I feel like men are supposed to play it cool and let thirsty women do most of them work nowadays. It’s usually only unattractive, socially inept men who resort to chasing/“aggressor tactics”
Printable View
I feel like men are supposed to play it cool and let thirsty women do most of them work nowadays. It’s usually only unattractive, socially inept men who resort to chasing/“aggressor tactics”
Nah it's just obviously, a tall and (objectively) physically attractive man can get away with being more sexually aggressive whereas an uglier man cannot. But truly objectively handsome males don't do creepy things like that to offend women anyway, it's usually warthogs like Harvey Fierstein who do that type of stuff. So they are allowed to both 'play it cool' and be more forward. Of course it's unfair and cruel =/ but... that's life?
Also INFp women are like your very generic female based type woman. An INFp male is ultra 'weird' and an INFp female is ultra normie. Society pays attention to an INFp female being fucked by an ESTp male so much because it's easy to pay attention to it the same way it's easy to pay attention to a skinned knee. It's not the only type of relationship tho (even tho its probably the relationship that started it all in a primitive sense, heterosexually speaking)
Since it worked this way for me, you might be unironically right this time.
Being a caregiver seems ideal if you want a healthy relationship as an average guy. You’re fucked if you’re average and have a high sex drive or any kind of ego
Girls get horny too, and any normal-looking dude who approaches them can skip past their quality-control. He'll seem funny, or 'kind of cute', or whatever. While the rest of us are working or studying, there are guys who cruise around for sixteen hours a day looking for pussy. If you talk to hundreds girls, then, by the law of averages, at least one of them is going to have sex with you.
Do you have proof of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by xerxe
How many hundred?Quote:
Originally Posted by xerxe
yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Averroes
no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Averroes
:hello:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
People are same. At least those who have normal sexual interests. It's too instinctual and has more chance to be supressed, than changed.
Any action is an aggression. To be stubborn is important to achieve something not easy. Se types are the most stubborn and most direct, also most jealous to protect what they want or have. :) It's among main traits of their "aggressor tactics". Also they may more often gift expensive things.
Ni types initially play in push games even when they like you, as think "if he likes me seriously - he'll be trying seriously, if he'll get me easily - I'll be lesser interesting for him, his feelings will be lesser and he will lesser value me and our relations later to invest in this". Ni types value money and expensive gifts, are charmed by this - they significantly measure by material investments in them the own value for that human and even in general. Se types have the most to deal with their games and needs.
> It’s usually only unattractive, socially inept men who resort to chasing/“aggressor tactics”
There is a difference between propaganda and real world. That propaganda exaggerates and tries to reduce natural sexual behavior by negative images of that to destroy cores of peoples personality and to make softer slaves. The other example of that is "gender" philosophy and homosexuality "norma" nonsense.
Se/Ni types seems are closest to cultural ideals of man-warrior (Se) and woman-princess (Ni) for who they fight. Se types fight in most direct way. :) So when you read about them - you think alike "ah those outdated phreaks" about which my favorite youtube homo-blogger and band of man-hating lesbians talked a lot. But they talked against normal behavior of normal people, in general - they are used to supress normal people which are the majority.
2nd part
Dat is quite weird thinking since the whole erotic attitudes is based on type (excluding mirror pairs) specific differences.
If we talk about Se in this context it will be the Se mobilising types that are head over heels for this. Usually suggestive function works like taking a distance when confronted but it also gets comfortable around it when there is longer exposure.
Can you give some examples of “aggressor tactics”, and tell us when they worked better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Averroes
You usually don’t get anywhere by staying put. If you want anything in life, you have to try to get it somehow. I don’t think waiting for someone else to make the first move is a stellar way to get a girl.
Usually the person with the least sexual market value chases the one with the higher sexual market valueQuote:
Originally Posted by Averroes
I think these romantic styles manifest differently in different cultures.
We live in a culture where men initiating romance with women is less of a one way street (women can do the initiating too), and that's a good thing I think.
That said, I don't think a man initiating with a woman is looked down on either. What is looked down on, more often, is chasing after the person has told you they aeren't interested, but that is something both men and women are discouraged to do in my experience.
The "aggressor" romance style is less about taking initiative and more about a competitive and sometimes even disdainful attitude towards one's partner. Often getting someone to take the initiative on you (compelling them to do so) is just as much an "aggressor" tactic as initiating.
Just my 2c.
I don't know about the "sexual market value", but I am most attracted to a woman when she has some trait that I really admire. Some trait that makes her better than me in some area. That doesn't have to be sexual market value. I think, for me, it's beauty and intelligence, and both of those things are very individualistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
I remember this one guy commented disparagingly on my first GF's looks when he didn't know we were going together. My reaction was, "How would you like a fist in the face?"*
For example, I can tell when a woman is objectively beautiful, and when I think she is beautiful and desirable, and the two don't overlap much. My ex-wife could look both stunningly, classily beautiful, and she could look mannish and slightly weird. And that's OK. And to those two characteristics (beauty and intelligence) I'm looking for, I've now added "a slightly low key sexuality". A look that says, "Hey, buddy. That door is open to you." But isn't stated explicitly. Rather, it's just thought.
