Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: Intertype relations & gender

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,617
    Mentioned
    261 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default Intertype relations & gender

    Does the gender of every intertype relationship matter in your experience, like on average do you get along better with female benefactors as opposed to male ones, or whatever. Is there something to this, other than a very generalized 'I don't get along with men because they are bully dicks' or 'I don't get along with women because they are repulsed by incel omegas like me.' I don't really mean sexual attraction or tension either, just a basic sense of compatibility and getting along..ness.

  2. #2
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,101
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sexual attraction is a much higher priority and does often override aspects of cognitive functioning; but gender and sexual orientation, by themselves, don't seem to affect interaction. Of course, social expectations and laws do stifle all kinds of interaction but this should be considered independent of inter-type relations. However, it can be rather difficult to distinguish one influence from another - thus obscuring the aspects that are type related.

    a.k.a. I/O

  3. #3
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    5,410
    Mentioned
    665 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is a very interesting question and touches on something that scares the hell out of me.

    In general, I think that gender does affect intertype relations, but only in a minor sense. Perhaps 10% is due to gender, and 90% is ITR. However, as @Rebelondeck pointed out, when sexual attraction is present, it tends to overwhelm other influences.

    In particular, I’ve been sexually attracted to types that are really incompatible with me. The incompatibility didn’t, unfortunately, stop me from having a relationship with them.

    The thing that scares me is the fact that, despite knowing a number of duals who are interesting and attractive, I don’t feel the “brakes off, full speed ahead” lust thing with them that I feel with some less suitable types. The duals I have met are warm, comfortable, and good companions, but are not objects of lust.
    I think that my problem stems from seeing my duals as “too human” to be objectified.

    This probably says a lot of bad things about me, but there you are.

  4. #4
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,101
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Adam Strange A limitation of Socionics and MBTI is what appears to be a sort of gender-attributed processing; perhaps the concept remains because there are male and female brain structures. However, Socionics needs to concentrate on the software kernel, not the brain; and there's much greater clarity when information processing has truly neutral definitions. Not being sexually attracted to one's dual could be a hint that all gender influences should be assessed as separate and distinct even though sexual orientation does influence overall behaviour.

    a.k.a. I/O

  5. #5
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    5,410
    Mentioned
    665 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Rebelondeck, I didn’t mean to imply that I’m not sexually attracted to my duals. I just haven’t met one yet that I’ve lusted for. Maybe this is a structural issue, or maybe it is an Imago issue, or maybe it is something that will be corrected with frequent sex. IDK.

    *EDIT*
    It occurs to me that one possible reason I haven’t lusted for ESI’s is that I haven’t met one who is Sx-first, and a big part of a Victim’s response is triggered by how much the Aggressor wants them. (Although frequent, drama-free sex tends to build, too.)
    The best sexual relationship I’ve had was with an Sx-first LSI. It had some serious issues, but lust was not one of them.
    Last edited by Adam Strange; 11-22-2018 at 03:14 PM.

  6. #6
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,848
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    These are all only IRL examples, because I think online interactions where there's a natural distance have a different dynamic.

    The approach SEE women take to befriend me tends to make me cautious and wary when it comes from a male, which means I've had lots of SEE women as friends, but tend to avoid the men. Te lead men seem a lot more humorous and less stuffy than Te lead women to me, and I usually like the men better. I find IEI men easier to make friends with than the women, but SEI women easier to befriend than the men. So yeah, gender makes a difference in how I've related to different types.

  7. #7
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the gender make people different even when they are the same type. They make other social circles, interest and such and identity. From a "love at first sight" I do not think type is that major...

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,325
    Mentioned
    932 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    IR are about close friendship abbility.
    People of the same sex have higher competing. They more seek for cooperation and lesser for soul friendship, compared than with people of other sex.

    IR effects mb inlfuenced by this difference.
    The examples.

    Negative influence of the same sex.
    Duals of the same sex are often perceived as lesser useful for cooperation (as they have other strong traits and other occupations, in general) and hence this may reduce positive effects of IR, at least on farther communication distances. While duals of other sex are perceived significantly more positively.

