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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Viscosity

  • Rank
    New Member


  • MBTI

Recent Profile Visitors

121 profile views
  1. Swissshhh
  2. Self-esteem derived from female sexual selection/attraction (actual or perceived). They don't even stop to consider the quality of the female.
  3. They don't owe you anything. If you don't like em' then why do you continue to see them? Perhaps, an idea of what one must do would arise if one weren't so busy distracting theirselves with what they shouldn't be doing.
  4. What do you think would have been a better option and why? If they crossed a boundary then perhaps one might consider that the response was not aggressive enough to uphold one's dignity. There's a lot of talk about asslicking, and yet, for some reason, despite boundaries being crossed repeatedly, over a significant length of time, one remains passive and tolerant of the situation like a desperate beggar. What is it that is needed so badly to tolerate these situations repeatedly? What was the value of maintaining such a relationship? What are the costs of ending it? Are the costs of maintaining it acceptable?
  5. The behavioural change came after that first year of university where your desires were not fulfilled. Yes? Would it be correct to say that your internal reactions during this period were distasteful, and after being reflected upon, led to certain principles being formed? Would you have previously have considered yourself entitled to the respect of others? The actions in and of themselves with respect to the goal were reasonable. It seems like the expectations and the neediness behind them were not.
  6. Watch the 1999 version of Hunter X Hunter.
  7. What critique? There is no critique. Just evasion. Read everything above carefully.
  8. Nobody is "hating", that's just your paranoia kicking in - when anybody says anything about homosexuality other than what you need them to say your defense mechanisms kicks in. You are being way too emotional and defensive. Restricting any discussion from taking place. This type of behavior is specifically what bigots do: thought policing
  9. It's crossing a boundary. Using the word "rape" to refer to the action just cheapens and corrupts the meaning of the word itself. In natural environments w/o regulating centers of law, penetration, with, or without consent, is fair game - the responsibility was held upon the individual to protect his or herself. When larger social groups began forming rape was restricted within social parameters, members outside of the defined group were fair game, or otherwise, members with a specific social status (e.g. slaves) would have also been vulnerable to rape w/o social protection. The incentive to rape slaves would be low, however, particularly in the case where they would have been regarded as long-term assets (i.e. slave ownership), in contrast to, slave renting, where abuse would have been more likely. There are sex slaves, too, of-course. Now, within most societies across the world, rape is forbidden, and there are social and political consequences to the act. However, the risk still exists, and varies in frequency between different locations. I believe it is mostly regarded as an act that only a male with a penis can commit. Many societies do not offer males protection from female abuse or consider it as a possibility. Many do not offer females protection from male abuse, particularly marital. Certain societies condemn the female who was raped and socially exclude her, on principles such as, honor (of the family). Anyway, this is not rape, and we should challenge those who corrupt the meaning of the word. It is, however, crossing a boundary, and rather disrespectful. Pregnancy is a risk taken during sexual intercourse (being intrinsic to sexual intercourse), anyone with half a brain should understand that, and, I believe, that particularly in a case where both members have willfully decided to engage in intercourse, the responsibility lies under the individuals and should not be the responsibility of the state. One cannot willfully take an action, and decide, that all the risks associated with the action is the responsibility of another, while, gaining the benefits, that is immoral and irresponsible, and reflects poor decision-making on behalf of the "victim", this also applies to, concealing STDs and lying about using female contraceptive tools. One simply ought to be careful with who they engage sexually with and assume full responsibility as an adult. ...... added to this post 48 minutes later: Indeed. It would set the precedent for a bizarre level of transparency, creating the need for the mass production of personalized contracts before sexual engagement. Regarding the consequences that effect the male wherein the female decides to guard an unwanted child; do they apply to non-married couples, and where are these policies held?
  10. Not concerned, just making connections between events, didn't realize homosexuality or modern sexual behaviour are sacred subjects that we cannot seek to understand beyond "it's just a choice!" All the points mentioned are things in and of themselves related to social chaos, they don't need to necessarily be connected to or centered on sexuality
  11. It's a legitimate question. Some possibilities: 1. an environment where promiscuity is encouraged 2. where subjective relativism characterizes social thought 3. where happiness is the principle goal and any action that serves pleasure is encouraged 4. material excess, weakened marriage institutions, difficulty in securing a mate under current social and economic circumstances, excess of males sexually competing Mouse Utopia Experiment Only person implying homosexuality is inherently "bad" is that childish response, sexuality is influenced by environmental circumstances and cultural upbringing, as well as biological conditions, it ain't nothin' that requires much attention, the obsession with sexuality is a modern trend, which integrates other indulgent obsessions Learn to have a discussion and quit being emotional
  12. No quarrel with anything mentioned above. One question however relating to this: "There is not a great deal of peer-reviewed research regarding the origin of sexual orientation. All of it - not some of it, not most of it, but all of it - comes down on the side of sexual orientation being hard-wired. Like being white or black or brown or green, it's an involuntary and unchangeable part of who one is and was present at birth." Are you implying anything? Cultures give forms to habits and actions. There are many elements of biology that are "hard-wired" but repressed or encouraged to come about. The fact of any tendency being "hard-wired" does not necessarily justify it, for example, pedophilia is "hard-wired", and they can argue, on that basis, that their behavior should be tolerated or accepted. Promiscuity is another tendency that cultures have made an attempt to organize toward certain ends. Theft and violence, as well. The sexual orientation itself, is not of great importance, rather, it is the movement or "culture" (which embodies a set of ideals to strive toward). The question is: what environmental conditions encourage the increase of homosexuals?
  13. Maybe I can finally get a job now.
  14. http://samvak.tripod.com/personalitydisorders22.html
  15. Instinctive responses underlying an interaction. Factors namely include emotional expression (demeanor) and physical appearance. Smell is mentioned above, and we may also include, perception of sound (voice). Preconceptions certainly influence a response too. Canines come to mind. They respond differently to different people (including animals, of-course). Wonder what it is, a common reply is that dogs that bark at certain people are responding to their fear. Strange. One would think such an impulsive response would arise due to stress (on the dog's part, rather than the individual). If somebody expresses fear, one does not, become restless and respond aggressively or take a defensive posture. Quite the contrary, sensing the fear of others increases confidence and increases the likelihood of relaxation (i.e. decreases stress).