INFps: can you see yourselves with an ESTp longterm?

[Blaze]

It's not that I get over her, it's that I don't want to have to deal with push-pull, mostly, so it's a conscious decision. I still think the girl is great and that I would date her immediatly if only she didn't do that.

Anyway - if the girl were to just say look, I only want to see you once a week blabla...sure i'd be pissed but it's understandable. However if you just disappear without saying anything - big no-no.

hmm would you say she's Ni-subtype? just asking cuz while I agree with you're right to be perturbed I also don't find her behaviour to be out of the ordinary (relative to my own at least lol), maybe it's even an example of a problem that Ni-Ti duality faces vs. the supposedly better Ni-Se and Fe-Ti versions... ?

Well, let me get it straight all:

we dated for 2 months. after 1 month she was saying how she loved me, and how i was the best date she's ever had since then. during the 2nd month everything proceeded well and there were no real "problems". then she went on a pre-planned vacation, and she stopped replying to smsss. Then after one month, she asked me out. Now I wouldn't have had a problem if the relationship was casual even at first, but IF you tell me you love me and all that stuf...I get attached. And if I get attached...it hurts a lot to become disattached without any explanation.

Also thereafter she got back with her boyfriend. However our attraction was way too strong, so at her birthday we ended up uh, having sex, after everybody had gone home. But at that point everything was already compromised. Now we hear about eachother on msn from time to time: the potential for a great relationship is clear, but i am not going to play games.

i have found the 2-3 months into a relationships there's usually drama or friction. i think she digs your ass fdg but can't extricate from the other guy. you're right to keep moving forward.

[thePirate]

theres hope, maybe due to naivete, but I honestly have no clue.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

thePirate,you're talking to dead people.

[thePirate]

lol their still around, plus I want updates

your ILI now? dangit.

[silverchris9]

ESTps can be very loyal. Depends on what their principles/aims are. If being morally whatever is one of their goals, they can be the most principled folks around.

However, besides that, my suggestion: have sex with a few SLEs, date around a bunch of people, while maintaining an intense but somewhat sexually charged friendship (maybe you did it once or twice, maybe you're each other's booty call, etc.) with one particular SLE (named Joanne) who you finally settle down with and marry when you're both in your mid-to-late thirties, saying, "come on, Joanne, we're both gonna get married some time, and I might as well marry you so I don't have to cheat on some poor other girl with you. Whaddya say?"

Then Joanne will say, "What are you talkin' about? Me? Married? You're kidding!" Then she'll give you a little shove, but you have to make sure that you subtly show her that you're upset by her rejection of you. Then you sort of distance yourself from her for a few weeks (or scenes), long enough for her to realize that she really needs you in her life, and then at a mutual friends' wedding (which you were going to go to together, because you're each other's go-to date for weddings), she'll see you and you'll kiss, and in some dramatic way, you'll confess that you're made for each other and go ahead and get engaged (maybe some sort of thing where she proposes to you, male-female role reversal, etc., etc.). Then you ride off into the sunset together after totally upstaging your mutual friend with your much more dramatic and exciting (and sexier, can't forget sexier) love story ('cause IEIs and SLEs are the most exciting and sexiest types).

[matilda]

If being morally whatever is one of their goals, they can be the most principled folks around.

but isn't that Fi?

[silverchris9]

but isn't that Fi?

Not necessarily. Same action, reframed via Se. If for some reason an SLE decides that one of his or her goals in life is to live up to a given moral code (or better yet, some sort of semi-mystic Ni ideal), she would presumably pursue that goal with the same ridiculous capacity for achievement with which she pursues everything. Functions generally have more to do with how someone does something than what they do.

You all make me laugh.

I bet you'll all end up with conflictors the way you go about this.

Are you trying to say that relationship plans based on Hollywood fantasies and Broadway musicals don't go over well in real life? Drat. I would still never end up with an LSE. They'd freak out over some unimportant practical detail, and I'd bolt for the door.

