fellow female INTPs views on casual sex?

[la_micha]

Hello everyone:

I´ve been wondering about this lately, since my best male friend proposed me to hook up with him after having a few beers .

I refused because I´ve only had sex when in love with the other person and I´m not there with him even though i find him attractive... also he is an INFJ so i was surprised because they are supposed to be highly idealistic when it comes to sex too...

so that got me curious about how other female INTPs feel about casual sex, and sex in general

 

[Minuend]

Casual sex is good stuff. Not all within same type is the same.

 

[MsAnthropy_Indefatigably]

Funny you should mention this. I am an INTP female and I recently began dating again. I met a guy who is INFJ and I feel like we connect so well. I even read somewhere that the compatibility between an INTP and INFJ is "ideal". I'm not considering a casual sex scenario with him at this time, but I imagine if we continued to get along I could really learn to care about him and I would want more. I'm very indifferent when it comes to "loving someone" so it's hard for me to see why I should have to and I would almost prefer a FWB (Friends With Benefits) deal, but I wouldn't do it with someone you care about because it'll just make things worse. I mean, resentments could develop, etc. If he was someone you didn't really have a solid relationship with (friend or otherwise) I would say go for it. Otherwise, I would say no, Especially if you are someone who tends to fall in love easily or something.

 

[la_micha]

MsAnthropy_Indefatigably you are so right, the connection between INTP and INFJ is great, he and i have been friends for almost 13 years, and we never run out of things to talk about...

the FWB thing sounds fine, but i think i could only do it with a recent relationship, not an old friendship...

that being said,after his proposal i realized that i really like him in a "i could see myself dating him" way, so actually thats my biggest fear in this, that i might fall hard for him if we have sex, and he most probably wouldn´t reciprocate (he is in his late twenties and has never had a serious relationship).

that is the part i like the least about being an intp it takes me AGES to notice/understand my own feelings x.x

 

[snafupants]

Hello everyone:

I´ve been wondering about this lately, since my best male friend proposed me to hook up with him after having a few beers .

I refused because I´ve only had sex when in love with the other person and I´m not there with him even though i find him attractive... also he is an INFJ so i was surprised because they are supposed to be highly idealistic when it comes to sex too...

so that got me curious about how other female INTPs feel about casual sex, and sex in general

Casual sex is like fetching a hot dog from a New York Street vendor: a dicey proposition: it could be delicious or it could prove quite nauseating. I say just go with the flow, and do whatever you feel like doing.

Folks typically identify too much with their sexuality. Americans are weird about sex. Just look at cinema and ratings: you can drop expletives like they're going out of style and manically Thompson submachine gun someone into the bathtub after doing a titanic line of blow, but so much as provide Ebert and Roeper an over-prurient shower scene a la Porky's and your movie's picketed. All of our contestants today will receive prizes, thanks for playing.

You can have great love without sex, and great sex without love. Why folks insist on conflating those two things I'll never quite comprehend.

 

[scorpiomover]

Casual sex is like fetching a hot dog from a New York Street vendor: a dicey proposition: it could be delicious or it could prove quite nauseating. I say just go with the flow, and do whatever you feel like doing.

Folks typically identify too much with their sexuality. Americans are weird about sex. Just look at cinema and ratings: you can drop expletives like they're going out of style and manically Thompson submachine gun someone into the bathtub after doing a titanic line of blow, but so much as provide Ebert and Roeper an over-prurient shower scene a la Porky's and your movie's picketed. All of our contestants today will receive prizes, thanks for playing.

Americans are quite ironic. When American comediennes discuss the issue of casual sex, it's quite clear that casual sex is something that Americas do on a very regular basis. However, their attitude to sex, is akin to what Quentin Wilson said about his homosexuality. His parents always knew he was gay. They just didn't want to hear him say it.

You can have great love without sex, and great sex without love. Why folks insist on conflating those two things I'll never quite comprehend.

In the UK, this is called the Sexualisation, or Over-Sexualisation, of Society.

Sex therapists developed a theory about why many people get obsessed with sex, to the detriment of their relationships. They called it a "Fear of Intimacy".

Many people today are afraid of love. When you fall in love with someone, and the other person doesn't return your feelings, it hurts a LOT. When you are in love with someone, and they fall out of love with you, it hurts a LOT. When you have sex without love, quite often, one or the other ends up developing feelings, and the other person doesn't, and then you have the same, one person in love, and the other not returning their feelings. It hurts a LOT.

Today, people are so afraid of getting hurt, that we protect ourselves with our technology, so that we never have to feel the pain. It's easy to do this with physical pain. But the pain of emotional longing, is something that is more to do with how we conduct ourselves with others. To avoid pain there, requires us to use self-control, to hold ourselves back from the situations where we or others may get hurt. But to control our emotions, also means we have emotions and drives that we do not act on, and again, we get hurt.

Either way, life occasionally leads to pain. We are so afraid of getting hurt, that we refuse to acknowledge love without the official status of a relationship that sex implies, and refuse to acknowledge sex without the safety of love that our feelings provide.

Either way, we are afraid of getting hurt. We fear pain, at our peril, for all it does, is to bring us closer and closer to the pain that we so fear.