    The positive influence of the same sex.
    Neutral IR like identity with people of the same sex make people as more interesting than people of opposite sex having these IR, as they are good for cooperation. But for close friendship, for what the opposite sex is more interesting, these people are perceived as worse, they are some boring and not supportive.

    On practice this should lead that people have more pals of the same sex with identity IR and may to have better initial impressions then from such duals. Mb it's not rare even pals (should be lesser stable) of same club from opposite quadras, - they may appear based on cooperation needs, as those people have similar strong traits and perceive each other not badly for this, while better personal communication helps in cooperations.
    Also you may find marriage pairs created more by the thinking, than by feelings. What is close for cooperation situation and the similar with identity/mirror IR may happen. In such pairs people understand each other good from the beginning and do not see significant controversions, - they get problems of the lacking support later, when establish closer relations and depend more from each other.

    If people would deal with duals of the same sex in the similar occupations and saw those may solve the similar tasks good too - this sex factor in IR impressions possibly can be reduced. Not to nothing, as competing factor will stay anyway.

    This relates to normal ones, not to homosexuals which hypothetically may to have the difference.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  9. #9
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Interior of a T-34
    Posts
    2,434
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well luckily there is the internet which allows you interact with people anonymously first before learning their gender and being influenced by their physical appearance.

    In my experience type and overall personality matter way way more then gender in getting along with people. With physical attraction as part of the equation things get a lot more complicated, but I don't think gender without any of its sexual/romantic components makes much of a difference if at all in the quality of relationships.

  10. #10
    Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,440
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was thinking of something different but somehow vaguely related. Like how we seem to be a bit sexist in this forum, where if a woman is somewhat difficult to type immediately she is thrown into the F cluster, whereas a man presenting a similar difficulty in being typed is placed under the T cluster. / end rant
    "Inasmuch as it is nothing but pure communicability, every face, even the most noble and beautiful, is always suspended on the edge of an abyss"

  11. #11
    Ragdoll Lynx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    0-D ISTp sx/sp
    Posts
    2,662
    Mentioned
    319 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    This is a very interesting question and touches on something that scares the hell out of me.

    In general, I think that gender does affect intertype relations, but only in a minor sense. Perhaps 10% is due to gender, and 90% is ITR. However, as @Rebelondeck pointed out, when sexual attraction is present, it tends to overwhelm other influences.

    In particular, I’ve been sexually attracted to types that are really incompatible with me. The incompatibility didn’t, unfortunately, stop me from having a relationship with them.

    The thing that scares me is the fact that, despite knowing a number of duals who are interesting and attractive, I don’t feel the “brakes off, full speed ahead” lust thing with them that I feel with some less suitable types. The duals I have met are warm, comfortable, and good companions, but are not objects of lust.
    I think that my problem stems from seeing my duals as “too human” to be objectified.

    This probably says a lot of bad things about me, but there you are.
    You are literally saying that your sexual life is basically an objectification of individuals, which is a psychopathic trait by definition. I think you are not the only one doing this, its very extended and is partly society's fault. The way society use and show and sells sex is literally indoctrinating ppl to relate, think and feel about sex in a very specific way, which is basically a selfish way to obtain pleasure using someone else body as if it were just another object to use. Sex has been deprived from practically everything including responsibility and genuine feelings beyond mere lust (I don't care who you are, I'm just horny and if you are horny too let's just do it), reducing it at the most meaningless and superficial act, which actually affects the way individuals relate to each other massive scale, translating in individuals less emphatic with hard time for getting meaningful long term romantic relations. In other words, ppl doesnt know how to love neither how to establish romantic relations anymore because that's what society's promoting.

    Anyway, not picking on you, I just wanted to say this because I think this is a trend in society.
    Last edited by Ragdoll Lynx; 11-23-2018 at 02:28 AM.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    185
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was splitting a bitch of a Douglas Fir at a customers house the other night, took me about 3 hours to do these 2 cords which is unusual. After I was done the old lady came out and I went over to a couple blocks I couldn't do and started moving them towards the pile and she said don;t worry about it and I said its all good and she said men are so forgiving, they just carry the weight without complaint and I thought about it and she is right men's energy is like this. Made me think screw modern thinking and the entire racket going on out there.