*
"My hair is pale blond and wavy and I'm pretty. Not beautiful - Praxiteles would not have given me a second look - but real beauty is likely to scare a man off, or else make him quite unmanageable, whereas prettiness, properly handled, is an asset."
- Podkayne of Mars, Robert Heinlein.
SMV depends on taste to an extent but there are universal qualities that most people value like intelligence, accomplishments, interesting lifestyle, compatible personality and looksQuote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Men aren't as a group supposed to do anything. We are each individual people. If you mean societies pressure groups to behave a certain way, well, yes, that can happen, but it's not a great trend to get in line with: you'll not draw people who genuinely fit you as well, and youll get people who don't fit you wondering if they do, and that is wasting your time. Women and men are all finding romance a personal challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Averroes
DarkAngelFireWolf69 did a craptastic job describing the romance styles. I'm not sure whether you're talking about those. If you are, disregard the creepy comparisons and just read for the dynamics and actual traits.
ALSO:
Confidence is the most attractive trait a woman can have according to a large study on men, and the same result was found about a trait men coud have when women were studied.
I disagree. I think assertive people or intense people or even just INTERESTED IN ROMANCE ppl (even the quiet ones) often act in ways to draw or approach people. I know many, many cases where the more conventionally attractive, educated, more privileged class person either intentionally acts to draw 1st or approaches 1st the person who is/has less of those traits. They have more resources to do so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
yeah u can disagree but this is facts. and what u say doesnt contradict what i saidQuote:
Originally Posted by nanashi
I can disagree....and, you've given no more evidence than I haveQuote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
So called dominant subtype characteristics. I actually view it turnoffish.Quote:
Originally Posted by nanashi
no. not dominance. confidence. they are discreet. I've met many a confident SEI, EII, IEI, ESI, etcQuote:
Originally Posted by COVID 007
This tbh, it seems to seem that this is universally liked because most people (it seems that women are especially affected by this) tend to be normalizing sub-types.Quote:
Originally Posted by COVID 007
There is no need to be a asshole or act like like a 'tough guy' it is not even needed to be competent.
Women are attracted to you for different reasons, some of them are Victimish or Childlike behavior depending on the ego functions.
Caregiver Women like to give care and will be endeared by Ne goofiness and helplesness in Practical matters while Se women like playful submission and weakness as long as you are able to keep up with her games.
ImE the most important things are Chemistry (depends a lot on Instincts) Looks and Ego Functions (and their Subtype accentuation). So typical Fatherly or Badass behavior is mostly mandatory to be attractive to Ne and Ni egos.
Creative Subtypes are best attracted by harmonizing behavior, and yes to pull a normalizer you should be the typical 'dominant' Douchebag that pop cutlure wants to turn everybody into by false common sense but otherwise it is not needed, not at all.
Be a good person, have matching instincts and ego functions, most of it really is compatibility and then, while being compatible being authentic.
Yes being successful helps but in my experience when there is a strong instinctual and Perceiving function attraction mostly in a sense of social desirability of you as a mate, not for the sake of raw attraction.
He's referring to DCNH subtype theory. There are introverted feelers with dominant subtypes, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by nanashi
But I agree with you that confidence and dominance are not the same thing.
thank you 4 explainijngQuote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Ave
Everyone can morph into having dominant role but with confidence you can actually be both - true confidence because the hierarchy of the subtypes kind of sets the limit in comparative sense.
Believe me, I have been testing it out, but with inconclusive results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duschia
My SLI ex never seemed to be horny. The LSI ex really liked sex, but I'm not sure if it was because she was having fun or because she had 100% of my attention and she was pretty much in control of the situation, even though it seemed like I was the dominant one.
Pure horniness, I'm not sure I've seen. But I could be completely wrong, since I'm not a mind-reader.
how the fuck.....has anyone not seen pure horniness? And even if you've not had friends who happen to be female and picked up on it/talked about it...how can this be in doubt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Why are you violent? What exactly do you feel punching people in the face is gonna accomplish?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
I've been wondering this myself. I remember when I first joined this forum we could talk about how aggressor/victim Rocky and Adrien are, but now it's rape culture, and I honestly feel torn about all of this. The contradictions were present with Adrien and Rocky, the it's great he knows this is what she needs to continue, but then for every one of her there are probably ten women who can't get Rocky to stop and it kills them inside. Sigh.
It reminds me of my first date. He took me out to the middle of nowhere, but I knew where we were going before we went because there were only so many places. He seemed caught off guard afterwards to my apparent lack of regard for danger and lack of questioning, but he didn't know I was running this show. I knew where, I knew what, the only thing I didn't know is that he would be so surprised by my not verbalizing what I knew. This became a rapidly growing problem, this need of his to assume I know nothing, when I know everything (I mean if we have to talk in absolutes). I wouldn't have even gone out with him if I sensed danger. I sensed none at all. I sensed someone I could predict at every move. Naturally I didn't tell him any of this either, because why should I have to? I did forget that he had a mind too I guess though, so that's on me. As always, every evaluation of another is just an evaluation of myself projected on others.
