Intimacy.

[Bird]

What is your idea of intimacy?



With whom/what are you intimate and
what kind of relationship do you have
with this individual/thing?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Comfortable without being nervous.
Open without being defensive.

Sister.

 

[Jennywocky]

I feel intimate when I can just be myself -- whether that's the "good" Jenny or the "human and flawed" Jenny -- and not have to worry about being misunderstood or ridiculed.

And can answer any question that is asked of me, without fear.

And feel free to ask any question I wish, without being rejected.

This is the level of relationship I have with my closest friends, although with a lover it would go even deeper. (I don't really shut people out, I just go as deep with them as they'll permit and that they'll go with me, if there is any sort of connection there.)

 

[kantor1003]

I am very rarely intimate with anyone. Within my family I am sometimes, but it's hard for me I think. I share everything with them, but I am rarely, if ever, intimate. By that I mean that I can talk about a private, intimate subject but I am too emotionally detached from it for it to be what I consider intimate. Same with sexual intimacy, often I am too emotionally detached from the person to consider it intimate. I really like intimacy though.. I think.. but I haven't really experienced it more than a few times. I have become very wary to "open myself" up to anyone as the times I have tried it, it haven't gone too well.. Frankly, I don't want to expose any weakness as most are quick to exploit it. Even the sweetest looking things. It sucks though as intimacy, in theory, is something that I'd really want.

 

[Da Blob]

I take intimacy literally. a touching relationship or being within the reach of touching. Negative intimacy could be described as a violation of personal space. A great deal of the foundation of good human relationships is based upon early experiences with being touched and held by a primary caregiver. There is a primary nonverbal tactile language involved and if for some reason the primary caregiver fails to establish this communicative link with an infant, that infant will live a sad and sorry life, often living is a self-imposed stated of neglected isolation, believing that isolation is the status quo of the human experience....

EDIT: a good reference on the topic The Space Between Us - Josselson

 

[shoeless]

deep conversations (like everyone said, without the fear of judgment), reducing/removing completely physical barriers (cuddlin' and stuuuuff), and yeah.

i have this kind of relationship with my boyfriend. and my mommy to a smaller extent.

 

[lafmeche]

My thoughts about intimacy are about the same as everyone else. For me, it's all about the depth of the conversation, level of honesty (I'm almost always honest, but don't volunteer information about myself), and comfort level.

I can count all the people I've ever had (what I would consider) intimate relationships with on one hand. They include one or two friends, an ex, and I occasionally have real conversations with my mother. There are rare glimmers of hope with certain other people, but never enough that I actually let my guard down.

My posts here are much more 'intimate' than pretty much any interaction I have with people day-to-day (in that I feel comfortable actually saying what's in my head). In some ways, it makes me sad, but then I realize that many of those people are either not capable of comprehending what goes on behind my walls, or they're incapable of understanding and would laugh. My brain is just too different from the brains of 'regular' people.

 

[childish_intellect]

I find intimacy somewhat repulsive. It's probably due to my aversion of germs and diseases. The most intimate I get with a person is hugging. Other than that there is nothing else. But I don't give random people hugs. That would be a tad bit too crazy. Hugs are reserved only for those that I have had deep conversations with. And by deep I don't mean emotions or anything of the sort. If someone can sustain a well provided intelligent talk then they deserve a hug.

 

[cheese]

I think there's functional intimacy and subjective/personal intimacy. The first is simply the act of being intimate - whether you're talking about physical intimacy (basically an invasion of what is usually personal space), emotional intimacy (sharing feelings, speaking freely), or mental intimacy ("deep" conversations, etc).

Then there's the feeling of being intimate with someone. What this really is is a response to the act of intimacy - one of comfort, freedom, but most importantly desire for future intimacy.

I've been functionally intimate with people before with no subjective intimacy involved. I've shared myself, felt free to be myself, talked on things which fascinate me, with absolutely no feeling of connection and no desire to do it again (although not in a negative sense, just total indifference).
I've been less functionally intimate with others, but felt more of that 'intimate feeling' with them - basically a desire to maintain or further that closeness. I felt naturally close, a desire to be closer, and a high degree of comfort which facilitated that.

I'd say the kind of intimacy people often talk about (the personal sort) is actually attraction-based, with high comfort levels, the latter easing the way for the goals of the former - attraction desires deeper knowledge, and comfort aids that.
This also goes for long-term bonds, where one may describe the other as an old shoe. The initial attraction may not be as palpable, but the depth achieved binds them to each other with a different sort of attraction.

