Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Seablue

Moderators
  • Content count

    21,182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Seablue

  • Rank
    Core Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ
  • Enneagram
    5
  • Brain Dominance
    Balanced

Converted

  • Homepage
    https://intjforum.com/topic/155753-otterwatch/
  • Location
    France
  • Gender
    Female
  • Personal Text
    beauty the brave, the exemplary,
    blazing open
  1. Same as this. And I don't believe it would apply to me at all.
  2. I identify as an heterosexual cis man whose biggest grievance is that I am being inconvenienced by the way others express their identity and desires. I just want them to fit in the boxes that are convenient to me and not make up new ones that are convenient to them, is that too much to ask? They endlessly whine about "high suicide and murder rates" or "discrimination in the workplace" or "having their civil rights constantly threatened", and no one cares that *I* feel victimized by the implication that anyone different from me could be disadvantaged by a system that suits me.
  3. Yes, Rem, nobody takes women less seriously at work, especially in masculine work environments. The fact that you've been told they'd go easy on you because you're a girl? Definitely not a sign that there could be a double standard. That overactive imagination is probably related to your womanly periods. Are you having periods? I've known several persons who had periods. They didn't always wear dark pants. Now if you have periods and don't wear dark pants, why would be surprised when there's staining? And here's why clearly you are not being reasonable.
  4. Yes, thank you, the implication was clear from the context. My response stands. Romantic feelings and desire for companionship would still exist. It's possible we would see a more "poly" homes and more unisex (can't really say "gay" if there's no sexual attraction I suppose) homes however.
  5. I recall reading that a difference larger than 15 points prevented people from becoming really close (applied to friendship) but I don't have a source for that.
  6. Relationships, absolutely. Reproduction would certainly still exist but at a much reduced/slower pace since people would have to make an effort for it.
  7. Following your own description, the dom calls the shots, and the sub does what she's told. I just don't see how the mere fact that she's able to say no when something crosses a line for her makes her "actually in control". Now if you tell me something like, "the dom is actually trying to please his sub more than he pleases himself", or, "a dom feels more pressure to satisfy the sub than the reverse", I could understand that (though it'd clearly not be the case in every relationship). Or maybe something like, "since the sub is supposed to follow the lead, her saying no is a big deal and will appear like the sign that the dom messed up by pushing too far". But pretending there's one person more in control than the other and that somehow, that someone is the sub, because she can say no, and not the dom who is ordering her around... That just seems hypocritical to me - like a way to make outsiders or reluctant partners more likely to accept this type of relationship. It's entirely possible that I'm being harsh here though. Especially considering anyone I've heard who likes being dominant say they like being in control, and submissives say they like relinquishing control. There's nothing inherently wrong with any of those desires. But why the pretence that you're "actually not in control" when on the other hand you're into this because you enjoy being in control?
  8. I'm starting to think it's something that's mostly in people's imagination. When I started working (with almost exclusively female colleagues) I've been warned against this female drama(!!!). As it turns out, when I compare my work experience with that of my husband (working in IT with mostly men), it doesn't seem to me like there's a big difference in how much each gender gossips, fails to cooperate with others, gets upset over perceived slights, and so on. Nor have I noticed a difference in my friendships. As a teacher I saw some differences in how girls and boys behaved towards others, but the boys' approach was no less filled with "drama". I mean think about this: two girls exchanging secret notes on how one is upset with the other and no longer wants to be friend would be "drama", but boys humiliating one of their "friends" and coercing him into fitting in wouldn't be? I don't mind it, as I think they're trying to go in excess in the "positive!" direction to over-balance cultural standards that decry periods as disgusting, handicapping, even as a moral/religious source of impurity in some groups, etc. Although if I had to talk to a pre-teen about periods I'd probably stick to a more "factual" attitude.
  9. I can't see a shred of advantage in it myself either. But some women are big on the whole "celebrate periods" thing, so, it's possible. Mostly I meant to categorize pregnancy as something that can be seen positively, and periods as something that can be seen neutrally. Though personally I'd also "trade it". Especially considering I've recently been diagnosed a pathology in that regard, I'm not in great feminine-bodily-positivity-whoo! mood right now.