Also, I do play dumb around ppl in this awful E9 way. It's like they call all the shots, but I only engage socially when I know what shots they will call to my satisfaction. In work places though, I become the throw rug, the carpet walked all over, because the power differential is beyond me. They have power, I don't, and it's all I can think of. I feel like a slave and victim. I can't fight them because they hold the means of my survival. It's like my relationship with my father over and over and I can't get out of it. But it's true that they have power, it's true they keep the gates of who is allowed a living wage and who must suffer not having the resources they need to survive. It's true this is wrong. But still that's not how so many people see work places. They don't see them as torture chambers as I do. They don't see bondage and servitude.
This is also why whenever I have any power over another at work I want to drop it like a hot ember. I see their primal human will trying to assert and express itself and I say I will not be the one to kill it. So i remove consequence. They can do no wrong because they have the least power. It's a perverse way I wonder of seeing power, and it doesn't help to not set boundaries, but the only boundaries set for me in childhood were abusive, so I distrust everything. In this way I don't know the harm I do. I only suspect I do harm by being too weak and permissive. But I never see examples of a good way that satisfy me. In workplaces, I've noticed most supervisors don't really know what they're doing, and most of them are bad leaders.
I rarely see anyone show any emotion tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by nanashi
I was on this forum waaay back, and I pointed out nearly a decade ago about that scene that I AM an Ni type and that what Rocky did was not sexy. It made sense that it might be easy for a boxer and uneducated and lonely person to illegally hold someone captive (AND NO THIS IS NOT SOME NEWLY RECOGNIZED AS BAD THING; THIS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ON THE LAW BOOKS AS A CRIME REGARDLESS OF ANY HORNINESS OR NOT, AND IT'S WEIRD SOME GUYS DON'T GET THAT WOMEN AREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE LESS PROTECTION BY ILLEGAL CAPTIVITY LAWS JUST BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL IS AROUSED; you can still like a person who commits a crime and is in the wrong. It's okay to care about Rocky.) Ni types don't like being forced. That's a stupid comparison DarkAngelFireWolf69 went off on a tangent about. Ni types like someone being physically demonstrative. It's not the same thing. And Si types aren't pedophiles etc etcQuote:
Originally Posted by inumbra
I think no one likes being forced against their will. Where I personally am confused is that I could choose this but it's because it's with my will. But if I ever articulate that, it takes away the significance. Maybe it's because I've been effed in the head by the patriarchy, but I can't help it. It's like consent without consent. BDSM wouldn't satisfy it because it's too structured and everyone declares their roles. It needs to be spontaneous.
Anyway, maybe I am a creature molded by the patriarchy. No means yes, yes means no. I make myself unavailable when no really is no by preventing contact in the first place, and I've always been good at that. Outside of workplaces it is dreadfully easy for me to avoid people because I have the gift/curse of invisibility. When I don't want to be seen people don't see me. Although perhaps like many Si type descriptions say, I am shocked when I am noticed because I never expect it. Creeps may be drawn to me because they sense a throw rug, and relatively intellectually challenged creep types are the only ones I've had a problem getting rid of because they don't notice or disregard all the signals of "stay away from me." And it's true once you get past the facade I actually am not good at making people leave me alone, but all the defenses before that point work really well like 99% of the time. I also can always employ tactics to make myself undesirable by being weird in a way that is difficult to process.
But the other point is I know when I'm in danger. I know who is dangerous. I know automatically. My blind spot is intellectually challenged people which is in a lot of ways the least problematic blind spot (and betrays bias about things I need to work on).
Aggressor as applied in Socionics is a dubious term. The animalistic prime directive of most normal, heterosexual males is to impregnate females in a possessive, controlling/manipulative fashion. Type may, to a limited extent, determine how this urge is likely masked and visible aggressiveness indicates less capability to mask true intentions, which isn't limited to specific types. Now attractive men usually have bigger herds from which to choose but those aggressive urges are still ever present; if they aren't then males should have their testosterone levels checked. Being socially inept is a much broader problem that could also lead to them not chasing women; one should not confuse clumsiness with aggression. Most normal, heterosexual females are sexually 'thirsty' but cognition, in a similar fashion, masks their urges too.
a.k.a. I/O
@andreasdevig, I was raised in a violent household where differences of opinion were settled by force. Wanting to punch that guy was a gut-level reaction. I don’t do that anymore. I discovered that violence only teaches other people to be violent. It is the low-intelligence and inappropriate approach to problem solving.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
I don't believe it's always how you were raised. My parents were the opposite of this and my gut reaction still has always been to punch assholes in the face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Well, OK, you’re right. I’m also an e8w7 so I have fast reactions to people trying to oppose or contradict me. However, I’m also smart enough and experienced enough to know that an animalistic reaction is counterproductive 99% of the time. The only thing it’s good for is to prompt the brain into action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northstar
In the long run, it’s much better to turn your enemy into a friend. And the more they freely and voluntarily want to be your friend, the better the future becomes.
Could also be a quadra complex reaction, for Gamma it is explicitly stated that they tend to react to transgressions by action, which is often translated to physical force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northstar
I still think that there a certain situations where you deserve to be punched, and i think this is widely accepted norm.
It belongs to having a respectful interaction to react to certain ways of disrespect with challenging the other person to a fight.
This is usually widely understood and the only people who will cry wolf afterwards are (narcissistic) Alpha quadra Members imE.
Still could be a lot of sub-cultural imprinting that makes me think that way but usually, if your opponent is not a spiritually effeminate ESE, you are a lot cooler with each-other after things have been settled, no matter who has won, everybody has proven their point and you respect each-other more.
