isn't any solution that is specific to an INTJ woman (Which is the whole basis to the tread and the site in general).

To me, most of the "weren't sure how I felt and/or were afraid to ask" is a function of age and/or lack of relationship experience and not type.

INTJgal

11-16-2007, 04:28 PM

INTJ women are always going to have problems. Being introverted is NOT a good way to meet other introverts.

And introverted guys aren't particularly good with pick up lines.... In fact many introverted guys are "picked up by women".

Given INTJ women comprise 0.5% of the population (of women) and approx 40% of them are in the top 2% of IQ and that women virtually always look for a intellectual equal (or better)... its no wonder the type of guys you seek are rarer than hen's teeth.

If you want to attract guys... then start getting into visual clues.

1. Where did you get your stats re: the INTJ female?

2. Can you expand on "If you want to attract guys... then start getting into visual clues."?

GOD

11-16-2007, 05:15 PM

1. Where did you get your stats re: the INTJ female?

2. Can you expand on "If you want to attract guys... then start getting into visual clues."?

1. Someone here banded the 39% of INTJ's being in the top 2% of the IQ scale. I'd say it’s probably correct. I work with quite a few INTJ's and the 2 I know well are in the top 0.0001 easy. Women INTJ's around 0.5% and males at around 2.5%. Avg is 1.5-2.0% overall. There are the stats out there.

2. Guys are like ostriches; they peck at shinny things and go for visual cues...

Some of the types of flirting (and not inclusive) done to guys are such things as:

Excessive hair preening.
Oblique stares.
Direct looks and then looking away.
Comments that are intended for you to overhear.

Obviously there's clothing etc etc....

Vayate

11-16-2007, 05:50 PM

INTJgal: Move to Ohio and date me. :3 I love independent females.

Anyway, as an INTJ guy I rather like girls who have the confidence to ask me out, social norms be damned. That, said, INT girls are somewhat hard to converse with and that's where my attempts at them tend to break down. When conversing with a girl, I try to find a contextual topic of interest (eg, music is playing, use it to discuss music she likes, etc). The problem with INTJ girls is that they don't care for small talk and aren't usually open enough to discuss their thoughts/opinions with someone whom they just met. Because of that I tend not to have a good path by which to get to deeper discussion. It doesn't help that that tendency to not engage in discussion is seen as rejection -- apparently I'm just not interesting enough to converse with.

tl;dr put up with the small talk and be more active in conversation. It'll seriously make you less intimidating.

Tarrick

11-16-2007, 07:26 PM

I agree with most of what you say, Vayate. However, I think that INT females (at least the ones I've conversed with) aren't shy about their opinions after they get an initiate feel for who they're talking to. And small talk doesn't have to be small. It can be about things of bigger depth, like psychology, or constitutional law.

I, personally, like strong-minded and independent females that aren't shy about going head to head with me, so long as we keep it clean and rational (no emotional arguing), and I have feeling that most of us here are similarly inclined. I like good verbal/intellectual debate, and if I manage to date someone that is a worthy opponent, so much the better.

blueback

11-16-2007, 09:21 PM

I'm thinking that maybe INTJ's have problems with social interaction in general, and dating specifically, because they are too busy suppressing their emotions.

INTJs are definitely "look before leaping" types. We try not to do anything without first researching it, simulating it, and possibly shoving someone ahead of us first. Sometimes those steps are compressed and/or happen in our heads, but we don't like to skip them. I think that other types, and less intelligent people in general, don't feel the need to think that much. In fact, I think they feel like that much thought drains the spontenaity out of life. You know, "Live in the moment." and all that.

When it comes to communicating with other people between 60% and 90% (depending on who you ask) of the communication is non-verbal. . .and most people are really bad at faking their non-verbal signals. Humans also tend to project their own thoughts onto others. So, everyone we meet is reading our non-verbal signals and assuming that they are genuine. When we want the situation to slow down, when we want to keep strangers at a distance, when we are thinking hard about a new idea, we project a "don't bother me" vibe which is interpreted by the non-thinkers as "I don't like you" when, in our case, it really means "I haven't decided about you yet."

It's like the "under construction" sign that used to be all over the internet. Most people would try to visit a site that looked interesting, see that sign, and never return to the site again. Have you noticed that you almost never see that graphic anymore? The webmasters learned that it is far better to put SOMETHING inviting up rather than that uninterpretable "not yet" sign.

So, when INTJ girls are thinking about a new guy they are probably projecting a non-verbal that looks a lot like the spinning hour glass Windows puts up when it's busy. You don't know what that little graphic means; is the program frozen, is it going to take a second, a minute, an hour, etc. Most, and I do mean MOST, girls react to their emotions pretty much immediately, sometimes before the emotion has even formed fully. Guys get used to that immediate feedback and even a negative emotion means they got into the girl's head. As long as you can make a (typical) girl emotional and keep her that way you can get her attached to you. The INTJ girls keep those emotions on lock-down and the guy never sees them. He interprets the lack of emotion as a "lack of connection" and moves on.

I think it's that "where's the spark" feeling that keeps the fires from igniting. Without a spark all you've got is a pile of sticks to keep you warm thru the night.

INTJgal

11-16-2007, 09:30 PM

INTJgal: Move to Ohio and date me. :3 I love independent females.

Anyway, as an INTJ guy I rather like girls who have the confidence to ask me out, social norms be damned.

But, do you actually like the girls who have the confidence to lead a relationship like that? (Think more long term: do you actually like those types of girls?) Or do you simply prefer it to you taking the risk of asking her out and getting burned?

I have no trouble with my confidence (especially with the solidified INTJness in me) but in all honesty, I'm female first. I fully admit to occasionally being moody and even *gasp* irrational (as much as it drives me insane to "witness" it take over my logical brain).
I don't want to lead a whole relationship; I want to be led.
(I demand equal say in the relationship, but I like the idea of a guy leading the relationship and me responding to where he's leading us. As much as I like my control, it just exhausts me to imagine being the assertive one in a relationship. It's a girl thing, or so my many conversations with females and males have led me to believe). Sort of like how a guy needs to be fully and completely respected to feel like they're in a great relationship, (generally, I'm sure there's some freakish exceptions especially on a site with personalities such as us) girls need to be sincerely swooned over and taken by the hand to feel safe and secure and that they're in a place that their heart wants to rest.

I don't mind occasionally taking him for the ride and leading, (I think a relationship would be boring if it was totally one person leading) but the general tone is more suited to the guy asking me out first. Otherwise it sets a tone that I don't want in the long-term. It's sort of self-defeating to Take Charge when I know I want the surprises of trying to figure out what he's going to do, and that I want to be cared for by having him lead.

I don't know if this is culturally conditioned, or biologically wired as a heterosexual female, but 'tis fact. That's my honest desire: I want the guy to lead and thus don't ask guys out. (Yes, I'm aware of the predicament I'm in. It's just me stating the truth.)

HeterodoxRobot

11-16-2007, 09:57 PM

Hey. I'm new to the board. Totally familiar with MBTI, though.

These Are The Facts:
*I'm an INTJ female
*I'm not socially awkward, but totally socially confident (these skills took years of study, but I swear they exist!)
*I have learned to dress so that I accentuate my physical assets in a respectful but attractive manner (I'm very fit, so this helps)
*I never get asked out

So, I'm trying to figure out why this is. I've used my extreme deductive skills to realize that perhaps staying home more weekends than I go out is a contributing factor, but what else am I doing that is detracting from guys wanting to ask me out?

Girls, can you weigh in with personal experience? Successes, failures and what you did/didn't do?

Guys, can you weigh in with insight as to what might be the issue with a reasonably physically attractive INTJ female never getting asked out?

Any and all discussion on the related topic is welcomed.
Thanks!

The problem here is that you are effectively putting yourself in a passive role by assuming the submissive position of, "waiting to get asked out".

If you happen to be an attractive, highly analytical female, guess what, MOST GUYS WILL BE INTIMIDATED BY YOU!

If you are interested in a guy, I would suggest you make your interest known to him.

Seems to me that most guys are afraid of confident and intelligent women, at least I know my friends are.

Confident and intelligent women are ridiculously hot, but even as a fellow INTJ I can see the barriers from a mile away and am sometimes intimidated myself.
I agree fully, but am slightly confused by what you mean by "barriers"?

If you could, or would, please elucidate.

Vayate

11-16-2007, 10:15 PM

But, do you actually like the girls who have the confidence to lead a relationship like that? (Think more long term: do you actually like those types of girls?) Or do you simply prefer it to you taking the risk of asking her out and getting burned?

I have no trouble with my confidence (especially with the solidified INTJness in me) but in all honesty, I'm female first. I fully admit to occasionally being moody and even *gasp* irrational (as much as it drives me insane to "witness" it take over my logical brain).
I don't want to lead a whole relationship; I want to be led.
(I demand equal say in the relationship, but I like the idea of a guy leading the relationship and me responding to where he's leading us. As much as I like my control, it just exhausts me to imagine being the assertive one in a relationship. It's a girl thing, or so my many conversations with females and males have led me to believe). Sort of like how a guy needs to be fully and completely respected to feel like they're in a great relationship, (generally, I'm sure there's some freakish exceptions especially on a site with personalities such as us) girls need to be sincerely swooned over and taken by the hand to feel safe and secure and that they're in a place that their heart wants to rest.

I don't mind occasionally taking him for the ride and leading, (I think a relationship would be boring if it was totally one person leading) but the general tone is more suited to the guy asking me out first. Otherwise it sets a tone that I don't want in the long-term. It's sort of self-defeating to Take Charge when I know I want the surprises of trying to figure out what he's going to do, and that I want to be cared for by having him lead.

I don't know if this is culturally conditioned, or biologically wired as a heterosexual female, but 'tis fact. That's my honest desire: I want the guy to lead and thus don't ask guys out. (Yes, I'm aware of the predicament I'm in. It's just me stating the truth.)
I'm a fairly confident sort myself, and I genuinely do love girls who are equally confident. It's not about leadership, though I do prefer to lead to an extent, but rather that I find confidence and independence to be signs of personal strength and thus I can respect that girl as an equal partner in the relationship. Earning my respect is very hard to do, but it's pretty much the only way to ever become more than friends with me (my J is really, really strong when it comes to people). If nothing else, I love a challenge and confident, assertive girls provide that -- I'm a real handful at times, and pushovers just don't stand a chance with me. Plus, independent girls aren't clingy. I -hate- clinginess and am smothered fairly easily, so independence is necessary in that respect. It also tells me that the girl is someone who knows what she wants and where she's headed in life. Again, that's a very good way to earn my respect.

As for getting burned, I handle rejection of that sort pretty well because I don't become instantly attached to other people. If it's asking out someone whom I don't know exceptionally well, it's not a big deal. My affections are earned along with my respect, and if I ask out someone I have feelings for and they decline, I respect that decision and move on. Add that to the fact that I tend not to value others' opinions of me (with a few notable exceptions), and rejection just isn't a big deal.

ps, I am apparently a freak because I'm willing to agree to disagree with my partners. =P I may get on a girl's case about disagreements from time to time, but unless there's a major one that affects big-picture, worldview type things I can respect the other person's decisions. That said, if it's something that causes me to lose respect for the other person, things tend to end pretty quickly if not immediately mended; respect is hard won and easily lost with me. You can decide for yourself whether or not that's a good thing, but I prefer it to the alternative.

AresX9

11-16-2007, 10:24 PM

Teenage INTJ's (16) 2 cents here, although I have limited knowledge on the concept of relationships and dating. I'll still chip in however, as I have some knowledge.

But, do you actually like the girls who have the confidence to lead a relationship like that? (Think more long term: do you actually like those types of girls?) Or do you simply prefer it to you taking the risk of asking her out and getting burned?

I have no trouble with my confidence (especially with the solidified INTJness in me) but in all honesty, I'm female first. I fully admit to occasionally being moody and even *gasp* irrational (as much as it drives me insane to "witness" it take over my logical brain).
I don't want to lead a whole relationship; I want to be led.
(I demand equal say in the relationship, but I like the idea of a guy leading the relationship and me responding to where he's leading us. As much as I like my control, it just exhausts me to imagine being the assertive one in a relationship. It's a girl thing, or so my many conversations with females and males have led me to believe). Sort of like how a guy needs to be fully and completely respected to feel like they're in a great relationship, (generally, I'm sure there's some freakish exceptions especially on a site with personalities such as us) girls need to be sincerely swooned over and taken by the hand to feel safe and secure and that they're in a place that their heart wants to rest.

I don't mind occasionally taking him for the ride and leading, (I think a relationship would be boring if it was totally one person leading) but the general tone is more suited to the guy asking me out first. Otherwise it sets a tone that I don't want in the long-term. It's sort of self-defeating to Take Charge when I know I want the surprises of trying to figure out what he's going to do, and that I want to be cared for by having him lead.

I don't know if this is culturally conditioned, or biologically wired as a heterosexual female, but 'tis fact. That's my honest desire: I want the guy to lead and thus don't ask guys out. (Yes, I'm aware of the predicament I'm in. It's just me stating the truth.)

I prefer the girl to initiate the relationship. If I too am interested, then I will take the offer and take the lead. Why do I wait? Because if that particular girl has interest in me, judging from my facial expressions, (I have only two: 1. Serious. 2. Laughter due to morbid humor involved.) they knew what they are getting into.

That's when I'll unleash the arsenal. Logical debates to the extreme. If the other person cannot handle it, then the relationship is already done.

Probably killed off 90% of the female population right there.

I absolutely prefer a girl that can stand on her own two feet. Independence is a severe lacking attribute in today's generation of teens. Relationships are suppose to be about the love between two people and the fact that they don't rely on each other. Being dependent will screw you over if the relationship is done with.

As I'm writing this, I remember all of the "couples" in my school and just shake my head in disappointment. Maturity levels aren't high enough for relationships that are worth the time required, which is why I'm waiting until college or late in my Senior year (Junior right now).

What I look for in a girl:

1. Intelligence is the largest priority. There is more to the world than what is going on with other people.

2. Headbanger or respectful to Metal. I feel and breath Metal, yet think Logic.

3. Looks don't matter as long as you're not as big as a whale in human form. Tomboys appreciated. This excludes the obvious sluts and whores, of course.

Tarrick

11-16-2007, 10:31 PM

@ INTJgal (not quoting it again :)

I understand where you are coming from. As a straight up guy, I would rather be the lead in the relationship and I understand that in the end, I'm dealing with a female. The only thing is that as a Introvert, I'm hesitant about being "too" forward. If I were to meet a female that I had interest in, and I could perceive a reciprocating interest, then I would be much more willing to "step up".

Also, I don't want to leaned on the whole time. In every relationship, at some point, one person will want to be supported by the other; it's just expected and I have no issue with that. However, I want that person to know that while I can be there for them, I'm not a 24/7 teddy bear. If there is a chronic issue in their life, then I can work with that, but not over every cotton-picking issue. :)

Also, if there are any issues, I would hope that they could be straightforward with me, and not be dodgy about it. Communication is very important with any relationship, and having a strong rampart is important.

As for being respected...well, mutual respect is important in any relationship, as it colors the communication. I have no grand ideas of being worshipped or anything close to that, but I would hope things were cordial between me and whoever.

blueback

11-16-2007, 10:53 PM

I don't know if this is culturally conditioned, or biologically wired as a heterosexual female, but 'tis fact. That's my honest desire: I want the guy to lead and thus don't ask guys out. (Yes, I'm aware of the predicament I'm in. It's just me stating the truth.)

I'm curious about this because it affects my future. I'd like to settle down (pun intended) with a girl who is smart, attractive, disciplined, amusing, etc. but I'm worried that it won't work.

Would you be willing to actually let the guy lead everywhere? What if he leads you towards a situation in which you have to give up your career to raise the kids? It seems like the more independant a woman becomes the harder it will be to divide up roles in the relationship. I wouldn't want a girl who "wanted me to lead" except when she disagreed with me and then she expected me to "lead" her in the direction she wanted to go. A team only has one leader.

Gabrielle

11-17-2007, 03:00 AM

1. Someone here banded the 39% of INTJ's being in the top 2% of the IQ scale. I'd say it’s probably correct. I work with quite a few INTJ's and the 2 I know well are in the top 0.0001 easy. Women INTJ's around 0.5% and males at around 2.5%. Avg is 1.5-2.0% overall. There are the stats out there.

2. Guys are like ostriches; they peck at shinny things and go for visual cues...

Some of the types of flirting (and not inclusive) done to guys are such things as:

Excessive hair preening.
Oblique stares.
Direct looks and then looking away.
Comments that are intended for you to overhear.

Obviously there's clothing etc etc....

Yeah, but obviously half of us suck at reading visual signs. While we may have dazzling IQ and learn things well in school, last time I checked there was no "remedial reading visual signs of affections" class offered at my college... so...

I don't know if this is culturally conditioned, or biologically wired as a heterosexual female, but 'tis fact. That's my honest desire: I want the guy to lead and thus don't ask guys out. (Yes, I'm aware of the predicament I'm in. It's just me stating the truth.)

Err. Time to face the truth. We ARE REALLY REALLY intimidating. Considering that we retort (bad word choice, but can't think of anything else that would fit here) with logic, guys... tend to get scared with that. Our "personal bubble" issue also sets a barrier... I'm sure there are some things you would NOT DO because you wouldn't like it done to yourself. This includes personal bubbles.

Let me explain. I HATE getting disturbed when I'm playing a game on my PSP, or reading a book, e.t.c. While I was on the tube last week to get to work, I saw a couple sitting in front of me. The guy had a flashing shiny PSP. The girl had one of those gossip magazines.

While the guy seemed quite content sitting next to his girlfriend, quietly pressing buttons on his PSP, the girl wasn't. She kept showing him something from the magazine (which, if you were a guy and was interested in what she was showing, errr.... yeah.), then kept messing around with his PSP (waving her hand, pressing random buttons while he was playing, e.t.c. e.t.c.).

Now if I was the guy, the relationship would have ended quite then and there.The guy just swatted her away and continued playing.

Maybe guys like that. I'd have no clue, because I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it because I don't like it being done to me. But if guys liked that (hypothetical situation), I'm kind of missing a chance to get closer to the guy.

Also... leading around an INTJ female is, according to couple of the guys who "wooed" me, is nearly impossible, ir apparently it seems so. Basically this is because we look independent and intelligent and logical creatures... a lot of men tend to think of females as bubbly creatures who have no ounce of logic whatsoever. That is the "guy"'s talent. So here comes you (or me), who is a closet romantic but doesn't show it, and... we are now officially NOT females, because we can speak with logic. The guys who wooed me were confident to the point of being cocky, even, but those kind of guys are a little rare (unless you go for older guys... see, I don't. 4 years age difference is maximum, and I don't date younger guys).

