Love & Compromise

[Cognisant]

Ideally you would be loved for who you are, ideally there is someone out there that wants the sort of person that you are, of course the world cares little for ideals and as INTPs (or thereabouts) we are often quite unusual people, quite unlike what people usually want, indeed as types go we're pretty shit at relationships in general

So there's the matter of compromise, how much should you and how willing are you to compromise the very essence of who you are for the sake of being in a relationship?

How much would you compromise to get your ideal?

Alternatively do you think it's better to be uncompromising, that the surest way to find someone to love you for who you are is to simply be yourself despite how much it may alienate you from everyone else? If so then clearly it's a numbers game, so how should the game be played, do you wait for providence to bring the ideal to you, do you go looking but not to aggressively so as not to shame yourself, or do you go all out and advertise like there's nothing to lose (is there?) putting yourself on a stage for all to see?

 

[Da Blob]

From my own POV, which one may find difficult to compromise, Love is not so much about compromise as it is willing submission. Willing submission provides an escape route from the ever present Oppressor-Oppressed relationship that dominates most human transactions.

'Turning the Other Cheek' is not a compromise, but a sacrifice of an Other kind. I believe that instead of the oppressed compromising his or her ideals, a willing submission, albeit temporarily, to the will of an Other provides a better foundation than mere compromise. Parents quite often submit to their children's wishes, but the wise parent never compromises.

How can compromise actually work long term in any event? There are just a few types of compromise possible: Both parties are incorrect, so the compromise is incorrect; One party is correct, so a compromise is at least partially incorrect or Both parties are correct, given assumptions and the POVs derived from different sets of assumptions, so that a compromise is a chimera of assumptions and an abstract POV held by neither party.

Love is perhaps more genuine as a surrender of will, than as a negotiated compromise.

Who can One hope to surrender to and who can hope to surrender to One?

Unconditional love is possible only after an unconditional surrender.

 

[Etheri]

So there's the matter of compromise, how much should you and how willing are you to compromise the very essence of who you are for the sake of being in a relationship?

How much would you compromise to get your ideal?

Alternatively do you think it's better to be uncompromising, that the surest way to find someone to love you for who you are is to simply be yourself despite how much it may alienate you from everyone else?

I wander through life, mostly single (including now). I don't fall in love often, and before I go from 'she's elegant / sexy / intelligent / fun' to 'i think i like her', I'll spend quite some time thinking, doubting. I cannot help it, I may be wrong, but so far i've never fallen in love with a girl where I thought the relation had nothing to offer me anyways, no matter how good the girl and I could be together.
(I've had my ... things online, but i've never had a genuine e-relationship, because... I'd not see them much? That being said, in one case calling it a relationship or not would have made no diffrence, and I could easily see her as my ex.)

I used to be scared and bad at expressing love. When I was younger, i'd just never tell them unless I thought I 'had a chance'. What's the point of telling someone you love them, if they'll just turn you down anyways? This remains, in a way, i've just not had the issue 'lately'.
So back to the start. I wander around, mostly single. I am who I am, and i'm surely not a womaniser. I don't force or seek love, I wouldn't know how. I just hope to randomly stumble upon it, and then hope it just randomly works out.

When actually in a relationship, I find I do compromise. I try to interact with them atleast daily, but sometimes find that hard. Then again, at times I find myself capable to spend weeks with them being near them absolutely 24/7 without too much trouble. If I love them, I feel it's much easier to spend time with them, even if i'm not in the mood for people. When I feel the need to be alone and they want to do something, i'll just explain how i'm feeling and talk for like half an hour to an hour, and hope they'll leave me be a few hours after that. So far, I've always had the feeling they understood, or atleast accepted that about me.