    But ya I do get along better with female SLEs over the male one's because they have more of a empathetic framework. Lots of the other sociotypes its 50/50.

  13. #13
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,285
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOT View Post
    You are literally saying that your sexual life is basically an objectification of individuals, which is a psychopathic trait by definition. I think you are not the only one doing this, its very extended and is partly society's fault. The way society use and show and sells sex is literally indoctrinating ppl to relate, think and feel about sex in a very specific way, which is basically a selfish way to obtain pleasure using someone else body as if it were just another object to use. Sex has been deprived from practically everything including responsibility and genuine feelings beyond mere lust (I don't care who you are, I'm just horny and if you are horny too let's just do it), reducing it at the most meaningless and superficial act, which actually affects the way individuals relate to each other massive scale, translating in individuals less emphatic with hard time for getting meaningful long term romantic relations. In other words, ppl doesnt know how to love neither how to establish romantic relations anymore because that's what society's promoting.

    Anyway, not picking on you, I just wanted to say this because I think this is a trend in society.
    There's an infinite number of perspectives on what's right and wrong about sex. It depends on personal values and desires. Trying to impose your own perspective of "good sex" on others is the problem, if anything.

    P.S. Most psychologists are stupid. There is no such thing as psychopathy, and all humans are psychopaths. If you think there's a contradiction there, think again.

  14. #14
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,285
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    This is a very interesting question and touches on something that scares the hell out of me.

    In general, I think that gender does affect intertype relations, but only in a minor sense. Perhaps 10% is due to gender, and 90% is ITR. However, as @Rebelondeck pointed out, when sexual attraction is present, it tends to overwhelm other influences.

    In particular, I’ve been sexually attracted to types that are really incompatible with me. The incompatibility didn’t, unfortunately, stop me from having a relationship with them.

    The thing that scares me is the fact that, despite knowing a number of duals who are interesting and attractive, I don’t feel the “brakes off, full speed ahead” lust thing with them that I feel with some less suitable types. The duals I have met are warm, comfortable, and good companions, but are not objects of lust.
    I think that my problem stems from seeing my duals as “too human” to be objectified.

    This probably says a lot of bad things about me, but there you are.
    Nah. It doesn't say anything bad about you tbh. Some people need a certain mindset for sex. That's not wrong. I think Si types see Se types as sexually objectifying and somehow wrong. The danger lies in letting others tell you how you should be. Si types don't think that anyone would want to be treated as a sex object, but that's not true. I'm quite ok with being objectified myself in the sexual context. To me, it results in better sex. Maybe this doesn't have anything to do with Socionics, though.

    The best sex is when you can lose consciousness of yourself and not think at all. Categories like objectification or non-objectification cease to exist in that context.
    Last edited by Aramas; 11-23-2018 at 07:37 AM.

  15. #15
    Pano Lou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    A mystery
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @BOT I agree with you, in that a lot of people tend to see sexuality as part of their ego. "I can get laid" is a thing to boast about for a lot of people. But where I disagree with you, I think the media kind of exaggerates it to a great deal. Like, I don't believe people are having as much meaningless sex as the media tries to pretend they are. I don't think people have lost the ability to form long term relationships, rather, I think the media just brings out the part that people repress. My thoughts about this are incomplete tho... sometimes I wonder if people are just kinda rotten inside? I don't want to believe that tho.
    @Aramas I think a good question to ask is, "what even is sexual objectification?" The way I see it, sex is supposed to be fun for all parties involved, so I would *want* my partner to "use" my body to please himself. I don't like thinking too much during sex either. If I had to have deep powerful emotions every time I wanted to get it on with someone, then it wouldn't be worth it. There's certain things associated with Se that I dislike, like power dynamics (like BDSM type of stuff maybe). I'm not into that. I don't need to be in a "mindset" for sex either. I do need a partner who makes me feel warm and fuzzy. There is an emotional element to it, but it's more light hearted and fun. I view sex as exactly what it is, it's a biological process, like eating, sleeping or taking a dump, and it can contribute to emotion well being if engaged in a healthy way. So, in that sense, I don't mind being objectified. What I find attractive in a partner is probably very anti Se tho...