There is no holistic intimacy without attraction, I think.

(I don't mean 'attraction' in the gendered/sexual/physical sense, of course.)

This is also why the best intimacy tends to be achieved between lovers - the attraction is greater/on more levels, so the depth achieved is also greater/on more levels. But it also explains stories like the biblical (heterosexuals) David and Jonathan (bro love) or any number of heterosexual female best friends/'soulmates', whose intimacy with each other far outstrips any they achieve with the opposite sex. The strongest attraction and intimacy aren't necessarily confined to the bedroom.

(Sorry this is all so messy.)

 

[Listen]

My idea of intimacy is very good meaningful conversations, ones that you don't usually have with anyone else. A very high level of trust that was earned over time.

I'm never intimate with family since that just ends in arguments somehow. Friends sometimes, but not many at all. About 1 or 2 if they prove worthy-if they make me feel safe enough to talk to them about things I would usually keep to myself.

Physical intimacy is almost insulting to me for some reason. I don't like hugs or kisses or any kind of contact because that says to me you're only interested in my body and that I'm not even human somehow. I can't describe it, but I get highly offended over body touching.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Physical intimacy is almost insulting to me for some reason. I don't like hugs or kisses or any kind of contact because that says to me you're only interested in my body and that I'm not even human somehow. I can't describe it, but I get highly offended over body touching.

So you're not insulted by someone wanting you only for your mind? Isn't your body a part of you too?

 

[Melkor]

How did I know this would be Bird's thread before I even entered?

I must be psychic.


I think my most sincere kind of intimacy would be the indirect kind. Like reading a poem by someone I've never met, or listening to the radio with my eyes closed at three in the morning.

Anything else is just a shadow of life, a meaningless charade by which two blind creatures grope in the dark for some shard or sliver of meaning in each other.

The reality of the situation is that we are heavily imprisoned (though I'd prefer to say barricaded in my case) within our own minds and any sort of communication is superficial at best. We're all just doomed, isolated minds floating in a darkened void of ephemeral fancies and deluded dreams of self importance.


Psh, why deny someone that? It's not my cup of tea, but not everyone has a better way of distracting themselves from death, or worse still, life.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

How did I know this would be Bird's thread before I even entered?

I must be psychic.

?

I think my most sincere kind of intimacy would be the indirect kind. Like reading a poem by someone I've never met, or listening to the radio with my eyes closed at three in the morning.

Anything else is just a shadow of life, a meaningless charade by which two blind creatures grope in the dark for some shard or sliver of meaning in each other.

The reality of the situation is that we are heavily imprisoned (though I'd prefer to say barricaded in my case) within our own minds and any sort of communication is superficial at best. We're all just doomed, isolated minds floating in a darkened void of ephemeral fancies and deluded dreams of self importance.

I'd be inclined to agree(well said by the way), except to say we're isolated minds strikes me as just being deprived of the body's excitations. Also, I think depth of communication does exist...being able to transmit you to them, is one of the most amazing aspects of life, in my opinion. When you communicate you create meaning, what do you think intercourse and insemination are?

Psh, why deny someone that? It's not my cup of tea, but not everyone has a better way of distracting themselves from death, or worse still, life.

Life is a gift of nature, to be lived between birth and death. I wouldn't regard intimacy as a distraction.

 

[Bird]

How did I know this would be Bird's thread before I even entered?

I must be psychic.


I think my most sincere kind of intimacy would be the indirect kind. Like reading a poem by someone I've never met, or listening to the radio with my eyes closed at three in the morning.

Anything else is just a shadow of life, a meaningless charade by which two blind creatures grope in the dark for some shard or sliver of meaning in each other.

The reality of the situation is that we are heavily imprisoned (though I'd prefer to say barricaded in my case) within our own minds and any sort of communication is superficial at best. We're all just doomed, isolated minds floating in a darkened void of ephemeral fancies and deluded dreams of self importance.


Psh, why deny someone that? It's not my cup of tea, but not everyone has a better way of distracting themselves from death, or worse still, life.

How did I know Melkor would make
some comment towards me?

Oh, I must be psychic.

 

[VroumVroum]

There are really few people in my life with whom I’ve reach a real level of intimacy. I will be distant and somehow cold with almost everyone even with well known friends or my parents


Exceptionally, I will meet someone who will like me, not judge me and try to understand me. In this particular situation, I’ll be intimate. Then I’ll be innocent and playful like I if I were 3 years old.