If you have this feeling that "asking out means leading the relationship" (which isn't true), why don't you ask a guy out on February 29th (it's coming up)? On that day in Ireland, girls could officially ask a guy to marry her back in the middle ages. Just that day. But on that day, it was socially acceptable for females to ask males for marriage/dating whatever. Because I think it all stems from "guys ask for girls' hand" thing.

Tarrick

11-17-2007, 03:17 AM

Yep. My birthday is coming around again. :) I'll be 6!

Back on topic: I can't believe that guy put up with his girlfriend bugging him like that. I really can't; unless it's normal behavior between them. Who knows?

As for leading a INTJ female around...its not like one would lead a child or a pet, but more like a leader of an expedition. You are the head of a group of explorers (well, if two makes a group) and you go adventuring around. You would take in input from your group member and listen to their advise there they are the expert in that area, or simply get another perspective on a situation from them. If they have a disagreement with you about something you would listen to their opinion and weigh in with your own, backed by reason.

Now this can't't always follow through all the time. For one thing, as the "leader" you don't have the right to override your "subordinate" when you are in a statemate. Also, you have to take into consideration their emotional state and you can't just tell them to suck it up (unless things are hairy and bullets are flying or something :) )

Anyways, that's my take. But hey, what do I know?

blueback

11-17-2007, 07:29 AM

I spent a few years learning how to attract girls because I never picked it up naturally. What I learned was basically how to act in a way that got the response I wanted, rather than the way I had always acted. If you keep doing what you've always done you will always get what you've always gotten.

The biggest thing I learned is that it's much more important to NOT screw up than it is to do anything right. The second biggest thing I learned is that girls like to be entertained. I had to memorize fun questions and games so that I would be able to get past the akward first conversation without screwing up by boring her.

So maybe you INTJ gals need to do the same thing. I'm not saying that you have to change who you are, just that there are certain behaviors that get much better responses than other behaviors. When you play a game of soccer you have to run and kick because it's really hard to win if you don't. It's the same in dating, there are certain skills and actions that help you "score" a goal. You don't have to perform them, but you will only be putting yourself at a disadvantage.

I suggest being more social. Talk to EVERYONE for a couple minutes and then move on to a new person. When you've finished a short conversation with everyone present you can cycle back through them again or focus on a few. Once you learn how to have a nice 3-minute conversation with anyone you won't fear it and your energy will increase.

See, I think the problem is that you APPEAR to be aloof and unapprochable but you really aren't. So you need a way to demonstrate that anyone can talk to you without being castrated. Talking to everyone will also raise your value and make guys more attracted to you. So there are two benefits, guys will be more attracted to you and they will also be more likely to talk to you!

GOD

11-17-2007, 08:14 AM

Yeah, but obviously half of us suck at reading visual signs. While we may have dazzling IQ and learn things well in school, last time I checked there was no "remedial reading visual signs of affections" class offered at my college... so....

So read some trashy womens magazines and suss out how the "masses" also project their desires.

nb: just because they don't teach it at your college doesn't mean that its not important.

INTJgal

11-17-2007, 08:24 AM

Our "personal bubble" issue also sets a barrier... I'm sure there are some things you would NOT DO because you wouldn't like it done to yourself. This includes personal bubbles.

Maybe guys like that. I'd have no clue, because I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it because I don't like it being done to me. But if guys liked that (hypothetical situation), I'm kind of missing a chance to get closer to the guy.

If you have this feeling that "asking out means leading the relationship" (which isn't true), why don't you ask a guy out on February 29th (it's coming up)?

As for leading a INTJ female around...its not like one would lead a child or a pet, but more like a leader of an expedition. You are the head of a group of explorers (well, if two makes a group) and you go adventuring around. You would take in input from your group member and listen to their advise there they are the expert in that area, or simply get another perspective on a situation from them. If they have a disagreement with you about something you would listen to their opinion and weigh in with your own, backed by reason.

*Tarrick hit what I was trying to say with a perfect analogy re: the leading.

*hurricanereno20:
a) The personal bubble thing could be an issue. This is a good point; I tend to give people too much space. For instance: I knew this ENFJ that I loved (in the friend-sense of the term) but we never got close (even though we clicked) because in our social circle he was always getting swamped with other people's personal issues, and I kept thinking "if I were him, I'd want some space instead of one more deep conversation by now". When later, i found out he thought I didn't like him because I never approached him. In an effort to be respectful and considerate, I ended up making him think I didn't like/respect him.

b) It's not so much the "guys should ask girls out" issue, but more that I'm already dealing with the INTJ female hits against me being the One Who Wears The Pants, and it would just be another obstacle to deal with as soon as the relationship started and we started to figure out how to get him to be the leader in the relationship (in the sense that tarrick said).

Rei

11-17-2007, 08:31 AM

See there's the problem for remedial dating for NTs: we're NTs, I don't think any of them are good at it. NFs and Ss get it, but since we don't function like they do, and we often freak them out, they can't tell us how to date either. I think we have to hope that some NT figures it out and shares the info.

I'm with you on the attraction to close friend thing. Sure is a pain in the ass when you can't decide what to do. I would be rather devastated to lose this particular friendship, so I've just kept it to myself. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be able to do that though. Others have noticed and it'll eventually get brought to his attention I suppose.

Agh...
The best friend thing happened to me too.
Fortunately (or perhaps not) we don't see each other much since we live far apart. But I've been through every single bad relationship with him. Eventually I just got frustrated and told him I couldn't stand listening to that anymore. We were still buddies for a little while, I've torn any type of attachment away; he's in another relationship now, and the last time I went out with his girlfriend and him, things were... yikes... so now we barely talk... and I'm not sure if that's a bad thing.

What do you think would happen if your best friend was in a relationship? It really changed the way I acted towards him on my end. I came to the conclusion that guys with girlfriends can't truly have female best friends.

EDIT:
I just realized I'm way off topic by now. =/
Oh well...
Comment on the more current topic:
The leading... I personally turn into a P (well as much a P as my J will allow) in close relationships with people who are capable. I'll still be independent, need space, and will still definitely voice my opinions regularly. But for goodness sake, I would like to think that I'd be confident in the guy I'm in a relationship with, enough that I can go with his decisions without disputing 80% of it.

rwyatt365

11-17-2007, 08:36 AM

While I was on the tube last week to get to work, I saw a couple sitting in front of me. The guy had a flashing shiny PSP. The girl had one of those gossip magazines.

While the guy seemed quite content sitting next to his girlfriend, quietly pressing buttons on his PSP, the girl wasn't. She kept showing him something from the magazine (which, if you were a guy and was interested in what she was showing, errr.... yeah.), then kept messing around with his PSP (waving her hand, pressing random buttons while he was playing, e.t.c. e.t.c.).

Now if I was the guy, the relationship would have ended quite then and there.The guy just swatted her away and continued playing.
That is one thing that I can't abide by. If I'm busy doing something (even if it's something that my SO considers trivial) then I insist on being left alone. Unless they are contributing something...LEAVE ME ALONE! I get into running battles with my wife about that - 12 years and she still doesn't understand!
As for leading a INTJ female around...its not like one would lead a child or a pet, but more like a leader of an expedition. You are the head of a group of explorers (well, if two makes a group) and you go adventuring around. You would take in input from your group member and listen to their advise there they are the expert in that area, or simply get another perspective on a situation from them. If they have a disagreement with you about something you would listen to their opinion and weigh in with your own, backed by reason.

Now this can't't always follow through all the time. For one thing, as the "leader" you don't have the right to override your "subordinate" when you are in a statemate. Also, you have to take into consideration their emotional state and you can't just tell them to suck it up (unless things are hairy and bullets are flying or something :) )

Anyways, that's my take. But hey, what do I know?
Tarrick, I agree with you about what "leading" means, but my personal take on the latter part is that if someone is determined to be the leader, then they DO have the right to override a "subordinate" opinion. Of course, that assumes that the leader has taken full account of that alternative input. And that does not rule out the possibility that the alternative, or some variation of it, might be adopted instead. It's just that if a leader is to lead, then sometimes alternatives have to be discarded.

Just my opinion.

Rohsiph

11-17-2007, 10:14 AM

I've been following this topic . . . some interesting ideas, certainly.

Responding to the idea of leading vs. being led: I want someone with whom my relationship can be equal on as many levels as possible--particularly in terms of "leading." I don't want to be lead, and I don't want to lead--instead, I want to strike a balance. I'll plan something, and then it's her turn--something like that.

I've gotten a lot better at reading visual cues over the years, but I'm still terrible at actively introducing myself to strangers. Such that I am confident if a girl walked by who could fully capture my attention (very unlikely) I could muster the "courage" to approach her, but this is entirely unlikely because such attention would require an immediate attraction on physical, mental, and spiritual levels. The mental and spiritual attraction usually takes some prior knowledge of how the person interacts . . .

Combine these things, and I'm an art-focused 22 year old guy who has never been in a relationship.

Such that I would love for a woman to ask me out even if I wasn't particularly certain things would work out, just to get some experience with first dates. But this doesn't happen, even though I go out at least a dozen times a month. Perhaps having a strict policy on not drinking compromises my chances even more.

But these are my problems.

I think most who have suggested that the "normal" woman wants to be (lightly) abused and treated as a submissive is correct--that this is what the "normal" guy is trained to expect, and therefore would learn to pass over the intelligent kind of "challenging" girl who would probably make him a better person. Please don't compromise your individuality to appeal to the simple-minded--although you won't attract the typical macho-dude, I would be disappointed with the suggestion that such a guy is who intelligent, independent women want.

The numbers are terrible for our kind . . . but, as long as we hold on to our standards, ours are the relationships that propel both parties far above and beyond our individual potentials. We help our partners grow, and demand that our partners help us grow in return--to the point that even the most disastrous relationship helps us to learn a lot in our quest (whatever it might be).

From my experience, the most damaging kind of response a woman can give is to *not respond at all*. I found myself attracted to a woman last Spring, noticing her in the audience of a theatre performance, but didn't actively realize my attraction until several hours after the show. Through a little deduction, I figured out the girl had directed one of the plays (the show was the Directing 2 students' finals, basically), so I found a digital mailing address online. I sent her a message, realizing that my chances of running into her serendipitously were extremely low . . . and I never heard back from her. Her mannerisms certainly suggested she was an introverted rational . . . hopefully an immature one, that nothing spectacular was lost.

My few cents.

INTJgal

11-17-2007, 10:33 AM

Responding to the idea of leading vs. being led: I want someone with whom my relationship can be equal on as many levels as possible--particularly in terms of "leading." I don't want to be lead, and I don't want to lead--instead, I want to strike a balance. I'll plan something, and then it's her turn--something like that.

But these are my problems.

I think most who have suggested that the "normal" woman wants to be (lightly) abused and treated as a submissive is correct--that this is what the "normal" guy is trained to expect, and therefore would learn to pass over the intelligent kind of "challenging" girl who would probably make him a better person. Please don't compromise your individuality to appeal to the simple-minded--although you won't attract the typical macho-dude, I would be disappointed with the suggestion that such a guy is who intelligent, independent women want.

The numbers are terrible for our kind . . . but, as long as we hold on to our standards, ours are the relationships that propel both parties far above and beyond our individual potentials. We help our partners grow, and demand that our partners help us grow in return--to the point that even the most disastrous relationship helps us to learn a lot in our quest (whatever it might be).

Rohsiph: I think we are actually agreeing on things, generally. I, too, will not be in a relationship where I am not seen as an equal, where my voice cannot hold weight, where the guy is planning all the dates, etc.
I won't be in a relationship that doesn't allow me to grow a lot, or where the guy is not growing.
Rather, I simply desire to not be the initiator. I don't want him looking for my opinion before he voices my own. I don't want to be the one to lead the pace of the relationship, I don't want to be the one who leads in that sense.

I have been in a relationship like that. Yes, I'm an assertive person. However, he was a passive person. I don't want a passive guy. I'm more than assertive enough to speak up for myself when I would rather not do something (i.e. he wants to go out for spicy food and I can't handle spicy food, I'll speak up) but with him being passive, it was me leading everything.
That was tiring. I need an assertive guy. I'll speak up for myself, I need him to speak up for himself. I like him initiating plans (note this doesn't negate my ability to initiate) because if I'm leading, I feel uncomfortable. It is tiring and not enjoyable and I feel like I'm dragging him along. I want the thrill of being led by the hand for mini-adventures to go to the grocery store. It's not that difficult. I'll speak up for myself, but I want the guy to lead. That's all I'm saying.

And although I won't say this is the majority opinion, hurricane alludes to similar feelings (note the bolded part) of simply wanting a guy to be romantic enough to take us on a mini-adventure (emotionally, literally, etc.) and let us enjoy the thrill of a guy interested in us leading. I don't want him to lead the entire relationship, but I do want the romance of not having a passive guy. That sucks. Been there, done that.

Also... leading around an INTJ female is, according to couple of the guys who "wooed" me, is nearly impossible, ir apparently it seems so. Basically this is because we look independent and intelligent and logical creatures... a lot of men tend to think of females as bubbly creatures who have no ounce of logic whatsoever. That is the "guy"'s talent. So here comes you (or me), who is a closet romantic but doesn't show it, and... we are now officially NOT females, because we can speak with logic. The guys who wooed me were confident to the point of being cocky, even, but those kind of guys are a little rare (unless you go for older guys... see, I don't. 4 years age difference is maximum, and I don't date younger guys).

@ INTJgal (not quoting it again :)

I understand where you are coming from. As a straight up guy, I would rather be the lead in the relationship and I understand that in the end, I'm dealing with a female. The only thing is that as a Introvert, I'm hesitant about being "too" forward. If I were to meet a female that I had interest in, and I could perceive a reciprocating interest, then I would be much more willing to "step up".

I don't want to lead a whole relationship; I want to be led.
(I demand equal say in the relationship, but I like the idea of a guy leading the relationship and me responding to where he's leading us. As much as I like my control, it just exhausts me to imagine being the assertive one in a relationship. It's a girl thing, or so my many conversations with females and males have led me to believe).... girls need to be sincerely swooned over and taken by the hand to feel safe and secure and that they're in a place that their heart wants to rest.

I don't mind occasionally taking him for the ride and leading, (I think a relationship would be boring if it was totally one person leading) but the general tone is more suited to the guy asking me out first.

terencec

11-17-2007, 10:49 AM

I disagree as this has been proven incorrect (in my experiences) several times. In most instances, they weren't sure how I felt and/or were just afraid to ask.

I guess you always have many friends around you and you treat your friends not much different. That is hard for a guy to tell if you are interested in him or not. This is my impression.

Otherwise, it is quite obvious to me if a girl likes me or not. She will look at me and smile many times when I see her. I know she is not smile all the time. If the guy does not know the signal, he is either

1. not interested.
2. interested but he is still worried about rejection becuae he is worried about reading the wrong signal or signal has been changed. Most women change her mind very fast.
3. is gay.
4. has problems to read signals. e.g. short sighted or long sighted. You are better to give him a pair of glasses!

If he reads the signal and he does not run away or try to avoid you for a period of time. Instead he keeps looking at you from time to time. I will assume he is interested. How about you ask him out if you think he is a "good guy".

Solaris

11-17-2007, 10:57 AM

Agh...
The best friend thing happened to me too.
Fortunately (or perhaps not) we don't see each other much since we live far apart. But I've been through every single bad relationship with him. Eventually I just got frustrated and told him I couldn't stand listening to that anymore. We were still buddies for a little while, I've torn any type of attachment away; he's in another relationship now, and the last time I went out with his girlfriend and him, things were... yikes... so now we barely talk... and I'm not sure if that's a bad thing.

What do you think would happen if your best friend was in a relationship? It really changed the way I acted towards him on my end. I came to the conclusion that guys with girlfriends can't truly have female best friends.

EDIT:
I just realized I'm way off topic by now. =/
Oh well...
Comment on the more current topic:
The leading... I personally turn into a P (well as much a P as my J will allow) in close relationships with people who are capable. I'll still be independent, need space, and will still definitely voice my opinions regularly. But for goodness sake, I would like to think that I'd be confident in the guy I'm in a relationship with, enough that I can go with his decisions without disputing 80% of it.

In a sense, I don't think you're off topic at all. I think that NTJs (esp INTJs) are more likely to date their friends, and therefore be in this position. The friend of whom I speak was in a relationship...a terrible one. The kind that made everyone around him just suffer to watch. They were two nice people who clearly did not go to together. I avoided talking to him about it for the longest time, b/c I knew I had a biased perspective. Also, in case things ever worked out between he and I, I didn't want there to be doubt that I sabotaged his relationship (because that's just fucked up to do to anyone). If I thought he was happy and being fulfilled in a relationship, I could handle it. If it's bad, can't handle it. I did finally talk to him about the train wreck and he was actually glad I'd finally said something -- he'd been wondering if I had noticed what was going on, or just too absorbed in my own personal crap (which granted, there's been a lot of in the last year). As it so happens, his other closest friend is a female too. Fortunately, the three of us are all very close friends. So, if we dated, I would be fine with their friendship. He's been...odd.. any time the potential of me dating comes up. I can't tell if it's his general protectiveness of one of his friends, or something else. Basically, it's just a big crazy mess...

As for the leading thing. My ISFJ female best friend and I came up with this: we want a man who knows when (can) to walk a step ahead, when to drop back a step, when to push/pull, but that mostly walks next to us through life. I agree completely with the romance of the guy planning little mini-adventures. I do like a man who is not afraid to make me mad, because sometimes I'm stubborn needlessly and need to be told so. I like a man who will react as calmly and logically as I will to situations. But, also, I need a man who understands that this doesn't mean I lack a heart or sense of humor.

I'm not opposed to asking men out (clearly, as I've done it). However, I like the romance of being asked out. The problem is that it's rarely by men I want -- again, I'm looking for a mind-mate in a way, and that takes time to figure out.

travler2001

11-17-2007, 11:32 AM

The Rose

11-17-2007, 11:51 AM

...
See, I think the problem is that you APPEAR to be aloof and unapproachable but you really aren't. So you need a way to demonstrate that anyone can talk to you without being castrated...I learned that people would not be afraid to initiate a conversation with me if I was smiling, so I try to keep a pleasant smile on my face when I'm somewhere where I don't want people to be afraid to talk to me.

If I don't think about it ahead of time, when I pay any attention to the look I'm wearing on my face, I'm usually looking grumpy or deep in thought in a faraway land.

Gabrielle

11-17-2007, 01:33 PM

Okay, I'm a 6-foot female INTJ and most guys get scared off(at least it seems so). That problem is easy to solve. If you find a guy that interests you, ask him out yourself. Who says he has to ask YOU out? I have rarely been single because I am confident.;D
My one problem is finding out that long-term relationships with INFP's, whom I am strangely attracted to, just don't work out. I'm switching gears to locate a nice INTJ male. Haven't found any just yet. :(

I'm 5'9" and that cuts down half the male population because I don't want to look like his adopted big sister. It just SUCKS.