    Talking specifically about sexual interaction here. I noticed something kinda recently. The people I find attractive are almost always looking for a person like me. So maybe it's a socionics thing, but I'm not exclusively attracted to my duals and I'm not opposed to dating someone just because I didn't think they were my dual. But, I can't deny there's a specific type of person who's attracted to me. My conclusions are vague at best, I think, more than sociotypes I am interested in other specific factors. I'm not interested in delving too deep into the issue because that would just be unpleasant.

    As for non romantic relationships, gender doesn't really matter at all. I think I tend to treat both genders equally. But then again, I'm bisexual so maybe that makes a difference?
    "My love for Linton is like the foliage in the woods: time will change it, I'm well aware, as winter changes the trees. My love for Heathcliff resembles the eternal rocks beneath: a source of little visible delight, but necessary. Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind"



    "Catherine Earnshaw, may you not rest as long as I am living; you said I killed you—haunt me, then!... Be with me always—take any form—drive me mad! only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you!"




  16. #16
    Ragdoll Lynx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    0-D ISTp sx/sp
    Posts
    2,662
    Mentioned
    319 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Aramas you ignore psychology and concepts like psychopathy. I don't speak from my Si side, psychopaths objectify ppl by definition. Psychology is human knowledge and if you are against that, lol (btw Jung and socionics is psychology). I'm not saying Adam is a psychopath I'm saying society use and sells about this idea of sex simply because its tempting for ppl, but ppl lose substantial part of human relations in the process (and then they'd cry over their inability for getting a partner or would believe that duality is their magic solution) I don't think this has to do with Si or Se tbh, a Si valuer could objectify ppl as much as an Se, Se is not related to psychopathy or objectification of ppl in sex or any other area, that's wrong understanding. Now, the fact that some could enjoy objectifiying or being objectified is exactly why its done and approved in society. I',m not talking about ppl suffering in sexual acts, I'm talking about ppl being and having superficial and meaningless relations and the increasing inability to relate deeply. Mb you don't get it or know what I'm talking about, or you do, but are not interested in a different way of love and sex. Thats ok. @Pano Lou there are ppl who have a lot of sex and others who don't. Boasting or not was not my point (some boast, some maybe not) but the fact that media promotes superficial sex with random partners, then society accepting it as normal and good and then repeating it and loosing important things, just because looks easier and its told is ok to do that. I think ppl is loosing the ability to love, because they don't even know deep forms or love beyond mere sexual objectification and a superficial way of respect. The rates of divorce and the fact that ppl is more single today than ever before is a symphtom of what I'm referring too.
    Last edited by Ragdoll Lynx; 11-23-2018 at 01:29 PM.

  17. #17
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,886
    Mentioned
    753 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I get the impression that where @Aramas and @BOT are crossing wires is the difference between being objectified during the sexual act versus viewing relationships through the lens of other people's sexual usefulness. Maybe i'm wrong though, don't have time to think about it more atm

  18. #18
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,646
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I’m a person who gets along with men and women pretty equally, although I don’t really like hanging out with men aside from my partner regularly in IRL because of the sexual tension. I’m wary of getting closer to straight males or lesbian women.

    Anyway I don’t think there’s a massive difference in gender if there is any at all. The differences are more to do with the individuals and their NTR non gender related differences usually.

  19. #19
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,646
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I did think of one difference. With SEE women sometimes there’s an element of competition along with friendship, which isn’t there as much with the men. My best friend is an SEE, but then again some other SEE girls out there who I’ve met have been really bitchy, narcissistic and cold.

  20. #20
    Ragdoll Lynx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    0-D ISTp sx/sp
    Posts
    2,662
    Mentioned
    319 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, I also get along with both.
    But I notice is easier for me to relate with ESE, xII and SxE women, than with other female types.

    For males I can interact with most types, and it actually depends in each individual more than a type pattern. In general I've met guys with who I can be friends with, and totally awful usually immature dudes and some random sexual harassers, maybe its easier for me to communicate with T males in general, I find easier to be honest with men than females too regardless type.