I’ve four level of intimacy :


-leave me alone you stupid noisy leech.
-I don’t care what you’re saying but I’ll fake a smile and make a little joke. Now I’m ending the conversation.
-I like what you’re saying. Let’s speak.
-This is my true self. I will share it with you with honesty and innocence. By the way, how much can I tease you before you go mad?

 

[Melkor]

?


I'd be inclined to agree(well said by the way), except to say we're isolated minds strikes me as just being deprived of the body's excitations. Also, I think depth of communication does exist...being able to transmit you to them, is one of the most amazing aspects of life, in my opinion. When you communicate you create meaning, what do you think intercourse and insemination are?

Life is a gift of nature, to be lived between birth and death. I wouldn't regard intimacy as a distraction.

Come now you, act like that clever looking man in your avatar. When one sees a thread on the forum index it merely has the title and the latest poster, who was not, I stress, Bird or anyone who might frequently post in her threads. The only clue was the title.

Meaning? I don't think intercourse has any meaning beyond a fleeting physical pleasure which many unfortunate people become a slave to, just as the genetic makeup intended.
It's simply a attractive perk of procreation to entice us towards survival.
Just like the urge to eat, sleep or urinate.
Nothing glorious about that.

Are you transmitting anything to them?

When I read your post, I am seeing a tiny amount of very subjective words from your mouth. They are entirely mine to interpret, I can even choose to ignore them entirely.
We are communicating as equal partners and yet we each have next to no say in what reaches the other persons internal world.
When you speak to me, it is rather like you wanting to draw a picture for me. However, the only way this picture can reach me is through coding, rather than drawing the picture yourself, you write very imprecise instructions as to how it should look, you then send the instructions to me, I subconsciously and nigh instantly carry these out, and a picture is formed.

What are the chances of our pictures being the same?

Highly unlike sir.

Where is the meaning, where is the intimacy in that?

If anything, touch is the most sincere of communication, and yet that itself is highly flawed. It's also very unlikely that we share the same physical feelings when touching, and if we're talking about sexual intercourse here then it's an absolute certainty that there will be differences, nevermind the selfish side of it.
We're not sharing so much as taking different things from the same act...

Oh c'mon Bird, who else makes these short, vague threads about topics that the majority of INTP's would squirm at, and which have about eight variants on the INFJ-forum.D:

You're the best worst troll I know.;P

 

[Polaris]

Come now you, act like that clever looking man in your avatar. When one sees a thread on the forum index it merely has the title and the latest poster, who was not, I stress, Bird or anyone who might frequently post in her threads. The only clue was the title.

Meaning? I don't think intercourse has any meaning beyond a fleeting physical pleasure which many unfortunate people become a slave to, just as the genetic makeup intended.
It's simply a attractive perk of procreation to entice us towards survival.
Just like the urge to eat, sleep or urinate.
Nothing glorious about that.

Are you transmitting anything to them?

When I read your post, I am seeing a tiny amount of very subjective words from your mouth. They are entirely mine to interpret, I can even choose to ignore them entirely.
We are communicating as equal partners and yet we each have next to no say in what reaches the other persons internal world.
When you speak to me, it is rather like you wanting to draw a picture for me. However, the only way this picture can reach me is through coding, rather than drawing the picture yourself, you write very imprecise instructions as to how it should look, you then send the instructions to me, I subconsciously and nigh instantly carry these out, and a picture is formed.

What are the chances of our pictures being the same?

Highly unlike sir.

Where is the meaning, where is the intimacy in that?

If anything, touch is the most sincere of communication, and yet that itself is highly flawed. It's also very unlikely that we share the same physical feelings when touching, and if we're talking about sexual intercourse here then it's an absolute certainty that there will be differences, nevermind the selfish side of it.
We're not sharing so much as taking different things from the same act...

Oh c'mon Bird, who else makes these short, vague threads about topics that the majority of INTP's would squirm at, and which have about eight variants on the INFJ-forum.D:

You're the best worst troll I know.;P

This should act as the perfect example for Blob's "Fuzzy Logic of Language" thread.......

 

[Bird]

This should act as the perfect example for Blob's "Fuzzy Logic of Language" thread.......

As long as it's edited first.

 

[Melkor]

Edit the truth?

By God, do you work for the Daily Mail?

 

[Bird]

Edit the truth?

By God, do you work for the Daily Mail?

Edit your errors.

 

[Melkor]

Edit your errors.

Ah, well thats quite alright, so long as you mean grammar, if however, you mean to edit it as such:

Come now you, act like that pretty looking man in your avatar. When one sees a thread on the forum index it merely has the title and the latest poster, who was not, I stress, Little miss Pretty or anyone who might frequently post in her threads. The only clue was the title.