[discojoe]

infps: can you see yourselves with an ESTp longterm?

That's like asking if they can see themselves eating shit longterm.

[crazedrat]

I actually prefer that we don't formally commit at all, we just grow together until one day we look at eachother and realize we can't leave one another. It's like the commitment just forms on its own. No reason to try to pretend you have more love than you actually do.. formal commitment just seems like a fantasy people have about their relationships, but doesn't reflect the real status of the relationship. Anyway, you can always remain friends.

@pirate: you actually just have to rip through it in the end, but you've got to slowly learn that the only solution is to rip through it.

[redbaron]

I actually prefer that we don't formally commit at all, we just grow together until one day we look at eachother and realize we can't leave one another. It's like the commitment just forms on its own. No reason to try to pretend you have more love than you actually do.. formal commitment just seems like a fantasy people have about their relationships, but doesn't reflect the real status of the relationship. Anyway, you can always remain friends.

I love love love this philosophy! this is how it always should be.

[silverchris9]

I actually prefer that we don't formally commit at all, we just grow together until one day we look at eachother and realize we can't leave one another. It's like the commitment just forms on its own. No reason to try to pretend you have more love than you actually do.. formal commitment just seems like a fantasy people have about their relationships, but doesn't reflect the real status of the relationship. Anyway, you can always remain friends.

That's what I said about Joanne. Anyway, I agree.

I can totally see myself with an ESTp longterm. Why would you want someone who would be boring and predictable? I'd much rather be with someone I can't anticipate.

[JWC3]

idk If I could see myself with anyone long term... and that's kind of depressing.

"We are all alone, born alone, die alone, and — in spite of True Romance magazines — we shall all someday look back on our lives and see that, in spite of our company, we were alone the whole way. I do not say lonely — at least, not all the time — but essentially, and finally, alone. This is what makes your self-respect so important, and I don’t see how you can respect yourself if you must look in the hearts and minds of others for your happiness."
— Hunter S. Thompson (The Proud Highway: Saga of a Desperate Southern Gentleman, 1955-1967)

I've pretty much always had this kind of ideology.

Individualistic much?

I've always been more collectivist than what's, strictly speaking, normal for how individualistic America is.

[JWC3]

No, I'm a collectivist too. I'm just able to be comfortable & secure with myself.

I'm not entirely sure having a self concept that operates independently from other people is something worth the trade off of loneliness. Though I understand that you are most likely still happy, despite carrying a mindset that would most likely do the reverse for me so *shrugs* To each their own.

[crazedrat]

Thompsons quote is too nihilistic for me to take seriously. When you die, don't you want to be looking back on your life and remembering the good things you accomplished / times you had?

[Satan]

Thompsons quote is too nihilistic for me to take seriously. When you die, don't you want to be looking back on your life and remembering the good things you accomplished / times you had?

When you're dead, you're dead. You can't look back.

[JWC3]

Don't get me wrong, I love people & need them in my life, but I also need a break from them after a while. I feel more energized when I'm having space to myself. I also dislike the thought of having to depend on another person.

Maybe this just ties into the differences between introverts & extroverts.

Maybe the first part yes, but I also view dependence as weakness and therefore disdain it. Without people to bring the passion to my life, I just sorta exist. It's really uninspired.

[crazedrat]

I think a good core of individualism is important but a complete lack of dependence really indicates detachment which is a whole new problem.

[silverchris9]

"We are all alone, born alone, die alone, and — in spite of True Romance magazines — we shall all someday look back on our lives and see that, in spite of our company, we were alone the whole way. I do not say lonely — at least, not all the time — but essentially, and finally, alone. This is what makes your self-respect so important, and I don’t see how you can respect yourself if you must look in the hearts and minds of others for your happiness."
— Hunter S. Thompson (The Proud Highway: Saga of a Desperate Southern Gentleman, 1955-1967)

That's just giving up. Even if you never get another person to merge with you, or even if, like Walt Whitman, you have to touch yourself, your second self, you don't stop longing for another person to cut into your solitude. You have to give up on the solitude. You have to keep longing and striving for something beyond this horrific isolation we have within ourselves. Surely we can have one person, out of this whole terrible crowd, that we can trust with our innermost beings? It takes a special kind of intelligence to track another person through all their twists and changes and match them as they wind into life's curves, but it is possible, and it is powerful to believe in that possibility, if only because it dams up a lot of potential energy which can come flooding out at will.