But yes, the gut reaction is probably something you (I) should get over, can also be an overreacting amygdala due to violent upbringing. I still don't think that violence has to be immoral but depending on the ehtical qualities of your opponent you give them ammunition they can use against you in a Society regulated by Si Valuing people.
My level of sexual aggression seems to be very strongly influenced by what the women in my life want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
I’ve had a few partners and all were pretty different, and in each case, I think I manifested that part of me that they were looking for.
Now I’m wondering if I have an intrinsic style or level of aggression. The thing that makes me happiest is when a woman I like is having a good time. After that, I’m looking for desire, kindness, consideration, and collaboration. After that, I act aggressively.
This seems to me to be Aggression overlaid on a Victim base. But that’s exactly what the Erotic Attitudes article stated was the case for LIE’s. It’s just surprisingly to me that this is the way this style manifests itself. In my case, at least.
I’m tempted to say more specifically what I want, but it might be a carryover from my last GF, and while she was a great sexual partner, she might not be the BEST sexual partner for me.
Whew. This introspection business is hard.
Ni-types do seem to have trouble with that. They seem to have much understanding of and insight into everyone but themselves; the ones that I've known were so convinced that they were right or righteous that I doubted that they ever took the time to analyse themselves. They also seemed to want to avoid details that might detract from the positive outcomes for which they strove.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
a.k.a. I/O
@Rebelondeck, that's a feature, not a bug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Seriously, I think a blindness to certain aspects of reality is what makes LIE's so effective at reaching goals. LIE's refuse to look at failure modes, once a single path has been decided upon. Prior to that decision, though, they will seek out as much information about the future branches as can be had in a reasonable amount of time. After the decision is made, though, it's carved in stone until they either succeed or hit some wall that is so insurmountable that the attempt fails.
What makes this strategy even marginally successful is the fact that there are many ways to success, but they all require perseverance. So you can screw up your initial conditions, as long as you are willing to do what it takes to get to your goal.
LIE's tend to be successful in direct proportion to their ability to make the right choices from that gathered information, because all the LIE's that I know become set in their purpose once it is decided. Learning this can be a painful process.
I have some very expensive machine tools that are evidence of this. I was able to get them for a good price but I didn't have an immediate need for them, but thought I would in the future. When the crane arrived to unload them from the flat bed truck, my LSE buddy, who is much more immediate than I am, said "Adam. There's still time. You can call this off and send the machines back."
I said, "No, Don. We're sticking to the plan."
He was right. I should have sent the machines back. I don't miss the money, but they are taking up space that could be used more productively.
This is a pretty insightful post. I just realized I have more to say about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
One of the things that puzzle me about the 22 other LIE's that I know is that every single one of them is actively disinterested in personality theory. It's not like they don't know about it. It's much more that they don't WANT to know anything about it.
I've been in conversations with a lot of people of all types, and LIE's are the most resistant of all types to consider that people have personalities. I even had one LIE tell me, after I explained to him what he could expect from a mutual acquaintance based on his sociotype, "You might be right. That's possible, and now I'm going to do my best to forget everything you said."
"Why?", I asked. I view Socionics as a tool.
"Because it would influence me in how I treat people in the future."
So he preferred going with his gut, associating with people he instinctively liked and avoiding people he didn't like, and telling himself that he was lord and master of his universe.
He wasn't a very successful LIE, as LIE's go, incidentally.
And as for LIE's characteristic of avoiding and omitting unpleasant details of a project in their pitch, yes, that's definitely a criticism I've heard about LIE's before. No one can say that LIE's lie, exactly. But you have to ask a lot of questions (or at least, I do) before you will get to the truth, which is that they really don't know if the project will succeed or not.
The saving grace of this is that I've never met an LIE who was trying to harm someone else, personally. They usually don't let you play unless you can deal with a failed project and not be harmed by it.
In the financial world, which was probably created by LIE's, there is this practice, I forget what it's called, wherein companies seeking investors are not allowed to accept investments from people for whom a complete loss of their investment would be a disaster. Investors have to prove that they have a certain level of investable assets.
https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/se...ndard-secg.htm
Most ethicals do this, not just Ni. Most ethical types are convinced of their righteousness in one way or another. Logical Intuitives just analyse themselves or their behavior when something (like the consequence of their actions) force them to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Above was said mainly in related to Se types specifics.
More general point.
If women will become in average similarly or higher predisposed to an aggression, especially to physical one, compared to average for men, - then an aggression (in the sense of an initiative and an persistence) may be said as "outdated" as more specific for men. In relations of sexes, wide social activitity, hierarchy leveling, anger related and other. One of strong factors to keep the % of sexes difference at occupations is that women much of the time give to be pregnant and caring about children - every of kids reduces or makes harder to match duties on the time for >=2 years.
A part of such psyche and cultural situation would be the equal % of men and women in army, for example. What is not common for today. Also at high posts at jobs, scientific results, etc. Though, for some duties men +30% muscles strenght and more stable psyche/physical state (men have no significant month cycles) may keep the difference, - not many of such occupations should be.