So read some trashy womens magazines and suss out how the "masses" also project their desires.

nb: just because they don't teach it at your college doesn't mean that its not important.

Err, if it wasn't important I wouldn't be wasting my time here would I? Obviously you did not get my sarcasm. I said that while INTJ's are good at picking up what is structurally taught in schools, we're REALLY bad at picking up stuff from what's not taught officially. Dunno. Maybe you're the love expert... then please enlighten me with "how to read signs" apart from hair and clothes, because I really need help. Though trashy tends to sound very aggressive and harsh, don't you think? Have you ever read those magazines? There is a small grain of truth in it sometimes - very rare, but it's there.

That said...

Otherwise, it is quite obvious to me if a girl likes me or not. She will look at me and smile many times when I see her. I know she is not smile all the time. If the guy does not know the signal, he is either

1. not interested.
2. interested but he is still worried about rejection becuae he is worried about reading the wrong signal or signal has been changed. Most women change her mind very fast.
3. is gay.
4. has problems to read signals. e.g. short sighted or long sighted. You are better to give him a pair of glasses!

I was talking to my friend (male, same age) last night who literally had a fan club during high school. Oddly enough, he NEVER WENT OUT with anyone. This just bugged me, because the guy I'm getting into a relationship with was like that too. I initially thought they must be gay - otherwise why wouldn't they have had girlfriends already?! But then they weren't. So it remained a great mystery.

I asked my friend quite bluntly yesterday WHY he hasn't gone out with anybody. He replied:

"I'm scared."

"Scared of what?! We're soft, small creatures compared to you guys! We aren't going to beat you up!"

"No... it's just that we tend to say the wrong thing."

"...huh?"

"Well, let's say I said that you're too skinny, which you are. You won't get mad because we were friends, but what if I was your boyfriend? You'd get angry at me. And I wouldn't know why, because weight is obviously really important for you, but not for me. So I'm scared of saying the wrong thing, then getting a girl angry, then trying to patch it up."

I guess guys around the age 16~23 are just quite scared of offending us in the end.

I think at this stage (I'm guessing you're around my age, INTJgal? Still around college years?), the only guys who are confident enough to ask us out are around age 25 and up... I've certainly not seen any male in my university who's that confident. So if you do want a boyfriend now... I think you'd have to do the asking.

One thing I learned to do is ASK HIM TO DECIDE. For example, today, I had to ring the guy up to ask him if he was open during any time of the week the coming week, since I was going to schedule the next work session. I texted him previously, but all I got was an incoherent text message. So, here's what followed (H is him, M is me).

H: What day are you open?
M: Any day, at the moment.
H: What day do you want to go out for dinner?
M: Can you decide?
H: Erm... how about Monday?
M: Monday? Okay. That's fine.
H: What time?
M: I don't know your schedule. But I'm open after five.
H: Okay. How abous six?
M: That'd work perfectly.
H: Where should we go? Anything you want to do?
M: Er... well, seeing you would be very nice. Otherwise, I can care less. All I want to do is see you, after all.
H: Okay. We'll go out for a dinner then a drink.
M: Lovely.

In this case, the decision maker is him, because I keep turning the tables to him to decide. So, even though I had to ring him up (oh the horror!) and I was the one who initiated the conversation, he was the one who decided what we'll do. Just like that, just keep telling him to decide, because you can't. Give him the information, but tell him to do the decision-making... after all, the leader is the one who decides.

Tarrick

11-17-2007, 01:50 PM

That was tiring. I need an assertive guy. I'll speak up for myself, I need him to speak up for himself. I like him initiating plans (note this doesn't negate my ability to initiate) because if I'm leading, I feel uncomfortable. It is tiring and not enjoyable and I feel like I'm dragging him along. I want the thrill of being led by the hand for mini-adventures to go to the grocery store. It's not that difficult. I'll speak up for myself, but I want the guy to lead. That's all I'm saying.

It's really an issue when you have two assertive people in a relationship, because you have to (from your perspective) find a guy that is between being too forceful/arrogant (who would be rejected out of hand) and too weak/passive (who wouldn't dream of trying to take the lead in the relationship). And for added difficultly, someone that is interesting without being too out in space.

I for one dislike passive females. The one time when I dated, it was with someone that I had known for a few months, but as soon as we started dating, she when completely passive and I felt like she went from human being to porcelain doll. It was very odd and kinda creepy and needless to say, it didn't end well.

Rei

11-17-2007, 02:43 PM

In a sense, I don't think you're off topic at all. I think that NTJs (esp INTJs) are more likely to date their friends, and therefore be in this position. The friend of whom I speak was in a relationship...a terrible one. The kind that made everyone around him just suffer to watch. They were two nice people who clearly did not go to together. I avoided talking to him about it for the longest time, b/c I knew I had a biased perspective. Also, in case things ever worked out between he and I, I didn't want there to be doubt that I sabotaged his relationship (because that's just fucked up to do to anyone). If I thought he was happy and being fulfilled in a relationship, I could handle it. If it's bad, can't handle it. I did finally talk to him about the train wreck and he was actually glad I'd finally said something -- he'd been wondering if I had noticed what was going on, or just too absorbed in my own personal crap (which granted, there's been a lot of in the last year). As it so happens, his other closest friend is a female too. Fortunately, the three of us are all very close friends. So, if we dated, I would be fine with their friendship. He's been...odd.. any time the potential of me dating comes up. I can't tell if it's his general protectiveness of one of his friends, or something else. Basically, it's just a big crazy mess...

As for the leading thing. My ISFJ female best friend and I came up with this: we want a man who knows when (can) to walk a step ahead, when to drop back a step, when to push/pull, but that mostly walks next to us through life. I agree completely with the romance of the guy planning little mini-adventures. I do like a man who is not afraid to make me mad, because sometimes I'm stubborn needlessly and need to be told so. I like a man who will react as calmly and logically as I will to situations. But, also, I need a man who understands that this doesn't mean I lack a heart or sense of humor.

I'm not opposed to asking men out (clearly, as I've done it). However, I like the romance of being asked out. The problem is that it's rarely by men I want -- again, I'm looking for a mind-mate in a way, and that takes time to figure out.

Just for the record... the reason why my last outing with my guy friend and his girlfriend went badly was because he was speaking up for me (against what his girlfriend did unintentionally) too much. His girlfriend was clearly not happy about this and neither was I. He asked me to go out with him and his friend several days later, but I refused the offer. His girlfriend is a nice girl and I really didn't want anything going wrong on my account... he had to learn how to respect her more.

Anyway...
I tend to avoid thinking about what I want, because I'm rather sure I don't really know what I want, I only know what I don't want. In terms of asking a guy out... guys I'm interested in enough to seriously consider a relationship are people I think extremely highly of. Perhaps I have a serious case of the inferiority complex (or I'm a little early in experiencing my mid-life crisis), but I never feel I have a chance. I usually go for the "watch from atop a tree, make intelligent conversation and help when I can to show how nice/amazing I am" method. The bullying comes after it's official :thumbsup: Which has worked... the relationship just didn't end up going anywhere :blank:

It's really an issue when you have two assertive people in a relationship, because you have to (from your perspective) find a guy that is between being too forceful/arrogant (who would be rejected out of hand) and too weak/passive (who wouldn't dream of trying to take the lead in the relationship). And for added difficultly, someone that is interesting without being too out in space.

I for one dislike passive females. The one time when I dated, it was with someone that I had known for a few months, but as soon as we started dating, she when completely passive and I felt like she went from human being to porcelain doll. It was very odd and kinda creepy and needless to say, it didn't end well.

That's something I always wondered about. Being friend/acquaintances with someone and then changing that relationship into something more intimate. Someone mentioned earlier how guys are 'scared' of making girls mad and having to patch things up. The change in identity equates to a change in behaviour for some which means the other party has to prepare to adjust to that. Going passive is just testing the waters all over again.

Tarrick

11-17-2007, 05:58 PM

Rei

11-17-2007, 06:51 PM

Perhaps Rei. But in the end, one has to live with another person. So when do you meet the real person? And if you ever meet them, why would they ever suddenly present a new facade instead of staying real?

What is 'real' anyway? Real is just what you think is currently true.

People are supposed to change according to their environment (and situation). A change in status means a change in rights and responsibilities, expectations.

Why must the person in one situation be the 'fake'? It is the same person, simply in different circumstances.

Tarrick

11-17-2007, 07:00 PM

What is 'real' anyway? Real is just what you think is currently true.

People are supposed to change according to their environment (and situation). A change in status means a change in rights and responsibilities, expectations.

Why must the person in one situation be the 'fake'? It is the same person, simply in different circumstances.

Real = Who they are on the inside. There is a real you Rei, and a real me. I have no problem being myself, but some people make a facade because they have a desire to impress people, or "come at them sideways".

Kudos points to the person that can identify the quote.

Rei

11-17-2007, 11:38 PM

Real = Who they are on the inside. There is a real you Rei, and a real me. I have no problem being myself, but some people make a facade because they have a desire to impress people, or "come at them sideways".

Kudos points to the person that can identify the quote.

IMO, whatever a person does is a part of the person and what (s)he thinks (s)he should do. I mean... if you were "really" an animated regular comedian, would you crack jokes at a funeral? Does that mean that you are not the real you if you don't?

Whatever, maybe I'm just going in circles here.

Tarrick

11-17-2007, 11:48 PM

Rei, if I said I was a liberal, I would be lying. However, if I told someone that didn't know me that I was, they would assume that I was because they didn't know me and wouldn't know any better.

What a person does does reflect on who they are, if they are being honest. However, not everyone is honest all the time and to the fullest.

Also, for example, if a loud person is being quiet, then they aren't being dishonest, but they are still a loud person even if they aren't reflecting it at that particular time. However, when specific person is around, they may "act" quiet.

You see what I'm saying?

Rei

11-18-2007, 12:04 AM

Tarrick

11-18-2007, 12:38 AM

Hey, I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying I've seen it more often then I would have liked to. And a very common place for people to fake who they are are in relationships of a romantic kind.

Rei

11-18-2007, 12:44 AM

Hey, I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying I've seen it more often then I would have liked to. And a very common place for people to fake who they are are in relationships of a romantic kind.

Wow... those must be uncomfortable relationships. WHY
The whole point of being in a relationship is to have at least ONE PERSON you can be yourself in front of.

Tarrick

11-18-2007, 01:01 AM

Sadly, not all people are interested in a real relationship all the time.

Sometimes they just want your money. Or status. Or in your pants. >.>

Solaris

11-18-2007, 06:54 AM

Wow... those must be uncomfortable relationships. WHY
The whole point of being in a relationship is to have at least ONE PERSON you can be yourself in front of.

I've seen them, and been in them when I was younger -- and you are totally correct. They are HORRIBLE.

Also, I completely agree with your second statement. People being genuine is one of the most important things to me and for me.

Solaris

11-18-2007, 06:55 AM

Oh yeah, the weekend is about over, anyone get asked out?

(I just couldn't help myself)

BloozeGit

11-18-2007, 07:31 AM

Or, did anyone ask anyone out?

(couldn't help myself either)

GOD

11-18-2007, 08:04 AM

Err, if it wasn't important I wouldn't be wasting my time here would I? Obviously you did not get my sarcasm. I said that while INTJ's are good at picking up what is structurally taught in schools, we're REALLY bad at picking up stuff from what's not taught officially. Dunno. Maybe you're the love expert... then please enlighten me with "how to read signs" apart from hair and clothes, because I really need help. Though trashy tends to sound very aggressive and harsh, don't you think? Have you ever read those magazines? There is a small grain of truth in it sometimes - very rare, but it's there.

Yip, I see why you're single now.

Thats why INTJ males go for ENxP women.

Gabrielle

11-18-2007, 08:38 AM

I'm.... not single?

Tarrick

11-18-2007, 10:39 AM

INTJ males go for ENxP women?

Lucid

11-18-2007, 11:32 AM

INTJ males go for ENxP women?

Yeah, that's news to me as well. My current boyfriend and one past boyfriend are both INTJ. The past boyfriend actually left an ExFP for me and is now dating a girl who I think is an ISTJ.

Paul V

11-18-2007, 12:02 PM

INTJ males go for ENxP women?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(no offense to any ENXP women reading this)

Solaris

11-18-2007, 12:34 PM

Agh...
What do you think would happen if your best friend was in a relationship? It really changed the way I acted towards him on my end. I came to the conclusion that guys with girlfriends can't truly have female best friends.

We're about to find out. I learned today that he and our other very close friend are trying to see if anything will go anywhere between them.

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this yet. Because this requires me to figure out the difference between what I think about it and what I feel about it -- which are two very different things.

Rei

11-18-2007, 12:41 PM

Sadly, not all people are interested in a real relationship all the time.

Sometimes they just want your money. Or status. Or in your pants. >.>
How tragic... Oh well, such is the life we live.

Oh yeah, the weekend is about over, anyone get asked out?

(I just couldn't help myself)

Nope...
Unless a date with my mother counts ~_~

We're about to find out. I learned today that he and our other very close friend are trying to see if anything will go anywhere between them.

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this yet. Because this requires me to figure out the difference between what I think about it and what I feel about it -- which are two very different things.

Oh man, that is the single reason why I occasionally think it's better to NOT be a T. Being a T complicates things by adding reason that you have to somehow match up with the inevitable F. It really sucks when you can't match it up :undecided:

Henry

11-18-2007, 12:53 PM

INTJ males go for ENxP women?

I prefer ExxJ females, mostly because I hate cleaning my house and hate having to make social arrangements.

Lucid

11-18-2007, 01:46 PM

Thats why INTJ males go for ENxP women.

You know, I was thinking about this and something Firelie said:

I think a lot of the guys out there have an unconscious desire for a "weak" woman (ie: stereotypical woman that is smaller, pretty, overly emotional, bad at making decisions, maybe mentally a bit slower, etc etc) because it makes them feel more "manly" when they have someone to depend on them, someone to protect, someone to possess.

and:

My problem has been that I usually end up with the kind of guy that is looking for someone to control him, and I find that revolting.

I completely sympathize with Firelie. By far the majority of the men who are interested in dating me want someone who will dominate them and I simply have no interest in doing so. Mostly because I need space and if I have to be constantly controlling someone else I can't get that.

Like Firelie said, I think most men are looking for a female that makes them feel manly.

However, the majority of the men I've dated aren't looking for someone to control them and pretty consistently date females who are more independent, rational, less emotional, capable, etc. They also tend to get into more fights with other males and other things like that, than the majority of men (who seek more traditionally feminine partners).

Perhaps there's some connection. Men who date less traditionally feminine women have other ways of asserting their masculinity.

Any thoughts?

Rei

11-18-2007, 02:12 PM

You know, I was thinking about this and something Firelie said:

and:

I completely sympathize with Firelie. By far the majority of the men who are interested in dating me want someone who will dominate them and I simply have no interest in doing so. Mostly because I need space and if I have to be constantly controlling someone else I can't get that.

Like Firelie said, I think most men are looking for a female that makes them feel manly.

However, the majority of the men I've dated aren't looking for someone to control them and pretty consistently date females who are more independent, rational, less emotional, capable, etc. They also tend to get into more fights with other males and other things like that, than the majority of men (who seek more traditionally feminine partners).

Perhaps there's some connection. Men who date less traditionally feminine women have other ways of asserting their masculinity.

Any thoughts?

I do agree with the notion that most guys have an unconscious attraction to weaker females so they can 'stay manly'. Though I believe that not all men have a need to assert masculinity (through dominance/power).

I've had both...
Guys who take me as a challenge and want to 'tame' me; and guys who want someone to 'lead' them... so to speak. Which is frustrating when I want something with more balance. I will like someone enough to let things slide, but I will by NO means be dominated. On the other hand, it would be frustrating if I had to continuously make the call.

Now, I think this balance can be found in men who don't feel the need to assert masculinity (or at least feel it much less than most). I guess it takes a certain confidence (or a certain 'I don't give a shit what you think'). Males here have mentioned preference to more independent women, linking to a lack of 'desire' to be in power... I don't really see many of these guys as people who like to pick (physical) fights.

Lucid

11-18-2007, 02:18 PM

The Many

11-18-2007, 03:15 PM

I'm not saying that all men who don't want to dominate a female to feel manly want to pick physical fights or are more violent.
That was just an example.
The men that I dated who neither wanted to "dominate" me or be dominated by me tended towards physical violence (toward other men), but I think there are other, non-violent ways for men to feel manly that come neither from physical fights or from dating "feminine" women.
I think that maybe some of the men who neither wish to be dominated by a female in a relationship yet date NT women get that masculinity boost from other areas of their lives.

Interesting, really. Coming to think of it, I probably make quite a homosexual impression, having performed in drag as well as knowing quite a few women who I take no particular romantic interest in. On the other hand, I don't exactly look gay (as in following fashion, acting feminine etc), and I really have more male friends than female ones too. I have also been stalked by a girl/woman (she's 19, decide for yourself which term you want to use) the last couple of weeks, who has called me up, wanted to see me etc many times, which is starting to get somewhat creepy. In fact this girl has even started talking about her muslim boyfriend who she wants to leave, and I have better things to do than getting involved in a story where honour-killings may become a reality. I have been assaulted twice this last year, so caution is coming quite naturally to me...

But anyway, back on topic - I suppose I'm really only self-confident (or make such an impression) which seems to get me quite some female (and some male... go figure) attention, and there is a girl I have identified as an INTJ to whom I am really starting to take an interest. It's the first time in about 18 months that I am actually getting interested in someone, which really is quite nice. I think it's really all about finding an "equal" (as much as I loathe the word), I was never one to really care for dominating others. I have always wanted a soul-mate, and an independent one at that, much rather than either a dominatrix or a slave.

Tarrick

11-18-2007, 04:09 PM

Equal isn't the word I would use, Many. Compliment or Supplement to you (depending on what you are looking for) is closer to what we seek. Or at least I am.

The Many

11-18-2007, 04:20 PM

Equal isn't the word I would use, Many. Compliment or Supplement to you (depending on what you are looking for) is closer to what we seek. Or at least I am.

No, equal (I hate the word, feminists are too repetitive I suppose :p ) is probably the best word I can think of. Some kind of soul-mate, definitely. This sounds all too NF for its own good, but that is really the best comparison. When I was only a couple of years old and went to Kindergarten, I thought vampires were extremely romantic with that eternal love thing (fortunately I grew out of liking vampires when I was five or something like that, though) and I really never lost that perspective. I even left a girlfriend once since she became too reliant on me and my decisions.

Tarrick

11-18-2007, 04:28 PM

The Many

11-18-2007, 04:37 PM

Well equal can mean two different things and I guess I misinterpreted what you said there.

My meaning is that I don't need to date another me. I'm enough me to go around. I'm interested in finding someone that is both an equal to me, but is also a compliment to who I am.