    I think most females (including me) are more easily offended and take stuff at much more personal level than males. I suspect some males are very easily offended and take things also personally (for example IEEs), but, tbh, ime they tend to forget about it and keep going in relations. I think most males put personal nuances in second place which makes easier for me in regular basis to communicate with them without getting any unwanted reaction.

    Edit. And I just remembered that I had an IEE female friend at work once. It was easy to talk to her and she was unintentionally ridiculous and fun, more comfortable and less sexualized than with my SEE friend but equally funny.
    Last edited by Ragdoll Lynx; 11-23-2018 at 06:01 PM.

  21. #21
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,646
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think at the core what @Adam Strange touched upon is that it’s easier to sexualize something/people you don’t feel 100% familiarity/comfort with. It’s the same natural instinct that makes us usually avoid incest.

    I think this is a really important piece of information actually, wrt why dual romantic relationships don’t play out more often in reality.

  22. #22
    Ragdoll Lynx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    0-D ISTp sx/sp
    Posts
    2,662
    Mentioned
    319 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    I think at the core what @Adam Strange touched upon is that it’s easier to sexualize something/people you don’t feel 100% familiarity/comfort with. It’s the same natural instinct that makes us usually avoid incest.

    I think this is a really important piece of information actually, wrt why dual romantic relationships don’t play out more often in reality.
    Maybe (I mean who knows if he really meant what he wrote or something else). But I think its different to sexualize (which is to attribute sexual qualities) than objectify (treating a person as a commodity or an object without regard to their personality or dignity). So, he said he can just sexualize those ppl who he can objectify, which is an psychopathic behavior (not that he is a psychopath). I actually think its very in tune with ESI being their duals, because I think that's what duality is about, true love and not objectification. According ppl like Strat for example, she said each dual pair has their own behavioral methods and psychological resources to deal with each other, which means both are in equal conditions so relation is fair and therefore over time more harmonic.

  23. #23
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,389
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i like my women like my programming languages

    object-oriented
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  24. #24
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,646
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOT View Post
    Maybe (I mean who knows if he really meant what he wrote or something else). But I think its different to sexualize (which is to attribute sexual qualities) than objectify (treating a person as a commodity or an object without regard to their personality or dignity). So, he said he can just sexualize those ppl who he can objectify, which is an psychopathic behavior (not that he is a psychopath). I actually think its very in tune with ESI being their duals, because I think that's what duality is about, true love and not objectification. According ppl like Strat for example, she said each dual pair has their own behavioral methods and psychological resources to deal with each other, which means both are in equal conditions so relation is fair and therefore over time more harmonic.
    I made my post as a separate topic basically, unrelated to what you guys were talking about there. It was some realization I had.

    But ok. In a previous post you said you thought objectification was no more Se than Si. But here now you’re saying you think it could be linked to his and his duals’ types?

  25. #25
    Ragdoll Lynx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    0-D ISTp sx/sp
    Posts
    2,662
    Mentioned
    319 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    I made my post as a separate topic basically, unrelated to what you guys were talking about there. It was some realization I had.

    But ok. In a previous post you said you thought objectification was no more Se than Si. But here now you’re saying you think it could be linked to his and his duals’ types?
    An IEE could objectify some other type that is not SLI (if he's objectifying ppl for whatever reason I mean). An LIE could be sexually objectifying females of other types easily in regular basis but can't do the same with an ESI. Just to clarify. It's an hypothesis too.

  26. #26
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,646
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOT View Post
    An IEE could objectify some other type that is not SLI (if he's objectifying ppl for whatever reason I mean). An LIE could be sexually objectifying females of other types easily in regular basis but can't do the same with an ESI. Just to clarify. It's an hypothesis too.
    It’s hard for me to see the difference in sexualization and objectification here because of how the output of what you and I are saying is the same, if you know what I mean. In theory I get what you mean but in my mind as I imagine it in irl I imagine it as the same thing happening at the same time, like you did with the LIE example.

