ESFj = Cheaters? INTj = Cheated on

[yellow82]

I've been married to an ESFJ for nearly 10 years and I don't think she has ever thought about cheating. The key word here is "married" which is on a higher level that "in a relationship". While we were dating she wanted to play the field as much as possible and not tie herself down to anyone. Once she decided she really loved me and that she was willing to marry me she settled down and gave her whole heart to me. Now she tells me that I've ruined her of any other man.

However, I might also add that we both come from a very conservative background and were not sexually active during the dating phase. So when I say she was playing the field, I mean she was sucking face with other dudes and then still wanting me to do the same with me. I could not tolerate it and it was a huge problem during that time in my life.

Dating an ESFJ was one of the most miserable experiences in my life. Being married to an ESFJ has been great.

Yes, yes, and yes. I know I'd be very much like that. . . the whole "dating around until I was committed, and then once committed always there."

That's the way I am. . . there's nothing holding you down until you love them and you've committed.

[Ave]

People cheat when they are bored.

Or have the oppurtunity.

[MisterNi]

Or have the oppurtunity.

Yeah, but that implies that people are a slave to their impulses which isn't true. Even in nature there are examples of monogamous relationships like ducks and geese. There are examples in higher primates as well, but it becomes muddled with issues of dominance and other factors instead of "cheating" or "not-cheating".

Anyways, ESFj are not likely to cheat even if the opportunity presented itself.

[Ver]

ESEs are not more or less likely to cheat than anyone else. And people cheat for a variety of reasons. Also, duality is not perfect. And you sound young, and young people are not usually settled on a realtionship and are therefore still looking and might cheat if they find someone they like better. Not type related.

Theoretically I would agree with you, but I noticed in real life that some types are more prone to cheating and feel better afterwards. I know a few ESEs who cheat on their partners. I'd say that S types might be more prone to cheating because they are more sexually open, it's easier for them to touch. I'd also risk saying that Fe types are more prone to cheating than Fi types.

[Ave]

Yeah, but that implies that people are a slave to their impulses which isn't true. Even in nature there are examples of monogamous relationships like ducks and geese. There are examples in higher primates as well, but it becomes muddled with issues of dominance and other factors instead of "cheating" or "not-cheating".

People are not slaves to the impulses; they are their impulses. If a desire is too strong it takes over the mind, and the mind cannot focus on anything else. Our thoughts lead to our actions.

I dont see why the fact that "in nature" animals being monogamous would prove that Im arguing isnt true; it simply proves what it proves, it doesnt "say" anything about the nature of these beings and why they behave like they do, I dont think.

[FDG]

Yeah, so you mean if they have the opportunity and think the person is more attractive (sexually-wise) than their partner. Otherwise it might look like you meant if they have "any" opportunity.

[Slacker]

Theoretically I would agree with you, but I noticed in real life that some types are more prone to cheating and feel better afterwards. I know a few ESEs who cheat on their partners. I'd say that S types might be more prone to cheating because they are more sexually open, it's easier for them to touch. I'd also risk saying that Fe types are more prone to cheating than Fi types.

S types are more sexually open and it's easier for them to touch? No. NTR

[Ave]

Its easier for them to get laid since they are more active in the physical world, generally.

[Slacker]

Its easier for them to get laid since they are more active in the physical world, generally.

Huh? More active in the physical world? They aren't necessarily out and around people more, and that's what is going to lead to relationships, not some abstract concept of "more active in the physical world."

[Ave]

Huh? More active in the physical world? They aren't necessarily out and around people more, and that's what is going to lead to relationships, not some abstract concept of "more active in the physical world."

Its not abstract or a concept, we're talking about two very different things. F types are gonna be more active around people I would guess, S types more active in the physical world, I mean the "real" sensory world, so SF types would be the most likely of getting laid since they have both. Thats not to say all of them do though, there are other factors like their own physical attractiveness or the fact they may hang out only with people of their gender etc, and its only a probability.

[Slacker]

Its not abstract or a concept, we're talking about two very different things. F types are gonna be more active around people I would guess, S types more active in the physical world, I mean the "real" sensory world, so SF types would be the most likely of getting laid since they have both. Thats not to say all of them do though, there are other factors like their own physical attractiveness or the fact they may hang out only with people of their gender etc, and its only a probability.

