INTP Dating

[ProxyAmenRa]

@ Eyeseecold,

Back in ye-old times of eight years ago. My very charismatic friend (2 years older than I) would drag me around a shopping centre with him and the rest of our subordinates. One must love being second in a group hierarchy. His theory was that if he went up asked women to have sex with him 1 in 10 of them will say yes. I called him out and said that was complete bullshit and put $100 on it. After putting his hypothesis to the test it turned out to be quite correct. By god we met some interesting women.

Recently, I was having a humorous debate with a girl by infuriating her by stating what you have been stating; that there is a double standard and all girls don't have to work as hard for their desires to be fulfilled. To solidify my debate I was using other species as an example, relating it to evolutionary biology and stating humans were the recipients of the evolutionary process. Long story short she stated she wanted to invalidate my hypothesis and asked me to have sex with her. I dropped my jaw in shock and with a smirk on my face I agreed.

Amusingly, I had the same humour debate both the above occasion and it resulted in the girl asking the same question but she was really unattractive personality wise and looks. My response to get out of the situation was: "The mere fact that we are debating this has altered you behaviour to ask such as question to win the debate. This does not change the reality of you being wrong."

As you may be able to deduce I like infuriating people for fun.

What I was implying through these two stories is the the whole double standard isn't as ingrained in society as one might think. There are some out there that wish to propagate it because they believe that is what other's believe. They then proceed to force this double standard on others. The reality of the situation is that the beliefs of others has absolutely no baring on your decision making processes. In all circumstances you would not want to surround yourself with people who propagate such aberrant thought processes and beliefs.

Those who feel infringed upon by the double standard are the same as those who are vocal about it. People really need to learn to grow up so to speak. The only location where I have observed the double standard actually infringe upon people without their consent was high school. I think it is time for people to reject the false belief systems they have adopted from the institutional brainwashing.

Though, I do realise some microcosms of American culture holds the belief of the double standard for the duration of their existence. The rest of the world hears of some bizarre scenarios occurring in that country.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

So your friend found that 1/10 women will agree to sex? Disregarding your friend's attractiveness(which really shouldn't be disregarded), that's still a significant number. I'm sure if the reverse happened, the ratio would be more around 10/10.

It seems that getting some women to examine their own principles causes them to alter their values, even if just for the sake of proving a point. This reminds me of Socrates walking through the town of Athens and provoking people into arguing with him. I don't disagree that some women blindly and loosely attach themselves to certain principles just because that is what expected of them by society, however the fact still stands that initially they have high standards to begin with. Changing their minds with a little debate is an outside factor.

I can't discern your final position on whether there is a double standard or not, but I do agree that society needs a(nother) mass sexual reexamination.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

So your friend found that 1/10 women will agree to sex? Disregarding your friend's attractiveness(which really shouldn't be disregarded), that's still a significant number. I'm sure if the reverse happened, the ratio would be more around 10/10.

I don't think so. There are people such as yourself that won't agree to such things. I have fairly stringent internal value system that governs my decision making processes that I do not make explicit. In most circumstances I would decline because I have not gauged the person.

Remember women change what prefer in men and relationships based on their monthly cycle. That is why they are so damn confusing sometimes.

It seems that getting some women to examine their own principles causes them to alter their values, even if just for the sake of proving a point. This reminds me of Socrates walking through the town of Athens and provoking people into arguing with him. I don't disagree that some women blindly and loosely attach themselves to certain principles just because that is what expected of them by society, however the fact still stands that initially they have high standards to begin with. Changing their minds with a little debate is an outside factor.

I can't discern your final position on whether there is a double standard or not, but I do agree that society needs a(nother) mass sexual reexamination.

My final position is that a double standard does not exist if you decide it does not apply to you.

One of my female friends likes to have multiple different partners quite frequently and complains that guys keep on wanting a romantic relationship with her when she just wants sex. The prime example of a person disregarding the double standard.

 

[cheese]

EyeSeeCold, the double standard you mentioned involves more than just praising men and not-praising women, it involves denigration. It's like going from 1 point for men to 0 points for women (which would be the result of your argument as it stands) - and then going further to -1. What is the reason? I'm sure you'll be able to think of possible causes, but I don't think your previous argument did the double standard justice.

I do agree though that there seem to be different social demands placed upon the sexes, at least in terms of performance. Men are trained to openly jostle for power more, making their performative abilities better honed (more jokes, one-ups, teasing, story-telling, audience-capturing, etc). Their personalities are constantly advertising. Women are trained (don't hit me) to look pretty, and in public this is about the extent of their advertising. (Probably explains part of the belittling; most of the rest of their training/ability goes to behind-the-scenes work that goes unnoticed.) Both will have big-fish-in-small-pond experiences when socialising in predominantly Other groups - both like having the other around because it makes them instantly more interesting than they were before.* The outsider's generally welcomed and accepted much more easily than on average (eg if the sex ratio is balanced, or in one's own). Once taken out of the realm of socialising and into a conventionally gendered domain though, the laughs disappear and the outsider has to try harder than average for the same level of acceptance. In a serious game of footy, it's unlikely a woman will get the red carpet unless she can really, really play, and a man better not bumble around the house unless he's Mary Poppins. (After this proof point of course, big-fish-in-small-pond becomes genuinely Big Fish, or more accurately Big-Fish-That-Can-Breathe-Out-Of-Water-And-Is-Therefore-Worth-A-Lot-Of-Money, since the ability is rendered more attractive than usual by virtue of being held by the opposite sex.)

*The standard mental experience/cliche:
Woman: He's talking to me so much! He must really like me!
Man : Look at her face! You're rockin this story Johnny boy, rockin it!


Of course, I don't mean to hold that there are any inherent differences in ability beyond the obvious biological constraints (eg chidlbirth) because I don't know, but they are often developed and expressed differently. I was somewhat gratified to find my observations supported by studies. The world is changing though - a good thing for women who want visible, defined power in a public capacity, and men who don't want to jockey for power and just want to be left alone.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

EyeSeeCold, the double standard you mentioned involves more than just praising men and not-praising women, it involves denigration. It's like going from 1 point for men to 0 points for women (which would be the result of your argument as it stands) - and then going further to -1. What is the reason? I'm sure you'll be able to think of possible causes, but I don't think your previous argument did the double standard justice.

I was not trying to justify it, I am trying to discard the notion altogether.

To explain mathematically, this would be a double standard:
man=woman
If man, then f(x)=x+1
If woman, then f(x)=x-1

^ If men are equal to women then it would be wrong to have a different equation for the two genders. But they are not equal...(hold on to your anger), at least not sexually and physically, this causes a whole different perception for a woman than that of a man in the same areas. And as such you cannot compare all women and all men in the same context of sexuality.

Basically, if you're a female, and you like to get around, be proud of your lifestyle and do not compare yourself to a man who enjoys sexual freedom. Society's thinking is flawed.

 

[cheese]

I thought you were trying to explain why it exists, not necessarily justify it. Explanations for these memes can be provided without justifying with facts the thought that underlies them.

I'm terrible at math, which is a while behind me anyway. But I suspect what you said earlier in words was this, where x = number of partners slept with, y is the effort put in, and the function is measuring, er, "points":

We'd have:

f(x) = x + y, for all values of x and y equal to or greater than 0.

My assumption was that you meant this is an equation by men used for men and also applied to women, because of this:

It's not that hard for women to get guys to have sex with them, the lack of difficulty prevents them from getting praise. You wouldn't call someone the Master of gaming for beating a 5 year old kid in Call of Duty now would you? But you'd call the 5 year old kid amazing for beating an older experienced player.

and this

Women do not have to work as hard to acquire sex, because men tend to be more willing. In contrast, men have a hard time because women are more restrictive in their sexual encounters. Therefore a double standard does not exist, if the difficulty in having sex was universally equal for both genders and women were still deemed "sluts", then you would be able to claim a double standard.

Here you seem to suggest that the only, or at least the most significant, reason for the difference in standards (ie conclusions about behaviour ie results of an equation) is the difference in effort put forth.

Ok, let's look at the equation as it applies to women:

It's not possible to have a negative value for effort, unless the woman is actively resisting sex, in which case it's rape and then a negative evaluation on the woman really doesn't make sense (unless you're arguing for victim-blame). Similarly, it's not possible to have had < 0 partners. In effect, it's impossible to have a negative outcome. We agree up to here.

----

But now, you're saying the negative result is because the difference in effort makes a different equation necessary. So I'm not very sure what you're saying overall.

If it's not just a difference in effort (which could be measured by the same equation and demonstrate impossible results, which must then be accounted for by some other means), what is it that necessitates a separate equation? The difference in effort alone shouldn't, as it is a variable already incorporated into the (presumed) male equation. That should simply show that men, on the whole, have higher points than women.

If I'm following you correctly, you seem to be now saying:
Men and women put in different amounts of effort into obtaining sex.
Therefore men and women are different.
Therefore the equations governing social approval of sexual behaviour are different.

It's still a little confusing. IMO you would make more sense with the second statement put before the first. Classic chicken-egg -- does the amount of effort make them different, or does their difference make their effort different? Or more simply, does the amount of effort merely demonstrate inherent difference? If so, then I can understand the use of different equations. However you haven't shown what the difference is, aside from giving an example of an effect (and more recently, stating sexual and physical differences which you haven't linked to function or social pressure at all) - unless that alone is the main difference, in which case the equation should be the same.

There's probably more that you haven't expressed - it's pretty much impossible to get one's thoughts in their entirety out in one go - but this is where I've got up to now. Could you clarify what you mean please?

------------

I suspect the thinking behind the so-called double standard does sometimes involve applying the male equation to females - however not in the way we've discussed so far. The values assigned to the woman are not based on how much effort she expended, but how much effort he expended in getting her. Therefore high effort = high value for both man and woman, and vice-versa. However, this does not necessarily reveal anything about the woman herself, but simply reflects the male evaluative system, and underlying assumptions about women.

In my experience though, male 'sluts' are only popular/admired amongst a certain small set of people, most of them men, and themselves not very popular. They're revered for their skill, but their morality is called into question by many just as often, though perhaps with gentler words. "Ladies' man", "player", "unsettled", etc - all have at least occasional negative connotations. I've also been hearing 'man whore' more and more recently. Anyway, this might also inform the winner/slut distinction - both promiscuous man and promiscuous woman are 'whores', but the man at least has talent to go with it.

 

[Chewy]

Back in ye-old times of eight years ago. My very charismatic friend (2 years older than I) would drag me around a shopping centre with him and the rest of our subordinates. One must love being second in a group hierarchy. His theory was that if he went up asked women to have sex with him 1 in 10 of them will say yes. I called him out and said that was complete bullshit and put $100 on it. After putting his hypothesis to the test it turned out to be quite correct. By god we met some interesting women.

Recently, I was having a humorous debate with a girl by infuriating her by stating what you have been stating; that there is a double standard and all girls don't have to work as hard for their desires to be fulfilled. To solidify my debate I was using other species as an example, relating it to evolutionary biology and stating humans were the recipients of the evolutionary process. Long story short she stated she wanted to invalidate my hypothesis and asked me to have sex with her. I dropped my jaw in shock and with a smirk on my face I agreed.

Amusingly, I had the same humour debate both the above occasion and it resulted in the girl asking the same question but she was really unattractive personality wise and looks. My response to get out of the situation was: "The mere fact that we are debating this has altered you behaviour to ask such as question to win the debate. This does not change the reality of you being wrong."

As you may be able to deduce I like infuriating people for fun.

What I was implying through these two stories is the the whole double standard isn't as ingrained in society as one might think. There are some out there that wish to propagate it because they believe that is what other's believe. They then proceed to force this double standard on others. The reality of the situation is that the beliefs of others has absolutely no baring on your decision making processes. In all circumstances you would not want to surround yourself with people who propagate such aberrant thought processes and beliefs.

Those who feel infringed upon by the double standard are the same as those who are vocal about it. People really need to learn to grow up so to speak. The only location where I have observed the double standard actually infringe upon people without their consent was high school. I think it is time for people to reject the false belief systems they have adopted from the institutional brainwashing.

Though, I do realise some microcosms of American culture holds the belief of the double standard for the duration of their existence. The rest of the world hears of some bizarre scenarios occurring in that country.

You sound like a proactive male INTP who's actually talking from experience in the dating world (something that this thread needs a little bit more of). Good for you.

 

[Galthian]

Unless you have great social status, you wont get sex from other than drunk, desperate, often ugly girls. Ie, if you come down from stage after playing a set with your band in front of a 2-300 cheering audience, you could probably go ask a girl straight up if she wanted sex with you with decent success.. if you are sitting alone at some pub and suddenly go up to a girl asking her if she wants to have sex, it will most likely fail.

I think this also depends on how drunk, apparently desperate, and ugly as they view you.

Then again, bitches love confidence.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm terrible at math, which is a while behind me anyway. But I suspect what you said earlier in words was this, where x = number of partners slept with, y is the effort put in, and the function is measuring, er, "points":

No, x+1 meant you get a point for having sex, and x-1 meant you lose a point for having sex. If men=women, it's wrong for men to have x+1, understandably, and that would constitute an unjustified double standard.

Here you seem to suggest that the only, or at least the most significant, reason for the difference in standards (ie conclusions about behaviour ie results of an equation) is the difference in effort put forth.

What other constituents are there? Gender, effort, what else?

If I'm following you correctly, you seem to be now saying:
Men and women put in different amounts of effort into obtaining sex.
Therefore men and women are different.
Therefore the equations governing social approval of sexual behaviour are different.

No, because men and women have different values and attitudes, they generally have different amounts of needed effort to have sex. Therefore it's reasonable to call a women a slut and not a champ because it's easy for her. I'm not saying we should denigrate women because it's easier, I'm just pointing out that it is logically justified (though not morally). Double standards are usually arbitrary, but these different set of rules exist for a good reason.

 

[cheese]

It's not logically justified based on what you're saying. Slut is a negative, champ is a positive. If the only difference is effort put in, that should be accounted for in the equation, which is what you expressed in words and what I provided in a mathematical form; what you expressed in the equation you proposed does not cohere with what you actually said earlier, which is why I provided a form that expressed (what I understood of) what you said, in words, earlier.

It would perhaps be justified if sex is inherently negative. Is that what you believe? Because the only reason a difference in effort would result in totally different equations being used, barring other sex-specific variables/constants you haven't brought up, is because of a value judgment. Otherwise, the effort variable is perfectly accounted for in a universal equation. I mean, what is it about lack of effort that makes the achievement of a goal a bad thing? That's essentially what you're saying: women have it easy, so if they get lots, that's bad of them. Why does this make logical sense? As far as I can tell, no negative values have been introduced - only lower, but positive, values (ie lower effort).

And btw I don't think the equation even makes sense, considering (x - 1) would result in a woman with 20 partners having 19 points, and a woman with 1 having 0 --> 19 points less than the 'slut'. This doesn't even follow the slut hypothesis anyway. A better equation would be something like x - 2x (for values of x above whatever is the slut threshold), since that allows for the increase in sluttiness in proportion to the increase in partners. You need an increasingly negative value for increasingly promiscuous women in order to represent the standard.

So somehow, less effort equates not only to disallowing any additional points, but actually docking points such that the woman is left with less points than she started with. Because it was easier for her. Why does this make sense?

Up till here, as far as I can tell, it only works if you're referencing some underlying cultural schemata regarding ethics. Maybe the woman is taking advantage of her easy situation, and being lucky is frowned upon (causes grudges, more likely)? The 'hard work' ethic, perhaps. It's not fair to flaunt your riches? Everyone hates the spoiled little rich kid, and so on. I understand you're saying men and women come from different starting points, and I understand you're saying the equations are therefore different. What I DON'T get is why the woman's one is the way it is. It's all tied up with effort, you say. So show me how starting from a privileged position, effort-wise, is understandably damnable if the privilege is used - intentionally or not. What moral framework are you referencing - whether or not you agree with it - that makes the use of privilege/ease/luck a bad thing?

I get that you're saying difference exists, and therefore different standards exist, but so far I can't see how your example of difference (a different level of effort) requires different standards. It would make more sense in decisions about abortion; the state of pregnancy isn't a variable that both sexes experience; only the woman does - this is a clear difference. Effort, however, is something that both do experience to varying degrees. So unless you're postulating some more essential difference underlying the level of effort, or relying on an assumed value judgment (sex is bad, and therefore only justifiable through great need and effort), or referencing some supposedly universal moral framework, I can't see how different standards are necessitated. Even if they are, I don't see how this specific standard is necessitated.

I'm also actually not fussed about your or my personal value judgments (whether it's morally right or whatever). I just can't see how, following your argument, the double standard is logically justified. That's what I'm arguing about. I'm not trying to prove a value statement through argument; I honestly don't even have one in this case. I just don't agree with the logic of what you've presented so far.

It's a bit repetitive near the top; could've cleaned it up but the box is too small for me to concentrate.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think the lengthy posts are skewing the argument.

I think I mislead you because I was unintentionally arguing two perspectives at the same time.

Women should stay at 0, while men move up as if effort constitutes experience like in an RPG. This doesn't justify calling a woman a slut(logically or morally), true. Disregard my initial point.

 

[cheese]

Oh thank god. I was dreading responding.

 

[starsnghts]

I've never met a girl that thoughtful..
But then again maybe I have not met any INTP girls as the personality tests seem to be quite inaccurate. Although INTP has been my most frequent result, I get a different result everytime. I do try to answer truthfully.

Anyway dating.. Should definitely be out of love for the person not for sex. Love is the answer to eveeerything lol.

 

[knightofni]

The worst part is how INTPs are often too reclusive to meet anyone... including eachother, sadly.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm pretty much relying on college for a relationship. After that, my chances will be nil. Though I guess I could form some hobby around something physical, like maybe exercising. I could met an athletically shaped woman while jogging one day. Wouldn't that be nice...

 

[gruesomebrat]

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?

I think someone mentioned that this is due to extroversion, but that can't possibly be true. I'm one of the most introverted of my friends, but I always seem able to tell someone's mood right off the bat. A good deal of it is intuition, I think. It can't really be explained, but it happens nonetheless. A number of my friends come to me for help with problems that are usually associated with counseling (depression, relationships, anxiety, etc.), because they know that I will be able to tell where they're at without them having to tell me, and because my advice regarding the problems they bring me is simple logical stuff.

I'm told constantly, too, that I'm funny, but I don't often try to be. So, it's possible that that's just another part of my intuitive understanding of people. But, all in all, I think the difficulty of reading someone's emotional state comes down to, like many things in life, a matter of letting your intuition guide you when the need arises.

 

[Dimensional Transition]

The thing that bothers me is that girls usually just fall for the dominant 'douchebag' type, and I can't fake to be like that. Even if I like a girl I'll still be awkward to her. I'll tell her I'm uncomfortable as hell in certain situations. I'm not gonna lie to her that I'm some sort of bodyguard. I always end up being 'friendzoned' though, because I tend to be one of the few guys wanting to listen and talk. I've got a lot of female friends, just because once I wanted to go into a relationship with them, pretty much. What's especially annoying, and my own fault, is that when a girl actually asks me out on a date or so, I get extremely uncomfortable, and I kind of run away... Probably because I don't want a woman to be dominant over me either, I would just prefer equality I guess.

Do you guys also feel that you won't really bother talking to a girl unless you feel like there's a certain attraction to her? As in having potention of being in a relationship with her.

 

[MunkySpanker]

The thing that bothers me is that girls usually just fall for the dominant 'douchebag' type, and I can't fake to be like that. Even if I like a girl I'll still be awkward to her. I'll tell her I'm uncomfortable as hell in certain situations. I'm not gonna lie to her that I'm some sort of bodyguard. I always end up being 'friendzoned' though, because I tend to be one of the few guys wanting to listen and talk. I've got a lot of female friends, just because once I wanted to go into a relationship with them, pretty much. What's especially annoying, and my own fault, is that when a girl actually asks me out on a date or so, I get extremely uncomfortable, and I kind of run away... Probably because I don't want a woman to be dominant over me either, I would just prefer equality I guess.

Do you guys also feel that you won't really bother talking to a girl unless you feel like there's a certain attraction to her? As in having potention of being in a relationship with her.

Hey Dimensional -- I have (used to have I should say) the same exact issues regarding the girls in my life. I think part of the 'problem' (bc I don't think it's OUR problem) is that we're too honest. I read somewhere that people who put on facades (i.e. douchebags) don't like us (INTP's) because we're really good at seeing right through people for who they are. I think that's why I'm so good at poker.

All that being said, you'll fix your 'problem' if you just start acting more confident. Just because you're an INTP doesn't mean you can't walk up to a girl and say something like "hey I like the way you walk, let's have coffee."

I share your point on not talking to a girl unless I feel attracted. I have enough friends and don't need anymore. I generally feel honest enough to not try and weasel my way into a girls pants by pretending to be her friend (read: honesty). so, yes, it's them, not you.

 

[The Gopher]

Thats why we are so good at games like cheat and poker the only problem is I get a reputation for being a good lier and detector so people always concentrate to much on me Also I get the bit about people coming to me for help not so much but people know that I can be mature(when I want to be) I won't put them down.

But I am going of topic

I would never be able to date someone that was an introvert. Never

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I would never be able to date someone that was an introvert. Never

Agreed, for so many reasons that don't even need to be said, but implied in a post such as this.

 

[Dimensional Transition]

Hey Dimensional -- I have (used to have I should say) the same exact issues regarding the girls in my life. I think part of the 'problem' (bc I don't think it's OUR problem) is that we're too honest. I read somewhere that people who put on facades (i.e. douchebags) don't like us (INTP's) because we're really good at seeing right through people for who they are. I think that's why I'm so good at poker.

All that being said, you'll fix your 'problem' if you just start acting more confident. Just because you're an INTP doesn't mean you can't walk up to a girl and say something like "hey I like the way you walk, let's have coffee."

I share your point on not talking to a girl unless I feel attracted. I have enough friends and don't need anymore. I generally feel honest enough to not try and weasel my way into a girls pants by pretending to be her friend (read: honesty). so, yes, it's them, not you.

Haha yeah. It's hard being confident though, it all kind of depends on the chemicals active in your brain at the moment. Sometimes I will be very spontaneous, and sometimes I will be so shy I'll barely talk. I can't give a reason for it either, it's probably a common thing too. It's not like there's a thought behind the shyness... Maybe just an immediate fear of rejection.

Agreed, for so many reasons that don't even need to be said, but implied in a post such as this.

Hmm, why wouldn't you be able to date an introvert? I won't totally rule out the possibility to date an introvert, although I also almost always fall for extroverts.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

There are some introverts I wouldn't mind(ISFP especially) but in the long run I think it's best to have someone complement you.

The dating part would be so weird with two introverts, though an established relationship is another thing.

 

[viche]

Hey Dimensional -- I have (used to have I should say) the same exact issues regarding the girls in my life. I think part of the 'problem' (bc I don't think it's OUR problem) is that we're too honest. I read somewhere that people who put on facades (i.e. douchebags) don't like us (INTP's) because we're really good at seeing right through people for who they are. I think that's why I'm so good at poker.

Believe it or not people acting like douchebags are not acting. They are actually douchebags and are expressing their true douchbaggy self. And yes it will attract a few girls to them. But honestly I go around and don't see many guys pretending to be someone who they are not as that would place immense psychological stress on anyone. Everybody is broadcasting their own strength so to say and that will attract somebody else to them who values this strength. Problem with some INTPs is that they are so introverted that they have an issue of getting their Ti-Ne across i.e. they are not using their Ne very well and Ti is introverted logic obviously so it doesn't come across on its own. So they are not actually broadcasting their strengths to any girls around them ergo no girls will become attracted to them. I've recently gotten to know two INTPs and one of them is clearly an intuitive subtype that uses Ne-Fe strongly and he has no issues starting conversations and generally getting around in the social scene. The second guy though is the logical subtype that uses Ti-Si strongly and yes this is the type that has problems with dating. He's just so withdrawn and he uses his Ne rather clumsily like he's afraid of it.

 

[MunkySpanker]

I think all personality types could benefit from: David D'Angelo

read some of is stuff, download his audio tapes on utorrent...

this is how I became more confident, from a logical perspective

Situation: hot girl walking down the sidewalk, approaching at 3m per second
Instinctive thoughts: she probably has a boyfriend and will turn me down

Choice 1: keep walking, look down, don't make eye contact (hope that she will hit on me bc I'm so stunningly attractive on the inside she will automatically know this)
Choice 2: stare her ass down until she locks eyes and then just say whatever hell comes to mind
Choice 3: do something more aggressive like just get in her way so she can't walk anymore

Choice 1: won't get number
Choice 2: there's a chance that she won't look at me, but if she does, and I don't break eye contact, she'll know I have the balls to handle her
Choice 3: she'll either be all over it or be like WTF are you doing weirdo

so upon multiple tries in my 27 years of existence with Choice #1 -- I can't say that has provide much results. Since I'm a results oriented guy, I sucked it up and started dealing with rejection like a man. Hey, we all have our off days. But if you decide to get dressed and go outside, don't be a P.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think part of the 'problem' (bc I don't think it's OUR problem) is that we're too honest. I read somewhere that people who put on facades (i.e. douchebags) don't like us (INTP's) because we're really good at seeing right through people for who they are.

The reason why high school was hell.

 

[MunkySpanker]

I would date an introvert. But the only way she would know how I was feeling is to come read this forum after she had broken up with me, the following year. But would I let her into my little private world and introduce her to all the new friends that I've met? fuck no.

I'm pretty much looking for this:

1. be attractive
2. don't be a bitch
3. don't try to change me
4. understand me

^now doesn't she sound attractive?

 

[Sirocco]

The thing that bothers me is that girls usually just fall for the dominant 'douchebag' type, and I can't fake to be like that.

Allow me to disagree. Too much of a generalization. Also, consider another side of it. Would you like to date a girl who usually falls for douchebags? Imagine it happens and you get together. Then who would you be - the next douchebag in the collection? If somebody can't appreciate you the way you are, well, there's a whole unexplored world out there.

Somebody mentioned confidence. Yes, confidence IS sexy. Being comfortable with who you are is priceless. Don't expect people to give you a higher grade than the one you give yourself. As simple as that. Also, being mainstream and playing confident is really nothing special - you follow the trend (quite an SJ thing to do, isn't it). But being different and as confident - that's what I'd fall for.

Personally, I've had multiple misunderstandings with Feeling guys. Totally unfair and completely wrong in reality, but my mind often associates dominant feelings to lower IQ. I can't accept a highly intelligent person can get caught in an emotional storm and lose his ability to logically process data. At the same time, I secretly enjoy the fact I am in complete control of the situation.

On the other hand, I totally lack experience with feelings. When I do feel very strong, I am struggling to find concrete reasons (and good ones!) for the feelings. Dealing with illogical emotions is like eliminating any "bad sectors" in my HDD: ) The ultimate fail in life for me would be having strong positive feelings for people who don't deserve it. I spend considerable time making sure this doesn't happen and would gladly make use of a tool that distributes my love based on people's personal merits, measured according to my own values.

Concerning sex, I'm much more sexual that I'd like to be. That makes it more difficult to walk the talk since I would never fuck a guy who doesn't meet my criteria for personal values and intelligence. Still, principles rule over all. Getting them to perfection - that's what would give me the longest lasting orgasm ever!

 

[Melllvar]

I really picked the wrong title for this thread. I just wanted to talk about Questionable Content. I should have named it, "Questionable Content rocks and let's talk about their date." Then I could still be making comments every time something interesting happens.

Now this is going to go on forever as an actual dating thread.

Spoiler

PS Marten and Dora just broke up.