That I can relate to. What I really mean by equal is finding someone who is equal to me in strengths (i.e. which are interesting enough to be able to hold up their end of a conversation), which I have very, very rarely done - these are the ones that tend to end up my actual, close friends and I know three of these at the moment, and a few others who have the potential to do so if we would happen to meet each other more. So, not finding another me, but rather finding another perspective. Maybe a supplement then, as you had it.

GOD

11-18-2007, 04:50 PM

Teenage INTJ's (16) 2 cents here, although I have limited knowledge on the concept of relationships and dating. I'll still chip in however, as I have some knowledge.

I prefer the girl to initiate the relationship. If I too am interested, then I will take the offer and take the lead. Why do I wait? Because if that particular girl has interest in me, judging from my facial expressions, (I have only two: 1. Serious. 2. Laughter due to morbid humor involved.) they knew what they are getting into.

That's when I'll unleash the arsenal. Logical debates to the extreme. If the other person cannot handle it, then the relationship is already done.

Probably killed off 90% of the female population right there.

I absolutely prefer a girl that can stand on her own two feet. Independence is a severe lacking attribute in today's generation of teens. Relationships are suppose to be about the love between two people and the fact that they don't rely on each other. Being dependent will screw you over if the relationship is done with.

As I'm writing this, I remember all of the "couples" in my school and just shake my head in disappointment. Maturity levels aren't high enough for relationships that are worth the time required, which is why I'm waiting until college or late in my Senior year (Junior right now).

What I look for in a girl:

1. Intelligence is the largest priority. There is more to the world than what is going on with other people.

2. Headbanger or respectful to Metal. I feel and breath Metal, yet think Logic.

3. Looks don't matter as long as you're not as big as a whale in human form. Tomboys appreciated. This excludes the obvious sluts and whores, of course.

I have to commend you on this post. It sure did make me laugh.

However this comment is quite significant:

"That's when I'll unleash the arsenal. Logical debates to the extreme. If the other person cannot handle it, then the relationship is already done.

Probably killed off 90% of the female population right there".

I think most INTJs don't need to date... they just interrogate the other person with questions to see if they are similar...

Tarrick

11-18-2007, 04:59 PM

I think most INTJs don't need to date... they just interrogate the other person with questions to see if they are similar...

By George! He's right!

We have no need of the frivolousness that is dating! We'll simply interrogate any interesting person we're curious about and then either take them home or move on!

;D

(/Sarcasm? >.> )

Rei

11-18-2007, 05:03 PM

I have to commend you on this post. It sure did make me laugh.

However this comment is quite significant:

"That's when I'll unleash the arsenal. Logical debates to the extreme. If the other person cannot handle it, then the relationship is already done.

Probably killed off 90% of the female population right there".

I think most INTJs don't need to date... they just interrogate the other person with questions to see if they are similar...

Sounds like he needs an INTX girlfriend...

Anyway...
I confirm the interrogation. Any kind of interest leads to questioning/asking to hear opinion, the rest depends on whether I am disappointed in the answers. Frankly, dating is a waste of time if you don't expect it to go somewhere further.

AresX9

11-18-2007, 05:38 PM

GOD

11-18-2007, 05:43 PM

Sounds like he needs an INTX girlfriend...

Anyway...
I confirm the interrogation. Any kind of interest leads to questioning/asking to hear opinion, the rest depends on whether I am disappointed in the answers. Frankly, dating is a waste of time if you don't expect it to go somewhere further.

Had to laugh once when a female friend of mine said "Sheeze, its like you put them through a job interview before you decide its worth pursuing any further".

So, the interrogation element isn't too far removed. And why not? If perhaps 90% of the population is a waste of time why spend time and money finding out??

However, I think you'll find those that go "dating" treat it as more than just getting to some conclusion..... or just maybe 60% of society is "their" type..

Rei

11-18-2007, 07:46 PM

And you are correct, that's what I'm looking for. :)

There's so little of them in Miami though. :(

You're only 16 right?
Chances are you haven't met many people in general. It gets better as you age and get into contact with more diverse people (because in high school most people are trying to be like everyone else anyway)... just try not to be a hermit like me :blank:

Lucid

11-18-2007, 07:48 PM

My meaning is that I don't need to date another me. I'm enough me to go around. I'm interested in finding someone that is both an equal to me, but is also a compliment to who I am.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I seek too. I don't want someone who is clingy and needy, or someone who is controlling or domineering. Someone with whom I am on the same footing and who rounds off my rough edges. ;)

I think most INTJs don't need to date... they just interrogate the other person with questions to see if they are similar...

Agreed!! I usually know within the first conversation whether I will be interested in dating someone. All that's left is to fill out the gaps in information to see if we have some things in common and have a possibility of working out. Why waste time with the lengthy dating process so many others must go through before they settle on someone. I'll never understand people who like to date. I always know what I want pretty quickly.

mind_wander

11-19-2007, 05:26 AM

Yeah, that's pretty much what I seek too. I don't want someone who is clingy and needy, or someone who is controlling or domineering. Someone with whom I am on the same footing and who rounds off my rough edges. ;)

Agreed!! I usually know within the first conversation whether I will be interested in dating someone. All that's left is to fill out the gaps in information to see if we have some things in common and have a possibility of working out. Why waste time with the lengthy dating process so many others must go through before they settle on someone. I'll never understand people who like to date. I always know what I want pretty quickly.

It seems, your trying to find a relationship partner, who you can be equilivant, but decided on a compromise or perfection; both sides is not truely dominanting with each other, but can be easily overrided.

AresX9

11-19-2007, 01:39 PM

You're only 16 right?
Chances are you haven't met many people in general. It gets better as you age and get into contact with more diverse people (because in high school most people are trying to be like everyone else anyway)... just try not to be a hermit like me :blank:

Again, correct. I already made the decision to not start looking for a girl until College.

Solaris

11-19-2007, 02:28 PM

Yeah, that's pretty much what I seek too. I don't want someone who is clingy and needy, or someone who is controlling or domineering. Someone with whom I am on the same footing and who rounds off my rough edges. ;)

Agreed!! I usually know within the first conversation whether I will be interested in dating someone. All that's left is to fill out the gaps in information to see if we have some things in common and have a possibility of working out. Why waste time with the lengthy dating process so many others must go through before they settle on someone. I'll never understand people who like to date. I always know what I want pretty quickly.

Seconded. If you find a stockpile of men around that suit this approach, let me know where I can go find them. ....Hmm....I meant that jokingly, as in a physical location, but then realized that I was more or less describing here, except that wasn't what brought me here...and now I'm just being random. :p

Aoiluna

11-19-2007, 03:39 PM

Tarrick

11-19-2007, 05:32 PM

Seconded. If you find a stockpile of men around that suit this approach, let me know where I can go find them. ....Hmm....I meant that jokingly, as in a physical location, but then realized that I was more or less describing here, except that wasn't what brought me here...and now I'm just being random. :p

Your motivates for being here are...questionable...

I'm keeping my eyes on you. :ninja:

deicruxified

11-19-2007, 07:44 PM

Hey. I'm new to the board. Totally familiar with MBTI, though.

These Are The Facts:
*I'm an INTJ female
*I'm not socially awkward, but totally socially confident (these skills took years of study, but I swear they exist!)
*I have learned to dress so that I accentuate my physical assets in a respectful but attractive manner (I'm very fit, so this helps)
*I never get asked out

So, I'm trying to figure out why this is. I've used my extreme deductive skills to realize that perhaps staying home more weekends than I go out is a contributing factor, but what else am I doing that is detracting from guys wanting to ask me out?

Girls, can you weigh in with personal experience? Successes, failures and what you did/didn't do?

Guys, can you weigh in with insight as to what might be the issue with a reasonably physically attractive INTJ female never getting asked out?

Any and all discussion on the related topic is welcomed.
Thanks!
when some guy asked me out before for a fanciful dinner, here's what i did: i met up with him in my "fanciful" house clothes... yes siree, shorts and overgrown shirt plus flip-flops and an uncombed hair. since i was not admitted inside the restaurant, he took me to the nearest mcdonald's for french fries and nothing else. when he insisted i order more, i went cranky. on top of that, i did whatever things that could turn-off a guy. i did this intentionally as i was testing him at that time.

hahaha no one passed. i got high standards i myself only know (and i think my entj friend's radar are getting em lol)

Tarrick

11-19-2007, 07:53 PM

I question your tactics Deicrux, but whatever you think works....
I have high standards myself, but that's more of a test to see how desperate they are for your attention, rather then getting inside their head.

Solaris

11-19-2007, 07:56 PM

Your motivates for being here are...questionable...

I'm keeping my eyes on you. :ninja:

Well, I'm not really shy about stating that I am really into INTJ men. Especially given how many (confirmed) ones I've known, extremely well even. However, I did not come here on a quest to pick up men on the internet. You may interpret this as defensive, it's not really, I'm stating the truth. I really came here trying to understand a little more about a particular one I know right now. Whatever else I pick up while here...well whatever happens happens. Feel free to watch me with your ninja eyes all you want, we'll play Art of War ;)

Tarrick

11-19-2007, 08:29 PM

Very well, your reasoning checks out.

Good luck with that. :nice:

blueback

11-19-2007, 08:36 PM

i met up with him in my "fanciful" house clothes... yes siree, shorts and overgrown shirt plus flip-flops and an uncombed hair. since i was not admitted inside the restaurant, he took me to the nearest mcdonald's for french fries and nothing else. when he insisted i order more, i went cranky. on top of that, i did whatever things that could turn-off a guy. i did this intentionally as i was testing him at that time.

LOL!

When you say "things that could turn-off a guy" what exactly do you mean? It sounds like you might have just been having fun at his expense ;-P

Lucid

11-19-2007, 10:28 PM

Well, I'm not really shy about stating that I am really into INTJ men. Especially given how many (confirmed) ones I've known, extremely well even. However, I did not come here on a quest to pick up men on the internet. You may interpret this as defensive, it's not really, I'm stating the truth. I really came here trying to understand a little more about a particular one I know right now. Whatever else I pick up while here...well whatever happens happens. Feel free to watch me with your ninja eyes all you want, we'll play Art of War ;)

I also like INTJ men (although I didn't come here for that either... I'm not big on internet romances). My current/ex boyfriend (our status is rather confusing at the moment) is an INTJ and we work/ed pretty well... except that he's kind of broken so it's not going to end up working out.

But on the whole INTJ men are awesome! Some of the few out there who appreciate we INTJ women :lovestruck:

Rei

11-20-2007, 05:26 AM

when some guy asked me out before for a fanciful dinner, here's what i did: i met up with him in my "fanciful" house clothes... yes siree, shorts and overgrown shirt plus flip-flops and an uncombed hair. since i was not admitted inside the restaurant, he took me to the nearest mcdonald's for french fries and nothing else. when he insisted i order more, i went cranky. on top of that, i did whatever things that could turn-off a guy. i did this intentionally as i was testing him at that time.

hahaha no one passed. i got high standards i myself only know (and i think my entj friend's radar are getting em lol)

I think that's pushing it a little bit much. Why would you try to turn a guy off to test him; that's not testing, that's throwing him off a car in the middle of a highway. What would you consider as 'passing' anyway? If he sticks through all that, I'd be a little worried about lack of personality/standards on his part.
If anything, I'd probably test him with weird/awkward things I sometimes do and see how he reacts to me, not how well he reacts to ridiculousness. I wouldn't expect anyone to put up with bad treatment like that. There's no need to put someone through such wasteful ordeals that aren't probable to happen in real life.

rwyatt365

11-20-2007, 06:28 AM

Is "testing" men in some fashion a(n); individual thing, female thing, INTJ female thing? Just curious.

blueback

11-20-2007, 06:52 AM

I usually look at a place that im in (whether it be at work or a class) and pick one guy that im interested in using different filters. I can usually decide pretty quickly on a first impression whether or not id date a guy or not. Usually by the end of the semester I lose interest in all if not most of them, and pretty quickly. If my interest holds all semester, well then I guess theyre worthy. but its not like i have the guts to do anything about it. I feel so hopeless... and the semester is almost over. Then I have to start all over again. gr i cant even bring up dumb conversation. thats what you use to hook people, right? small talk? heck if I know. I cant do that.

You have chronic oneitis (won-eye-tis):

Oneitis is a congenital birth defect which, while treatable, will always be with you. It is possible to treat oneitis sucessfully but the process is painful and not without side effects. However, quality of life can be greatly improved and only minor scarring will result.

In summary, oneitis is the state of being so focused on the outcome of your relationship with an individual that both your sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems are activated at the simultaneously; this results in many competing chemical and electical signals which overstimulate and suppress your system at the same time. In extreme cases mental paralysis, cold sweat, and invisibility can result. It is easy enough for the lay person to self-diagnose oneitis as the symptoms are obvious, although they do vary from person to person.

The treatments for oneitis vary, so consult your Jungian psychologist before participating in a treatment program.

1) Relieve the pressure on your nervous system thru repetative exhalation and vibration in close proximity to the oneitis-causing agent. the rythmic use of the voicebox to pass messages is soothing on the psychie and often results in a sharp reduction in symptoms.

2) Decrease your nervous system's response to the stimulus thru repetative exposure. Over time your system will adapt to the presence of the stimulus and the histamine-like reaction will dip to levels which don't impare motor funciton.

3) If the reaction is severe enough to warrant a call to poison control for an atropine injector then you might be having an allergic reaction. It is important to avoid any contact with the aggravating agent as death and/or brain damage might result. Ensuring your environment is free of contamination is diffcult because your system is already hyperactive and the presence of a new allergen might cause a resurgence of symptoms. The first level is isolation, however, if duct tape on the doors and a lot of cats don't work for you then your only option may be hermit-ism.

rwyatt365

11-20-2007, 06:58 AM

Great post! A classic! :D

Aoiluna

11-20-2007, 07:52 AM

Ah so that is what is wrong with me, haha. great post, made me laugh in the computer lab. Thank you doctor.

bucolic_

11-20-2007, 08:26 AM

Rei

11-20-2007, 09:01 AM

Is "testing" men in some fashion a(n); individual thing, female thing, INTJ female thing? Just curious.

Frankly, IMO testing is neurotic and takes way too much effort.

I don't see the point when you can just use intuition to probe his capacity according to day to day interactions.
Of all people I would have thought INTJ females would be one of the last females to do this, but I guess I was wrong =/

rwyatt365

11-20-2007, 09:26 AM

Frankly, IMO testing is neurotic and takes way too much effort.

I don't see the point when you can just use intuition to probe his capacity according to day to day interactions.
Of all people I would have thought INTJ females would be one of the last females to do this, but I guess I was wrong =/
Just to "light a fire" I've always thought of testing as being pretty unfair; "Prove to me you are worthy" is how it comes across. Given that, I've always thought, "What makes you worthy of asking for proof from me", and then I would walk away.

Tarrick

11-20-2007, 09:40 AM

Frankly, IMO testing is neurotic and takes way too much effort.

I don't see the point when you can just use intuition to probe his capacity according to day to day interactions.
Of all people I would have thought INTJ females would be one of the last females to do this, but I guess I was wrong =/

Well, it's more expedient than to just sit and watch. By throwing a few tests (cleverly disguised of course) at an individual and viewing their response, you can get a lot more information out of them, especially if they control the setting more often then not.

Lucid

11-20-2007, 09:46 AM

Just to "light a fire" I've always thought of testing as being pretty unfair; "Prove to me you are worthy" is how it comes across. Given that, I've always thought, "What makes you worthy of asking for proof from me", and then I would walk away.

I've always felt the same way actually. I get offended when I find I am being tested and usually cease all association with the person in question.
I don't test either. I think Rei may have already said this, but I simply observe what they do and how they react in daily situations, which I think is far more informative than contriving a ridiculous situation, which seems rather manipulative. I try to make a point of not playing mind games in my relationships because I think it can only be harmful to them and is wildly unfair to the other party.

Jezebel

11-20-2007, 09:49 AM

Is "testing" men in some fashion a(n); individual thing, female thing, INTJ female thing? Just curious.
An individual thing, I guess. I always associated it with insecurity. Knowing a guy's real response to how I really normally act is good enough for me. That seems to be enough to filter most of them out, anyway. :)

Rei

11-20-2007, 10:09 AM

Well, it's more expedient than to just sit and watch. By throwing a few tests (cleverly disguised of course) at an individual and viewing their response, you can get a lot more information out of them, especially if they control the setting more often then not.

Like I said. It's too much effort. I don't need to know specifics because I don't need proof that things work. If it works then it's fine, if a certain situation arises that one cannot handle, I'm willing to pick up the slack as long as this runs both ways. Besides, there's an amazing amount you can deduce from JUST what you see without tests. I'd personally feel my personal space being intruded AND being disrespected if people started testing me about random things.

If I was a guy, and put through what Dei described, I'd probably walk away too. I wouldn't stay and let myself get trampled all over.

GOD

11-20-2007, 10:35 AM

Does anyone else wonder if very F, or SF, men are attracted to NT women because we sort of represent the "bad boy" in a way? Just like the naive girl thinks she can "tame" the bad boy, do these men think they can make us more traditionally feminine??

I think this is why I prefer NT men. NT men are such a stubborn bunch that they won't go around trying to change me either, and I have no illusions that I would change any of them.

Ehmm... I think F guys like NT women because you'll tell them what to do, like a new replacement mother..... (Its a mothering thing).... and besides, NT women won't fight them for use of the hair dryer...

NT women like NT guys because we're not ST, SF or NF...I'd say its preference by default... ;D

Lucid

11-20-2007, 11:06 AM

and besides, NT women won't fight them for use of the hair drier...

lol

Rei

11-20-2007, 01:41 PM

Ehmm... I think F guys like NT women because you'll tell them what to do, like a new replacement mother..... (Its a mothering thing).... and besides, NT women won't fight them for use of the hair dryer...

NT women like NT guys because we're not ST, SF or NF...I'd say its preference by default... ;D

I agree...
That's the exact description of my parents. :blank:

INTJgal

11-20-2007, 01:46 PM

I want an NF

Paul V

11-20-2007, 01:59 PM

I want an NF

I want an INFX.

INTJgal

11-20-2007, 02:07 PM

I want an INFX.

I want an ENFx, because then he can deal with the kids when I need alone time:)

Gaius Baltar

11-20-2007, 02:27 PM

Is "testing" men in some fashion a(n); individual thing, female thing, INTJ female thing? Just curious.

Testing is a female thing. All females do it, regardless of type. They might not even be conciously aware that they're doing it, but they are. Yes, even INTJ women do it.

Of course, deicruxified's example is quite extreme. Most tests get nowhere near this level.

You have to understand that by nature, women are submissive. They get approached by men all the time. This is especially true for very attractive women.

For example, let's take a highly attractive woman. She's going about her day to/from work, or out and about for errands, etc... She may very well get approached by men 5 times a day.

Do a little simple math. That's 35 times a week, 140 times a month, 1,680 times a year, and 67,200 times a lifetime (assuming 40 years)!