Aggression in women, compared to men, could be evolutionally supressed (in women normal psyche state) as this made them worse mothers. Also to be perceived as lesser feminine and lesser attractive for men. Being constantly pregnant and having small kids they needed much of an external care, while to get this is passive behavior, what is opposite to be aggressive. Also an aggression in the part related to anger is bad for caring about other people, especially for tender and weak small kids.
As an example of biological difference, look about testosteron levels at sexes and its influence on emotions.
When in today medias propaganda you may see the pushing new "normas" of aggressive women and soft men - this is made to reduce sexual instincts which are directed to born and upbring children in good families. Such to reduce borning of people. Also to supress the psyche by pushing norms contradicting to its basics, to neurotise people and such to make them weaker and with worse social links - such to make people better controlled.
So taking inborn psyche predispositions and social situation it's far to say about outdated difference in an aggression of sexes.
=
There is what can be said as outdated. And the behavior against that in today west cultures is doubtful to be thought as decent and those people to be not good enough.
This relates to general status of women, - to perceive women _generally_ equal in intellectual and personality senses. Some cultures of the past overesteemated the difference or shaw it falsly, what could be partly useful as to explain social difference which was reasonable for that cultures (useful myths). For example, voting in democracy of Greece was allowed only for men as women set at home duties and knew lesser about wider world.
While it's objective that women have worse some physical traits and some lesser stable psyche, while having some traits as better than men too. It's possibly there are more F types among women and so lesser of them are good in technical tasks, while more % of women should deal good with informal communications. There can be other objective differences of sexes, at least for most people of that sex. This difference makes men or women as better for some duties and activities, in average, at least in the sense of lesser efforts needed for a training.
This difference of sexes sometimes could lead to wrong understanding and unjustiful misuse. As example, when generally a man was supposed as more weighty in decisions in a family, but not equal - while it's against what a friendship and love feeling is. Sometimes could lead even to moral right of beating a wife (but not from her side) and in some primitive cultures up to treat wives alike slaves. When parrents decided who to be a husband for a daughter ; though such traditions lesser but also exist for men too (when parrents may choose a wife) and even today in some places.
This misuse of sex differences relates to general personal man _domination_. While this domination indirectly and partly may relate to aggressive behavior. Mainly it was about wider and more complex social activity of men, and consequences of ways to explain and to support this situation.
Aggression and domination is not the same. They only cross partly. The problem is in the approach of general personal inequality of sexes, the idea of what was popular in past cultures. It's better to think sexes as personally equal (against what lesbians and infantile women like to do in hating and blaming men for anything bad).
But it's also needs to accept that men have more aggressive psyche as their norma, - as they were evolutionally adopted to be hunters, unlike women which were attached to home duties and kids. To be more aggressive itself does not mean to do bad or a harm - it's mainly to have wider activity and to be more stubborn in achieving aims ; and secondary to be better adopted for dangers and fightings alike wars, social competing, conflicts. The idea to supress men higher aggressive traits is bad, the good is to channel the aggressive behavior to useful ways. The idea to gain aggressive and competing traits in women is bad too, the good is to develop indirect ways of influence to overcome direct collisions and stressful situations. The do the opposite leads to problems for relations of sexes, with borning and upbringing, for psyche.
Yeah, ime I've had to become more smoother. What comes naturally to me doesn't really work.
Sanity about the world of sex is so cool and unusual. You winQuote:
Originally Posted by xerxe
Not everyone belongs to your idea of masculinity. People are different. We're all individuals. I, for one, am one of those spiritually effeminate EIIs. I have Se PoLR and all of that. If someone physically attacked me, there would be no happy ending to that. Believe me. I would not be cooler with that person. I would hold a grudge forever, and never be abled to forgive or forget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsme
It's their body. They have the right to have it remain unharmed. Even if they're assholes, I do believe they have the right to speak their mind without getting beaten up. I do believe in freedom of speech. We can't just punch people just because we don't like what words come out of their mouth.
Maybe you picked it up somewhere else. It makes sense to me that if you treat someone with violence, then you're teaching them to use violence also. It's hard to pick up any positive lessons from a world full of negative people. You need a positive role model. You need to be exposed to positivity, wise people, etc. in order to grow as a person, in my opinion. If you're only exposed to negativity, violent people, etc. then there is no way to grow out of it, because you're not exposed to anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northstar
again, nope. read the science on thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
"New scientific evidence refutes the preconception that testosterone causes aggressive, egocentric, and risky behavior."https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
incel or PUA ideology and myth but not science
https://memegenerator.net/img/instan...28/science.jpg
:thinking: I'm still in kindergarten, I like to playfully tease women and if one responds positively <.< just ask her on a date lol, if she says she has bf, on to the next one. *shrug*
Its gonna suck down the line if she responds badly to playful teasing, cus I do it a lot. Ideally the response should be " :> " and teasing back. Idk, its like a test jab I think. Input-output.
That explains a lot tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
I feel like maybe I should comment but I don’t really know what to say. I feel like different strokes for different folks is pretty obvious, though I agree with @nanashi that confidence seems to be pretty universally attractive. Personally I prefer to be the one who is more in control but I would say my type is still in the minority as a woman. I want someone who watches and knows how to wait to respond to my cues and desires.