[discojoe]

That's just giving up. Even if you never get another person to merge with you, or even if, like Walt Whitman, you have to touch yourself, your second self, you don't stop longing for another person to cut into your solitude. You have to give up on the solitude. You have to keep longing and striving for something beyond this horrific isolation we have within ourselves. Surely we can have one person, out of this whole terrible crowd, that we can trust with our innermost beings? It takes a special kind of intelligence to track another person through all their twists and changes and match them as they wind into life's curves, but it is possible, and it is powerful to believe in that possibility, if only because it dams up a lot of potential energy which can come flooding out at will.

Well said, gayboy.

[JWC3]

Well said, gayboy.

I agree with this also.

[silverchris9]

When that kind of longing happens you just find people to fulfill that need.

I guess I just think more like a cat. I also have a distaste for overly needy people.

I disdain most things I can't have. But there are some desires that I like to keep near the surface.

But yeah, I also am turned off by overly needy people, and I try to keep my personal needy-ness very private and individual. I've always been a cat person too. I hate dogs. Too needy, want to much attention, yuck. Cats are nice and will leave you alone if you want them to. But then at the same time, they inhabit your space, you know?

Well said, gayboy.

Thanks, dumbass.

[discojoe]

Yeah, same. Cat's come to you when they want affection, and they are picky with who they want it from & give it to. Too much neediness will send them away. They're independent creatures, though this doesn't distort the fact that they do enjoy your company & need you as a companion. And they can also feel neglected.

I had a cat that wanted constant attention.

[hardrunningrabbit]

You seem to post a lot here for someone who's cool been ms. lonestar.

[hardrunningrabbit]

Be more vague.

[Satan]

Yeah, same. Cat's come to you when they want affection, and they are picky with who they want it from & give it to. Too much neediness will send them away. They're independent creatures, though this doesn't distort the fact that they do enjoy your company & need you as a companion. And they can also feel neglected.

The problem with cats is that they're kind of useless, and they linger around. And they try to rub themselves up against you and ingraniate themselves. But they serve no useful purpose.

If they sense that you don't want them around then they'll keep more distance then when you're not paying attention they'll try and sneak into your space. If you don't pay them attention they'll start acting up to get attention. And they're kind of gross, and move against the flow of other people.

Dogs, will move when you move. And be still when you're still. Cats will move when you're still, and pause when you move. Then they'll try and counter your moves and blah blah. So reactive. So contrary.

That said, I've never had my own cat, nor my own dog. I've lived with cats and dogs a few times. And random cats, dogs etc. I often don't notice cats the first time I visit somewhere, but dogs will tend to come up to me. And if I'm around dogs too much they seem to follow me. And if I'm around cats too much they tend to avoid me.

ALTHOUGH, one thing I've noticed is that cats tend to like slower movements where dogs are fine when you move fast. Like if you move fast a dog will just kind of be around and active and so forth. Whereas a cat will watch from a distance and be "unsure" about being nearby. A dog might bark, and sometimes dogs will playfight with each other. But cats don't really fight they go at each other. Cats are a lot more violent. Dogs it's just a kind of loud sometimes etc. But it's more controlled. Whereas cats bite and scratch and so forth. So if you want a cat to come to you, you have to be quieter and slower and kind of let them come to you. And if you want a dog to come to you you just have to be there and just do things. Thing is if you do things with a cat around it may try and get in your way, or act haphazardly where dogs seem to be more aware of space and don't try and trip you up.