Now of course, most women are not in the drop dead gorgeous zone, so the actual numbers are probably far less. However, redo the math with some more conservative estimates, and you'll see that the numbers are still pretty ridiculous.

Is a woman able to stop and entertain every single man that's interested in her? Of course not! She'd have to work two fulltime job hours just to accomodate all of them. So she starts to formulate little screening tests to see who she might be genuinely interested in.

Most of these tests are pretty simple and do not appear to be tests. She might not even be aware that she's doing them. It depends on the woman of course, but they're typically checking for signs of confidence, humor, intelligence, or whatever else she might like. They sometimes have to be thorough since some guys are pretty good liars since all they want is to get into her pants.

Most men, on the other hand, do not really test. They just take whatever they can get. I feel that this is indicative of a more serious problem with society at large, but that's a different topic.

I'm one of those guys that actually does have real standards, so I test as well. I ask questions to check for signs of intelligence, ability to think apart form the herd, etc. I also passively gather information by watching her from afar. I like the filtering analogy that was used earlier. If I even approach a woman, chances are she's already passed several of my passive tests.

I believe that INTJ men test far more frequently than most men do. It's not necessarily a bad thing, gentlemen. Everyone has the right to determine whether or not someone will work for them. If you learn how to deal with female tests, things will get a lot easier.

Okay, end ramble.

INTJgal

11-20-2007, 02:39 PM

Gaius Baltar

11-20-2007, 03:05 PM

Re: testing.

Yes, we do it. However, I would argue that the specific incident that spurred this question (re: spoiling a nice dinner, etc.) is unhealthy and due to serious fear. The only types of guys that blatant disrespect to someone's efforts (providing a fancy dinner) attract are guys with problems.

This is why I find INTJ women so refreshing. Most women get offended or don't have the guts to admit to it. I don't usually talk about these things in mixed company for this very reason.

To clarify, I agree with you wholeheartedly. This one particular case was way over the top. I sincerely hope she was just joking.

Guys, if you ever run into these types of tests, run away. However, I must stress to not run away at the sight of ANY test. Some types of tests, while annoying, are healthy.

Maybe I should start a new thread for guys on how to handle tests...

blueback

11-20-2007, 03:57 PM

Gaius Baltar: your post sounds like a lot of the things I read in the PUA community. Of course, I agree with you and it.

I think you forgot to mention, however, that it's not a male/female question when it comes to testing potential mates, it's an "in demand"/"not in demand" question.

Women, especially hot women, are offered one deal after another so they have to use filters to screen out the unacceptable offers as efficiently as possible. Rich men also are offered on deal after another so they have filters for the same reason. BTW, is it any wonder hot women tend to end up with rich men? The thing they both share is that they are "in demand." People want something from them.

As INTJs, who are usually very good at whatever it is they do, I'm sure we have all had the experience of too many people wanting something from us, so we've used filters to screen them. The filters aren't always fair, but that's not important.

The filters are used to save time. That is reason for women having "attitudes" and "testing" and it is also the reason women constantly complain that there are no good guys around. Their filters are screening out all the guys who aren't confident enough to fight through the tests, which is most of the nice guys in the world. So women end up with the players. The nice guys either don't try, or get shot down, further reducing their confidence. The conflict is that women want a guy who is interested enough in 'who they are' to put up with their bullshit long enough to be trusted but men aren't being taught that anymore. Some of them figure it out on their own but a lot of them wander through life wondering why women want them to be men, but then punish them for being men. I mean, women just don't respect a guy who can't see through their bullshit tests and they won't give that guy a chance.

The same sort of situation surrounds rich men but the difference is that most guys are taught how to pass the shit-tests that rich guys hand out. It is okay for a guy to be confident and aggressive in business, so they are more likely to learn it.

In both cases, your success is proportional to the number of times you try. Talk to 10 strange women a week and after a few months you will see through the games they play (conciously or unconciously). Do 10 business deals a week and in a few months you will walk and talk like an experienced businessman. Both rich guys and hot women are looking for that person who walks and talks like they've been there before.

Lucid

11-20-2007, 06:20 PM

Testing is a female thing. All females do it, regardless of type. They might not even be conciously aware that they're doing it, but they are. Yes, even INTJ women do it.

Of course, deicruxified's example is quite extreme. Most tests get nowhere near this level.

You have to understand that by nature, women are submissive. They get approached by men all the time. This is especially true for very attractive women.

For example, let's take a highly attractive woman. She's going about her day to/from work, or out and about for errands, etc... She may very well get approached by men 5 times a day.

Do a little simple math. That's 35 times a week, 140 times a month, 1,680 times a year, and 67,200 times a lifetime (assuming 40 years)!

Now of course, most women are not in the drop dead gorgeous zone, so the actual numbers are probably far less. However, redo the math with some more conservative estimates, and you'll see that the numbers are still pretty ridiculous.
Most men, on the other hand, do not really test. They just take whatever they can get. I feel that this is indicative of a more serious problem with society at large, but that's a different topic.

I believe that INTJ men test far more frequently than most men do. It's not necessarily a bad thing, gentlemen. Everyone has the right to determine whether or not someone will work for them. If you learn how to deal with female tests, things will get a lot easier.

Okay, end ramble.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you have a very good understanding of women. And I think you should be careful about generalizations. Saying that all women are manipulative, all women are submissive and all men will take whatever they can get shows a rather poor understanding of both women and men.
I'm sure it's true that some women test and some don't. From the other posts in this thread it seems that the majority of INTJ women don't test, but there are some who do. So it's never a great idea to make generalizations.

Most women get offended or don't have the guts to admit to it.

This seems to be another INTJ trait. "I'm not wrong, you just won't admit it."
This is one of my least favorite traits. Have the stones to consider the possibility that you may be wrong (instead of accusing the other party of lying to you) and you might actually learn something.

Tarrick

11-20-2007, 06:41 PM

I want an ENFx, because then he can deal with the kids when I need alone time:)

Isn't that what duct tape (Use #4346) is for? ;D

As for "testing", what I meant wasn't anything close to Dei's, but rather like interrogating but with some actions, i.e. put them (sneakily) in a situation with kids and see what their mannerisms are like; are they nervous? irrate? friendly? glowing?

Well, glowing is generally not a good thing, but you get my point.

INTJgal

11-20-2007, 06:55 PM

Tarrick

11-20-2007, 07:00 PM

Lucid

11-20-2007, 07:01 PM

Testing is not a bad thing. It is not done with ill intent.

By "testing" I meant:
*examining his politeness
*examining his behavior around people of different lifestyles, ages, and intellectual capacities (including kids, like Tarrick said)
*finding out if he walks his talk
*meeting his friends
etc

I don't consider that testing... I think that's just getting to know someone to see if you like them. I think everyone does that (or at least they should :)).

I was thinking of testing (for the purposes of this discussion, anyway) as acting in a way you don't normally act or putting someone in a position they wouldn't normally or naturally be in to see how they react, often to see if they will stick around and put up with you.

Some examples of testing of this sort: Asking someone a question to which you already know the answer to see if they will lie to you.

Calling them and telling them you are pregnant and/or horribly disfigured in a car crash when you are not (either) to see if they will stay with you and be supportive.

Not returning calls for several days just to see if they'll stick around or to put them off balance and make them feel insecure.

Pretending to be mad at the other person and when they ask why you're mad telling them that they should already know just to see how they act and to make them grovel for awhile.

These kinds of things, to me, are manipulative and unethical (I try to be a very ethical dater ;)) and I do not engage in them.

Tarrick

11-20-2007, 07:03 PM

That's a bit far out, Lucid. Testing doesn't have mean unnatural. It just means applying certain stimuli to a person and seeing how they react.

Lucid

11-20-2007, 07:08 PM

That's a bit far out, Lucid. Testing doesn't have mean unnatural. It just means applying certain stimuli to a person and seeing how they react.

All I'm saying is that I think we were using the same term to apply to two different sorts of behavior. Then I explained what kind of behavior I was using the term to mean. I'm not sure why you think that's far out. I think either you misread my post, or I didn't do a great job of explaining myself. Sorry for that.

The behavior that you and INTJgal were speaking of when you used the term "testing" is, imo, normal and healthy and something most humans or any type, gender or sexual preference do.

I'm not taking issue with that behavior, simply trying to clear up what seems to be a miscommunication regarding the behavior referenced when using the term "testing."

Rohsiph

11-20-2007, 08:06 PM

I agree with the distinction being pointed out--

"weak testing" is natural, INTJ men tend to do it a lot more than average men, women almost always run a number of "filters" to screen things,

whereas "strong testing" is unnatural, exceptionally attractive women are stereotypically guilty of it, and I walk away after calling such a girl a bitch if she does it to me.

Really, "testing" in this strong sense is entirely manipulative, and always strikes me the wrong way. If I have a significant interest in a woman who feels it necessary to manipulate me in order to observe certain characteristics, I *will* realize the manipulation at some point, and then I will forcefully demand a substantial justification.

Gaius Baltar

11-20-2007, 08:10 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't think you have a very good understanding of women. And I think you should be careful about generalizations. Saying that all women are manipulative, all women are submissive and all men will take whatever they can get shows a rather poor understanding of both women and men.
I'm sure it's true that some women test and some don't. From the other posts in this thread it seems that the majority of INTJ women don't test, but there are some who do. So it's never a great idea to make generalizations.

If you had said that I have no idea what I'm talking about regarding this subject about 5 years ago, you would have been correct. However, I've put a lot of time and research into verifying how social interactions work since I was pretty clueless. I will not bring up any points that I have not been able to verify for myself in the real world.

Generalizatons exist for a reason. When you see the same patterns over and over again in the vast majority of the population, then it's safe to make a conclusion about what happens MOST of the time. There are of course exceptions. But the random INTJ woman you find that does not fit these descriptions does not disprove the fact that the majority of people operate this way.

Also, I did not say that all women are manipulative. When I talk about this particular subject, I do not necessarily like the way things are. I just recognize things for the way they are and I use what works. Actually, it helps me appreciate the exceptions more, and causes me to seek them out in many cases.

And about testing, yes... even INTJ women do it. Please see what Tarrick and INTJgal are talking about. It's not necessarily an evil thing. In fact, I appreciate how INTJ women go about things versus most others.

This seems to be another INTJ trait. "I'm not wrong, you just won't admit it."
This is one of my least favorite traits. Have the stones to consider the possibility that you may be wrong (instead of accusing the other party of lying to you) and you might actually learn something.

I'm not trying to sound like a smartass, but you just proved my point. Reactions like these are exactly why I dislike talking about these subjects with women. They get all testy and defensive like I just discovered some sort of dark secret that they hide from the general public. It's quite bizarre.

It's not about who's right and who's wrong. I get annoyed at these situations because they become emotional when they don't need to be. If I'm wrong, then let's talk about it. I'm not afraid of challenge, and I'm even open to changing my mind if I'm wrong. I just think getting all heated about such subjects is counterproductive.

You do have a point about this trait, though. I've seen it in myself during less mature stages.

Lucid

11-20-2007, 08:20 PM

If you had said that I have no idea what I'm talking about regarding this subject about 5 years ago, you would have been correct. However, I've put a lot of time and research into verifying how social interactions work since I was pretty clueless. I will not bring up any points that I have not been able to verify for myself in the real world.

Generalizatons exist for a reason. When you see the same patterns over and over again in the vast majority of the population, then it's safe to make a conclusion about what happens MOST of the time. There are of course exceptions. But the random INTJ woman you find that does not fit these descriptions does not disprove the fact that the majority of people operate this way.

Also, I did not say that all women are manipulative. When I talk about this particular subject, I do not necessarily like the way things are. I just recognize things for the way they are and I use what works. Actually, it helps me appreciate the exceptions more, and causes me to seek them out in many cases.

And about testing, yes... even INTJ women do it. Please see what Tarrick and INTJgal are talking about. It's not necessarily an evil thing. In fact, I appreciate how INTJ women go about things versus most others.

I think Tarrick and INTJgal are talking about something different than what you're talking about. Please read all relevant posts.

If testing is manipulative (and the testing I've been talking about is), then you did say that all women are manipulative.
Testing is a female thing. All females do it, regardless of type.You have to understand that by nature, women are submissiveThis leads me to believe that you don't actually know very many women. Or at least not many different kinds of women. Because, trust me buddy, you're way off.

Most men, on the other hand, do not really test. They just take whatever they can getHere you do men as much a disservice as you do women.

Perhaps stereotypes and generalizations do exist for a reason and are worthy of arguing from. If that's the case, then you should also be arguing that all Jewish people are stingy, all Germans are Nazis, all black people are poor and uneducated, etc etc etc.

What I take issue with is your generalizations. As I said before, it may be that many women are submissive and manipulative. And it may be that many men will take whatever they can get. But even if people like that are the majority, I don't think it's by much. And you do a huge disservice to all members of the group you're talking about who don't exhibit the stereotypical behavior.

INTJgal

11-20-2007, 08:56 PM

You have to understand that by nature, women are submissive

This leads me to believe that you don't actually know very many women. Or at least not many different kinds of women. Because, trust me buddy, you're way off.

I disagree; I, too, think women, by nature, are submissive. I will be, when I find the rare guy who I respect and trust and share values with. I won't lose any of my spark, my assertiveness, my intelligence, etc. BUT I will be looking to him to lead, and desiring that he be the primary worrier of the hazards that life brings our way. (Just like I think it's logical to expect me to be the primary caregiver of infants. I'm physically equipped for the role.) And the physical protector thing--I'm not short, but I sure am skinny and physically weak. I want a dominant guy that I can trust. And all independence lost will be lost by both of us, as we prioritize each other first. But I will be submissive, in the sense that that's where I'm most at peace. (with the right guy, which, as an INTJ female, is phenomenally difficult to come by. Or so this thread and my entirety of 21 years of life experience suggests.)

It's like that thread re: INTJs and leading. I can do it (I am currently leading a club at university), I can do it really well, but I dislike to do it if there's someone competent enough to do it instead. Because I'm more at peace contributing in other ways that suit me better. I think women really are genuinely biologically wired to be submissive; I am more at peace in the right situation relationship-wise this way. With the right guy, the relationship functions well. Because don't guys need to feel like a provider and protector?

Lucid

11-20-2007, 09:00 PM

I disagree; I, too, think women, by nature, are submissive. I will be, when I find the rare guy who I respect and trust and share values with. I won't lose any of my spark, my assertiveness, my intelligence, etc. BUT I will be looking to him to lead, and desiring that he be the primary worrier of the hazards that life brings our way. (Just like I think it's logical to expect me to be the primary caregiver of infants. I'm physically equipped for the role.) And the physical protector thing--I'm not short, but I sure am skinny and physically weak. I want a dominant guy that I can trust. And all independence lost will be lost by both of us, as we prioritize each other first. But I will be submissive, in the sense that that's where I'm most at peace (with the right guy, which, as an INTJ female, is phenomenally difficult to come by. Or so this thread and my entirety of 21 years of life experience suggests.)

I understand that some women want that in a relationship, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But I don't think it's the nature of women to be that way.
It seems, to me, that in most relationships the woman is the dominant one who makes most of the rules for the relationship. (although it doesn't have to be that way. Personally, I like relationships where neither party is submissive)
Also, maybe it's just the women I hang out with (mostly NTs and strong willed NFs), but only one or two of the women I know are submissive by nature.

INTJgal

11-20-2007, 09:03 PM

I understand that some women want that in a relationship, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But I don't think it's the nature of women to be that way.
It seems, to me, that in most relationships the woman is the dominant one who makes most of the rules for the relationship. (although it doesn't have to be that way. Personally, I like relationships where neither party is submissive)
Also, maybe it's just the women I hang out with (mostly NTs and strong willed NFs), but only one or two of the women I know are submissive by nature.

Obviously I still disagree, but re: your point that women tend to run relationships...
I tend to avoid those women as friends. They're generally not deep thinkers, or are extremely scared of losing control. They're not at peace; who wants to live with them?

Lucid

11-20-2007, 09:05 PM

Obviously I still disagree, but re: your point that women tend to run relationships...
I tend to avoid those women as friends. They're generally not deep thinkers, or are extremely scared of losing control. They're not at peace; who wants to live with them?

Again I disagree. Women like that not being deep thinkers, not at peace and scared of losing control is really not how I'd describe them. I think they are the way they are naturally. And most of them are very intelligent, insightful, kind, confidant and absolutely at peace.
Obviously we have very different views about gender roles. Are yours due to religion?

Tarrick

11-20-2007, 09:07 PM

Lucid

11-20-2007, 09:12 PM

In terms of biological/instinctive thing, it has to do with females seeking mates, and finding protection and shelter with, the strongest/most capable male they can find.

Which is why only body builders are able to find mates and reproduce. Skinny computer nerds and general jobless losers (who tend to live off their girlfriends) are unable to pass their genes on. (This is sarcasm... but it is intended as friendly, lighthearted sarcasm. Often I come off in debates as more embattled and angry than I actually am. It occurs to me that I should take measures to make others feel less attacked.)

I do think there's something to be said for women wanting a male they feel safe with. But I think the biological/instinctive thing is far less dominant (hehe) than most people think.

Gaius Baltar

11-20-2007, 09:23 PM

I think Tarrick and INTJgal are talking about something different than what you're talking about. Please read all relevant posts.

If testing is manipulative (and it is), then you did say that all women are manipulative.

No, we're talking about the same thing. There's different types and different levels of severity of tests. Some are reasonable, and some are not. The point is that they still happen.

Among the non-INTJ crowd, these tests can be quite obnoxious. As a man, you have to learn how to deal with them. Most guys have no clue as to what's going on.

This leads me to believe that you don't actually know very many women. Or at least not many different kinds of women. Because, trust me buddy, you're way off.

And this leads me to believe that you're likely college age or younger, and do not have much life experience.

As I've gotten to know more women, I've found that this idealism just doesn't hold water. I've gotten rejected many times before by women because I wasn't "man enough" to take charge or initiate physical contact.

They want to be lead around, but at the same time they don't want to be owned by anyone. And to be crude, an ENTP friend once told me "They just want to be bent over."

The fact that I recognize these things does not make me some evil woman hating monster. I have no desire to control women, but I understand that the majority of them want to be lead by a confident man, even if they won't admit it. What's wrong with me trying to improve myself so that I can make a woman genuinely happy?

Here you do men as much a disservice as you do women.

I do not like the fact that most guys just take whatever they can get. In fact, I find it rather disgusting.

But that's our current situation. First, you have to get a thorough understanding of the problem at hand. Then you can go about trying to fix these problems in any way you can.

We have a serious problem in this society with men not knowing how to act like men. The reasons for this are many, and really a bit off topic. However, I do genuinely enjoy helping men (and women) grow as individuals by helping them understand that a lot of what's been fed to them by this society is total bullshit. Men start acting more like human beings, and women are happier too. It's one of those few win-win situations.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps stereotypes and generalizations do exist for a reason and are worthy of arguing from. If that's the case, then you should also be arguing that all Jewish people are stingy, all Germans are Nazis, all black people are poor and uneducated, etc etc etc.