There is nothing to fear, but fear itself.

 

[GYX_Kid]

Americans are weird about sex.

I've never naturally agreed with the society around me on sex, in fact I think I've been quite at odds in terms of being conservative in ways it tends to be liberal; liberal in ways it tends to be conservative, etc.

I don't even fully know what I'm saying here, but the point is that if you are an INTP then it's probably not in your immediate nature to "conform" to something like this, especially something loaded with stigma of intimacy and emotion etc. I've probably naturally been somewhat like the alleged INFJ idealist with this, but then INTP and not having emotions surface often/not really understanding emotions (an extra hurdle to deal with.)

So there's definitely cognitive dissonance in having to manage sexual desires, society's particular way of organized chaos (or chaotic organization), trying to figure out how I actually feel about both of these and then trying to formulate where would be good to stand on it... it's all kind of frustrating since I'm an attractive male who most people would say is wasting opportunities. I tend to have conflicting inner extremes of hypersexuality and asexuality, and then a kind of perfectionism always fundamentally at odds against a society built upon quick concrete decisions and people who just want "love" and tend not to really give a shit. But then I don't know whether I actually give a shit or not, either; or what my views of "what should be" matter, or anything. I dunno, cracking the code of intimacy seems like a sadomasochistic struggle, that will only get worse the longer you put off jumping into the kraken's mouth.

(Not female INTP, male semi-schizoid)

 

[Dapper Dan]

Americans are quite ironic. When American comediennes discuss the issue of casual sex, it's quite clear that casual sex is something that Americas do on a very regular basis.

I'm not so sure about that. Comedians talk about it for the shock laughs. I don't think it's something most Americans actively participate in.

 

[lucky12]

I tend to have conflicting inner extremes of hypersexuality and asexuality, and then a kind of perfectionism always fundamentally at odds against a society built upon quick concrete decisions and people who just want "love" and tend not to really give a shit. But then I don't know whether I actually give a shit or not, either; or what my views of "what should be" matter, or anything.

I'm there right now.

In my past sleepovers I was really just looking for sex when the other person had strong feelings for me. These people never even knew one thing about me, and they get upset after. I have a reputation which I don't understand.

The girls will jump on me one night like the world is going to end, never before have we been intimate or even talked about a relationship. Next day it's like an emotional roller coaster for them, they can't comprehend it. Usually they lay awake staring at me, when I wake up and see I just know the look now.

My experience isn't much, i'd say ten girls. Not one of those ten was able to be casual about anything though. I tried to date one because I actually liked her, fell in love with her because I thought she understood me. After 3 months she told me about all the times I had failed her and all these... Expectations...

Another one is actually dating a friend of mine, we hooked up well before that started. This one turned out normal for awhile, they started dating and it seemed like she didn't care and neither did I. A few months ago they took a "break", me and her crossed paths one night. I was drunk, on a bus packed where I couldn't move my arms, beside friends. She started to touch me and I ignored it, she did it again and I moved. She followed me, did it again. I disappeared. After that she ended up getting really emotional apparently.

The purpose of that long story is that later on in the relationship it held open a door I never wanted to see. They're back together now and it's extremely complicated, I can't say anything because someone will blow my head off.

If your looking for casual sex, go for complete strangers. A few years older/younger and a few kilometers away. It would be nice if I could just show up, have sex, and leave. No goodbyes, just see you next time. That's rare.

 

[GYX_Kid]

I'm there right now.

In my past sleepovers I was really just looking for sex when the other person had strong feelings for me. These people never even knew one thing about me, and they get upset after. I have a reputation which I don't understand.

Are you saying that they had strong feelings for "you" which in your mind they didn't know anything about?

Meh, all peoples' opinions of each other are merely projections of imagined bullshit that we (think we) see in others. People also manifest identities out of artificial concepts.

 

[Jennywocky]

Can't speak for other INTP women, but I have mixed minds on it.

To me, on one hand, sex is sex -- I don't think it needs to be a taboo topic like it typically is. Premarital sex? Not a biggie for me, as long as people are being responsible. I approach sex, well, logically, without a lot of the social baggage and rules. I'm also very committed to my relationships, in terms of being monogamous.

However, for me personally, while I have no moral issues with screwing around, emotionally I think I'm more protective of myself and really don't have a lot of fun just screwing someone in order to screw. I'm looking for something deeper and want a connection with the person I'm with, just like eating just to eat bores me. So I really haven't had many sexual partners at all, nor will have many, even if I haven't put a lot of external restrictions on my sex life.

I'm not so sure about that. Comedians talk about it for the shock laughs. I don't think it's something most Americans actively participate in.

I think we (Americans) are a lot more ambivalent about casual sex than we pretend to be. We've definitely got more hangups than other countries about it. In our entertainment arena, we saturate ourselves in it; but when push comes to shove, I think we're terrified of it.... just like we seem to be about death. That underlying "judeo-christian" thing has definitely resulted in a lot of guilt/taboo-style behavior where we seem bent on restricting it at all costs and failing miserably, rather than just accepting it and giving it healthy expression.

