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.

Indubitably

Members
  • Content count

    1,684
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Indubitably

  • Rank
    Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTP

Recent Profile Visitors

9,820 profile views
  1. I don't know, I mean, I think A LOT of people seriously underestimate just how traumatic pregnancy can be for a woman, both physically and mentally. All I can say is that if I was a woman, pregnancy would scare the bloody bejesus out of me, and I can't imagine anyone doing it lightly. There probably are a decent number of people out there who don't know what they're getting into, ultimately though, it's nobody's business but the surrogate and the parents.
  2. Anyone know how to delete a post? I can't for the life of me find the button...
  3. I wouldn't be so sure about that... as we are now, over the next few thousand years or so... I'd say we have a much better chance of (at least very nearly) eradicating our own species than not. I mean, it's not just global warming, it's over population, bio-weapons, nuclear bombs, colony collapse disorder, and god knows what else that we haven't even imagined yet. The question as I see it, is whether we are simply doomed to hit a point where we completely kill off every human on earth, or we wind up establishing a pattern of killing off almost everyone, every so often, and more or less starting over. If it is the latter, then maybe we will survive the couple hundred thousand years it would take to evolve, but that species would of course no longer be human, and I don't think there's any guarantee that this new species would have any greater capacity for "intelligence" as we know it.
  4. Lol Did you for-realz just call living in the bush "relatively simple and static"?
  5. In the grand scheme of things? Probably not... I'd say this comic sums it up fairly well...
  6. Actually, if this isn't something you cared about knowing in the first place, then that particular question really doesn't serve much purpose. All I can really say is that you need to imagine a scenario where someone lieing to you might undermine your sense self, to get why people might take issue with it.
  7. This isn't an answer. And yes, we're assuming you can't tell, so she doesn't need to say anything.
  8. Some have been super girly and curvaceous, others have been androgynous, some light complected, some dark complected, some skinny, some a little heavier, some have been agressive and loud, others have been demure and retiring. They have to smell "right", but what exactly "right" is, would be tough to pin down. Which isn't to say I'm not picky, because I am, but it's more like I have "types" rather than a single "type". I don't know, some girls just have the mojo, and others don't.
  9. Deprecator: So I take it that you'd have no problem with, say, sex with a trans-woman who told you she was born female? What if you were looking for someone to have children with, and she didn't tell you until after you married her? Not that there's anything wrong with a man having sex with, or marrying any such woman, but presumably it's something you'd want to know before making the decision. Just saying, she'd feel as much biological imperative to have sex as you would, and I think it's pretty safe to say that biological imperative plays some significant role in her desire to integrate into society as the gender she identifies with. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't feel at all wronged if she didn't disclose this information at the outset?
  10. If the emotions were honest, displayed without any deliberate attempt to influence him, and you're not trying to hold them against him, then you're not playing games. You're not doing anything wrong by simply having the feelings that you have, but the situation does remain the same. It sounds to me like you are "romantically" attracted to him, but aren't "sexually" attracted to him. To be honest though, I don't think it would serve your interests to tell him that. For some people romantic and sexual attraction are two separate things, especially if they're asexual (and it sounds like you at least suspect that you are asexual), and for others, they quite simply aren't. If you have incompatible sexual orientations, that's not something that either of you could change even if you wanted to. It's not something "pathetic", or shameful, or manipulative; it simply is. I know that sucks, a lot: this is someone you love, perhaps even someone you are in love with, but if you can never be "in love" with him the way he is in love with you, and he can never be in love with you the way that you would be "in love" with him, then there is nothing you can realistically expect either party to do to "fix" the situation.
  11. Vielibre: There is nothing wrong with you for not feeling romantic or sexual attraction despite caring for him, and there is nothing wrong with feeling loss over being separated from him. There is nothing wrong with him, for both developing romantic feelings towards you and caring for you as a friend, and there is nothing wrong with him needing distance in order to cope. You trying to force a platonic relationship would be no better or worse here than him trying to force a romantic relationship. You both have feelings that are entirely reasonable and valid under the circumstances, they just aren't compatible with continued personal interaction. It's a shirty situation for everyone involved, but it is what it is. He asked for you to give him space, and I think you already knew that was what you needed to do when you made your first post. You were friends together, and you can be friends apart; perhaps years down the road, you will be able to spend time together as platonic friends, but for now you need to let that go. Don't let people reading their own baggage into the situation, convince you that either individual is somehow a terrible person for any of this. Making your peace with this does not require anyone here to be "the bad guy". If you can accept that fact, you can move on without losing your friendship, or the significance of the time you spent together, despite the fact that you now need to be apart.
  12. Aggressive =/= promiscuous. I mean, really, it just plain doesn't, and even when someone is promiscuous, I still don't see where you have a problem. If you're both just looking to fool around, there was never any "fidelity" to worry about losing in the first place. I don't know, I just don't see the drawback. The only impression it ever gave me was that the woman knew what she wanted, and what she wanted was me. Don't see how that somehow leads to her cheating on me in the future of some hypothetical relationship that hasn't even formed yet.
  13. Anything that involves active pursuit, rather than say an attempt to bait the man into active pursuit with hints or the like. Approaching him and explicitly asking for a date would be the most obvious, but I suppose most are little more subtle about it than that. Sometimes they literally have their hands all over you, sometimes they just ask a lot of questions and then want to know if you're interested in getting dinner. Depends on the girl really... I once had someone just wait until no one else was around and then start chewing on my earlobe... which did take a second to sink in because she was married, but I would definitely consider something like that being "hit on". Basically anything a guy would do to hit on a woman (with the occasional instance of something a lot more aggressive than what a guy could get away with).
  14. Yeah, I more or less got the same impression. It just seemed a little too easy to default to, "lol chicks, amIright". I mean, even if there is nothing to the fear, the fear does still seem to be there for a lot of women. Who knows, could be that this is one of those situations where one insecurity is easier to cope with than an another, so your brain just sort of slips it in there to protect you from the more threatening fear. Like maybe if they do start to pursue men, and get a positive response from most men but never the "perfect" man, it would conclusively confirm that they are themselves not perfect. Not that this kind of thinking is anything exclusive to women mind you, but I do think there are plenty of people out there who would make that trade.
  15. I'm actually asking in earnest. Are you one of these guys? Have you ever met one of these guys? Are they common in your country? I frequently encounter women who are under the impression that pursuing a man romantically will hurt their chances, but rarely encounter men who see it as a negative. Personally, I've always seen it as a positive. For that matter I won't usually bother with women who don't actively pursue me, so obviously the women who I wind up dating as a result have had success with the direct approach, but the assumption that it will backfire still seems relatively pervasive in the population at large. I should probably also note that I do tend to resent when someone actively attempts to manipulate me by dropping hints and the like, but most guys I know don't have a problem with even this. What do you all think? Is it mostly confirmation bias? Women pursuing men who never found them attractive in the first place, and then assigning blame to the aggressiveness of their approach? Are men just secretly turned off by women who are open with their interest, and ashamed to admit it? Possibly some combination? My anecdotal experience of course suggests that everyone is better off when women are more direct, but I can't deny that perceptions to the contrary persist.