[Beautiful sky]

The problem with cats is that they're kind of useless, and they linger around. And they try to rub themselves up against you and ingraniate themselves. But they serve no useful purpose.

If they sense that you don't want them around then they'll keep more distance then when you're not paying attention they'll try and sneak into your space. If you don't pay them attention they'll start acting up to get attention. And they're kind of gross, and move against the flow of other people.

Dogs, will move when you move. And be still when you're still. Cats will move when you're still, and pause when you move. Then they'll try and counter your moves and blah blah. So reactive. So contrary.

That said, I've never had my own cat, nor my own dog. I've lived with cats and dogs a few times. And random cats, dogs etc. I often don't notice cats the first time I visit somewhere, but dogs will tend to come up to me. And if I'm around dogs too much they seem to follow me. And if I'm around cats too much they tend to avoid me.

ALTHOUGH, one thing I've noticed is that cats tend to like slower movements where dogs are fine when you move fast. Like if you move fast a dog will just kind of be around and active and so forth. Whereas a cat will watch from a distance and be "unsure" about being nearby. A dog might bark, and sometimes dogs will playfight with each other. But cats don't really fight they go at each other. Cats are a lot more violent. Dogs it's just a kind of loud sometimes etc. But it's more controlled. Whereas cats bite and scratch and so forth. So if you want a cat to come to you, you have to be quieter and slower and kind of let them come to you. And if you want a dog to come to you you just have to be there and just do things. Thing is if you do things with a cat around it may try and get in your way, or act haphazardly where dogs seem to be more aware of space and don't try and trip you up.

That's a lot of good Se perception.

[Ezra]

idk If I could see myself with anyone long term... and that's kind of depressing.

"We are all alone, born alone, die alone, and — in spite of True Romance magazines — we shall all someday look back on our lives and see that, in spite of our company, we were alone the whole way. I do not say lonely — at least, not all the time — but essentially, and finally, alone. This is what makes your self-respect so important, and I don’t see how you can respect yourself if you must look in the hearts and minds of others for your happiness."
— Hunter S. Thompson (The Proud Highway: Saga of a Desperate Southern Gentleman, 1955-1967)

I've pretty much always had this kind of ideology.

Very standard IEI thing. My girl thinks exactly the same way. She once quoted to me from the novel Fight Club: "It's easy to cry when you realize everyone you love will reject you or die".

Personally I find it extremely depressing. I can't believe you lot even like thinking like that. And it doesn't exactly make me want to commit to someone I feel like is going to fuck off after a while.

[discojoe]

Very standard IEI thing. My girl thinks exactly the same way. She once quoted to me from the novel Fight Club: "It's easy to cry when you realize everyone you love will reject you or die".

Personally I find it extremely depressing. I can't believe you lot even like thinking like that. And it doesn't exactly make me want to commit to someone I feel like is going to fuck off after a while.

There's a special tool for when INFps start talking nonsense.

[redbaron]

The SLEs I know are very committed to their long-term relationships IF they love and are IN LOVE with that person. (and heck, even when they're not, they try hard to make it work and are extremely loyal)

this thread is old. blah blah blah

[redbaron]

ANYWAY. My general view is that nothing is forever. Maybe I've always viewed relationships this way because a good deal of married people I know have divorced, including my parents. Who knows.

interesting. you know, that may actually be a pretty healthy view. I have a friend who was divorced and is now swearing off marriage--she's been living with her boyfriend for 2 or 3 years now and says that it's better that way because they make a more conscious choice to be together knowing that either of them could walk away at any time. Kind of irrational I guess, but I like it.

[ClaudiaM]

I'm probably more of a commitment-phobe than most SLE's. -_- I don't know why it creeps me out. This probably isn't type related.

Fortunately, SLE's view this as a challenge; or so it seems.