I don't even fully know what I'm saying here, but the point is that if you are an INTP then it's probably not in your immediate nature to "conform" to something like this, especially something loaded with stigma of intimacy and emotion etc.

Growing up in evangelical territory, for a long time, I struggled with what my culture kept trying to imprint on me vs how I actually felt about it, until finally I reached a point where I just accepted I didn't feel the same as many other people around me who (in my view) were too scared of sex and too restrictive, to the point of inhibiting their own happiness and following a bunch of needless rules.

Basically, one could expect INTPs to have "logical" assessments of sex and how it should be handled, without trying to impose moral values on it. Basically, my view of sex is really what makes the most "logical sense" to me in terms of giving people freedom but paying attention to our own situations and emotional responses and physical well-being.

 

[lucky12]

I wouldn't say strong feelings, just expectations

 

[Lot]

INTP's have sex? Why didn't I get the memo?

 

[scorpiomover]

I think we (Americans) are a lot more ambivalent about casual sex than we pretend to be. We've definitely got more hangups than other countries about it. In our entertainment arena, we saturate ourselves in it; but when push comes to shove, I think we're terrified of it.... just like we seem to be about death.

I grew up knowing I had weird attitudes to sex. I'm fine with others having at as much as they want. But I'm terrified of it as well. Not like the other Brits here at all, in that regard.

That underlying "judeo-christian" thing has definitely resulted in a lot of guilt/taboo-style behavior where we seem bent on restricting it at all costs and failing miserably, rather than just accepting it and giving it healthy expression.

I know this is the usual thing everyone's been told. But this doesn't quite make sense to me.

The other Jews in the area behave and talk as if they have a much healthier attitude to sex, and they are much more traditionally Jewish than I am. I tried to put it down to the fact that my mother went to school at a convent, and their parents had a more normal Jewish upbringing. But Catholics screw around like crazy. I'm not like that at all. I could put it down to my father being Moroccan. But I've met the Muslims in Morocca, and lots of other Jews from Muslim countries. They're pretty comfortable with sex as well.

I based my view of religion on my intellect. If it was the Judeo-Xian thing, then I should have much more healthy attitudes to sex, than everyone around me. But it's the reverse.

Ti says: this don't make sense.

Basically, one could expect INTPs to have "logical" assessments of sex and how it should be handled, without trying to impose moral values on it. Basically, my view of sex is really what makes the most "logical sense" to me in terms of giving people freedom but paying attention to our own situations and emotional responses and physical well-being.

About the main difference between most people and me, is that I want to repress my emotions, and just act like a purely intellectual organic computer. I set reason up as my standard. Trouble is, that doesn't jive with my biological drives and my emotions. My fear of my emotions and my drives overwhelming my intellect, and making me do stupid things, is what puts me off it.

 

[Jennywocky]

I know this is the usual thing everyone's been told. But this doesn't quite make sense to me.

The other Jews in the area behave and talk as if they have a much healthier attitude to sex, and they are much more traditionally Jewish than I am. I tried to put it down to the fact that my mother went to school at a convent, and their parents had a more normal Jewish upbringing. But Catholics screw around like crazy. I'm not like that at all. I could put it down to my father being Moroccan. But I've met the Muslims in Morocca, and lots of other Jews from Muslim countries. They're pretty comfortable with sex as well.

I based my view of religion on my intellect. If it was the Judeo-Xian thing, then I should have much more healthy attitudes to sex, than everyone around me. But it's the reverse.

I didn't say Jewish, I said Judeo-Christian. Maybe I should be even more specific and say, "American Conservative Protestant." The more literally one takes the Bible, the more that regulation of behavior seems to occur.

Any religion that tries to overregulate natural desires and assign guilt complexes to them is going to screw people up. Catholics seem to have a more liberal contingent than Protestants (currently, you even have a Pope who is so conservative that many US Catholics dismiss his stance on various issues and they just do their own thing; I also remember from college, it was common for Catholics to attend mass on Sundays after getting hammered the night before, whereas church-attending conservative Protestants tended to be more serious about regulating their behavior throughout the week)... the denominations that were more "liberal" diminished greatly in number over the last 50 years, it's the Baptists and evangelicals and pentecostal styles of Christian protestantism that really seem to be thriving in the USA.

About the main difference between most people and me, is that I want to repress my emotions, and just act like a purely intellectual organic computer. I set reason up as my standard. Trouble is, that doesn't jive with my biological drives and my emotions. My fear of my emotions and my drives overwhelming my intellect, and making me do stupid things, is what puts me off it.

Again, note what I said above about religions that try to overregulate. From what you've said, apparently you don't need religion for that, as your strong sense of reason is trying to repress your human side because you don't trust emotions and spontaneous organic behaviors. At some point, to change, you'd have to accept that being human means incorporating those emotions as part of you rather than something outside of you, and learning when you can rely on them and in what ways....

 

[scorpiomover]

I didn't say Jewish, I said Judeo-Christian.

I really didn't get that. What I always took from "Judeo-Xian", was that it was in the character of both.

Do you have a different understanding of the phrase "Judeo-Xian"? If so, then what is it?