What I take issue with is your generalizations. As I said before, it may be that many women are submissive and manipulative. And it may be that many men will take whatever they can get. But even if people like that are the majority, I don't think it's by much. And you do a huge disservice to all members of the group you're talking about who don't exhibit the stereotypical behavior.

Yes, I've heard this one before. If you're in school (at any level), not a day goes by without this being drummed into people's heads.

Generalizations do have their place. When you see a certain behavior happening with more than 90% of a certain group, then it's a pretty safe bet. It's also assumed that there will always be exceptions. It's really hard to develop a system that works (like improving your relations with women) if you completely ignore how most of them work.

Also, this does not have to turn into a discussion about racism. It's a tenuous connection at best, because race relations and dating the opposite sex are completely different ballgames.

You're missing the point. We get testy and defensive because you've just insulted us. lol.

I don't see how a neutral and objective observation about how the mating process works is an insult. I think the real problem here is that they get mad because they're used to having most of the power when it comes to dating, sex, marriage/divorce, etc. They don't like someone trying to swing things back so that they're in a more balanced and healthy position. That would mean that they would have to give some things up.

Just like it can be insulting to African Americans if you assume they all play basketball, or insulting to Hispanics if you assume they all eat tacos all the time. Or don't speak English.

Slippery slope. I would not make those particular generalizations because from my observations, they're simply not true.

I will also no longer respond to any comments about race relations. It's a straw man and largely irrelevant to my points. These types of discussions always turn into some sort of pissing match with people throwing around ad hominem attacks such as "Hitler!" and etc. It's completely counterproductive and doesn't address the main points.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but "they won't admit it" can also read as, "I'm right about them, but they won't admit it."

Point conceded. However, it does not change the fact that I could care less about who's right and who's not. It's about trying to come to a better understanding so I can potentially solve a problem. It's more like "I'm right about the IDEA. My information is correct, so I can proceed to construct a viable solution."

--

As a side note, if anyone is getting irritated with these long argument type posts, then don't be afraid to speak up. I have no issue taking this in private.

Nomad

11-20-2007, 09:30 PM

Submissiveness is a either/both a psychological/social thing and a biological/instinctive thing.

In terms of psychological/social, it's the learned thing to do in our society, and is essentially ingrained into everyone. It's the same sort of social conditioning that teach boys to dislike pink and flowers and like guns.

In terms of biological/instinctive thing, it has to do with females seeking mates, and finding protection and shelter with, the strongest/most capable male they can find.

The former is very much varied depending on ones type and upbring, whereas the other is...more constrictive and harder to shrug off. It can be done, I think, but it would be a very rare thing.

And this thread is, for the record, all over the map. :)

I remember reading somewhere where they did a study where small children were given non gender specific toys and and their interactions with others outside the study were severely limited, IE no TV, no pop culture, etc. The idea was to prove that culture was more important to a person than gender differences, that boys could be made "non violent and inclusionary", and girls more "forceful" and for lack of recall of the specific terminology, less girly.

It came out of UC Berkeley, if I recall correctly. It was an utter failure. When given sticks as toys, the boys whacked each other and the girls treated them as dolls. Of course, there are exceptions, but evolution or God or Alien Space Bats built us certain ways, for good reasons.Fortunately, we have sufficient resources in this country to indulge ourselves in whatever activities we personally enjoy, and that's a good thing.

In the event of the collapse of world civilization, I suspect that it might revert back to some degree of "me Tarzan, you Jane." which would be sad, because women, even when oppressed, have much to offer and a great deal of power, which is why, i suppose, many men try to suppress them.

-Nomad

Lucid

11-20-2007, 09:50 PM

Gaius,

Actually I'm 27, with enough life experience to make valid conclusions about things like gender issues. Thanks. :) Ironically (perhaps), I would have put your age at either late teens or later life (65 or older).

You may see it as a neutral statement about dating/mating, but most women do not.

I don't think you hate women. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I don't think you want to control them. I just think you don't understand them.

The fact that I recognize these things does not make me some evil woman hating monster. I have no desire to control women, but I understand that the majority of them want to be lead by a confident man, even if they won't admit it. What's wrong with me trying to improve myself so that I can make a woman genuinely happy?

You're still misunderstanding me. I think that your idea of what women mean when they say that they want a mature and confidant man. I don't think most women "just want to be bent over" and I'm surprised that you don't see how that idea might offend a woman.
More importantly, I think it will serve you better to realize that what a woman wants varies from woman to woman.

I think that perhaps you've met a lot of women who want a more dominant man (this may have to do with your age, your location, the education level of the majority of the people you encounter as well as many other factors). I have known more women who don't want to be submissive.

Anyway, we obviously disagree. I realize that there's no way I can talk sense to you. Please return your silk shirt to it's original unbuttoned-to-the-naval position, straighten your gold medallions, and go find some women to "bend over." Make 'em real happy :)

which would be sad, because women, even when oppressed, have much to offer and a great deal of power, which is why, i suppose, many men try to suppress them.

I think there are many things about gender that are definitely inherent. Little boys will make guns out of tree branches, little girls make fairy wands. But there's not as much difference as many people like to claim there is.
And thank you, Nomad, we women like you men quite a bit as well. ;D

Nomad

11-20-2007, 09:59 PM

"I think there are many things about gender that are definitely inherent. Little boys will make guns out of tree branches, little girls make fairy wands. But there's not as much difference as many people like to claim there is.
And thank you, Nomad, we women like you men quite a bit as well. "

Beer foamy. Girls smell nice. ;)

Your welcome.

-Nomad

Gaius Baltar

11-20-2007, 11:21 PM

Actually I'm 27, with enough life experience to make valid conclusions about things like gender issues. Thanks. :) Ironically (perhaps), I would have put your age at either late teens or later life (65 or older).

I had assumed that you were that age simply because a few comments made were a bit snippy. I felt like a few of them were borderline personal attacks.

I realize that you probably didn't mean some of it to come out that way, and I understand since I used to have issues with restraint myself. I'm a big boy and can take a little punishment anyways. ;)

You may see it as a neutral statement about dating/mating, but most women do not.

And that's back to my original point. I don't normally like talking about these issues with women because of that. I know a lot of guys feel this way too. I think that these walls that prevent men and women from communicating meaningfully are a serious problem.

I don't think you hate women. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I don't think you want to control them. I just think you don't understand them.

Alrighty, I understand. That makes me feel better, actually.

I can see why you would think I don't know anything about women. It's a fair enough assumption since most guys really are clueless these days. (Oh noes, more generalizations! ;))

This does not imply that I think I'm the master. I don't know everything about women and dating. I just feel that I've come a long way, and that fellow INTJs (and other NTs) could benefit from someone trying to translate all this junk into terms that NTs could understand.

You're still misunderstanding me. I think that your idea of what women mean when they say that they want a mature and confidant man. I don't think most women "just want to be bent over" and I'm surprised that you don't see how that idea might offend a woman.
More importantly, I think it will serve you better to realize that what a woman wants varies from woman to woman.

Okay, that was meant as a joke. Anyone that knows ENTPs would find it funny. They tend to... let a few things slip here and there that aren't necessarily the most tactful of expressions.

It was more of a comment on how women tend to like a man who takes the lead in the bedroom as well, not just with the general relationship. Yes, I know not everyone is like that, just most. I do sincerely apologize if that comment was taken the wrong way.

And yes, I understand that there's women of all different types. There's just been a lot of common themes that I've found that are damn near universal.

I think that perhaps you've met a lot of women who want a more dominant man (this may have to do with your age, your location, the education level of the majority of the people you encounter as well as many other factors). I have known more women who don't want to be submissive.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. But, let me tell you this about what I've realized about those women who SAY that they don't want to be submissive...

I've had a lot of crap level customer service jobs in my late teens and early 20s. I've come into contact with a lot of different people.

The type of people that would give me the most trouble no matter what sort of role I had were middle aged women. They were the most unhappy, miserable, and out of control lot I have ever encountered. Now this doesn't mean that I didn't receive any trouble from both sexes and all age groups. Far from it. It's just that middle aged women won hands down.

I could not understand what the problem was for many years. I finally realized that the primary source of their problems were their relationship and family life. These women grew up having all this nonsense drummed into their heads about how women are good, and men are bad. Women have to be strong and independent, and who gives a damn what those evil opressive men think anyways?

So while young, they get into these relationships where they think they have to be in control or not be submissive because a man in charge is automatically some oppressive beast. They try to be in control or be an equal, so they find some sort of wimpy feminized man that they can control. Years later, they realize that they're completely unhappy because of the choices they made when they were younger. They actually want a man to be in charge, but they're stuck with Mr. Wimp. So they either stay with him and be miserable, or they divorce and remain miserable because the rest of the dating pool is quite messed up as well.

I do not blame the average woman for behaving this way. All these awful ideas pouring forth from our government, mass media of all kinds, and our eductional institutions constantly reinforce these bad ideas. It makes me mad to see so many people of both sexes be so miserable, really. Anger, when tempered into a fine blade, is a powerful instrument for change. Which is why I suppose I'm up past midnight babbling away about this to someone that I'll likely never even meet.

For the record, I still dig intelligent independent women. I think that they should have true freedom of choice. Stay at home and take care of the family, or have a career. As it stands right now, they have no choice. They must have a career or work. We're no better off than before we started.

Anyway, we obviously disagree. I realize that there's no way I can talk sense to you. Please return your silk shirt to it's original unbuttoned-to-the-naval position, straighten your gold medallions, and go find some women to "bend over." Make 'em real happy :)

Now just a... Er, wait. I think this is a joke, but I'm not entirely sure. I think it's time to call it quits for tonight. :undecided:

I've enjoyed this, now that things have cooled down a bit. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

INTJgal

11-21-2007, 03:31 AM

rwyatt365

11-21-2007, 05:04 AM

The filters are used to save time. That is reason for women having "attitudes" and "testing" and it is also the reason women constantly complain that there are no good guys around. Their filters are screening out all the guys who aren't confident enough to fight through the tests, which is most of the nice guys in the world. So women end up with the players. The nice guys either don't try, or get shot down, further reducing their confidence. The conflict is that women want a guy who is interested enough in 'who they are' to put up with their bullshit long enough to be trusted but men aren't being taught that anymore. Some of them figure it out on their own but a lot of them wander through life wondering why women want them to be men, but then punish them for being men. I mean, women just don't respect a guy who can't see through their bullshit tests and they won't give that guy a chance.
….and that (bolded) is why I asked the question, because I was one of those guys. I would hear women constantly bemoaning the fact that there weren't any "good men", but they were doing everything in their power to dissuade the "good men" from forming a relationship! There were several times when (years later, especially after I got married) females told me, "Why didn't we ever get together?" I answered, "Because you treated me like shit and I got tired of it!" The response; "I was just playing, I wanted to see if you were serious" :rolleyes::irked::angry:

Passive testing (observation) is not what I'm referring to. That's just observing and evaluating how a person acts and reacts to life-situations. Like Lucid says;

I don't consider that testing... I think that's just getting to know someone to see if you like them. I think everyone does that (or at least they should ).

I was thinking of testing (for the purposes of this discussion, anyway) as acting in a way you don't normally act or putting someone in a position they wouldn't normally or naturally be in to see how they react, often to see if they will stick around and put up with you. while.

These kinds of things, to me, are manipulative and unethical (I try to be a very ethical dater ) and I do not engage in them.
Amen! I agree wholeheartedly!

BTW - this "punish the man" thing is common among Black women. I understand the rationale, I just question the application.

lhsimm

11-21-2007, 10:06 AM

Lucid

11-21-2007, 10:23 AM

Although I won't argue that there will be zero exceptions, I seriously think that any heterosexual woman who thinks they are happier when they are in control in a romantic relationship has not self-examined enough to understand otherwise.
They are happy relative to having an oppressive relationship where they see ditzy blondes getting instructed around by her boyfriend.

Have they examined things to the point of understanding that they will genuinely be more happy when they're submissive to the right guy who lets them still retain all intellectual, assertive, etc. factors?

I think it's a bad idea to assume that what makes you happy will make everyone else happy. What you're telling me is no different from if I told you that women are naturally the more dominant gender and should be in control in all situations. I'm not saying that. I see a too much diversity among people for your theory of how women and men are "supposed" to be to be valid across the board.

And what do you have against blondes? :)

INTJgal

11-21-2007, 12:06 PM

I have nothing against blondes, I'm sure it was communicated that I just meant the associations to the stereotype instead of taking the time to list them all. All blondes can hate on me in another thread. :)

I would argue that you're believing too much what people think makes them happy.

Have you ever met a guy who didn't firstly want to be respected before he was loved? Genuinely? Sure, all guys want both, but don't you think it's fair to claim that every guy who's true to himself would rather be respected and single than in a relationship and "loved" but without any sort of respect toward his efforts of contribution and protection?
Guys that stick with girls who tell them what to do don't have respect. They may think that they do, because I do believe it is possible for someone to treat someone they love like dirt (it's unhealthy, but I think possible).
I think it's fair to conclude that all guys firstly want respect (because without it he has no positive self-image) before he wants to be loved. He may think he wants it, but in the end, he's going to end up the depressed guy who either cheats or has no respect for himself. He's gaining in the short term and paying out long term.

Similarly, I've never met a female who truly wants to dominate a romantic relationship. Sure, she may think that she does, (short term) but long term, I've only seen it end with females with control issues who really are not happy with their lives.

Lucid

11-21-2007, 01:57 PM

INTJgal

11-21-2007, 03:02 PM

It's ok, chica. The smiley face was there to indicate that I was joking, not being angry.

Okay. Thanks.

That's what I thought, but I erred on the safe side ;)

blueback

11-21-2007, 03:20 PM

I think it's fair to conclude that all guys firstly want respect (because without it he has no positive self-image) before he wants to be loved.

Similarly, I've never met a female who truly wants to dominate a romantic relationship.

I have to agree with you. There are certain trends that are just too long-term and wide-spread to be anything but genetic. Things like preference in height, wealth, attractiveness, status, body shape, etc.

How many women do you know that would be comfortable spending their lives with a guy who is shorter than themselves? What about a guy who is less successful than themselves?

How many men do you know that would be comfortable spending their lives with a woman who doesn't respect their decisions? What about a woman who is down-right ugly?

Sure, you can find exceptions to those trends, but not many and the more exceptions in one relationship the less likely that relationship is to last.

terencec

11-21-2007, 04:01 PM

Reading the testing posts. I don't quite understand it.

If a girl really likes the guy, why does she want to "test" him in the "very beginning" to risk the relationship? It is just too early to test anything. My test definition is to keep asking for the guy to say "I love you very much" not in word, but in his action. For example, let the guy wait for an hour in every appointment. Ask him to buy very expensive gift to you, make him embarrass in front of others to see if he gets angry etc. All these are indicators how much the guy loves the girl!

If a girl does not really interested the guy, I can see why she tests him or "play games".

Unless, the girl tests the guy when she wants to take the relationship to the next level. Otherwise, it does not make sense to me to test someone at "the very beginning". "Get know each other is different from testing". It seems the girl doesn't believe the guy really likes her because she does not think she is lovable. This kind of testing can drive most guys/girls leave the relationship. Who wants to deal with a girl who does not believe in herself.

This is my opinion.

Gabrielle

11-21-2007, 05:05 PM

If a girl really likes the guy, why does she want to "test" him in the "very beginning" to risk the relationship? It is just too early to test anything. My test definition is to keep asking for the guy to say "I love you very much" not in word, but in his action. For example, let the guy wait for an hour in every appointment. Ask him to buy very expensive gift to you, make him embarrass in front of others to see if he gets angry etc. All these are indicators how much the guy loves the girl!

If a girl does not really interested the guy, I can see why she tests him or "play games".

This is my opinion.

Isn't making them wait for an hour everytime playing mind games too? I'm just really confused...

I think it's the difference of word values. For me, at least, words come after actions. It's easy for me to be loyal to someone, but I'm not very outspoken about my own feelings, so saying "I love you" is just really really difficult. My ex was an INTJ, and although he bought me expensive things (that was before he went "crazy" and had a personality switch), he only said "I love you" to me once - when I thought that he didn't like me anymore (which was founded solely on my personal insecurity).

I knew him pretty well - actually, amazingly enough, I could read him like a book. So I knew his words were extremely truthful to me.

Another thing is... most INTJ's have gotten rejected before, or are afraid of rejection. I know I am. And taking the first step to the relationship is the biggest obstacle. Being logical creatures who try to grid everything, the trust-gaining must go through a systematic process, which is usually testing. If the girl likes the guy, more reason for testing, because before actually throwing your heart at the guy you have to take precautions. Is he worthy? Or would he just tear you up? I personally test guys because I've been through pretty hard rejections and I got in breakdowns each time I got rejected. Now I tend to tiptoe, making sure that there is a very small chance that he can't say yes.

We may look confident, but I think we aren't so confident when it comes to relationships.

terencec

11-21-2007, 06:13 PM

Isn't making them wait for an hour everytime playing mind games too? I'm just really confused...
.

I am not sure if it is a mind game or not or just she uses the guy when she has nothing to do and wants expensive gifts or she is somewhat interested but has to be for "sure" he is the one and keeps asking for "more love actions".

The "test" (show me I love you in actions all the time) cannot last forever. Most people will go away. I believe it is not because they don't love her. It is because it is just heavy burden and most people cannot bear!

I agree one should not throw completely himself/herself to another without knowing them well. So, I believe people should date long enough to know each other before they decide if the relationship can get more serious.

INTJgal

11-21-2007, 06:26 PM

I read it this way too. However, when you go back and check, they say, My test definition

not their test, their definition.
So (I think) they mean "why do some people do this?" instead of "my test is...."

terencec

11-21-2007, 08:15 PM

I read it this way too. However, when you go back and check, they say,

not their test, their definition.
So (I think) they mean "why do some people do this?" instead of "my test is...."

Anyway, I hope no girl here "keeps testing" a guy by asking him "prove you love me in the ways I have mentioned before. I know some girls doing it."

Rohsiph

11-22-2007, 09:10 PM

Guys that stick with girls who tell them what to do don't have respect. They may think that they do, because I do believe it is possible for someone to treat someone they love like dirt (it's unhealthy, but I think possible).

I have trouble accepting this if there is an implied difference-approach underlying it such that girls that stick with guys who tell them what to do somehow do have respect.

I don't want to tell a girl what to do, nor do I want her to ask me what I want her to do--I want to be able to make suggestions that she can think about & decide on with her own faculties, and I want her to make suggestions for me to think about as well.

The nature of submissiveness is such that the dominant will, at some point, look down on the submissive--will place less weight and faith in persons who are submissive versus those who can assert their own views.

I note that assertiveness is importantly different from aggression.