  27. #27
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,285
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOT View Post
    @Aramas you ignore psychology and concepts like psychopathy. I don't speak from my Si side, psychopaths objectify ppl by definition. Psychology is human knowledge and if you are against that, lol (btw Jung and socionics is psychology). I'm not saying Adam is a psychopath I'm saying society use and sells about this idea of sex simply because its tempting for ppl, but ppl lose substantial part of human relations in the process (and then they'd cry over their inability for getting a partner or would believe that duality is their magic solution) I don't think this has to do with Si or Se tbh, a Si valuer could objectify ppl as much as an Se, Se is not related to psychopathy or objectification of ppl in sex or any other area, that's wrong understanding. Now, the fact that some could enjoy objectifiying or being objectified is exactly why its done and approved in society. I',m not talking about ppl suffering in sexual acts, I'm talking about ppl being and having superficial and meaningless relations and the increasing inability to relate deeply. Mb you don't get it or know what I'm talking about, or you do, but are not interested in a different way of love and sex. Thats ok. @Pano Lou there are ppl who have a lot of sex and others who don't. Boasting or not was not my point (some boast, some maybe not) but the fact that media promotes superficial sex with random partners, then society accepting it as normal and good and then repeating it and loosing important things, just because looks easier and its told is ok to do that. I think ppl is loosing the ability to love, because they don't even know deep forms or love beyond mere sexual objectification and a superficial way of respect. The rates of divorce and the fact that ppl is more single today than ever before is a symphtom of what I'm referring too.
    I like psychology just fine -- just not the mainstream bullshit. For the most part, Jung gets treated as a historical landmark for most who work in that field these days. And Socionics and personality typology have bad reputations. Meanwhile, mainstream psych thinks their handbook of psychological disorder categories is somehow objective, even though people who work in mental health can't even agree on the diagnosis for a single person most of the time -- just like most cases of Socionics online.

    You're right that our present form of society, especially in the USA, commodifies and sells sex. It also commodifies and sells everything else. When money is king, everything is subjected to it. People are losing the ability to love. That's true. The reason why they are losing the ability to love is that living in societies like the US is putting more and more survival pressure on people. When people have to worry about survival, they tend to not care about anything other than satisfying basic instincts like getting food, clothing, shelter, and having sex. The way you phrase your posts just sounds biased from a sex-negative perspective in a way that's reactionary. The problem isn't the sex. It's the extreme pressure modern civilization places on each individual within it.

    People have been having random sex and orgies for eons. Ever heard of the god Pan? Crazy sex isn't the issue here, and neither is the focus on sex. If anything, it's the limitation of the desire to love and have relationships by a civilization that's based fundamentally on money and productivity to the exclusion of anything else. I know that's redundancy ad nauseum, but it's true. Get rid of that, and you'd still have objectifying sex, which isn't necessarily bad or wrong, but you'd also get the love you say is missing from modern life.

  28. #28
    Ragdoll Lynx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    0-D ISTp sx/sp
    Posts
    2,662
    Mentioned
    319 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Aramas The issue in modern society maybe is related to money, but its not just that, because as you said, it has been practiced before. On that days religion was the cause or mere fun. Its the same nowadays. When I use the word "sell" is not about just money, I mean society start "selling" or promoting if you like, certain ideas to ppl, like for example +partners=+sex and +sex=+fun/happiness but ppl are not just mammals, but a complex psyche with feelings and emotions and a lot of stuff that won't be just fine with sex or money. Young ppl can be fooled into that, older ppl often discovers that a dissolute style of living didn't make them happier, and sometimes they are just old, lonely and empty among other stuff, but they keep going with that style because they don't know anything else. Superficial stuff just sedate ppl and provides a quick sensation of comfort, doesnt work beyond that. Its the same with other sources of entertainment. Beyond that, maybe you are little bit more biased in your lectures about me or whatever ideas doesnt fit your primary understanding. I wasn't even saying sex is the problem, I like sex. The matter in fact was sexual objectification of ppl, you seem to missed the point and even think psychology is wrong because objectification is ok and is not psychopathic. Live like that then if you like it and think it will make you happy. It doesnt have anything to do with me, you are free.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,320
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's a tendency in modern society to overrate and oversell sex, because "sex sells". Sex is now just seen as a commodity that you can buy. Men can buy sex, and women can buy love. That's why porn and romance novels are so prevalent nowadays. So people are having sex with people that they aren't even attracted to for money, and people are selling ideal love that doesn't even exist for money. Everything is becoming more and more fake and unrealistic. There's now a talk of just moving everything into Virtual Reality so that people can experience ideal sex and ideal love any time they want. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm not really sure. But there's no doubt that this will continue to affect how we treat each other in real life. Men will increasingly start to see women as commodities, and women will continue to be let down and disappointed that their partners aren't ideal lovers.