Do MOST PEOPLE have a different understanding of the phrase "Judeo-Xian"? If so, then what is it?

Maybe I should be even more specific and say, "American Conservative Protestant." The more literally one takes the Bible, the more that regulation of behavior seems to occur.

Jews don't take the Bible that literally. But we have millions of regulations, on just about everything.

Any religion that tries to overregulate natural desires and assign guilt complexes to them is going to screw people up.

Well, in the Talmud, there is a rule, that the Rabbis cannot pass a law that most people won't be able to stand. So over-regulation is a no-no for us.

However, I am not so sure that the matter is about over-regulation in religions in America. I've been following the Culture Wars in America for a number of years now. In the process, I've also looked into its history, and how the conflict developed. From what I saw of American history, I'd say that it was an evolutionary inevitability. In other words, I think that it was bound to happen, due to the way America evolved over its history.

Religious anti-evolutionary movements seemed to have gained publicity in the 20s with the Scopes Trial, the 60s with the publication of "The Genesis Flood", and the 80s with the Intelligent Design movement. All 3 were attempts to over-regulate education. Yet when the theory came out, it was sold out 3 times, in the first 12 months. So it seems to me that Americans were OK with the theory, So it seems to me, that all 3 were responses to something else, other than threatening science. All 3 were in decades renowned for their hedonism, the Roaring Twenties, the Swinging Sixties, and of course, the 80s "Me" generation. The pattern suggests that it was a response to a very large dive into hedonism, and that it was Conservative, traditional people, who felt that their own country was under attack.

So I think that over-regulation in religion is not a cause, but a symptom of what is going on.

Again, note what I said above about religions that try to overregulate. From what you've said, apparently you don't need religion for that,

I prefer regulation. I seek out the rules to give my feelings of chaos an order to cling to.

as your strong sense of reason is trying to repress your human side because you don't trust emotions and spontaneous organic behaviors.

My human side, fears my inhuman side.

At some point, to change, you'd have to accept that being human means incorporating those emotions as part of you rather than something outside of you, and learning when you can rely on them and in what ways....

Already in the process. I think I have to learn to like the robot in me.

 

[Katie]

Well I'm an intj, practicly intx! But I think it's perfectly fine as long as its not dangerous, or out of compliance with you're personal dogma.
Concider any relationships you care about that it may possibly affect, beforehand.

 

[Jennywocky]

So it seems to me that Americans were OK with the theory,

I think things were different at that time period. (At the time also, note that archaeology supposedly supported the Bible narrative. Many involved in the beginning of the Age of Reason at least were deists and studied the universe because they thought a god of order would leave trails and signs for them to understand everything by.)

Now there seems to be a big disconnect in general between the scientific community and the mainstream population, especially in the conservatve religious communities that try to make evolution sound like a hack job where it's anything but. We also have a country where about 80-90% of people believe in God, and an atheist would have trouble / almost no chance of being elected to public office.

So it seems to me, that all 3 were responses to something else, other than threatening science. All 3 were in decades renowned for their hedonism, the Roaring Twenties, the Swinging Sixties, and of course, the 80s "Me" generation. The pattern suggests that it was a response to a very large dive into hedonism, and that it was Conservative, traditional people, who felt that their own country was under attack.

So I think that over-regulation in religion is not a cause, but a symptom of what is going on.

What you describe is also part of the problem (and I've made the same case here, in other threads... it's the pendulum effect -- they feel threatened by the swing into excess and away from their moral values, so there's a hardline reaction to bring things back in their direction). It's why the Tea Party got so much clout recently, and why Rick Santorum is actually making a splash dring the current Republican primaries.

At some point however, the overregulation becomes part of the religion, if the faith is built on setting oneself apart from a world with a different moral base.

 

[Nibbler]

I'm more into the connection not the casual stuff. I don't have any "moral" judgements on casual sex, but it just doesn't fit my own needs.

I look for mutual trust, want my loyalty accepted and valued as I will do in return.

To be clear though, I do have a healthy libido. But I'd much rather do without than to have something I don't respect for myself. Same goes for relationships. I'd rather be alone (and even endure loneliness) than one of those people in unhappy (soul sucking!) relationships because they feared being by themselves.

 

[ObliviousGenius]

Aww well this is a let-down. I guess I can abandon the thought of ever hooking up with an INTP girl without the prospect of a relationship.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Be safe, be clean, be ethical.

Otherwise have fun.

 

[Code_Name_Ozz]

I've been to other countries, and by far Americans are the most peculiar when it comes to casual sex. Actually, it's with sex in general. They poke and prod at it like it's a dead frog in biology class. Americans treat sex like it's some sort of scientific formaula and if the formula isn't followed step-by-step, then the whole thing is ruined. It's as if they need/want written instructions to make everything happen. I think this stems from watching too many sitcoms like Friends and Sienfeld.

 

[kora]

I have no taboo with it, I'm very open minded technically I'm even bi-sexual in my actual attractions, but for some reason I always block when the situation actually presents itself...I think it's lack of confidence or self-protection I'm not sure.

 

[kora]

actually no, scrap that, if the person seduces right then I'm all for it it's all a question of feeling

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

Any religion that tries to overregulate natural desires and assign guilt complexes to them is going to screw people up. Catholics seem to have a more liberal contingent than Protestants (currently, you even have a Pope who is so conservative that many US Catholics dismiss his stance on various issues and they just do their own thing; I also remember from college, it was common for Catholics to attend mass on Sundays after getting hammered the night before, whereas church-attending conservative Protestants tended to be more serious about regulating their behavior throughout the week)... the denominations that were more "liberal" diminished greatly in number over the last 50 years, it's the Baptists and evangelicals and pentecostal styles of Christian protestantism that really seem to be thriving in the USA.

While I don't disagree with this, I believe we tend to lay too much blame at the feet of religion, particularly when it comes to notions of "repression."

Historically, there have been some excellent reasons for supressing natural urges. When birth control was not as reliable and ubiquitous, and most sexually transmitted diseases would kill you, there was a lot to be said for keeping it in your toga. Making certain prohibitions a religious doctrine simply bolstered what was socially practical. Perhaps this is because it is not motivating enough to tell people it's a good thing to curtail unwanted pregnancies and the clap. But if you tell them a big scary man in the sky will cast them into everlasting hellfire, then it becomes a priority.

However, there are plenty of examples where--to paraphrase Emerson--foolish consistencies have hung around to become hobgoblins. Religion tends to institutionalize them, but can we really say it is the sole culprit (or if you prefer, the soul culprit)? How about government, or simply community? Shirley Jackson's The Lottery comes to mind.

Anyhoo... I know the OP question is meant for females, but I tend to be more casual with S type women, because I know I don't want to end up in a relationship with them. That sounds illogical, or at least paradoxical, I know. If I know a girl is an N, and I haven't already precluded her from the possibility of a long term relationship, then I take intimate acts much more slowly and seriously--even putting them off for a bit. I want it to be special with them.

 

[Pizzabeak]

INTP's have sex? Why didn't I get the memo?

Spoiler

 

[WhatTheFunction]

I've skimmed a couple of responses but I'm generally just sticking to the OP:

I don't think there's anything wrong with casual sex and I participate in it from time to time. The only issue I have with it is that it isn't really THAT satisfying. Generally, I don't like the stigmas placed on it and especially loathe the stigmas placed on women who participate in it. I say, if you want sex, go out and get it. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Bunny]

Casual sex is generally my preferred method. I don't care for any of that feelings stuff.

 

[scorpiomover]

I think things were different at that time period.

It's only 150 years ago. People aren't really THAT different.

(At the time also, note that archaeology supposedly supported the Bible narrative.

Archaeology today doesn't disprove the Bible, from a solid basis. Most of the archaeological theories around today, are conjecture, usually based on very little evidence, primarily because as things get older, more and more evidence gets rubbed out. Blame the Second Law of Thermodynamics for that one. It's really hard to find a SOLID archaeological theory. I've watched archaeologists who claimed to disprove the Bible. They've admitted openly that their aim was to paint a different reality, to get people to change their POV, and to change society as a consequence. It's just another form of "history is (re)written by the winners".

Many involved in the beginning of the Age of Reason at least were deists and studied the universe because they thought a god of order would leave trails and signs for them to understand everything by.)

Most people who were religious, and somewhat interested in thinking matters, like theology. were very interested in studying the universe, primarily because one can understand the intents and purposes of a person, by studying his creations, just like you can understand your b/f's true intentions, by paying close attention to what he does, rather than what he says.

Now there seems to be a big disconnect in general between the scientific community and the mainstream population,

Well, considering that most people who believe in evolution, show a complete misunderstanding of the theory, and most people who believe in science, seem to almost completely ignore it in their personal lives, except for the explicit instructions of scientists via government infomercials, and what is reported in the media, which they seem to do blindly, even though most of what they actually do, contradicts the science.

especially in the conservatve religious communities that try to make evolution sound like a hack job where it's anything but.

The way evolution is taught, IS a hack job, and a really bad one at that. Charles Darwin is almost certainly turning over in his grave, considering the way self-styled evolutionists have to say.

We also have a country where about 80-90% of people believe in God, and an atheist would have trouble / almost no chance of being elected to public office.

Let me get this straight: Most people in the USA are some denomination of Protestantism. From what I understand, the vast majority still think that the Jews killed their god, and put the chances of salvation and eternal happiness back, by more than 2,000 years. Atheists simply are unconvinced that he was a messiah, or a god. Yet, they would rather vote for a Jew, than an atheist?

That would be like saying that most Americans would rather have John Wilkes Booth as their President, than someone who just wasn't 100% convinced that Abe Lincoln was the best thing since sliced bread.

I think there HAS to be another reason for American distrust of atheists.

What you describe is also part of the problem (and I've made the same case here, in other threads... it's the pendulum effect -- they feel threatened by the swing into excess and away from their moral values, so there's a hardline reaction to bring things back in their direction). It's why the Tea Party got so much clout recently, and why Rick Santorum is actually making a splash dring the current Republican primaries.