  10. Not commenting on your relationship as a whole, but this particular reasoning doesn't make any sense, because the dom can *also* say at any time "I won't do this" and end a particular action, or the relationship as a whole. The ability to voice non-consent and to have that be respected is the baseline for any relationship to not be abusive. Both partners always have that, or they should anyway. It does mean that the sub hasn't lost all control over herself and her life, but it doesn't make her "actually in control" over the dom or the relationship.
  11. They probably can't be entirely separated, as they will be intertwined. But for instance, I wouldn't focus on the fact women get periods, or can get pregnant, as an advantage or a disadvantage in and off itself. For some women, it'll be a positive aspect of their lives, or a neutral one, and for others a curse. However, elements like period supplies being more heavily taxed because they're not considered products of "first necessity" (we had an issue recently with this in France), difficulties accessing abortion providers, those are more measurable "downsides" that stem from the biological but that really are political *choices* from our societies.
  12. Well, I just wanted to make some points about their potential inconvenience, but I don't particularly think "having boobs" should be listed among cons either. Although it's more because I think biological factors should be separated from social ones, if possible.
  13. It's not like there's a shortage of information on this, so maybe you guys could stick to it: Females seem to have a better health "naturally". There is a much higher (natural) death rate of male infants. Perks in health for females may be due to bearing an X chromosome rather than an Y (mutations on one gene are not as bad), possibly other reasons too. They have a different lifestyles. Females participate less in dangerous activities. They have less accidents (car accidents for instance). Female have a smaller suicide rate (though they attempt it more). They have less deaths in the workplace. They're less likely to be in the military. Men also used to be much more likely to consume (a lot of) alcohol and cigarettes ; the disparity is getting smaller now but for a long while it explained a large disparity in some rates of cancer such as lung cancer. Mortality during pregnancy and childbirth would normally lower the female life expectancy, but thanks to modern medicine that's no longer the case in many countries. Higher rates of heart disease is a factor for males (female hormones may offer some protection against it, although I don't believe it's been proven reliably) but they're just one factor of many. The fact that a lot more men die YOUNG from violent causes (accidents, crime, suicide) and drag the male life expectancy down is essential. Stress could be a factor but for the life of me I don't get how it became the end all and be all of the talk about life expectancy. Well, maybe nobody here, but certainly not nobody at all. Although maybe first we should clarify that "being stereotyped" doesn't necessarily mean being found "undesirable". There are other things at play in stigma and stereotyping, such as people making assumptions about why you cut your hair, or calling you names because of it. http://www.returnofkings.com/26763/girls-with-short-hair-are-damaged I'm sure this guy wouldn't be above boning a "damaged" woman ; that's not really the determining factor of whether or not he may be pressuring women into growing it.
  14. It is for all the women (and men) who have been harassed/doxxed by sexists on the Internet (not limited to "red pillers"). Of course harassment and doxxing are a problem that goes beyond misogyny and beyond the Internet. Some of the advice men get in "red pill" country amount to abusing/assaulting their partners so again, definitely dangerous for their partners or prospective partners. Pick up artists, since you brought them up, also go from harmless to sexual predators who encourage others to follow in their steps. Some MRAs or MGTOWs have advocated in favour of not stopping a rape if they see one in process, or of (if selected for jury duty) not convicting a rapist even in the face of overwhelming evidence. They've probably not made a huge difference with those encouragements, but who knows if they haven't made some difference? Etc. So yes, this can all be toxic and harmful to the men involved, but that's no reason to deny the actual damage they do to people (mostly women) other than them.
  15. Try large breasts (hell, they don't even need to be that large for that) that jump around (including out of your top, if you'd let them) when you run, that weight enough to hurt your back, that occasionally make it more difficult to find clothes that fit, and that make it hard for others not to notice when you're not wearing a bra. Yes, that gets in the way. Not that it's never fun also. No but seriously, back problems. A girl I knew had breast reduction for that reason.