    There's a tendency for men to see sex as love, and it's how they express love, although they can learn to show love in different ways. There are some men who may not even feel love, although I'm sure they're very rare. And yet men tend to separate sex from love, so there's a bit of a contradiction there. For many women, it seems that sex is something that comes after love, or they use sex as a way to get love. It doesn't mean that they can't enjoy sex or casual sex, but it seems that love usually takes precedent over sex.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,617
    Mentioned
    261 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Awe I was trying to steer everybody away from sex talk so of course that's what you guys would talk about the most!

    Sexual objectification really isn't the problem, it's people's two-faced and hypocritical natures about sex. All sex is an objectification. Sry But I just refuse to believe two people are so moral and pure with their sexual behavior that they are 100% With Jesus and only with the purpose of creating a life... I don't know maybe a few times in a lifetime people are that way, but most sex is lustful and sinful even in heteros. In some circles we are drenched with sex- in others, it's treated like taboo. For centuries people have criminalized sexual behaviors that are actually harmless and benign, out of fear/hatred and probably jealousy most of all. "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."

    To be fair though- the 70s/80s over-did this I guess and people got AIDS from too much buggering. =/ Still don't like making sex out to be The Bad Guy though. Oh you know what I say about the dosage dictating the poison...

    I do have empathy/support for sexual abuse victims and true cases of sexual abuse don't read this the wrong way but there is too much hysteria and panic. /jams Sex is not the enemy on full blast.

    I also don't understand chastising people for being 'superficial with sex.' Yeah that's a big reason of how it gets turned into a heartless commodity or whatever, but the natural desire to find objectively attractive people ... well, attractive, is deeply hard-wired into our DNA. The fantasies were already there, deeply in the mind- before society turned them into a superficial whore thing to be exploited. It's kinda like the end of that South Park episode, yes Wal-mart is white trash and shitty- but what about the Wal-Mart in me!!! Of course true love and deepness is more important, but are you really gonna tell me you'd lick the face of a woman (or man) with a bunch of ugly warts on them because you're not 'A superficial person?' Do most people want to fuck Channing Tatum's face or do they want to fuck Snoke's?

    He's so sweet, sexy and compassionate (type?):

    https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h...t-Jedi.jpg&f=1

  31. #31
    Xaiviay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    TIM
    SEI-Fe1 9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    468
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's funny that you mentioned the female vs male benefactors first thing, because that's one of the main areas I've found a gender difference. I'm sure this won't apply to all male EIIs, but the ones I've known have a tendency to try to correct my personal values according to what they think is right - they see themselves as some sort of spiritual guru. It just feels condescending to me. The female EII is just very kind and accepting, she's a huge sweetheart. She only wants to encourage and lift others up, rather than 'teach' them how to feel/think, and she's never once annoyed me in any way.

    And also I've noticed a major difference in how I get along with female Se-egos as opposed to male Se-egos. ime, the female Se types have a greater sensitivity to know when they're pushing too far, where the men are oblivious or don't even care. Also, there's just this simple reason: I'm probably not the kind of person most Se men would care to hang out with on a friend-basis. I don't enjoy competition, sports, most video games, etc 'just typical guy -things'. Usually when a Se-ego man tries to talk to me, it's because they think there's some sexual/romantic interest. I don't want that, so I keep them at a distance. Since we're not interested in the same things, we just don't hang out together.

    But with female Se-egos, I've had good friends of all 4 types, even if I still need frequent breaks from them to recharge and rest. It's always that way with them, they want to go at a faster pace than I can thoroughly enjoy, keeping me from relaxing, and it's actually stressful. But, we connect over feminine stuff. I actually start to feel the mirage compatibility with SLE women, their Ti is helpful and they let me be my Fe self haha.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •