INTP Dating

[Melllvar]

It upsets you, to use less words than you, because people you don't like get laid instead of you?

Yes, that's exactly it!

If a girl wouldn't have sex with me due to my sharing my honest opinion openly, why would I care? If I can't get laid while being honest, why would I want to get laid by lying.

Simple: After you go long enough without sex, you really, really start to crave it (I'm talking like 4+ years). Which of course also makes you extremely resentful of people who are having successful interactions with the opposite gender (sex or not).

I want a chick to have sex with me, not some character I'm playing.

100% agreed. I've known extremely successful womanizers (and not the romantic-type womanizers like the guy in the comic), who were totally open with me about their methods. If I was willing to do what they do, I could, and I'm sure it would work. But for whatever internal psychological reason, it isn't worth the compromise... although the longer you go, the more you start to consider doing things you normally wouldn't.

 

[Firehazard159]

I never said to date for exclusively sex. It is, however, a very important aspect of dating. For me. I cannot comprehend sex being so unimportant to you, and you cannot understand it being so important to me, but why does it bother you? I mean, if it's unimportant to you, that's fine. It doesn't upset me. That's your preference. Why does it upset you when people have different preferences than you?

You misunderstood. I'm not upset because you have a different preference. I'm upset that the status quo is to be shallow, and to play the odds, and that that *is* what works. I'm upset at the idea that a majority of women supposedly claim to have standards, but don't actually live up to them.

And, though you might not have expressly stated it, you did state that women are just there to fuck, and men are better companions otherwise. So, while you might not date exclusively for sex, that might as well be all you're doing, because otherwise you'd just go hang out with the guys.

That said, in my experience, I tend to connect to women better than guys, because a majority of guys tend to be ...like you. We're in entirely different world views, and experience life so vastly different.

Good lord this was funny.
Reading through the posts here, and assuming there are more INTPs than not (don't think any ladies have posted either..), I'm surprised at how varied our views are in this department. Some dudes just don't give a ***k and maybe just want to ***k. The other dudes are all sappy and whatnot....

The two biggest opposing members, I suspect aren't actually INTP. That's just a general impression I get, but then, I don't know what type I am, so who am I to really place a judgement in that category? To me though, all the similarities / connections I draw between other members who seem more likely to be actually INTP to me, just don't add up right. *Shrugs*

 

[Firehazard159]

Yes, that's exactly it!



Simple: After you go long enough without sex, you really, really start to crave it (I'm talking like 4+ years). Which of course also makes you extremely resentful of people who are having successful interactions with the opposite gender (sex or not).



100% agreed. I've known extremely successful womanizers (and not the romantic-type womanizers like the guy in the comic), who were totally open with me about their methods. If I was willing to do what they do, I could, and I'm sure it would work. But for whatever internal psychological reason, it isn't worth the compromise... although the longer you go, the more you start to consider doing things you normally wouldn't.

In line with that, a quote I liked once, said "we accept the love we feel like we deserve." or something like that. So, if one thinks their method is better / more respectful, they might be upset that some douche can use a more efficient, disrespectful method. That could be the case here ^, and, while I may have felt that way at times, my ego isn't big enough to think I'm a more deserving person than the next. And of course, the value system is different between the two members, one focusing more on love, the other on sex, but the two are often mingled in ones mind in such a scenario, when the one believes in dating for love and the other is really just in it for sex.

 

[kantor1003]

I'm upset at the idea that a majority of women supposedly claim to have standards, but don't actually live up to them.

Sure, they have standards, and they probably live up to them. You just don't know what the standards are and/or don't like what you perceive to be their standards as it goes against your preferred perception of what a standard is. I mean, as intp's we aren't really naturally chick magnets in the way we behave socially.. and it's easy to get frustrated when you see all those guys as you probably, and me definitely, tend to look at as ignorant/stupid/primitive/douchebags, getting all these girls while you get squadouche.

That said, in my experience, I tend to connect to women better than guys, because a majority of guys tend to be ...like you. We're in entirely different world views, and experience life so vastly different.

You are right, but that is different, it is an emotional contact.. and of course, you can't get that with a guy.. you can't, to put it bluntly, almost cry on a guys shoulder telling him about your inner most private issues etc.. generally speaking.. like you can with a girl

 

[SpaceYeti]

... You don't ask for sex. You don't ask for anything. You talk to a girl. That's it. It either develops into sex or it doesn't.

 

[SpaceYeti]

You misunderstood. I'm not upset because you have a different preference. I'm upset that the status quo is to be shallow, and to play the odds, and that that *is* what works. I'm upset at the idea that a majority of women supposedly claim to have standards, but don't actually live up to them.

How is it shallow? How do you know the men they get together with are below their standards, or at least that they thought they were not initially? Do you suspect you meet their standards, and they simply overlook you? If you think you meet their standards, why aren't they going home with you instead of that other jerk? They commonly share what they look for in men with you? If so, I'm afraid you're the "guy friend", which is not where someone who gets laid is. Though, it may be fine for someone as uninterested in sex as you.

And, though you might not have expressly stated it, you did state that women are just there to fuck, and men are better companions otherwise. So, while you might not date exclusively for sex, that might as well be all you're doing, because otherwise you'd just go hang out with the guys.

But that's just it: I don't go out and look for women to date. I simply happen upon them. However, if someone does want to have sex, I don't blame them for going out and trying to get it.

That said, in my experience, I tend to connect to women better than guys, because a majority of guys tend to be ...like you. We're in entirely different world views, and experience life so vastly different.

Like me in what way? They value sex? Frankly, I haven't really shared too much of myself on this forum, so I can't claim that I've released enough information that I trust for you to make an accurate judgment about that.

 

[Firehazard159]

How is it shallow? How do you know the men they get together with are below their standards, or at least that they thought they were not initially? Do you suspect you meet their standards, and they simply overlook you? If you think you meet their standards, why aren't they going home with you instead of that other jerk? They commonly share what they look for in men with you? If so, I'm afraid you're the "guy friend", which is not where someone who gets laid is. Though, it may be fine for someone as uninterested in sex as you.

But that's just it: I don't go out and look for women to date. I simply happen upon them. However, if someone does want to have sex, I don't blame them for going out and trying to get it.

Like me in what way? They value sex? Frankly, I haven't really shared too much of myself on this forum, so I can't claim that I've released enough information that I trust for you to make an accurate judgment about that.

I know it's shallow because that's the argument we're working off in this thread. Have you been paying attention at all? (I really feel like you're asking these questions just to troll, but it's so innocent seeming it's a brilliant sort of trolling.)

And, I do this thing called talking to women, not just fucking them. So yeah, I have an understanding of their *stated* standards, but not their lived-by standards.

We're not talking about *you* specifically, just the ideology that has been presented *by* you. Which is, dating for sex. Hence your askance of the question, why wouldn't you date for sex - because everything else, you can get better from your guys friends. Again, are you not participating in the same conversation as me?

I'm not blaming who wants to go out and get sex to go get it. If I'm blaming anyone, I'm blaming the ones who claim one standard, but live by another.

There's no need for you to trust me on anything really, but, you do have a blog which was referenced in this thread so I inevitably read it, and that leaves an impression, and I tend to lurk more often than post, Both you and smeagle pop up in a lot of threads together, and both have left certain impressions. You communicate a lot about your attitude in how you speak. So, unless you're pretending to be some other person/character while you post on the forums, then I probably have a decent understanding of the kind of person you are. I couldn't tell you personal details about yourself, but you carry a certain attitude, which does come out.

Maybe it's not how you are IRL, but it's how you are here, and that's what I'm basing my perceptions off, is what you show. The attitude you show, parallels that of a majority of guys I've met.

I only get overlooked when I don't let people close to me (Maybe not *only*, but that's beside the point). The real problem is, most women aren't ready for a real relationship, so they go for the flings. They have their standards for a dream guy, but they aren't ready to settle so they play around, and I often see them get knocked up, and end up single mom's or obligatory marriage that inevitably ends in divorce. So, yeah, I get upset, because I feel lied to oftentimes (whether I was interested in a relationship or not).

Not meaning to call you out, you live the example of it:

She's the mother of my child, she'll do whatever I tell her to, I have things in common with her, etc. I like to think I wouldn't, but, historically speaking, if a chick dances naked on me... well, I only have so much will-power. Of course, I have more than when I was 16. Much more.

The reason you're getting engaged. No love, no respect. She does what you tell her to. You proceed to be extremely vague from there, and then suggest that you don't care enough about her to keep it in your pants.

I'm not judging you for it, I just disagree with it, it's not the path I would take. If she's cool with it and so are you, maybe it'll work out, but it seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

 

[DesertSmeagle]

Ok i think i will develop NLP skills, in order to seduce women in a hypnotic form of communication. Then i will be the king of sex, and an irresisable sex symbol.

NLP is basically hypnosis that is used in everyday interaction to influence people and yourself..its awesome...here are 2 examples.
YouTube - Derren Brown Mind Control - Invisible Man
this one changed my life
YouTube - Use NLP to stop masterbating and become a good christian

 

[Melllvar]

NLP is basically hypnosis that is used in everyday interaction to influence people and yourselfhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHZo5_PwtPg

And all this time I seriously thought you were talking about natural language processing. LMAO

 

[SpaceYeti]

I know it's shallow because that's the argument we're working off in this thread. Have you been paying attention at all? (I really feel like you're asking these questions just to troll, but it's so innocent seeming it's a brilliant sort of trolling.)

You know it's shallow because this thread assumes it is? I'm of the opinion that sex is not shallow. Similarly, eating is not shallow, nor is decorating your room in colors you prefer.

And, I do this thing called talking to women, not just fucking them. So yeah, I have an understanding of their *stated* standards, but not their lived-by standards.

I do both. I prefer the former, but hat doesn't mean I don't enjoy the prior. I think you're looking at this in black and white, and it's simply not.

So, unless you're pretending to be some other person/character while you post on the forums, then I probably have a decent understanding of the kind of person you are. I couldn't tell you personal details about yourself, but you carry a certain attitude, which does come out.

The attitude you mentioned of me is that I see dating as a useful tool for having sex. However, I never said that I or anyone else dates exclusively for sex. You can also get along with the person on other levels, as a friend. Except, you have sex with this friend, and it's an important aspect of the relationship. Without the sex, it's not a romantic relationship. Just a friendship.

Maybe it's not how you are IRL, but it's how you are here, and that's what I'm basing my perceptions off, is what you show. The attitude you show, parallels that of a majority of guys I've met.

Such as?

The reason you're getting engaged. No love, no respect. She does what you tell her to. You proceed to be extremely vague from there, and then suggest that you don't care enough about her to keep it in your pants.

You asked why I was getting married, not whether or not I loved or respected her. I do love her, and do respect her. I don't view love as a good reason to get married, and I wouldn't marry someone I don't respect. You just got caught making assumptions there. Watch that.

How many relationships have you been in, and how many hot, naked chicks have you had dance on top of you in an attempt to have sex with you? Now, imagine you and your significant other just had a huge fight, after being together for several years. Now, there's this hot young thing on you trying to have sex with you. I've learned. Now, I simply avoid situations where hot naked chicks dance on me, since those are the only circumstances under which I've cheated on someone. It has happened a total of once, btw. I don't think you're being nearly as impartial as you think you might be.

I'm not judging you for it, I just disagree with it, it's not the path I would take. If she's cool with it and so are you, maybe it'll work out, but it seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

I would disagree with something I judged as bad before I actually examined it as well, I suppose. I try not to do that, though.

 

[Firehazard159]

You present the argument "Why not date for sex? Guys are better for everything else"

I argue against that point, and present my personal philosophy.

You come back with counter-refutation "While I wholly agree with my initial argument, I only agree with it when adding these several points in it, that invalidate your argument when I put them in there. So, you're wrong."

This, is called the strawman effect. Congratulations, you are trolling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

I don't think I'll waste any more time on you.

 

[DesertSmeagle]

You present the argument "Why not date for sex? Guys are better for everything else"

I argue against that point, and present my personal philosophy.

You come back with counter-refutation "While I wholly agree with my initial argument, I only agree with it when adding these several points in it, that invalidate your argument when I put them in there. So, you're wrong."

This, is called the strawman effect. Congratulations, you are trolling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

I don't think I'll waste any more time on you.

BOOOM..theres a term for what im thinking about this thread...your all retards..why are you arguing about sexual preference and dating methods and beliefs. Do you hope that the other person will take your methods and beliefs to apply them to their lives? "dating" and "relationship" are such general terms thatthey have no right or wrong definition...lets get real now.

You choose to like a person. By liking eachother, you hope that that person takes interest in you, this is commitment..the whole relationship dating thing is based on commitment. you commit yourself to being interested in the other person to make them feel good and accepted, and they do the same. Then you have physical contact, which just shows that your are sexually attracted to someone, even if its just kissing. By showing physical contact, you make the person feel like they look good.....its so complex, i cant explain it with psychology...i say you guys should just shut the fuck up.

 

[SpaceYeti]

You present the argument "Why not date for sex? Guys are better for everything else"

I argue against that point, and present my personal philosophy.

You come back with counter-refutation "While I wholly agree with my initial argument, I only agree with it when adding these several points in it, that invalidate your argument when I put them in there. So, you're wrong."

This, is called the strawman effect. Congratulations, you are trolling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

I don't think I'll waste any more time on you.

False. I never added anything that wasn't already there. You simply overlooked those things. And since we're going with logical fallacies, I did not commit one, you did. You committed a False Dichotomy, believing that you date either exclusively for sex, or you do not date for sex, with nothing in-between. A point I corrected the instant I saw you make it. I said the original point, you replied to it, and then I replied to that reply, and I corrected the mistake in my intentions right there. I don't know how you missed it, but your misunderstanding is due to you not letting go of an impression you had of me, and perhaps other men in general, instead of facing the facts of the matter, which I clearly laid out.

Speck in your brother's eye, and whatnot.

 

[SpaceYeti]

BOOOM..theres a term for what im thinking about this thread...your all retards..why are you arguing about sexual preference and dating methods and beliefs. Do you hope that the other person will take your methods and beliefs to apply them to their lives? "dating" and "relationship" are such general terms thatthey have no right or wrong definition...lets get real now.

You choose to like a person. By liking eachother, you hope that that person takes interest in you, this is commitment..the whole relationship dating thing is based on commitment. you commit yourself to being interested in the other person to make them feel good and accepted, and they do the same. Then you have physical contact, which just shows that your are sexually attracted to someone, even if its just kissing. By showing physical contact, you make the person feel like they look good.....its so complex, i cant explain it with psychology...i say you guys should just shut the fuck up.

My intentions was only to show that there's no reason to presume any one sort of relationship or manner of dating is superior or inferior to another, except perhaps in efficiency.

 

[Melllvar]

Well, if you guys are done being all serious about stuff, it seems Cognisant was 100% correct about "reading the situation" when trying to get some nookie:

Why is human interaction have to be so damn difficult? Second panel, dude's comment, he's reassuring her, and he's able to reassure her because he's somehow aware of her emotional state, That's Hard, and people who are consistently funny can somehow read other people's conceptual world view, i.e. they know their joke is funny to the person they're telling it to, before they even tell it, how do they do that and still have their own minds?

Spoiler

I suppose as INTPs we're all doomed to epic failure in this regard, though.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Incidentally, I don't think it's possible to date without sex being at least partly your motivation. After all, why would heterosexuals date only heterosexuals of the opposite sex and homosexuals date only homosexuals of their same sex if sex wasn't an innate part of dating? Why are people you don't have sex with only friends instead of lovers?

 

[DesertSmeagle]

Incidentally, I don't think it's possible to date without sex being at least partly your motivation. After all, why would heterosexuals date only heterosexuals of the opposite sex and homosexuals date only homosexuals of their same sex if sex wasn't an innate part of dating? Why are people you don't have sex with only friends instead of lovers?

I think u have something there. Let's take it further. What is the purpose if dating at all? Sex and reproduction. Why not just have a bunch of friends and just have sex parties. You may say oh it's about being with someone you love all your life... Why can't you do that with friends? You officially say your dating. That only brings physical contact into the friendship really.. Commitment is about chosing one friend to har physical contact with, and if you have physical contact with the others you lose... It's so dumb.. Relationships are dumb... Can't we all just be friends and if ur sexually attracted say hey wanna fuck?

 

[DesertSmeagle]

Damn cymbalta really shot my sex drive.... Fuck..u haven't been fucking horny in 3 days.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Sure, we could, but most people aren't satisfied with that. For example, I'm a grossly territorial person when it comes to my girlfriends of old and my current fiance. They're mine, not anyone else's (at the time they're, well, mine, anyhow). I would not be satisfied having a lover who was a lover to others. Perhaps it's shallow or something, but that doesn't stop it from being the way I am.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Damn cymbalta really shot my sex drive.... Fuck..u haven't been fucking horny in 3 days.

... Bwuh?

 

[Melllvar]

Pbbt, it's just a matter of perception. I'll go out and get dinner w/ my guy friends one on one, and it certainly isn't a "date." When I've had female friends I've done the same with them, and it wasn't a "date." But when I'm going out with a girl we do the exact. same. thing. and it is a "date." Of course, sometimes it's ambiguous as to whether it's a date or not, particularly if one person likes the other and the other doesn't reciprocate the attraction.

I think it was JS Mill who said something along the lines of: just because something has a name, doesn't necessarily mean it describes a thing.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Pbbt, it's just a matter of perception. I'll go out and get dinner w/ my guy friends one on one, and it certainly isn't a "date." When I've had female friends I've done the same with them, and it wasn't a "date." But when I'm going out with a girl we do the exact. same. thing. and it is a "date." Of course, sometimes it's ambiguous as to whether it's a date or not, particularly if one person likes the other and the other doesn't reciprocate the attraction.

I think it was JS Mill who said something along the lines of: just because something has a name, doesn't necessarily mean it describes a thing.

That distinction is obvious. The earlier examples were just friends, as mentioned. The "date" was not just friendship. It was an interview for a further, hopefully romantic, relationship,

 

[Firehazard159]

Yes, you brought up your personal additions, and I restated I wasn't upset at that, I was upset at the status quo of shallow efficient ...'fuckers' (meant literally) as that was the original discussion. (Remember, you asked me why I was upset - after wrongly assuming why I was upset. Watch that.)

You continued your Strawman, there wasn't a false dichotomy (More strawmanning?). You brought up an irrelevant point - and I acknowledge there are other views, but that's not what the discussion was about.

And, I'm sorry, but did you really suggest that someone who just uses people for sex is on an equal level as someone who actually cares about someone and has feelings? Someone who beats his wife is equally as good as someone who takes his wife on dates regularly - because really, all relationships are of equal quality! I suppose the shallow or depth nature of a relationship are a false dichotomy as well? There's only efficiency, getting what you want!

Definitely a troll.

Incidentally, it is actually possible. A good friend of mine is getting married, and they haven't had sex yet. They've been dating for around 4 years. And they're both atheist, so, it's not a religious thing. And I know people beyond that who are also 'until marriage' only, which means no sex while dating, obviously.


Let's just leave at it this: I misunderstood your extremely poorly worded initial statement, which lead to you misunderstanding my response, and now we have a mess of a situation because we're both right in different arguments.

 

[Melllvar]

That distinction is obvious. The earlier examples were just friends, as mentioned. The "date" was not just friendship. It was an interview for a further, hopefully romantic, relationship,

Let me use as specific an example as possible (this is purely hypothetical):

I know a girl, we've hung out some, I want a romantic/sexual relationship with her, and she's already decided she just wants to be friends, and one of us invites the other to get dinner and catch a movie. She does it because she's bored and thinks I'm fun to do stuff with, while I do it because she's fun to do stuff with and I want to progress our relationship to a more intimate level. Is that a date or not?

My answer: To me it is a date, and to her it is not a date. The objective status of the situation is indeterminable.

Now, you could set some kind of standards for what a date is and isn't (like both parties have to see it as a date before it is a date, or only one party has to see it as a date before it is a date), but that's subjective too: it's just your opinion of what makes a date and what doesn't.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Yes, you brought up your personal additions, and I restated I wasn't upset at that, I was upset at the status quo of shallow efficient ...'fuckers' (meant literally) as that was the original discussion. (Remember, you asked me why I was upset - after wrongly assuming why I was upset. Watch that.)

You continued your Strawman, there wasn't a false dichotomy (More strawmanning?). You brought up an irrelevant point - and I acknowledge there are other views, but that's not what the discussion was about.

And, I'm sorry, but did you really suggest that someone who just uses people for sex is on an equal level as someone who actually cares about someone and has feelings? Someone who beats his wife is equally as good as someone who takes his wife on dates regularly - because really, all relationships are of equal quality! I suppose the shallow or depth nature of a relationship are a false dichotomy as well? There's only efficiency, getting what you want!

Definitely a troll.

Incidentally, it is actually possible. A good friend of mine is getting married, and they haven't had sex yet. They've been dating for around 4 years. And they're both atheist, so, it's not a religious thing. And I know people beyond that who are also 'until marriage' only, which means no sex while dating, obviously.


Let's just leave at it this: I misunderstood your extremely poorly worded initial statement, which lead to you misunderstanding my response, and now we have a mess of a situation because we're both right in different arguments.

Wow. I hit a nerve.

I don't view "fuckers" as shallow. Hell, so long as they don't lie in order to get what they want, I respect them for being honest with their desires. Granted, they tend not to be honest, and therein lies the problem insofar as I see it. The problem isn't the fucking, it's the lies.

You know, it seems we each injected irrelevancies into the discussion which side tracked us. I say we remove any such distractions;

Your point, insofar as I understand it; You're upset because many people (many men, specifically) just have sex, which you find shallow.

My point; Just having sex is just as shallow as painting your room the color you prefer or eating the foods you like, meaning you should either also get offended at that, or you should not get offended at just having sex.

Incidentally, it is actually possible. A good friend of mine is getting married, and they haven't had sex yet. They've been dating for around 4 years. And they're both atheist, so, it's not a religious thing. And I know people beyond that who are also 'until marriage' only, which means no sex while dating, obviously.

And they're surely not attracted to one another, they have no intentions of having sex, and are perfectly fine that way, I'm sure. Hell, if they're actually asexual, I don't blame them for getting married to one another. It'd prevent sexual come-ons by others and gives them at least one thing in common as well as granting tax breaks. I don't know why they'd have waited so long if they weren't sexually interested, however.

 

[Melllvar]

And, I'm sorry, but did you really suggest that someone who just uses people for sex is on an equal level as someone who actually cares about someone and has feelings? Someone who beats his wife is equally as good as someone who takes his wife on dates regularly - because really, all relationships are of equal quality! I suppose the shallow or depth nature of a relationship are a false dichotomy as well? There's only efficiency, getting what you want!

Well, I'm not sure about anything else, but I call strawman on that.

It's not much of my business, but you seem to be getting really irate because SpaceYeti has very different opinions on these topics than you. It's like me getting pissed that girls like guys who aren't very similar to me... people are different, there's nothing you can do about, "you just have to live and die with people and their stupid ideas." Calm down man, please, you aren't making your case very well anymore (IMO).

 

[DesertSmeagle]

Wait.. Stop .... Why are we all arguing?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Let me use as specific an example as possible (this is purely hypothetical):

I know a girl, we've hung out some, I want a romantic/sexual relationship with her, and she's already decided she just wants to be friends, and one of us invites the other to get dinner and catch a movie. She does it because she's bored and thinks I'm fun to do stuff with, while I do it because she's fun to do stuff with and I want to progress our relationship to a more intimate level. Is that a date or not?

My answer: To me it is a date, and to her it is not a date. The objective status of the situation is indeterminable.

Now, you could set some kind of standards for what a date is and isn't (like both parties have to see it as a date before it is a date, or only one party has to see it as a date before it is a date), but that's subjective too: it's just your opinion of what makes a date and what doesn't.

So if you continue to do things with this girl and start claiming you two are "dating", she would not call you a liar, and you would have no opposition to calling it such? How long before you become a couple with her, but she is not a couple with you? How long before the half marriage?

You can go ahead and call it a date, but you're just being foolish. Unless, of course, you use the definition of "date" that's not romantic, in which case it is a date objectively.

If you start following this girl around without her knowing it, and consider her your lover, are you correct? After all, according to you, that's what's happening.

 

[Melllvar]

Wait.. Stop .... Why are we all arguing?

Because we're INTPs, this is what we do...

 

[Melllvar]

So if you continue to do things with this girl and start claiming you two are "dating", she would not call you a liar, and you would have no opposition to calling it such? How long before you become a couple with her, but she is not a couple with you? How long before the half marriage?

You can go ahead and call it a date, but you're just being foolish. Unless, of course, you use the definition of "date" that's not romantic, in which case it is a date objectively.

If you start following this girl around without her knowing it, and consider her your lover, are you correct? After all, according to you, that's what's happening.

You seem to have picked the option "it's only a date if both parties consider it such."

Suppose the same thing happens, but we never see each other again afterwards. Did that make it not a date then because we didn't advance our relationship afterwards? I go home and tell my friends about the one date I went out with this girl on, and she goes home and tells her friends about hanging out with this guy even though it wasn't a date.

Do people not get involved and each see their relationship as having a different status? You really haven't convinced me here, as I see it you just picked one of the previous subjective options I gave you.

 

[DesertSmeagle]

This argument could literally go on until the end of time. If only arguing between two people, completely unable to accept the others argument, could create enrgy.

 

[SpaceYeti]

You seem to have picked the option "it's only a date if both parties consider it such."

Suppose the same thing happens, but we never see each other again afterwards. Did that make it not a date then because we didn't advance our relationship afterwards? I go home and tell my friend's about the one date I went out with this girl on, and she goes home and tells her friends about hanging out with this guy even though it wasn't a date.

Do people not get involved and each see their relationship as having a different status? You really haven't convinced me here, as I see it you just picked one of the previous subjective options I gave you.

Of course I picked that option. It's the one that makes sense. Of course, I'm presuming an innate romance within the term. A one sided romance is not a relationship, so a one sided romantic evening is not a date. But this is besides the point anyhow. You're still the one who wants to sex her, but she doesn't want to sex you, regardless what terms we use, even if we grant a term to one person and not the other.

However, I am curious. Why would you call it a date even knowing she doesn't consider it one, under the assumption "date" requires romantic interest? How is it possible to have such a one sided date, yet not to have a one sided relationship. You can't just claim someone's your girlfriend who doesn't think of you as her boyfriend, or even romantically in the least, and expect to be taken seriously. Why could you with a date?

 

[SpaceYeti]

This argument could literally go on until the end of time.

Nope. I'm going to die way before that.

 

[Melllvar]

Nah, we'll all have to go to bed eventually. Then another argument in another thread will come up, and it'll all start again there, just with a different topic and combination of posters.

I don't see what's to complain about though. I find the whole thing hilarious. I posted a comic less than 48 hours ago and just look at all the places this conversation has gone.

Btw, Sven and Hannelore's date should be continuing in about 40 minutes, adjusted for time zones. Can't wait to see where this goes.

 

[Melllvar]

However, I am curious. Why would you call it a date even knowing she doesn't consider it one, under the assumption "date" requires romantic interest?

Of course I wouldn't then, it would be if the status of the situation wasn't openly discussed between us (which in my experience it usually isn't... going up to a girl and saying, "Hi, I'd like to take you out on a date Saturday night?" usually gets a quick "Oh, I'm busy then," as opposed to just saying, "Want to catch a movie this weekend?").

Personally, I've been in some extremely ambiguous situations like this before. One situation where I was pretty much deeply in love with a girl who only wanted me as a friend, but still liked keeping me in a state of confusion for what I assume was the fun of the "games." Another where I let a former girlfriend move in with me, and next thing I know she's trying to force a relationship on me, talking about marriage, kids, refusing to work or pay rent anymore, etc. (that one really did not end well)

Anyway, that's all tangential and not really part of my argument. My point is that people often see things differently, and don't go to the trouble to openly discuss their official status.

Edit: Actually, I think my original point was that many words we use are wholly subjective and their meaning only exists within the perception of the user.

 

[Firehazard159]

And they're surely not attracted to one another, they have no intentions of having sex, and are perfectly fine that way, I'm sure. Hell, if they're actually asexual, I don't blame them for getting married to one another. It'd prevent sexual come-ons by others and gives them at least one thing in common as well as granting tax breaks. I don't know why they'd have waited so long if they weren't sexually interested, however.

Precisely my point, they *are* sexually interested. She just prefers to wait, her virginity is important to her. And he's patient and understanding enough to be cool with it.

Well, I'm not sure about anything else, but I call strawman on that.

It's not much of my business, but you seem to be getting really irate because SpaceYeti has very different opinions on these topics than you. It's like me getting pissed that girls like guys who aren't very similar to me... people are different, there's nothing you can do about, "you just have to live and die with people and their stupid ideas." Calm down man, please, you aren't making your case very well anymore (IMO).

I actually debated posting that or not, because it seemed like a strawman, but I didn't make up an arbitrary but similar point to argue against. I argued against the actual point, and then was arguing against an *additional* (Read: Not unrelated) point he made later on:

My intentions was only to show that there's no reason to presume any one sort of relationship or manner of dating is superior or inferior to another, except perhaps in efficiency.

Which suggests exactly what my sarcasm was slandering. Because to me, that is bullshit. Now, if that had been the only point I'd made, and he'd not mentioned anything about the quality of relationships - then sure. I'd be strawmanning.

The reason I'm getting upset, is at the misunderstanding and misrepresentation. That's why Yeti pisses me off. While I dislike his world view, if the woman is in agreement with it, then it's all whatever. If she's got differing standards that are now compromised due to the fling getting her pregnant, and now she feels obligations she wasn't wanting, that's where I'm frustrated and wish she'd of stuck to her standards she claims to hold. And that's why it upsets me when "playing the numbers" work out, because either the women are lying about their standards, or men are taking advantage of them in a moment of weakness. Using people is bullshit. And this is why the whole "Painting the room the color I want" doesn't work as an analogy. Painting *your* room impacts *your* life. Whether that's shallow or not, isn't relevant. Using a person for your sexual desires is affecting *someone else* and *is* shallow, because it's all about them taking advantage of someone else. They could be completely straightforward about just wanting sex, but playing the numbers by either continual pressuring, or waiting for that right moment when they're vulnerable is what upsets me. But hey, if the dudes honest, respect, right? (And again, not saying those are the only situations, just the set that I get upset about. Which is what was asked about. But then he defended his personal view. See the Strawman? - Now, I misunderstood the oversimplified initial statement by him, so maybe one could call me out on unintentional strawmanning there, but you can't on the point of him asking why I'm upset and myself explaining that. And that's even a stretch to call me out on initially strawmanning, due to the fact that I argued his points fully, he just later explained it was incomplete when compared to his personal worldview.)

I treat people as people, rather than objects, that's why it upsets my worldview. Girls are equal friends to me as guys can be. As stated before by Yeti, to him, guys give him a better connection, girls give him something to shove his penis in, and a (more shallow) friendship than he could have with a guy friend. Which implies to me that he uses women for sex, guys come first otherwise (Hence all the side-tracking and then him back-stating more onto his point). And, he does actually state that in a previous post - his women knows not to mess with his plans with the guys. She's cool with it though, so it's all whatever - people can choose to give up whatever personal rights they wish. (Maybe she does actually have a life of her own like you do, Yeti, but you stated she does what you tell her to, whilst you do whatever you want and just get angry with her if she tries to interfere). I will think of it as an inferior relationship, just as I think of abusing your spouse as an inferior relationship to respecting her and treating her. Maybe Yeti's relationship doesn't come off as rough as he states it here, especially because eventually he does suggest some emotions and respect. But, he asked why this shit upsets me, and I explained it. This is my reasoning - while it may not apply to Yeti's specific relationship, due to a lack of detail (much like the initial point he made that I 'misunderstood') it certainly applies to other relationships.

Smeagle: Seriously man, what are you talking about? I'm not trying to change his worldview, I'm trying to help him understand my reason for being upset, and where the miscommunications went on, and why his strawman tactics are pissing me off further. People can understand each other even if they choose to take a different path.

How does one advance in communication, if every time there was a miscommunication the people just got pissed and left? I want to ignore the rest of the comments, but really, he doesn't *seem* to be intentionally trolling, so I'm willing to try to explain it further.

If I am wrong somewhere along the way, I'd rather be proven wrong so I can stand for the truth next time around, but in this case, it's continuous misunderstanding.

Now that I got all that out of my system, I'm going to bed. I don't think I can explain it any more fully than this. If you understand, great. If not, well, I'll probably forget to check the thread or not have the energy to put any more effort into it, because I already feel like I'm beating a dead horse.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Then would you agree that you would only think it's a date, and not that it's actually a date, but just to you?

If it's a simple misunderstanding, sure, yeah, I agree those happen all the time.

 

[Melllvar]

Then would you agree that you would only think it's a date, and not that it's actually a date, but just to you?

Well, not really, because it could just as easily be that she thought it wasn't a date, when it actually was. Maybe she was unintentionally leading me along by going on a date when she just wanted to be friends, and in her mind it was just dinner with a friend? So I still say it's ambiguous, and a matter of perception.

 

[DesertSmeagle]

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!! GET SOME PUSSSAAAYYYYY!!
YouTube - Badass mother fucker
YouTube - Awesome

Ya i know its tough not to be intimidated. But i clearly am the alpha male here. Now hand over your women to me!!!.I dont think ive ever posted the second one..it was like my first video.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Precisely my point, they *are* sexually interested. She just prefers to wait, her virginity is important to her. And he's patient and understanding enough to be cool with it.

Then good for them? Why did you bring this up at all?

And onto the rest...

If a girl gets pregnant? How did that compromise her standards? She chose to have sex. Was she somehow ignorant that sex may lead to pregnancy? How the hell does that compromise her standards? If she chooses anything based on her getting pregnant, they're her choices, based on her standards.

And if a guy lies to get into a chick's pants, then yes, that's a problem. It seems we agree on this issue, but then why didn't you say that the problem was with when people lie to get sex, not the sex itself?

My views became part of the conversation through natural flow. They weren't a straw-man of the original point, they were something else we were discussing.

I treat people as people, rather than objects, that's why it upsets my worldview. Girls are equal friends to me as guys can be. As stated before by Yeti, to him, guys give him a better connection, girls give him something to shove his penis in, and a (more shallow) friendship than he could have with a guy friend. Which implies to me that he uses women for sex, guys come first otherwise (Hence all the side-tracking and then him back-stating more onto his point). And, he does actually state that in a previous post - his women knows not to mess with his plans with the guys. She's cool with it though, so it's all whatever - people can choose to give up whatever personal rights they wish. (Maybe she does actually have a life of her own like you do, Yeti, but you stated she does what you tell her to, whilst you do whatever you want and just get angry with her if she tries to interfere). I will think of it as an inferior relationship, just as I think of abusing your spouse as an inferior relationship to respecting her and treating her. Maybe Yeti's relationship doesn't come off as rough as he states it here, especially because eventually he does suggest some emotions and respect. But, he asked why this shit upsets me, and I explained it. This is my reasoning - while it may not apply to Yeti's specific relationship, due to a lack of detail (much like the initial point he made that I 'misunderstood') it certainly applies to other relationships.

Well, it's nice for you that you can connect with women to the same degree you can men. I can't. And it's not because of their gender (at least, that's not what I base my conclusion on), it's simply a tendency. I've had one woman in my life I connected with almost as well as my best friend, but she lived so far away that I only talk to her now and again.

And, sure, my fiance's not as good a friend to me as my best best, or several of my closest friends. I can't change that, I don't want to change that, but it doesn't mean she's not a friend or that I don't value her friendship. It may imply that I use women for sex to you, but I don't see it, myself. Women are good for sex, I enjoy and value sex with them, but that doesn't mean I don't also value the friendships. They're both important factors, to me, my values being the topic of this part of your post. You seem to presume that thinking of women sexually is somehow an insult to them.

She does do what I say. I'm curious why you presume she wants something besides doing what I say when I tell her what to do, or that I'm concerned only in my own, personal desires in making decisions and plans. A leader isn't someone who just does whatever he wants and tells everyone he leads to help him accomplish his goals. A leader is just as, or (preferably) more, concerned with the well being and happiness of those he leads than he is his own desires. However, if I have one day a week when I do things with my friends, and she complains that she wants me to spend time with her instead of the plans I've had made for the past week, yes, I'm going to get angry. You wouldn't? I like to be the boss, she dislikes making decisions. It's synergy, not a lack of respect or care. Likening my relationship to spousal abuse is pretty insulting. I would suggest you read up on alternate relationships, BDSM in particular, before you make such judgments, in the future.

I think what's happening here is that you've assumed I'm like the liars you dislike, when I'm not. I dislike those same people (though, for the lying, not the sexing). If it's for the deceit, then we agree and this argument can stop. Do you have a different problem with it?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Well, not really, because it could just as easily be that she thought it wasn't a date, when it actually was. Maybe she was unintentionally leading me along by going on a date when she just wanted to be friends, and in her mind it was just dinner with a friend? So I still say it's ambiguous, and a matter of perception.

If she didn't know it was a date, yet the concept of it's being a date was made clear, I'd grant that one no problem. But since it's ambiguous, you'd have to make sure what's going on before assuming more than is evident.

 

[echoplex]

Why is human interaction have to be so damn difficult?
Second panel, dude's comment, he's reassuring her, and he's able to reassure her because he's somehow aware of her emotional state, That's Hard, and people who are consistently funny can somehow read other people's conceptual world view, i.e. they know their joke is funny to the person they're telling it to, before they even tell it, how do they do that and still have their own minds?

Your question is a good one, but in this particular example I think it's obvious.

She's said she's late, which implies she likely rushed getting dressed/ready and thus probably didn't have much time to check her appearance, so she may not feel confident about it. That plus her feeling bad about being late makes it somewhat likely she could use some reassurance. Of course, his comment is also 'what you're supposed to say' anyway, so he may have said it because he was nervous as well. And 'can't it be both?' is just genius -- it shows he recognizes her over-thinking tendencies, which will likely only cause her to become more nervous (in this situation, that is) and thus shows he cares about it being an enjoyable night for her (which is also her main concern, ultimately). So he may not actually think she looks 'great' (debatable), but he likely doesn't think she looks terrible either. Not to mention his comment(s) could be interpreted to have different essential meanings anyway. That silly girl doesn't even know, including her assumption about blushing. I hate blushing, thus her equation is invalid.

(uh, where was I...)

Oh yeah, your comments are interesting because I find that I'm actually kinda good at that sort of thing (not trying to brag or anything). Not great, but certainly not terrible. It has caused me to doubt my INTPness (along with countless other things). It seems I usually know what will comfort/anger/humor/whatever someone. Hell, I rarely actually use the 'ability' but when I do it almost always works, which in turn makes it kinda boring. Why does it always work? Shouldn't people be more unpredictable and varied? Why does the same goddamed expression/comment make everyone _______? Damn, even when human interaction is 'easy' it's still difficult.

< < < > > >​

@thread:
Silliness indeed, a couple facepalm-worthy moments I'm sure, but dammit don't let them (teh wommenz) take these threads away from us! Seriously, I'm actually tired of threads like these being frowned upon by the so-called INTP police. I say discussion of dating/sex/relationships/Smeagle's orgies/what have you... is just as valid as that of anything else. It's an interesting (to me, at least) topic that, like anything else, can be analyzed endlessly. Not to mention that one's views on such topics tend to correlate somewhat with their overall philosophy as it relates to a number of things.

(and yes, I'm also trying to goad female members into posting)

 

[DesertSmeagle]

I don't use women for sex I use their vaginas for it hahah... No just kidding.. We I don't use them, I sex them in hopes that THEY will enjoy it.I hate people that say oh ur treating women like sex toys.. Well I don't see ut that way unless your raping the girl.. She has to choose to have sex, which means she'senjoying it too... Oh no I want this girl to like me for who I am not my 8 foot penis, what shall I do? Oh I won't have sex with her, to show her that my peronality us better than sex... Well u better have a DAMN good personality. Sry for typos. iPod

 

[DesertSmeagle]

You guys have been arguing for litterally hours.. Just wathc my videos and go to bed

 

[Melllvar]

If she didn't know it was a date, yet the concept of it's being a date was made clear, I'd grant that one no problem. But since it's ambiguous, you'd have to make sure what's going on before assuming more than is evident.

If I read you right the idea is that such situations (people hanging out together) are by default not dates, unless there is some reason to think otherwise. But I'm not sure that's true in interaction between members of genders who are attracted to each other (which is to say, men and women, unless you're gay, I'm trying to be all encompassing without regard for sexual preference). If a boy and a girl go out to eat and see a movie, I'm not sure that it's by default not a date unless given reason to believe otherwise... although I wouldn't go so far as to say it is by default a date just because they're of the opposite sex.

Once again, I just can't say one way or the other. It all seems so highly circumstantial.

Honestly you make good points and I'm tempted to agree with your arguments (although I think it's partly because I'm just getting tired), but it'd be intellectually dishonest to give in when I keep coming up with heartfelt counterpoints right as I'm about to say, "Ok, maybe he's right after all."

 

[SpaceYeti]

Women won't talk about sex unless it's to tease. That's their strategy. They make you look for it. If they let on that they want it too, they lose their power over you.

Oops, I let their secret out!

 

[Melllvar]

You guys have been arguing for litterally hours.. Just wathc my videos and go to bed

Yeti's the real marathon runner here, I just have to debate the conceptualization of male-female dating, he was taking on Firehazard159 about all sorts of stuff before this and even at the same time.

People really think this guy isn't INTP???

 

[DesertSmeagle]

I think you shpuld both make videos.

 

[Melllvar]

Yeti already made a video, and in fact now that I think of it, looking back on one of the other threads, mention or discussion of his type seems to be like planting nuclear weapons in a thread, so I'm sorry I mentioned it even as a joke. I'm gonna feel bad if someone ends up indirectly getting banned just because I like webcomics.

 

[cheese]

And if a guy lies to get into a chick's pants, then yes, that's a problem. It seems we agree on this issue, but then why didn't you say that the problem was with when people lie to get sex, not the sex itself?

I suspect he was subconsciously assuming that 'dating' is culturally accepted as the search for a relationship involving more than just sex; under this, 'dating' solely for sex would be inherently dishonest.

Anyway, that's how I would've read "dating for sex".

And, sure, my fiance's not as good a friend to me as my best best, or several of my closest friends. I can't change that, I don't want to change that, but it doesn't mean she's not a friend or that I don't value her friendship. It may imply that I use women for sex to you, but I don't see it, myself. Women are good for sex, I enjoy and value sex with them, but that doesn't mean I don't also value the friendships. They're both important factors, to me, my values being the topic of this part of your post. You seem to presume that thinking of women sexually is somehow an insult to them.

Yeah, this has always puzzled me. It's like being sexually desired is degrading or something...

I think maybe it has something to do with effort. Women don't necessarily put much effort into being women, at least when younger (no surgery, exercise, minimal makeup, etc) whereas perhaps they do put effort into conversation, personality, etc. Their company is desired because of something they have very little conscious part in, unless they're actively seeking sex themselves/very comfortable with their own sexuality. They're therefore personally invested in other aspects of themselves more than their sexual nature, and sexual interest can obscure or taint perception of these other aspects, such that they're not accurately evaluated.

Attraction to the sexual aspect might therefore be undervalued or even resented sometimes because there is less conscious, personal investment in it, making the self feel detached from the body-on-display and making appreciation of valued traits difficult.

Plus, men are more generally the sexual aggressors for whatever reason, so maybe sexual admiration just feels sort of dangerous, in a bad way (if not from an already-favoured source), since applying the female's rationale (non-aggression) to the male's behaviour results in disturbing conclusions.