In any case, no I don’t think it’s outdated, it’s just that “aggressor” male style faces a lot more potential negative repercussions nowadays due to the social climate and SJWs. If I were myself with the same sex drive and desires but as a male, I might even be in jail lol. Whenever I hear that guys are hesitant to make moves on girls for fear of it being labeled as harassment, it’s always aggressor guys who are doing the complaining. They are not as good at being subtly charming in an indirect non-physical way and I understand that, so I don’t fault them.
I doubt you're in the minority. I think myth/controlling ppl just tell us that. I grew up with ppl telling me, a female, 'how women are'. It didn't match reality, what they were saying, but it was the story they worked hard to keep repeating to themselves and trying to train me to repeat. Some women and men happen to be close enough to their narrative that they just have to change slightly to comply. It just doesn't gel for me...and I keep thinking 'the emperor has no clothes.'Quote:
Originally Posted by sbbds
I mean like I actually don’t like it when I’m pursued, I think it’s a huge turnoff actually. But I still think more women prefer to have guys make more of the moves or ask them out or something. Maybe that “minority” is becoming less of a minority nowadays but it’s just my impression from the other women I’ve known. I think most women would still think of how I act as lowering myself somehow but I don’t see it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by nanashi
Are you saying that you actually think there are equal if not more women who are like me?
I kinda get where you’re coming from though. It’s like if someone has to keep hammering something into you for no apparent reason, it might be because it’s bs that they barely even believe in themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by nanashi
I hate when I'm interrupted in my important work to respond to someone who doesn't even have chemistry with me. It's like a selfish, stupid game they force me to play that is not fun. They interrupt me and I'm supposed to drop my current errand because THEY say I SHOULD give 'us' a chance. Yes. That's happened to me so often. It is so selfish and condescending. I literally was singing myself a love song walking home having sent my fiance back across an ocean until we could see each other again, and I can't see this partner for months, and we'd shared a home together for weeks, and I have some serious work at home in my empty house, but I'm interrupted by a stranger who doesn't give a shit about how I feel and accosts me.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbbds
Same with the ppl whom I kindly explain I don't want to date them. I'm supposed to override my own mind because THEY say I SHOULD give 'us' a chance.Their assessment matters to them. Mine doesn't not. When I point this out to them, some realize how messed up that actually is...and how crappy that would be for them...to be with someone who didn't choose them.
Lol yes exactly, especially the bolded. Interesting that you’d feel that way too though even as a socionics “victim”.Quote:
Originally Posted by nanashi
I guess most women would have the same reaction. Problem is, for most guys it’s either this or they just stay passive mainly. Not everyone knows how to be smooth or subtle.
my best experiences? Some ESI dude is arrested in his motion by something I do (I mean he sort of is startled or transfixed). He pauses a second.
Do I look busy? Do your own work and don't interfere with mine. I'm often en route to work or on an important errand, and it's disrespectful to ask me to evaluate you for dating as a stranger when I'm midaction on something else. My brain's midjump at the pole vault, and you're screaming while I'm in the air.
Noticing you notice me and value my actions and then don't interfere with me is already great in my book.
Conversely, we're at a party or recreational event? literally just standing next to me after I do something you like, like we're partners/teammates works great. totally fell in love with that guy.
I complimented his voice because I was impressed with it when he sang the next lyrics to a line I randomly chortled out. I wasn't even flirting. I was being honest and managing the atmosphere for the quiet introverts.
he just aligned himself with me after a few sincere compliments from me throughout the night, and I knew he was kinda 'joining me', and I got worried I'd disappoint him because I didn't know he had tattoos sleeves under that perfectly starched three piece suit (some ESI dress the f up), and I was just winging it with a dress I pulled over my tank top, and my hair was dyed bright red, and he just quietly sat next to me in his suit looking straightlaced as fuck, and not knowing I was going commando, and I was over here thinking I should maybe explain how not appropriate for him I am (since I was getting Si vibes from him, and I'm that person who doesn't remember to wash their choners after the gym in time for a party and has to go commando under their long dress and just wings so much in life and don't want his disapppointment), but I decided to let it play out when our mutual buddy said the guy wasn't like that. He offered to drive me when our doctor friend said we should all leave to go dancing. He just felt like someone I'd known for years, and we weren't even talking much, but his presence was palpable. Then he tells her he appreciated I just let him be himself when we sat at the bar for a drink at the latin club. We danced. Great music. but every movement seemed like communication. he actually paid attention to and saw me and didn't try to corral me like so many men do to me. I like creativity in dancing, and I have never fit that 'penis ppl direct the clit ppl around the dancefloor thing.' Our dancing was collaborative. We rejoined the group, and I started enjoying a charismatic discussion. Then some latin dance professional said I wasn't allowed to lead sometimes. It was the stupidest, most pointless rule this person was perpetuating. I found myself instinctually on my feet and striding to the dance floor. The now righthand man had jumped up when I did and was there at my side, and we danced hella sexy, and when we returned the professional dancers either were clapping or literally had their mouth hanging open. he'd just been taught a simple box step that night, but because we made sense together, we shocked ppl with a decade of rigid training in bachata, etc. we just did our own thing. He showed up for me.
I know it sounds cliche, but ENTJs love enterprise. Getting in our way is torture for gamma quadra members.
I can sense your skillset. joining up. shoulder to shoulder, etc. work or play
I know this isn't everyone's thing, but it's great for me. I should wear a sign or something.