Meaning? I don't think intercourse has any meaning beyond a fleeting physical pleasure which many unfortunate people become a slave to, just as the genetic makeup intended. it's fun.
It's simply a attractive perk of procreation to entice us towards survival.
Just like the urge to eat, sleep or urinate.
Nothing glorious about that.

By the way I'm single.



Are you transmitting anything to them?

When I read your post, I am seeing a tiny amount of pretty blue clouds trailing byvery subjective words from your mouth. They are entirely mine to interpret, I can even choose to ignore them entirely.
We are communicating as equal partners and yet we should probably eat each others liverseach have next to no say in what reaches the other persons internal world.


When you speak to me, it is rather like you wanting to draw a picture for me. However, the only way this picture can reach me is through coding, rather than drawing the picture yourself, you write very imprecise instructions as to how it should look, you then send the instructions to me, I subconsciously and nigh instantly carry these out, and a picture is formed.
with crayons. It must be a unicorn with a bunny on it's back.

What are the chances of our pictures being the same?

Highly unlike sir.
Bunnies always look the same and Unicorns are real.

Where is the meaning, where is the intimacy in that?

If anything, touch is the most sincere of communication, and yet that itself is highly flawed. It's also very unlikely that we share the same physical feelings when touching, and if we're talking about sexual intercourse here then it's an absolute certainty that there will be differences, nevermind the selfish side of it.
We're not sharing so much as taking different things from the same act...
Did I mention I was single and disease free?


Then I will sue you for misrepresenting me!

 

[Bird]

Your grammatical errors.

 

[Melkor]

I can only see one.^_^

Perhaps you'd be so scrupulous as to point them out?

 

[kantor1003]

I can only see one.^_^

Perhaps you'd be so scrupulous as to point them out?

Why do you bother to ask? You'll only get in reply "a tiny amount of very subjective words from her mouth which are entirely yours to interpret, you can even choose to ignore them entirely."

Yes, my attempt at wit.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Come now you, act like that clever looking man in your avatar. When one sees a thread on the forum index it merely has the title and the latest poster, who was not, I stress, Bird or anyone who might frequently post in her threads. The only clue was the title.

Yes, in this context, you're right. I was just pulling your leg anyway.

Meaning? I don't think intercourse has any meaning beyond a fleeting physical pleasure which many unfortunate people become a slave to, just as the genetic makeup intended.
It's simply a attractive perk of procreation to entice us towards survival.
Just like the urge to eat, sleep or urinate.
Nothing glorious about that.

Are you transmitting anything to them?

You transmit the "message", among other things, possibly. Do you realize that life could not exist without procreation? That makes it an important part of nature. What is procreation? It is the coming together of two distinct wholes to make another whole. 1+1=3.

Spoiler

When I read your post, I am seeing a tiny amount of very subjective words from your mouth. They are entirely mine to interpret, I can even choose to ignore them entirely.
We are communicating as equal partners and yet we each have next to no say in what reaches the other persons internal world.
When you speak to me, it is rather like you wanting to draw a picture for me. However, the only way this picture can reach me is through coding, rather than drawing the picture yourself, you write very imprecise instructions as to how it should look, you then send the instructions to me, I subconsciously and nigh instantly carry these out, and a picture is formed.

What are the chances of our pictures being the same?

Highly unlike sir.

Where is the meaning, where is the intimacy in that?

It lies in the attempt and the persistence. Do you see? I may not understand just exactly the way someone thinks and feels and what they mean, but because I try...and keep trying. That's something.

If anything, touch is the most sincere of communication, and yet that itself is highly flawed. It's also very unlikely that we share the same physical feelings when touching, and if we're talking about sexual intercourse here then it's an absolute certainty that there will be differences, nevermind the selfish side of it.
We're not sharing so much as taking different things from the same act...

Yes, two messages are never alike, that's what makes it meaningful.

 

[DoveEyes]

What is your idea of intimacy?



With whom/what are you intimate and
what kind of relationship do you have
with this individual/thing?

My idea of intimacy is separated from any physical act (like sex).

I feel that intimacy is the greatest thing human beings can experience... interacting with another human being on a real level in a way that is vulnerable and completely unyielding.

Everyone's heart and mind is kind of like a closed book and intimacy like a key. We can give it(the key) away or keep it. But when we give away the key an amazing thing happens because we are allowing another person to see and share in the deepest parts of our being.

Intimacy is a beautiful thing.