Tarrick

11-23-2007, 02:40 PM

I have trouble accepting this if there is an implied difference-approach underlying it such that girls that stick with guys who tell them what to do somehow do have respect.

I don't want to tell a girl what to do, nor do I want her to ask me what I want her to do--I want to be able to make suggestions that she can think about & decide on with her own faculties, and I want her to make suggestions for me to think about as well.

The nature of submissiveness is such that the dominant will, at some point, look down on the submissive--will place less weight and faith in persons who are submissive versus those who can assert their own views.

I note that assertiveness is importantly different from aggression.

That's all well and good, and I agree with it, but there will come times when decisions have to be made and someone has to take charge. If you were two separate people, it wouldn't be problem, but a couple (especially a serious couple) can't split up and go their separate ways whenever they have a disagreement. A unit of two or more people that can only move in a single direction at a time will need a leader. The leader can listen and take note of all the cares and concerns of his "underlings" but at the end he/she will be the one to make the call. And those that follow him will need to respect him/her as the leader, otherwise the unit will have no cohesiveness.

I know that we all want things to be perfect and never have a disagreement, but things won't work out that way. There are practices that can be employed to circumvent them of course, and good leaders will use them, but you can't please everyone all the time.

deicruxified

11-23-2007, 07:51 PM

LOL!

When you say "things that could turn-off a guy" what exactly do you mean? It sounds like you might have just been having fun at his expense ;-P
table manners?.. that sort of stuff... hahaha

deicruxified

11-23-2007, 08:02 PM

I am not sure if it is a mind game or not or just she uses the guy when she has nothing to do and wants expensive gifts or she is somewhat interested but has to be for "sure" he is the one and keeps asking for "more love actions".
bingo? you're 70% there.. so as for those who opposed to my tactics i won't say anything for defense. whatever's on my mind i better keep until i die. lol. i have no hard feelings here either. let's just say, some guy gave me the suggestion and he used my very own personal experience so he concluded so. i studied about it for so long a time then finally we agreed... and this guy did it to one of his dates way back and now they are happily married for 25 years and counting. so let's just say i'm "testing" (whatever connotation you could think of).

the bottomline is, getting the "surest" person ever. if that person is meant for you then you two will end up for all eternity amidst differences.

Rohsiph

11-24-2007, 10:18 AM

That's all well and good, and I agree with it, but there will come times when decisions have to be made and someone has to take charge. If you were two separate people, it wouldn't be problem, but a couple (especially a serious couple) can't split up and go their separate ways whenever they have a disagreement. A unit of two or more people that can only move in a single direction at a time will need a leader. The leader can listen and take note of all the cares and concerns of his "underlings" but at the end he/she will be the one to make the call. And those that follow him will need to respect him/her as the leader, otherwise the unit will have no cohesiveness.

I know that we all want things to be perfect and never have a disagreement, but things won't work out that way. There are practices that can be employed to circumvent them of course, and good leaders will use them, but you can't please everyone all the time.

The larger the group gets, the greater the need for a top-level decision maker . . . but in a couple--a unit consisting of two people--I don't see how it would be necessary to insist upon one party consistently acting the "leader" role every time.

Disagreement will occur, of course--but to insist the male take the dominant role and always make a decision superior to that of the female in basic heterosexual couplings . . . I don't see why this method is necessary. When a disagreement occurs, both parties should look at both sides of the issue. Compromise is the key to selecting a solution: making reasonable accommodations for both sides such that neither is forced into something unacceptable. If the disagreement is such that there is zero room for compromise, then I don't see how one side submitting something unacceptable could ever be healthy for the submissive party.

Such a couple necessarily must include two strong-willed, "complete" persons . . . and perhaps this is not the usual set-up. I'm sharing my ideal.

GOD

11-24-2007, 11:08 AM

I think most guys bawk at more intelligent women.

I'm not sure even, how a woman with more intellect than the man, can relate to him...

Any comments?

Solaris

11-24-2007, 12:34 PM

I think most guys bawk at more intelligent women.

I'm not sure even, how a woman with more intellect than the man, can relate to him...

Any comments?

I was more intelligent, academically speaking, than a man I dated; however, he had skills I did not. It worked for a while, but I hated dumbing myself down for him. I can't/won't do it. A man must be at least as intelligent as I am. I realize there are all sorts of intelligences, but we must be on a similar level, in the academic sense. No, I don't mean he needs to have as much (or more) college education than me, just that he needs to have similar mental capacity, because I like (love) deep, intelligent discussion.

Tarrick

11-24-2007, 01:52 PM

The larger the group gets, the greater the need for a top-level decision maker . . . but in a couple--a unit consisting of two people--I don't see how it would be necessary to insist upon one party consistently acting the "leader" role every time.

First of all, a lot of the female INTJs have stated that they want a male that takes the lead in a relationship. That doesn't make it a "necessity" in one sense of having a two-person relationship (one based on compromise and dual decision making) but it does in the sense that that is what these tough, smart and independent women want.

Disagreement will occur, of course--but to insist the male take the dominant role and always make a decision superior to that of the female in basic heterosexual couplings . . . I don't see why this method is necessary. When a disagreement occurs, both parties should look at both sides of the issue. Compromise is the key to selecting a solution: making reasonable accommodations for both sides such that neither is forced into something unacceptable. If the disagreement is such that there is zero room for compromise, then I don't see how one side submitting something unacceptable could ever be healthy for the submissive party.

Well, males are socially and biologically tailored to be the leaders in relationships; it's how things are, and again, it's what most of the female members of this community have stated they prefer. As for compromising, something are uncompromisable; it's either one or the other and the only way to compromise in that situation would be to "take turns" or whoever wants it least will submit to the other. However both of these can leave a great deal of resentment. I think, from my understanding, that if one of them lets the other make the decision for the two of them, it serves two purposes: It serves to unify the decision and blunting any hard feelings and also it forces the "leader" to make a decision not just for him/herself, but for the "group" as a whole, and to think of the good of not just him/herself but also for his/her partner.

And I think this is one reason why the females insist that males take a leader-like position: So they can see how well we males can lead a couple-type unit as sort of a test so they can understand how well we could lead a family-type unit.

Well females? And I on the mark? Or am I completely off-base here?

GOD

11-24-2007, 02:07 PM

Well, males are socially and biologically tailored to be the leaders in relationships; it's how things are, and again, it's what most of the female members of this community have stated they prefer.

Women don't lead, but they hen peck if you don't lead in the right direction.

Female: ----------------> Male:
"your decision" ----------> I'm in trouble.
"I think" ---------------> You'd better.
"What about" ----------> Oh thats what you require me to do.

We lead, they follow.... but its donkeys that pull the cart. ;D

INTJgal

11-24-2007, 02:17 PM

First of all, a lot of the female INTJs have stated that they want a male that takes the lead in a relationship. That doesn't make it a "necessity" in one sense of having a two-person relationship (one based on compromise and dual decision making) but it does in the sense that that is what these tough, smart and independent women want.

Well, males are socially and biologically tailored to be the leaders in relationships; it's how things are, and again, it's what most of the female members of this community have stated they prefer. As for compromising, something are uncompromisable; it's either one or the other and the only way to compromise in that situation would be to "take turns" or whoever wants it least will submit to the other. However both of these can leave a great deal of resentment. I think, from my understanding, that if one of them lets the other make the decision for the two of them, it serves two purposes: It serves to unify the decision and blunting any hard feelings and also it forces the "leader" to make a decision not just for him/herself, but for the "group" as a whole, and to think of the good of not just him/herself but also for his/her partner.

And I think this is one reason why the females insist that males take a leader-like position: So they can see how well we males can lead a couple-type unit as sort of a test so they can understand how well we could lead a family-type unit.

Well females? And I on the mark? Or am I completely off-base here?

sounds right to me.

Rohsiph

11-24-2007, 02:28 PM

And I think this is one reason why the females insist that males take a leader-like position: So they can see how well we males can lead a couple-type unit as sort of a test so they can understand how well we could lead a family-type unit.

This is an interesting point . . . I'm not sure that my ideal is entirely off-base from what is being suggested, as I recall INTJGal mostly affirming the core ideas in some of my earlier contributions to the topic, but the dominant/submissive distinction continues to suggest unequal footing that I would want to avoid wherever possible.

Perhaps to clarify: my problem is a woman who would withhold all of her own opinions, even those that would surely lead to better resolutions, for the sake of appeasing "her relationship leader." I would be concerned that such a woman would be ill-equipped for handling situations where she could be forced to make decisions for herself--that she wouldn't satisfy the conditions that come to my mind when I imagine a "strong, independent woman."

In a meaningful relationship, I want to admire my partner as a companion--I cannot do this if she plays the role of submissive pawn.

Indeed, if it is the case that most of the women here want to be that submissive pawn then I have even less luck than I thought--having already noticed that most types (that can be easily classified, at least) appear to prefer other qualities--but, I've been forced to accept that mine is, and likely will continue to be, a lonely existence. Yet, I get by.

I'm interested, too: women, is this apparent desire for the male to be the "leader" one that would, in fact, work against my ideal?

Tarrick

11-24-2007, 02:35 PM

Perhaps to clarify: my problem is a woman who would withhold all of her own opinions, even those that would surely lead to better resolutions, for the sake of appeasing "her relationship leader."

Please take a look at my post here My previous post
as this is what a lot of what I and other have been saying is based on/related to.

Rohsiph

11-24-2007, 02:42 PM

Please take a look at my post here as this is what a lot of what I and other have been saying is based on/related to.

Ok . . . I appreciate this view. I still have some issue with actively applying the label "leader" to the male, as its connotation suggests a dominant/submissive relationship--or at least a subordinate relationship between him and all other parties--but I agree with the core idea.

In fact, I feel like this has largely been my point--a problem with the labels being applied. My education in feminist philosophy leads to a lot of alarms going off whenever I witness anyone championing the idea of it being better for women to be submissive.

Tarrick

11-24-2007, 02:49 PM

Rohsiph

11-24-2007, 03:06 PM

However you look at it, there is a "leader" in almost any situation where decision making is necessary. However being a leader doesn't mean being just being the boss; it means you have the responsibility to lead and ensure that everyone that you lead is taken care of, and you are achieving your goals. Many people misunderstand that leader is a position that isn't to be used to lord over people. In a way, you have to be a greater servant as a leader then your subordinates.

I have great trouble respecting anyone who defers to his/her leader when a problem could have easily been solved individually.

You're explaining a direction/view I understand, but I want to emphasize looking at it from having very independent expectations.

Actually, I just had another thought, specifically about the idea of leader as servant--

my default view works such that I see myself as my own leader, responsible for every independent action I take. I work from a series of standards that I try to hold everyone I meet to. Whenever I meet someone who cannot work independently at my level, I am bound to view this person as someone fundamentally "less than" persons who can meet me on my level. This does not necessarily mean I will dismiss everyone I view being "underneath" me, but it does limit the relationships I can have with such people.

In terms of a significant, meaningful relationship, one of my key requirements is that my partner must be able to meet me at my level most of the time. One who can do this will be someone who is, effectively, his/her own independent leader--primarily, that is. But, generalizing & stretching a bit, I suppose that I agree with applying your "expedition leader" view to the relationship in a secondary sense.

I was distracted as I was writing this . . . but I hope this helps to finally lead to successfully understanding my perspective.

Tarrick

11-24-2007, 03:20 PM

I have great trouble respecting anyone who defers to his/her leader when a problem could have easily been solved individually.

Yeah, I also don't want someone bring me all their problems; independence is nice for both parties like that. However, if someone is in a unit with a leader, the leader is someone that they can naturally rely on for support if they need it. And a leader with a good subordinate has someone he can naturally rely on to assist him/her with something that is too big to handle alone.

My default view works such that I see myself as my own leader, responsible for every independent action I take. I work from a series of standards that I try to hold everyone I meet to. Whenever I meet someone who cannot work independently at my level, I am bound to view this person as someone fundamentally "less than" persons who can meet me on my level. This does not necessarily mean I will dismiss everyone I view being "underneath" me, but it does limit the relationships I can have with such people.

In terms of a significant, meaningful relationship, one of my key requirements is that my partner must be able to meet me at my level most of the time. One who can do this will be someone who is, effectively, his/her own independent leader--primarily, that is. But, generalizing & stretching a bit, I suppose that I agree with applying your "expedition leader" view to the relationship in a secondary sense.

Again, I understand that you want someone that his your equal in being independent and capable, but what's the point have having two autonomic people in a relationship if neither of them is willing to rely on each other for anything? As such, two independent people have learn to work together in sync and to learn to rely on each other's strengths to cover any weakness in yourself.

And to better facility a relationship like that, someone has to "take charge" so that there are not two heads on one body. This doesn't mean that one is ignored, it just means that one has the responsibility of managing the pooled resources. This also doesn't mean that you lose your independence or individuality (you're both still capable of functioning apart on separate projects) but when you work jointly, you don't have a conflict in who is responsible for leading.

Sitara

11-24-2007, 07:59 PM

I would have to agree with Rohsiph. I don't see the fundamental need for there to be a leader in a two person relationship; and if that 2 person relationship consisted of 1 female and 1 male, I don't see any particular need for the male to be the leader if one were designated. In my opinion, the ideal 2 person relationship would consist of 2 partners who were wholly complete unto themselves and acted as co-leaders in the relationship.

Lucid

11-24-2007, 08:44 PM

INTJgal

11-24-2007, 09:46 PM

But who wants a two person relationship that's arguing for male leadership?

I thought all of us who were saying we want a guy that leads also want families.

Lucid

11-24-2007, 09:51 PM

But who wants a two person relationship that's arguing for male leadership?

I thought all of us who were saying we want a guy that leads also want families.

I think you're making the assumption that what works for you and for some people you know will work for everyone.
I want a family too, but don't want anyone to lead. I think most of the INTJ women who expressed an interest in a family also said they wanted equality in a relationship. Just because I can think for myself and can make valid decisions without the help of a male doesn't mean I wouldn't want a family. The fact that you would assume otherwise demonstrates the incredibly skewed point of view you're approaching this from.
You do a great disservice to the variety and complexity of the human experience by trying to put everyone in gender-boxes.
Please stop projecting your preferences on the rest of us. If you believe that you can't make decisions for yourself, what makes you think you can make them for me?

Rohsiph

11-24-2007, 10:00 PM

Replying mostly to thank Sitara for an excellent synthesis of what I was trying to get at.

Also, I think I do fundamentally support what I understand of Tarrick's position, but want to stay as far away from using the word "leader" as possible. It's an important note that a couple act in tandem to make up for individual weaknesses to validate that there is any worth in the couple (instead why not everyone just work alone).

Perhaps this can be understood if I am reading INTJgal's most recent response correctly: using loose definitions, it's important for the male to be capable of acting as a leader, but it is also important (insofar as achieving the ideal) for the female to be a strong, independent, complete individual. Said another way, it's important for the male to be a strong, independent, complete individual just as it is important for the female to be capable of acting as a leader. The status of who defaults to leader-position most frequently seems to be the point of contention--but I hope most of us are agreeing that both must be capable of leading.

Lucid

11-24-2007, 10:03 PM

Perhaps this can be understood if I am reading INTJgal's most recent response correctly: using loose definitions, it's important for the male to be capable of acting as a leader, but it is also important (insofar as achieving the ideal) for the female to be a strong, independent, complete individual. Said another way, it's important for the male to be a strong, independent, complete individual just as it is important for the female to be capable of acting as a leader. The status of who defaults to leader-position most frequently seems to be the point of contention--but I hope most of us are agreeing that both must be capable of leading.

Based on her other posts on the topic (and it may be that I'm misreading them), I don't think that's what she's saying. She seems to be saying that only men can be dominant in a relationship and that women should be subservient to men in all cases.

I think saying that both parties should be capable of leadership (preferably in different areas) is a good way to put what (I think) most people are saying is the ideal situation.

Tarrick

11-24-2007, 10:21 PM

If you read this My previous post

And then scroll down, you'll notice that INTJgal stated that my summery of what she wants in a "Male Leader" is what she is talking about.

Lucid

11-24-2007, 10:27 PM

If you read this

And then scroll down, you'll notice that INTJgal stated that my summery of what she wants in a "Male Leader" is what she is talking about.

If there was a link there it didn't work unfortunately.
I did go back and re-read some posts and what you seem to be saying is that women should be submissive to men. Perhaps you could clarify your point a bit? Not knowing specifically which post you were referring to is making it hard to respond.

However, I will say that your point about males being "physically and psychologically" best suited to make decisions in a relationship is rather unfounded. Also your statement that most INTJ females said they wanted a male who would dominate a relationship. I thought they were saying they didn't want a male who was submissive in the relationship, but also didn't want one who was dominant. You seem to think that in all relationships there is will be one person who leads and one person who follows and the leader should be male. This may be why you interpreted, "I don't want a submissive male" as meaning, "I want the male to be dominant. This is a rather narrow way of looking at things.
I think that as you get older, you'll realize that relationships where there is one leader and one follower (of either gender) don't usually last very long and often aren't very happy.
The best relationships occur when both parties lead. If you don't understand what I mean now, I hope you have the opportunity to at some point in your life.

Tarrick

11-24-2007, 10:31 PM

It's the little paper icon. Also, it's on page 4.

Lucid

11-24-2007, 10:36 PM

It's the little paper icon. Also, it's on page 4.

Ah, thank you.

I understand that you aren't talking about an oppressive or cruel leader. That's not what I mean either.
Please see my above response, I was adding to it as you were responding to it.

Emma

11-24-2007, 11:48 PM

Not much experienced in "the dating game", but a few personal views:

-what I want in a relationship: I definitely loathe the idea of being "submissive". I will not get into the "it's biological" debate; while I admit that I want a man to be strong as in reliable and responsible, it does not mean that I want to be ordered around. Perhaps my ideal of what a well-balanced relationship ought to be has its flaws, but I like to think of a team whose members compliment each other.

-which type I would like to date: well, not an INTJ man, no offence intended, but I am afraid we would be too alike ;D Someone more extroverted (or less introverted) than I, with a sense of humor, who understands my aloofness and does not try to change it:thumbsup:, and who knows when I need to be alone because I will eventually come around :)

Am I too demanding?

logos

11-25-2007, 04:48 AM

IN MY OPINION/OBSERVATIONS/EXPERIENCE,

For a masculine person (usually male) to feel loved, he/she needs to feel trusted and respected by his/her beloved.

For a feminine person (usually female) to feel loved, he/she needs to feel secured and appreciated by his/her beloved.

No one is entirely masculine or entirely feminine; All are a balance of the two. As you may expect, the more masculine a person is, the more feminine a person they seek out as a companion and vice versa.

Neither is "superior" in any relationship, leader role or no.

INTJgal

11-25-2007, 08:34 AM

Based on her other posts on the topic (and it may be that I'm misreading them), I don't think that's what she's saying. She seems to be saying that only men can be dominant in a relationship and that women should be subservient to men in all cases.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I don't think you're reading what we're saying. We keep referring you to what we wrote, and maybe it's that we're not being clear enough but I think people just aren't reading what we wrote!