The SLEs I know are very committed to their long-term relationships IF they love and are IN LOVE with that person. (and heck, even when they're not, they try hard to make it work and are extremely loyal)

SLEs are surprisingly non-whoreish! Even if it initially seems that they will fuck anything that moves...

Yes, I agree they often are susprisingly non-whoreish. I know a couple of SLEs who, though they clearly enjoy the chase and like knowing (er, believing?) they *could* sleep with whomever they want, won't get with just anyone. These two are both late-twenties now and seem to have grown out of their youthful playa days. Mostly

When it comes to love, *real* love, they do take it very seriously.

[rat1]

INFps are really picky so never end up with anyone.. SLEs sleep with everyone but are picky at the same time, so they end up leaving them. It really isn't that different. Actually INFps will act the same way if they find themselves in a relationship they don't want to be in.. just leave without much warning. I left a girl like that, I had told her I loved her pretty freely like 2 weeks prior. Meh my emotions changed, but she was really appalled at how I could say those things to her and then change my mind so fast.

[silke]

30s is the decade when they get serious, 40s is when that playa attitude returns back

[redbaron]

30s is the decade when they get serious, 40s is when that playa attitude returns back

no.

[silke]

30s is the decade when they get serious, 40s is when that playa attitude returns back

no.

then it's must have been the 2 older SLEs that I've met, they are not immune to having mid-life crises

[redbaron]

no.

then it's must have been the 2 older SLEs that I've met, they are not immune to having mid-life crises

certainly they're not immune to it! but they're not more likely than other types. In fact, I know a couple of 40+ ones who were actually cheated on by their wives, not vice versa. And now that they're divorced, they're pretty picky about who they date and not whorish in the least. Maybe promiscuity isn't type related.

[rat1]

And take xanax and jello shots

[Aleksei]

I'm probably more of a commitment-phobe than most SLE's. -_- I don't know why it creeps me out. This probably isn't type related.

Fortunately, SLE's view this as a challenge; or so it seems.

The SLEs I know are very committed to their long-term relationships IF they love and are IN LOVE with that person. (and heck, even when they're not, they try hard to make it work and are extremely loyal)

SLEs are surprisingly non-whoreish! Even if it initially seems that they will fuck anything that moves...

SLEs are not whorish -- that's a theme more related to a gluttony and thirst for experience typical of / valuing types. SLEs can be whorish of course (Se-egos, being Si-id, are more susceptible to falling victim to it, and they may connect sexuality to domination -- to the thrill of the chase), but the general rule is no. Female Beta STs, particularly, I've found to be fairly prudish.

Likewise, commitment-phobia, to the extent that it is type-related (I actually think it fairly is), is a mark against (rather than for) valuing. Ni-egos particularly are very clingy romantic partners, being as their romantic attachment is tied to a great awesome glorious vision of they and their partner being together 4 evar and evar and evar and live happily ever after and stuff. The paranoia of the Victim romantic style is actually about insecurity of the other person not being committed, as opposed to their own commitment (related to their instincts toward long-term perspectives, as it entails a fear that it might not work out in the long term -- implying a desire for it to).

types, on the other hand, being fundamentally inclined to be open to possibilities, detest commitments of any sort -- romantic or otherwise.

[thePirate]

SLEs are surprisingly non-whoreish! Even if it initially seems that they will fuck anything that moves...

SLEs are not whorish -- that's a theme more related to a gluttony and thirst for experience typical of / valuing types.

so it's atypical for se base types to have a thirst for experience? you have got to be kidding me; you are referring to enneagram 7s here in which sle's fall under.

[redbaron]

SLEs are not whorish -- that's a theme more related to a gluttony and thirst for experience typical of / valuing types.

so it's atypical for se base types to have a thirst for experience? you have got to be kidding me; you are referring to enneagram 7s here in which sle's fall under.

no certainly it's not atypical for SLE to have a thirst for experience. I know an SLE 7w8 who is ALL about experience. But he keeps his dick in his pants.

GEESH. There are such things as standards, people.