Damn I’m doing coffee with 50 shades of nanashi at work today lol
that made me laugh really hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbbds
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
nope. i don't like expensive gifts.
IME Aggressor guys seem like they’re proactive and cooperative in relationships, but they actually are more towards the physically passive side when it comes to “Se”, unless they have actual problems. Non-Se ego type guys have been way more physically aggressive from what I’ve seen both with myself and with other women. Se in ego means they’re more conscious and in control of it. Ni and Ne egos are much less in control of themselves, even Si leads/egos sometimes.
I think I will agree with OP though that caretaker guy approach in irl seems the most idealized in society. Pass on that from me though, I’m not gonna have a guy put me in diapers and try to change them for me.
I even do completely agree with you here.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
Also i am not someone who subscribes to traditional masculinity in any way.
Its not about speaking their mind, it was about bullying and suppressing people, publicly humiliating every surrounding that dares to challenge this person in any way, even it is just a subjective whim only to establish some kind of vain 'dominance'.
When you want to behave like this super tough guy who likes to hurt other people for no good reason and to attack the dignity of everyone around only for your own feeling of self importance you deserve everything thats coming to you.
This is not a situation where you have an right to cry and play the victim, if you get a reasonable and even soft rebuff according to the harm you have caused.
Also spiritually effeminate probably tried to describe something else than what you think about.
I like ethicals and am a very soft person myself that could not care less who wants him to act 'manly' and suppress their sensitivity.
It's about having no - and i mean absolutely no - code of honor, responsibility for their own actions and ability to face the consequences. It was meant to describe a person that has about all bad female traits to an extreme degree. Probably simply what comes out when having an ESE with a very bad character, it is not about the gender its about the means a person has to be shitty and as a FeSi those are stereotypically female in their manifestation.
It's gonna sound cliché, but all romantic styles are valid.
I know non Se valuers usually look down on Aggressor types as "rapey" and such, but I think it's fine, I mean, they are what they are. Victims dig that, even the ones that deny it.
I love reading what my EII brethen say, you're all the cute wholesome ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
I agree. As a childlike NF type, I like women who take care of me. Mostly SLI women I've seen are very daddy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsme
Thank you. That's very sweet of you. I appreciate it. You strike me as a man who's not afraid of his own femininity or vulnerability, and I admire that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Something
I don't think these things you mention (awareness of one's vulnerability) are mutually exclusive to expressions of masculinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
I'm not gonna get into Odysseus (the patriarchal hero) crying in Homer's writings, but the point is that the "traditional" conception we have of gender doesn't go back very far in time and isn't very broad in scope.
Of course, there are different personalities, and everyone tends to express these things a bit differently.
Delta ST women seem to really dig that about me tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
And thanks bruh! you seem cool!
Nothing. He's the typical Se mobilising guy trying to let people know how TOUGH he is to hide some sort of insecurity.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
Si polrs are the saddest fellas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsme
Just to clarify things, because that seems to imply irresistible attraction to helplessness on the part of Si-egos when it’s not necessarily that: I’d be willing to say caregiver women in alpha find Ne-egos of the same quadra the most intellectually interesting and the least clingy of the whole bunch of men available. Ne helplessness is something that does not bother them, not something they actively look for (consciously, anyway). In case there is a Ne-ego thinking they should overplay their hand faking complete uselessness at life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbbds
Yah. I am a childlike and like to hurt people. I feed on fear.
Well ofc, he is flaming gay e_e..lamo..:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
DarkAngelFireWolf69 made such a stupid move comparing not rapey behavior to an attack. There's nothing attacky about Se.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Something
And there's nothing pedophilic about Si. etc etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgunfingers
I laughed hard and probably almost woke up my roommate.
Off topic my bad. But do you think the Ne helplessness just makes the Si ego person feel useful in the other person's life, like they like to be counted on for "Si" things. Like in some way they feel appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusal
I remember one time someone invited me to a party and I thought I would have a hard time remembering the date so I asked an SEI friend of mine if they could text me to remind me, because they were real good with doing that. And when I asked her she had this smile on her face like if you asked grandma to bake you your favorite cookies even though she's busy. I know when one of my friends asked me to do that I quickly felt frustrated and told them "I can't remember your stuff for you, I have a hard time remembering my own stuff."
It's not played out, it just looks bad when it's not tempered with empathy/awareness. If you approach someone and you're confident you will have their attention. Mostly because of how rare it is, and you will be able to hold their attention because you are confident. But you have to use empathy to acknowledge that what you are doing is out of the norm, the affect that could have on someone (startle them, be awkward or random) and you have to acknowledge that the person you approached was up to something before you decided to interrupt them, showing you respect their time. Without that empathy/awareness you become the "aggressive" harasser people complain about, so pursuing is not the problem, lack of consideration is.
And attractive girls are not gonna be thristy, unless they are SLE XD.
Totally. But it’s not a sweet rush to your self-esteem like you would expect. It’s more an idea like “I can’t believe this interesting person can lack so gravely in this inconsequential aspect of life. LOL. I can fix that.” But maybe each person is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Pixel
I had an ENTp friend in college (whose type I figured out only recently and thanks to a couple of forum members). I don’t know if other types even pay attention to this, but I can tell when somone has gone home and is well-rested when I see them, there is a ‘passaggio’ from one state to the other. Well, a weekend would go by and when I met her the following Monday I swear she looked like she was still on a roll from the previous Friday. No transition at all, although it’s obvious she had slept and showered, etc. I felt the urge to rub her shoulders and make her ‘release’. Or comb her hair, which was a bird’s nest (but I refrained; I didn’t want to imply I thought there was something wrong with her). This could be Si caregiving.