The real sensory world? Everyone is around physical sensations as much as everyone else. S types just process information diffrently - they aren't necessarily more active in the physical world. Maybe a bit more interested in sport and that kind of thing, but not more interested in romance, but I don't know if interest in sport would translate to getting laid more often, except as it impresses others.

[Ave]

The real sensory world? Everyone is around physical sensations as much as everyone else. S types just process information diffrently - they aren't necessarily more active in the physical world. Maybe a bit more interested in sport and that kind of thing, but not more interested in romance, but I don't know if interest in sport would translate to getting laid more often, except as it impresses others.

Everyone is around physical sensations, true, but S types are typcially more practical and active, as they process inofrmation differently which leads them to become more "hands on" in the physical world. I would say everyone is interested in romance(though here we're not talking about romance) to some degree and thats not type related but like I said above, if you have more tempting opportunities, you will fall for them.

[Slacker]

Everyone who isn't an S type is an S-seeking type, and you could just as easily say they'd be more tempted due to their seeking of Si or Se. You can make up a logical rule to prove anything, but that doesn't make one type more prone to cheating than another. I do think some types might be more prone, but the issues IMO are more complicated than S or not S.

[Ave]

Well you're entitled to your opinion but lemme just say this: you say everyone who isnt S is Si or Se seeking and I agree, but we're not talking about values here but actual behaviors.

[Slacker]

Yeah but I don't think being S leads to the behavior of being more apt to cheat. There are as many S prudes who don't have esx at all as there are N cheaters. And vice versa.

[Roro]

Type is pretty irrelevant when it comes to cheating. Anybody is capable.

[Ave]

Prudes dont exist, only their children do

[Ave]

Type is pretty irrelevant when it comes to cheating. Anybody is capable.

Are follwing this at all? Not everyone is capable.

[Roro]

Are follwing this at all? Not everyone is capable.

No, actually, I'm not. I don't care to go through two pages and read, when all I had to do was read the OP to answer the question.

[Ave]

Aerorobyn's ditzyness is coming through

[MisterNi]

People are not slaves to the impulses; they are their impulses. If a desire is too strong it takes over the mind, and the mind cannot focus on anything else. Our thoughts lead to our actions.

What kind of reductionist BS is that? Do you really think that all the sum of your existence is to get your next meal, lay etc? That's absurd beyond the wildest measure.

I dont see why the fact that "in nature" animals being monogamous would prove that Im arguing isnt true; it simply proves what it proves, it doesnt "say" anything about the nature of these beings and why they behave like they do, I dont think.

Because being monogamous implies not being a cheater.

[Ave]

What kind of reductionist BS is that? Do you really think that all the sum of your existence is to get your next meal, lay etc? That's absurd beyond the wildest measure.

Is it? Well could you maybe refute my arguements with reasoning, rather then ad hominem arguements?

being monogamous implies not being a cheater.

There could be many reasons for not being a cheater, simple lack of oppurtinity in finding the right person to cheat on your partner with is one.

[MisterNi]

Is it? Well could you maybe refute my arguements with reasoning, rather then ad hominem arguements?

I was asking you a question. Plus you thinking it's an ad hominem is more of a projection than anything else. Although I'd agree that living such a base and banal lifestyle would be pretty terrible.

There could be many reasons for not being a cheater, simple lack of oppurtinity in finding the right person to cheat on your partner with is one.

Maybe, or that the person believes in monogamy. Ever thought of that?

[Ave]

I was asking you a question.

Not a rhetorical one.

Plus you thinking it's an ad hominem is more of a projection than anything else.

It seems like an emotive arguement, thats why. If Im projecting now however, I stand corrected.

Although I'd agree that living such a base and banal lifestyle would be pretty terrible.

What are you referring to?

Maybe, or that the person believes in monogamy. Ever thought of that?

Well you can beleive in one thing yet not always follow through with your beleifs. I used to beleive masturbation was a sin yet did it anyways, for example.

[MisterNi]

Well you can beleive in one thing yet not always follow through with your beleifs. I used to beleive masturbation was a sin yet did it anyways, for example.

The point is, arguing that humans are only shaped due to biological factors is asinine. That's not hard to understand.

[Ave]

The point is, arguing that humans are only shaped due to biological factors is asinine. That's not hard to understand.

Its not hard to understand, that doesnt make it true. If you feel this strongly about this subject as you appearantly do, we dont have to debate it. I thought it would be fun to do so, as I welcome a good debate on something that interests me but maybe not.