The Pendulum Effect is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who want things to be more balanced, would be best off voting for a moderate, but instead, vote only for those who are on the extreme other end, because they are afraid that if they don't go to the other extreme, then they'll just end up with a slightly less extreme version of the extreme they don't want. They thus alienate everyone on the original extreme, AND all the moderates. Even if they gain power, they are just a tiny minority who are ruling over the majority against the majority's wishes. It's fear ruling over rational thinking, whoever plays it, whether it be the Right, or the Left, or the centre base that votes for them.

At some point however, the overregulation becomes part of the religion, if the faith is built on setting oneself apart from a world with a different moral base.

What makes you think that the overregulation doesn't become part of the non-religious infrastructures and ideologies? Haven't you heard of "the nanny state"?

 

[Jennywocky]

Archaeology today doesn't disprove the Bible, from a solid basis. Most of the archaeological theories around today, are conjecture, usually based on very little evidence, primarily because as things get older, more and more evidence gets rubbed out. Blame the Second Law of Thermodynamics for that one. It's really hard to find a SOLID archaeological theory. I've watched archaeologists who claimed to disprove the Bible. They've admitted openly that their aim was to paint a different reality, to get people to change their POV, and to change society as a consequence. It's just another form of "history is (re)written by the winners".

There's no real evidence of David's kingdom, for starters. And it's known for certain that the Bible was being used to interpret the evidence from 1850-1950 or so, rather than the other way around. I don't think anyone needs to promote some detailed theory of what actually did happen; the fact there's a void of something that should exist is pretty bad for a Biblical narrative where David's kingdom was supposedly so remarkable.

Most people who were religious, and somewhat interested in thinking matters, like theology. were very interested in studying the universe, primarily because one can understand the intents and purposes of a person, by studying his creations, just like you can understand your b/f's true intentions, by paying close attention to what he does, rather than what he says.

That was my opinion as well.

Well, considering that most people who believe in evolution, show a complete misunderstanding of the theory, and most people who believe in science, seem to almost completely ignore it in their personal lives, except for the explicit instructions of scientists via government infomercials, and what is reported in the media, which they seem to do blindly, even though most of what they actually do, contradicts the science.

Replace "science" with "religion" and I could say the same thing. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

The way evolution is taught, IS a hack job, and a really bad one at that. Charles Darwin is almost certainly turning over in his grave, considering the way self-styled evolutionists have to say.

When I think of evolution, I'm thinking of the principles that underly modern research and product development... i.e., tested principles, not just half-assed distortions.

Let me get this straight: Most people in the USA are some denomination of Protestantism. From what I understand, the vast majority still think that the Jews killed their god, and put the chances of salvation and eternal happiness back, by more than 2,000 years. Atheists simply are unconvinced that he was a messiah, or a god. Yet, they would rather vote for a Jew, than an atheist?

What is your issue? This is not me speculating. This was just polled yet AGAIN this year with the standard big US polling companies, and once again atheists are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Take ten minutes and Google it yourself, it's that simple.

That would be like saying that most Americans would rather have John Wilkes Booth as their President, than someone who just wasn't 100% convinced that Abe Lincoln was the best thing since sliced bread. I think there HAS to be another reason for American distrust of atheists.

What would it be? Is it really that much of a shocker to hear someone say they wouldn't vote for an atheist because they don't believe in God? Because people in this country think that you can't be moral if you don't believe in a god of some sort?

The Pendulum Effect is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who want things to be more balanced, would be best off voting for a moderate, but instead, vote only for those who are on the extreme other end, because they are afraid that if they don't go to the other extreme, then they'll just end up with a slightly less extreme version of the extreme they don't want. They thus alienate everyone on the original extreme, AND all the moderates. Even if they gain power, they are just a tiny minority who are ruling over the majority against the majority's wishes. It's fear ruling over rational thinking, whoever plays it, whether it be the Right, or the Left, or the centre base that votes for them.

Speculation again.

What makes you think that the overregulation doesn't become part of the non-religious infrastructures and ideologies? Haven't you heard of "the nanny state"?

I was talking about the religious aspect. You're changing the subject.

 

[Reluctantly]

I think there HAS to be another reason for American distrust of atheists.

There's always a reason if you look hard enough. But that doesn't mean it has to be a good reason.

 

[scorpiomover]

There's always a reason if you look hard enough. But that doesn't mean it has to be a good reason.

That's why they call it the UGLY truth.

 

[xbox]

I'm not really into the feelings stuff either, and before I used to get bored within a relationship and felt confined and wanted out. Casual sex doesnt appeal to me, because for some reason I associate it with diseases and whores, and falling to desire which I consider a weakness. I've seen how crazy people get while being in love, and everything about it is unappealing.

I'm asexual.

 

[inner_mind]

It appears to me that many religious in US have a distrust of human nature and are unable to fathom how someone can be 'good' without following a rulebook imposed by some kind of higher being.

Therefore assume that atheists cannot act in an ethical manner. They assume that at least people of other religions are trying to act 'good'. They also see athiests as anarchistic and chaotic... something that seems to scare a lot of people. Athiests are not easily grouped as there is no real grouping factor outside the definition that we don't believe in any 'higher power'.