INTJgal

11-25-2007, 08:42 AM

Lucid

11-25-2007, 09:54 AM

This post (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) that I wrote, also here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) I talk about how I want him to be the "primary worrier of the hazards that come our way".

I fully plan to get a masters degree and work full-time, use my intelligence, make decisions for my family... I want him to lead in the sense that I'll worry about the baby's day to day stuff more (because as the one with the breasts!) and he'll worry more about the longer-term decisions. I just think it makes most sense to work as a unit that way.

Ok, I think what you're saying is that you'll deal with the baby stuff and he'll deal with the financial stuff or the house and things like that.
My position doesn't really change though. I still think that's fine for you, but wouldn't do things the same way. That's where I take issue with your viewpoint, whatever it is: when you start trying to apply your wants to all women (and, by default, all men).
Also, I'm certain that my husband will have plenty of his own ideas about how we raise our offspring just like I'll have plenty of my own ideas about how we should invest our money. It seems like it's a matter of labor division. For you to divide your labor in a more traditional way is fine, but I don't plan on doing things the same way. So maybe it makes the most sense for you to work as a unit that way, but I don't think that's true for all couples.

I think saying women should deal with the kids in all situations and men should deal with what you term "the longer-term decisions" (although I'm not sure what could be more long-term than raising a child into an adult, since how you raise that child will determine what sort of adult they will become) is unfair both to men who want an equal role in child rearing and women who want an equal role in other things.

And I apologize for misunderstanding you posts.

blueback

11-25-2007, 10:38 AM

Are we really trying to figure out how to divide the labor up in an ideal relationship? No relationship is ever going to be idea! Everyone is different and every relathionship is different. Neither person in the relationship is going to be happy all the time, that's just the way things work.

Tarrick

11-25-2007, 05:59 PM

Sigh. Let me say this again. What I have said is of my opinion in regards to what I have seen and what I prefer. Every relationship is as unique as the individuals that are apart of it. There are definite trends, yes, but where some relationships define that model, other defy it and still work well.

The main thing that is that both people have a good understanding of each other and their needs.

Diana

11-25-2007, 11:34 PM

Well, I'm not sure if this conversation has been belabored enough (!), but just in case it hasn't, here's one more opinion: (and I mean -simply- opinion) Just for what it's worth...

I as well prefer to look to the male in a relationship to lead, and in the same way, I would hope that he would rely on me to be a helper to him. Not as unequals in any way, but as complements in every way. Sort of a right hand/left hand thing. Not bad, just different!

The term "submission" has for sure been misused throughout time to justify acts that are completely unjustifiable. I would never submit to anyone, whoever they were, that commanded me to submit to something that violated my beliefs of morality or faith.
But -again personal beliefwise- if I were married, yes, out of respect for my husband, I would submit to him. Sure, sometimes it might mean a sacrifice, but overall, I really don't think it would be much of a loss for me. If the man truly and selflessly loved me, as I him, I doubt he'd truly lead in a way that would be detrimental to me.

No one wants, or wants to be a puppet. An ideal guy would also be interested in what I could bring to the relationship too, and he could/should equally rely on me to come alongside and help. I would not feel denigrated by that role in any way.

Interdependence...that's where its at!

Tarrick

11-26-2007, 12:02 AM

rwyatt365

11-26-2007, 07:49 AM

Tarrick, I agree with you in that any relationship will eventually require someone to assume a leadership role (i.e. someone to assume ultimate responsibility for the "course" of the relationship and to serve as the final arbiter for decisions made). However, I don’t think that role is exclusively the domain of the male.

As Rohsiph states;

Perhaps this can be understood if I am reading INTJgal's most recent response correctly: using loose definitions, it's important for the male to be capable of acting as a leader, but it is also important (insofar as achieving the ideal) for the female to be a strong, independent, complete individual. Said another way, it's important for the male to be a strong, independent, complete individual just as it is important for the female to be capable of acting as a leader. The status of who defaults to leader-position most frequently seems to be the point of contention--but I hope most of us are agreeing that both must be capable of leading.
IMHO I believe that the person most capable in the area where a decision needs to be made should be the person in the leadership role at that juncture. If there is mutual respect and a level "playing field" then the leader mantle should be able to move between both parties easily and without acrimony.

Lucid

11-26-2007, 09:16 AM

Exactly. "Submission" isn't what we after here (well, me at least). If you take it to the fullest, most literal sense, then I guess the word could be applied...but that's like saying that you "submit" to your team leader, or a coach on a team or something like that. I want someone that would go into life with me as a team, assuming I'm the leader (and yes, even if it's only slightly apparent every team has a leader in one sense or another) then I would like to be respected as such. It doesn't mean I plan on walking over my partner; that's not how a good leader acts.

Based on a few posts it seems like the term submission has a negative connotation. I've been using it in the sense that you "submit" to, for example, your supervisor.
And here's a hypothetical example of what I mean:
My husband and I are thinking about moving. He wants to move to Texas. I hate Texas. I don't want to move to Texas. But my husband has made up his mind and thinks that Texas is really the right choice for us and that it's best we move there. I disagree with most of his reasons and don't think Texas is a good move for us. However, I am unable to convince him of my point.
It sounds like some people on this thread think that I should suck it up and move to Texas because that's what he wants to do and he has a penis. And that's not a good enough reason for me.
(no offense to any Texans. I chose your state randomly.)

I'm not trying to say that a male "leader" in a relationship would be abusive or cruel. I just don't think that having a penis qualifies a person to have final veto power over the decisions that are made as a couple.

I don't think that a relationship where a male is the "leader" would necessarily be abusive. But I don't think that a penis gives someone a better ability to make decisions than I have and if it doesn't, then there's no reason for him to be the "leader" in all situations. Constantly deferring to someone who is as qualified as I am to make decisions, simply for the sake of maintaining an outdated social tradition is pointless.

However, if that's what floats your boat then have at it. The only issue I take with the argument is when it changes from "I want a relationship in which the male is the leader" to "In all relationships the male should be the leader."

It seems like I keep saying this and nobody is listening. Seems to be a problem with this topic in general :)

rwyatt365

11-26-2007, 09:45 AM

I'm not trying to say that a male "leader" in a relationship would be abusive or cruel. I just don't think that having a penis qualifies a person to have final veto power over the decisions that are made as a couple.

I don't think that a relationship where a male is the "leader" would necessarily be abusive. But I don't think that a penis gives someone a better ability to make decisions than I have and if it doesn't, then there's no reason for him to be the "leader" in all situations. Constantly deferring to someone who is as qualified as I am to make decisions, simply for the sake of maintaining an outdated social tradition is pointless.

An I agree with you Lucid. To me, male does not imply leadership (and neithe vice versa). Leadership should be based on qualification in a given area and agreed to by all parties.

In my relationship with my wife, she knows healthcare (21+ years in the industry certainly qualifies her), so when we have to make those kinds of choices I defer to her "leadership" in that area. On the other hand, I know cars (40+ years of fixing my own and 30+ years in the auto industry qualifies me) so in that arena I am the "leader". However, if she picks a healthcare plan that is too expensive then I give her input to her selection process, and if she doesn't like the options in the car I pick then I add that to my selection criteria.

We're not perfect, and it doesn't always work (sometimes we both cross the line of demarcation), but we're still a work in progress.

Lucid

11-26-2007, 10:22 AM

In my relationship with my wife, she knows healthcare (21+ years in the industry certainly qualifies her), so when we have to make those kinds of choices I defer to her "leadership" in that area. On the other hand, I know cars (40+ years of fixing my own and 30+ years in the auto industry qualifies me) so in that arena I am the "leader". However, if she picks a healthcare plan that is too expensive then I give her input to her selection process, and if she doesn't like the options in the car I pick then I add that to my selection criteria.

We're not perfect, and it doesn't always work (sometimes we both cross the line of demarcation), but we're still a work in progress.

Yes, exactly. In my most recent relationship, my X really likes to cook and is really good at it. I can't boil water. So he makes decisions about meals, taking into consideration my very selective tastes. (I'm a picky eater).
I'm better with finances than he is, so I made decisions about how to spend money and how to budget, taking into consideration his addiction to computer components.
He was in charge of our computers, keeping them running, how to upgrade them, etc. I was in charge of keeping track of social obligations.
We each have our strengths and we lead in those areas. This provides for a division of labor and allows each of us to use our strengths to compensate for the other's weaknesses.

*Edit:
In areas in which neither of us was an expert, or better at dealing with it than the other, and which would affect both of us (for example moving) we discussed it, and if we couldn't come to an agreement we compromised. It often takes more work than just having one party in the relationship "lead," but I think it worked better for us.

blueback

11-26-2007, 10:36 AM

my husband has made up his mind and thinks that Texas is really the right choice for us and that it's best we move there. I disagree with most of his reasons and don't think Texas is a good move for us. However, I am unable to convince him of my point.
It sounds like some people on this thread think that I should suck it up and move to Texas because that's what he wants to do and he has a penis. And that's not a good enough reason for me.

I just don't think that having a penis qualifies a person to have final veto power over the decisions that are made as a couple.

hehe, that made me laugh :-) just thinking of all the times I've won an argument by saying "Well, we disagree. . .but I've got the penis, so there." (That was sarcastic, I've never won an argument that way)

I think what you've perfectly illustrated here is the exact situation we are talking around. Two people who are supposed to be a team are being pulled in opposite directions. This exact situation is what the concept of "leader" was invented to solve.

You see, a team only has 1 leader. If there are 2 leaders present, then either one of them isn't leading anyone or there are 2 teams. You can't be a team if you don't all go the same way, which means there has to be one person making the final decisions.

In your example the two of you have a problem. Neither one of you is willing to defer to the other one, which means you are not a team, you are a pair of individuals who happened to agree on everything up to this point. The solution is actually ver simple, the two of you have to decide which is more important, your marriage or your individual lives. In the military they make us sign a contract promising that the military will always be our highest priority, in marriage they make you say your vows, so it's not quite as binding.

You see don't you, that saying the person who has a penis can't have final veto power only leaves one other person with that power, you. If the two of you are a team, then someone has to have the power to make decisions the other person doesn't like or you will be as effective as the UN Security Council. That's what people are talking about when they say you have to work at marriage, it means you are going to have to do things you don't want to do for reasons you don't agree with, just to make the marriage work.

Why do you think there's such a high divorce rate? 50% means you are flipping a coin as to whether or not you are going to stay with the person you marry. People can't let go of their individuality, so they get divorced as soon as a situation like the one you describe pops up.

Lucid

11-26-2007, 10:45 AM

hehe, that made me laugh :-) just thinking of all the times I've won an argument by saying "Well, we disagree. . .but I've got the penis, so there." (That was sarcastic, I've never won an argument that way)

I think what you've perfectly illustrated here is the exact situation we are talking around. Two people who are supposed to be a team are being pulled in opposite directions. This exact situation is what the concept of "leader" was invented to solve.

You see, a team only has 1 leader. If there are 2 leaders present, then either one of them isn't leading anyone or there are 2 teams. You can't be a team if you don't all go the same way, which means there has to be one person making the final decisions.

In your example the two of you have a problem. Neither one of you is willing to defer to the other one, which means you are not a team, you are a pair of individuals who happened to agree on everything up to this point. The solution is actually ver simple, the two of you have to decide which is more important, your marriage or your individual lives. In the military they make us sign a contract promising that the military will always be our highest priority, in marriage they make you say your vows, so it's not quite as binding.

You see don't you, that saying the person who has a penis can't have final veto power only leaves one other person with that power, you. If the two of you are a team, then someone has to have the power to make decisions the other person doesn't like or you will be as effective as the UN Security Council. That's what people are talking about when they say you have to work at marriage, it means you are going to have to do things you don't want to do for reasons you don't agree with, just to make the marriage work.

Why do you think there's such a high divorce rate? 50% means you are flipping a coin as to whether or not you are going to stay with the person you marry. People can't let go of their individuality, so they get divorced as soon as a situation like the one you describe pops up.

I actually edited my above post to add the following, but you were posing this at the time so probably didn't see it. Therefore, I'll add it here:

In areas in which neither of us was an expert, or better at dealing with it than the other, and which would affect both of us (for example moving) we discussed it, and if we couldn't come to an agreement we compromised. It often takes more work than just having one party in the relationship "lead," but I think it worked better for us.

I think it's ridiculous for one person to always be the leader. The situation I described above (moving to Texas) does require that one person has to compromise and do something that they might not want to do for the marriage. However, I don't see why that person should, in every case, be the female. In my opinion, a good marriage or relationship is one in which both parties lead in their ways. Otherwise it's not a partnership.

I think it's possible that you missed the point of my statement, which may be due to a failure to properly articulate it on my part. The point was not that neither party should ever have to compromise, only that the compromising that must be done in any relationship should not always be done by one party, nor should it be determined by gender.

I think that statement should address the rest of your post, but I will add that people who love each other and who have an otherwise happy marriage won't get divorced as soon as a situation like the one I described pops up.

INTJgal

11-26-2007, 03:08 PM

The point was not that neither party should ever have to compromise, only that the compromising that must be done in any relationship should not always be done by one party, nor should it be determined by gender.

I agree.

I don't see how this negates designating one person as a leader, though. Just because I want my guy to lead, doesn't mean that I want my vote to hold any less weight.
In the male-led partnership, t's an equally weighted, two-way relationship. But I want him to lead this two way relationship.

Like when I go on canoe trips with my friends. One guy (a military-trained INTP) always leads. He's the one who examines the possibilites beforehand and plans the route, who references the map and keeps tabs on where we are on the trail (or where we're bushwacking), who holds veto power that doesn't get argued with if there's bad weather coming and he thinks it's best to set up camp and not try and beat out the storm...

this doesn't mean that we as fellow canoe-trippers can't choose to voice our concerns with bad weather, and in fact once I made the call to wait out a storm where we had to cross a large body of water; lightning came from nowhere within 10 minutes and we would've been trapped in the middle of the lake as sitting ducks.

It doesn't mean I am any less of a team member, it just means that the INTP leads.

Rohsiph

11-26-2007, 03:15 PM

It seems like I keep saying this and nobody is listening. Seems to be a problem with this topic in general :) :)

. . . If the man truly and selflessly loved me, as I him, I doubt he'd truly lead in a way that would be detrimental to me.

Oh, oh! Selfless love--love that often requires sacrifice. Interesting, I think the concept fell out of my definition of love since the last time I really was thinking about it.

You see, a team only has 1 leader. If there are 2 leaders present, then either one of them isn't leading anyone or there are 2 teams. You can't be a team if you don't all go the same way, which means there has to be one person making the final decisions.

Ah, another example of a perspective I'm not sure I considered. I didn't think it was necessary for everyone in a team to have to go the same way--points of internal disagreement, in the vague examples I'm thinking of, often lead to the greatest potential coming out. In such a case, though, I suppose the rest of the team would come around to the minority opinion if it really was the better position . . .

In your example the two of you have a problem. Neither one of you is willing to defer to the other one, which means you are not a team, you are a pair of individuals who happened to agree on everything up to this point. The solution is actually ver simple, the two of you have to decide which is more important, your marriage or your individual lives. In the military they make us sign a contract promising that the military will always be our highest priority, in marriage they make you say your vows, so it's not quite as binding.

You see don't you, that saying the person who has a penis can't have final veto power only leaves one other person with that power, you. If the two of you are a team, then someone has to have the power to make decisions the other person doesn't like or you will be as effective as the UN Security Council. That's what people are talking about when they say you have to work at marriage, it means you are going to have to do things you don't want to do for reasons you don't agree with, just to make the marriage work.

Why do you think there's such a high divorce rate? 50% means you are flipping a coin as to whether or not you are going to stay with the person you marry. People can't let go of their individuality, so they get divorced as soon as a situation like the one you describe pops up.

Hm, hm . . . fair, mostly, but I wonder about the force of your argument--it doesn't seem right to me. Which is to say, I agree with you in certain situations--a value-decision must be made to either remain with or leave this person--but still don't see precisely what necessitates, in both necessary and sufficient terms, that one party must be the leader.

But it sounded like you might have been on a side that would accept relationships where the leadership goes back and forth, one based in compromise more than in authority.

I think it's ridiculous for one person to always be the leader. The situation I described above (moving to Texas) does require that one person has to compromise and do something that they might not want to do for the marriage. However, I don't see why that person should, in every case, be the female. In my opinion, a good marriage or relationship is one in which both parties lead in their ways. Otherwise it's not a partnership.

I think it's possible that you missed the point of my statement, which may be due to a failure to properly articulate it on my part. The point was not that neither party should ever have to compromise, only that the compromising that must be done in any relationship should not always be done by one party, nor should it be determined by gender.

I think that statement should address the rest of your post, but I will add that people who love each other and who have an otherwise happy marriage won't get divorced as soon as a situation like the one I described pops up.

Right, right! This is the direction I have (and have had) in mind, clarified even further!

Do we need even more details and nitpicking? :)

Gaius Baltar

11-26-2007, 07:33 PM

I believe that Tarrick, INTJgal, and blueback have summarized what I was trying to argue quite eloquently. If my long winded posts from earlier are still a bit unclear, please read their posts.

I really need to work on my brevity sometimes.

blueback

11-26-2007, 08:35 PM

I think it's ridiculous for one person to always be the leader.

Agreed! The hard part of a long term relationship, from my perspective, is that you can't lay down ground rules. The relationship is going to go in directions that can't be planned for.

But I want him to lead this two way relationship.

This is the point of view I'm still not understanding. Can you elaborate on this in light of what has already been agreed on? It seems to me that we have established that each person will take the lead at different times, which implies that the man isn't leading in the traditional sense of the word. I don't mean to sound condescending, but this statement sounds like you want to sit back and let the guy take responsibility for everything, except when you step in and keep him from making a mistake.

Or, in another sense, it sounds like you want him to be a cat. Always walking in front of you but constantly checking to make sure he's still leading you in the direction you have already planned to go. I suppose that analogy only works if you've had a pet cat before.

I didn't think it was necessary for everyone in a team to have to go the same way

but still don't see precisely what necessitates, in both necessary and sufficient terms, that one party must be the leader.

But it sounded like you might have been on a side that would accept relationships where the leadership goes back and forth

Just try to imagine a rowboat where no one is rowing on the same beat, or a bird who's wings aren't flapping at the same time.

Well, for two people to be a team they have to have a common goal, which means that someone has to define that goal. If they initially disagree on the goal then one or both of them will have to change their mind, otherwise they aren't a time.

Of course, it is possible for them to make the "marriage" their goal and work towards that, subordinating other goals. In that case they would do things which keep them together and avoid things that pull them apart. The hard part is when one or both of them have goals which they place above the marriage.

I really need to work on my brevity sometimes.

That's a good start ;-P