- MBTI
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 947 sx/sp
Either I am too intense and hoarding or too meh.
Maybe you’re just you, and the self-judgment of being this or that can piss off?
Best to You,
Ian
Either I am too intense and hoarding or too meh.
Haha. Seriously, I'm sorry to hear that. Hmm. I find that distractions work in the interim. If I create enough distractions for myself, I can stop existing in the space where I feel I am being burdensome. I give space. I also sleep. I type on the forum. Hahaha.Same. Let me know when you find this extent, because it’s killing me at this point. Lol
Good point. It's a difficult chain to shed.Maybe you’re just you, and the self-judgment of being this or that can piss off?
Best to You,
Ian
With regard to a romantic relationship which is not sexual, I was thinking more than friendship (a wonderful thing it itself). When I was younger, I fell ‘in love’ but didn’t feel sexual attraction for the females. I could never understand this, because I was always horny. It was like when I was emotionally ‘all in’ with a girl, the sexual side disappeared. I wondered if it was because I was prudish or ashamed to be sexual with them. Maybe it has to do with the nature of me. I grew to feel the ‘falling in love’ experience was a kind of mental delusion/fantasy, and therefore not natural if that makes sense.
Simple yet profound insight. Our fears, designed to protect us, often do the opposite in modern times sadly. Our parental and cultural teachings can also mess us up, no matter how well they are intentioned. This probably is more of an issue for us INFJs. Damn, we need our own planetMost problems in relationships (intimate or not) arise from an inability (ignorance) or unwillingness (fear) to communicate properly.
Most problems in relationships (intimate or not) arise from an inability (ignorance) or unwillingness (fear) to communicate properly.
Our fears, designed to protect us, often do the opposite in modern times sadly.
Our parental and cultural teachings can also mess us up, no matter how well they are intentioned.
Damnit.Most problems in relationships (intimate or not) arise from an inability (ignorance) or unwillingness (fear) to communicate properly.
Good point, and I was thinking the same. People generally do what they want, and how do you change a culture? But many people, especially certain personality types, go with conventional and ‘societal norms’. That’s always going to be the case.I'm a little confused by this thread just in the sense that everyone knows you don't have to go by societal expectations, right? Like we all just create our own version of what is right for us and ignore people who tell us otherwise because it's not their life to live.
I can understand that stress of living in a culture that doesn't fit with your lifestyle but there are always subcultures and groups of people who feel the same way.
I think instead of trying to change culture we should focus on how to find like minded people and, eventually, if enough people feel the same way norms and culture might change.
But you're talking a number games here. Unless enforced by an authoritarian structure, generally culture comes about because it resonates with a large number of people. I do think people with certain sexual behavior or interests are outside of the "most common" category and they need to find clubs or social circles to hang out in to help them with that. But if most people don't really feel that way, I think it's ok that culture caters to the majority. It is up to you to build the social network and environment you need to suit your preferences.
I find this quite confusing. I’m going to report you to the Plain English Society lolCulture is less so created as much as it is preformed. Going between them for a change lies difficulty in individuality as much as responsibility holds it’s importance too. I think that misunderstanding is what causes cultural confusion or “shock”. A culture of acceptance doesn’t require acceptance of individuality. Nor does self growth require rejection of principle.
Poetry, dude.I find this quite confusing. I’m going to report you to the Plain English Society lol
I profoundly believe that a golden rule in our closest relationships is to do no harm - to really take some time to understand the needs of our possible and actual partners, and to give them the same weight as our own.Is it possible that the assumption of these 2 needs always coinciding is actually causing a lot of misery and preventing enjoyable unions? I suspect the answer is it depends on the person(s) involved, but I thought I'd just put it out there for consideration/discussion. Do people think I may be onto something or not?
Today the most radical option would be to go completely old school: no sex before marriage, then pairing for life.As we know, convention is you have sex with someone you love. At least that is seen as an ideal and what is often portrayed as 'normal'. As we also know, the world and life often doesn't work that simply.
We have all heard that most men are naturally pormiscuous and can sleep around quite easily if they want to and have the opportunity; but that women bond when they have sex, so usually seek one intimate stable realtionship for sex/imtimacy. Note here there are a small percentage of highly sexed women who are more like men, but these exceptions prove the general rule.
I have read and heard that these stereotypes may be not only inaccurate but quite limiting for many. Perhaps a new? idea would be that anyone could enter a sexual relationship without it being necessariy exclusive or even involving love between the two people. Of course I know this happens all the time, but it is nearly always seen as unusual and non-ideal.
Similarly, could it not be possible to be romantically 'in love' with someone, without wanting or needing sexual intimacy with them? I have felt this way when younger, while also having a normal sex drive. I have often felt the need for sex and romantic love as two distinct needs, which often don't coincide, which makes for a disastrous love life. Perhaps this explains famous men historically taking lovers, while lacking intimacy with their wives?
Is it possible that the assumption of these 2 needs always coinciding is actually causing a lot of misery and preventing enjoyable unions? I suspect the answer is it depends on the person(s) involved, but I thought I'd just put it out there for consideration/discussion. Do people think I may be onto something or not?
Just had a look at these. I'm 100% straight (if that's possible). I was thinking more in relation to ones sexual preferences, or what turns a person on in terms of interrelational dynamics, if that makes sense.https://pflag.org/glossary
https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-group/gender-pronouns/
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/996319297/gender-identity-pronouns-expression-guide-lgbtq
https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms
https://www.lsu.edu/lgbtqproject/resources/vocabulary.php
Those should get you started.
Cheers,
Ian
Today the most radical option would be to go completely old school: no sex before marriage, then pairing for life.
I'm finding all the "pushing the boundaries" ideas stale, naive, hollow, and repeated to death.