Casual sex... been a long time since I was single. With appropriate protection, I see no harm, so long as you are able to walk into it with a realistic view of the relationship.

That said, beware of acting in any manner which will make you feel demeaned in any way, and only you can answer what manner that may be.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I fully condone casual sex.

 

[Cognisant]

You're not female.

 

[inner_mind]

I am female or you were probably talking to Proxy. Not entirely sure if I am INTP may be INFP, seem to be borderline. INXP.

 

[Zed]

Hey. I'm glad I found this forum/thread. I just sent a guy I have been dating home because I felt like working. I told him that my mind is not with him, its somewhere else. He said, well your body is here. I honestly wanted to puke on his shoes. I will not go out with him again. If I feel like a guy likes me for any reason other than my mind and isnt willing to go into the depths of it then I begin to resent him and then hate him. Unfortunately, relationships take too much time and the friends with benefits approach is far too shallow to be worth even a minute of my time. Grrr. I'm pissed off. I also hate flattery and make it quite clear it is not welcome. I dress very casual but appreciate my appearance but can't stand it when men become fixated on it. Oh I wish i had that moment back so I could kick his ass on the way out the door.

So in response, I like sex, I just dont like that many men enough to have it with.

 

[Polaris]

^^ That's pretty much summed me up. Also, it seems many SFJ type men are repelled by more intellectual females. I have been unfortunate enough to attract those types more, and most seem to resort to intimidation style when faced with a thinking female. Bye- bye. Could explain my increasing hostility towards the opposite sex, which is a pity because I enjoy nothing more than great conversation with men. Oh, we were talking casual sex.....uhm yeah...never done it, will not go there. If I decide to have sex it is because I've basically honed in on the individual for several months after much deliberation and careful analysis. Then it's basically going in for the kill; fully focused and at great speed. Men have reported great surprise and bewilderment at this kind of treatment, as I tend to play my cards very close. Think ambush-attack......

 

[skip]

female INTPs views on casual sex?

It's a bad idea.

 

[Ninjamanda]

I think feelings about sex are completely situational. If you love them then make love to them. If its something that isn't attached to emotions, it can still be fun.

But overall, sex should just be fun! I don't get why people take it so seriously. If you are being safe and responsible, you should celebrate the experience.

I think people go through phases. I dated someone for three years and when we broke up, I had my fun with casual sex. It was cool for a while but now I just enjoy having one person to do all things I want with.

I think exploring is necessary and plus it helps you sleep better. It also keeps you in shape and it releases serotonin so you can't fight feeling happy, its chemical.

 

[cerebedlam]

So there's definitely cognitive dissonance in having to manage sexual desires, society's particular way of organized chaos (or chaotic organization), trying to figure out how I actually feel about both of these and then trying to formulate where would be good to stand on it... it's all kind of frustrating since I'm an attractive male who most people would say is wasting opportunities. I tend to have conflicting inner extremes of hypersexuality and asexuality, and then a kind of perfectionism always fundamentally at odds against a society built upon quick concrete decisions and people who just want "love" and tend not to really give a shit. But then I don't know whether I actually give a shit or not, either; or what my views of "what should be" matter, or anything. I dunno, cracking the code of intimacy seems like a sadomasochistic struggle, that will only get worse the longer you put off jumping into the kraken's mouth.

(Not female INTP, male semi-schizoid)

Another male chiming in...I detect similarities with the general outlook of this cat above here, and was wondering if this is 'the norm' or the average sexual outlook for INTPs overall, or INTP males in particular...

This is really information I should have looked into about 20 years ago...But, better late than never, I guess...I've been out of H.S. 20 year now, and have had a string of 2 to 3 year relationships, punctuated by bouts of reclusivity and depression...Never been married...And, now, I'm thinking it's because I've always dated females which aren't ideally matched to my personality type. OR, maybe, of equal importance, I'm really difficult to get along with over the long haul...

I'd appreciate some feedback on this issue, and how it relates to the female perspective of the OP...This is the overarching pattern for me...Never was too keen on 'casual sex'...although I indulged it somewhat in my 20's...

That was all done mostly so that my friends could witness me score at various parties, and on vacations and whatnot...It was like a bragging/be cool objective that led me to partake of that behaviour...It always felt empty to me to merely 'hit and run'...But, those short-term sexual encounters did make for some long-lasting stories with friends...That's the only real value I could derive from it.

Had some bigtime problems with painkillers for a solid five year period...But, I'm 15 months sober now, and have attended several N/A meetings in my local area...On several occasions, sexual opportunties have been presented to me...A few times they've been with females who are 10 to 15 years younger than me...And, that can tend to make a dude feel good 'bout hisself...But, I've PASSED ON every single one.

I think I'm actually at a point where I'm completely SKEEVED OUT by the idea of even kissing some random on a casual hook-up...Let alone, penetrating a vaginal canal that umpteen other dudes have surveyed thoroughly 'fore me...

All the scientific reading I've done over the years, compounded by the fact that I've spent significant periods of time alone, has made me 'sexually skeptical' of most-to-all scenarios offered to me...I'd rather abstain altogether, than indulge some one-night-stand, and then freak out for the next two months over whether or not I've contracted something...