BUT
On other aspects she was so much mature than I was. She could cook better than me, knew more pubs to hang out at, she could organize her schedule like a grown up… Because she was so efficient, a dynamic was established where she was the serious one and I made all the jokes that had her laughing for days. There was little goofiness in her I didn’t deliver any strong Si as it’s commonly understood and yet, there we were.
Do I need to remind you you are the guy who takes pics of himself showing the middle finger and uses them as profile pics?Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgunfingers
Si egos are immature shits. I am way more mature than my SLI bestie who happens to be older than me. Sweet rush my fucking self esteem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusal
A male seems to need a modicum of testosterone to have any kind of sexual drive. Male drive (not testosterone) seems to linked to possessive, controlling/manipulative behaviour - like animals. This may not translate to observable aggression so I'll wait for a study involving orders of magnitude more than 120 people. In order to get laid one has to push into a crowd or schmooze a straggler; it's certainly not lay on one's back passive action.Quote:
Originally Posted by nanashi
a.k.a. I/O
Uh.. I don't see the connection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Something
I meant that you're pathetic and nothing you can say to me is valid, coz you suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgunfingers
:red: y u hurt mah fefes Aaron? q_q ima go and cry in sbbds's tits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Something
Hmmmm, sbbbd's tits, hmhmmhmhQuote:
Originally Posted by shotgunfingers
it's not about aggressor vs. victim, in general now it's a good time for extroverted women and introverted men and also a bit of a bad time for introverted women (who are socially forced into more "aggressive career" roles) and extroverted males (who are supposed to spend more time at home, etc. etc.)
Never gonna happen.. ILI's get no titis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Something
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bf/2c...14bf32c655.gif
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0krhCNCx9w
Who says I even have titis
You can bruh, act victim-like and Se egos will want to huntQuote:
Originally Posted by shotgunfingers
Pics or it didn't happenQuote:
Originally Posted by sbbds
Exactly. It didn’t happenQuote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Something
This urge is much appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusal
Sex drive does not equal aggression nor manipulation nor controlling behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Correct. Behaviour does depend on how the urge is managed but barring self-preservation, the animal instinct does tend to tempt males to get it done by any means necessary. Because most males don't act upon it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by nanashi
a.k.a. I/O
Quote:
Originally Posted by nanashi
That study is problematic and they overreached with that conclusion. It was a zero stakes analytical activity (negotiating for free money). They should have stopped at "testosterone doesn't make you an unreasonable negotiator." It's reaching too far to say it has no link with aggressive behavior.
There was no provocation (no threat)
There were no women (no sex)
The situation of free money was "win/win" unless you're a total jackass (no competition)
The stakes were none, unless they were recruiting desperately poor people (no risk)
There was no audience of women or peers watching (no social status)
You would have to be some kind of sociopath to fuck up a situation where researchers present you with free money and all you have to do is negotiate for it. That's an analytical activity, not an aggression trigger.
That's not the biggest problem, which is they didn't take personality into account. Testosterone doesn't turn mousy men aggro, it primes men who are already aggro for more aggression.
The design of this study is more relevant to what that other study attempts to claim.
Exogenous Testosterone Rapidly Increases Aggressive Behavior in Dominant and Impulsive Men
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Impulsive_Men
Note I said design. Don't mistake me for taking testosterone as the end-all-be-all of aggression, I have issues with this study too. It's just that other study's methodology was socially retarded. While the data is factually correct, they fundamentally misinterpret the nature of aggression when they strip away risk, provocation, sex, competition, social status and personality. Only an economist would have the tunnel vision to think money is a comprehensive testing ground for aggression or that man is motivated by money to the exclusion of all else.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/helenth...riods-persist/
I imagine if I were to take testosterone I'd become more aggressive. That doesn't mean I would become violent btw.
I don't like being pursued & get turned off by it too. People find that strange usually when I tell them that. I'm like if someone approaches me right off the bat in that way, I feel like buying a ticket & hoping on a plane as far away from them as I can get. lol I don't know why I'm like that. Also, guys that don't get when your not interested & keep trying to message. Neediness is so not attractive, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbbds
I always say, if I'm interested in someone, they'll know. I'm extremely obvious. I've been just accepting being single now though, because mostly me trying to be the one to come on to men seems to scare them away instead. I feel like I've put myself in a no win situation.
I'll possibly be receptive to come ons from a guy friend once in a long while, but only if I already thought he was hot when I first met him but for some reason decided to befriend him instead of try and flirt with him at first.
Wouldn't always say that. I've spent a good amount of time chasing after a couple guys that I thought were less objectively attractive than myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Read fhe first word of my fuckin commentQuote:
Originally Posted by LMFAO
I'm unusual XDQuote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
platonically or romantically i'm only able to pursue the people i don't actually care about that much, but it's not rly fun and i usually have to pull back quickly or else i get this yucky feeling.
anyway, i like being the one pursued way more.