Yet, if the right female (right personality type/right scent/right looks) entered my life, I would soon find myself being hyper-sexual within the context of that relationship...But, even that wouldn't be acheived overnight...I would slowly test the waters, asking all kinds of questions about sexual history, possibly taking said female down to the local clinic so that we both could be tested....Then, this initial period would be followed by some progressively hotter and dirtier sex, hopefully for the next few years, at least...That's the pattern...Any identification with the INTP population out there?

 

[Wolf18]

Bad. Dangerous. Idiotic. I would never do it, and I wish no one else would. Why is this an INTP thread? The question of whether it's OK shouldn't even be asked.

SW

 

[Adrift]

Bad. Dangerous. Idiotic. I would never do it, and I wish no one else would. Why is this an INTP thread? The question of whether it's OK shouldn't even be asked.

SW

You should probably explain your reasons. Don't just bluntly state that X is bad without a reason. That is idiotic.

Moving on, I don't think it is a bad thing at all if both people are understanding of the situation. Casual is just that. Don't expect more of the relationship. I personally would not do it though because I think I would become too attached on an emotional level. I am male by the way... I may crave sex but not enough to just have fun with people I don't like.

 

[Wolf18]

Fair point. I should have stated my reasons. Here they are:

1. Dangerous: STD will destroy your health, protective measures are not reliable.
2. My own moral compass: Women (and men!) should respect themselves and not offer themselves in this way. If you don't really love the person, don't let them use you for their own pleasure.
3. Dangerous: If the relationship goes sour, then you will have it on your conscious, and you may become depressed (I've heard of this happening).
4. Idiotic: Don't you have anything better to do? Something useful? Maybe I just don't understand it, but I can't understand why anyone would have sex.
5. Sex is not something casual. It is something that you do in the right place, at the right time, with the right mindset. It's not a social skill, or something you should do just to satisfy basic desires. It is an intimate act that one should only share with a select person/people.
6. The purpose of sex is to reproduce. I imagine that the reason why I am told it is "fun" is that the supposed pleasure is evolutionary. I don't think anyone would have sex if their brains weren't rewarded.

That's my (female) opinion of casual sex.

SW

 

[PhoenixRising]

imo this is something specific to each individual. As far as I've seen on various forums, most INXX females say they like casual encounters, or multiple relationships. I'm INTP and quite the opposite actually.

I'd say by default, I'm asexual. The thought of it really doesn't come up for me unless I'm in a relationship with someone. This is partly because of the type of monogamous relationship I've always looked for; a complete mental-spiritual-physical fusion.

I dated several INTJs and ENTJs. I'm sure that INTP-INTJ pairings could work, but it didn't really work for me. I found that we were always just too different, and they always ended up picking on me for being strange and scatterbrained (Extroverted Thinking sometimes tends people to have a sadistic sense of humor).

 

[SpaceYeti]

Bad. Dangerous. Idiotic. I would never do it, and I wish no one else would. Why is this an INTP thread? The question of whether it's OK shouldn't even be asked.

SW

Your mama's bad and dangerous and idiotic and I wish nobody would do it an I wouldn't and it's not okay to ask if it's k.

 

[rrgjl]

I have done this before, several times even, but I'm hesitant about it now. One of the girls I was casual with I eventually started to have an actual relationship with, even though we really didn't fit that well. We had a lot of fun being silly and sleeping together, but in other more serious areas of life we didn't fit at all, and it really messed stuff up. The relationship got very unstable and eventually we broke up and I lost a friend, something that is hard to come by as it is already in my experience. I still feel quite sad about that.
Of course, on the other hand, I've also had a few experiences where it was good fun for a few weeks or months, without any feelings building up. But it's a danger; developing feelings (for someone who actually doesn't fit you, that's the key part of course).

 

[Nezaros]

Fair point. I should have stated my reasons. Here they are:

1. Dangerous: STD will destroy your health, protective measures are not reliable.
2. My own moral compass: Women (and men!) should respect themselves and not offer themselves in this way. If you don't really love the person, don't let them use you for their own pleasure.
3. Dangerous: If the relationship goes sour, then you will have it on your conscious, and you may become depressed (I've heard of this happening).
4. Idiotic: Don't you have anything better to do? Something useful? Maybe I just don't understand it, but I can't understand why anyone would have sex.
5. Sex is not something casual. It is something that you do in the right place, at the right time, with the right mindset. It's not a social skill, or something you should do just to satisfy basic desires. It is an intimate act that one should only share with a select person/people.
6. The purpose of sex is to reproduce. I imagine that the reason why I am told it is "fun" is that the supposed pleasure is evolutionary. I don't think anyone would have sex if their brains weren't rewarded.

That's my (female) opinion of casual sex.

SW

Most of that is still entirely your own opinion. Others with different views would feel differently. Don't go around stating opinions as objective fact.

 

[Wolf18]

Your mama's bad and dangerous and idiotic and I wish nobody would do it an I wouldn't and it's not okay to ask if it's k.

Yes. Pretty much.