I also feel much less uneasy around the girl I love whom I'm in a healthy relationship with. I don't mind them around me, and can often just do 'silent activities' rather than being actually alone. Cuddling and watching movies is fine to leave me to my own thoughts, as long as she doesn't expect me to actually be paying all that much attention to the movie. I'll be 10% watching, 90% thinking. You only need to see 10% of most movies to get the plot anyways. I REALLY like this part. I REALLY like being able to be around someone and feel perfectly comfortable around them, rather than my mind constantly working to make sure i'm acting 'appropriate'. That being said, sometimes I do feel when we're doing our own things near eachother, that I should say something, talk. I don't mind silence, but I feel she expects me to say something, at times. I have that with all people tho.

I'll compromise, both because I just CAN and LIKE spending more time with the people I love than with people in general, and because I feel I should. Because I think it's often worth it. I do, however, expect them to respect and understand me being me. If you can't stand me not replying to a generic text within a couple of hours, then gtfo. If you need attention serveral hours every single day, gtfo. If you'll go into emotional fits because sometimes, I stay up all night and read the most random wiki pages, gtfo. I won't CHANGE who I am for anyone, but i'll gladly stretch my emotional side and give them as much attention and love as I can.

Unfortunately, any girl that's ever liked me, in the end, found me cold or felt like I did too little too late in favour of the relationship. Letting her wait too long, not being there for her enough. Not showing her love. Feeling the relationship was one-sided. Not showing my emotions. They hate how I don't get angry when they're angry with me. Instead I just run off and think and somewhere alone. Sometimes, in due time they also just get bored and annoyed with me sharing my thoughts with them. That being said, at my age, I do not expect any relationship to ever be permanent (yes yes, it's possible). Now I don't go into a relationship with that idea and intent, it's just that while I take their rantings and ramblings at the end of a relationship very seriously (and sometimes emotionally), I do reconsider and think them over. I don't doubt that they're right about most, but at the same time they won't just tell me 'I just got bored of you being you. I'm sorry.' and leave it at that.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

So there's the matter of compromise, how much should you and how willing are you to compromise the very essence of who you are for the sake of being in a relationship?

How much would you compromise to get your ideal?

Alternatively do you think it's better to be uncompromising, that the surest way to find someone to love you for who you are is to simply be yourself despite how much it may alienate you from everyone else? If so then clearly it's a numbers game, so how should the game be played, do you wait for providence to bring the ideal to you, do you go looking but not to aggressively so as not to shame yourself, or do you go all out and advertise like there's nothing to lose (is there?) putting yourself on a stage for all to see?

Well adjusting to a reasonable extent is okay. I don't exist for the sake of a relationship but it's something I wouldn't mind giving much value to. I think being strictly uncompromising is naive and too egocentric. Two people being a perfect match without changing anything is highly improbable.


Though I'm more focused on someone being the inspiration for self-improvement than changing yourself to meet the standards of others. I've been wanting to make a thread about this but it's outside of my comfort zone...

 

[Cognisant]

I won't CHANGE who I am for anyone, but i'll gladly stretch my emotional side and give them as much attention and love as I can.

Well said.

I don't fall in love often, and before I go from 'she's elegant / sexy / intelligent / fun' to 'i think i like her', I'll spend quite some time thinking, doubting.

Hmm, now that is interesting, when I was in my teens I was smitten a few times but I kept it to myself, then there was one time I fell in love in a deeper way with a girl I only really knew intellectually, it didn't work out, since then love could not have been further from my mind and I only just realized that while reading your post. All I want now is sex and companionship (not necessarily in that order) to me that's all there is, which is not cold per say, by "companionship" I mean going places, doing stuff, kissing, cuddling, watching sunsets, etc, I have no lack of affection to give, but love?

I'm straining to remember what love is.

That "need you" feeling isn't it?
Huh, wow it's gone, I mean really gone, which as I think of it does explain a few things.

...Did I need that?
My way is so much more pragmatic, needing someone emotionally seems so clingy and pathetic, it's a burden on both the one who and the one who's needed, better instead to let companionship develop it's own security rather than to have the chains of love entangling people, entrapping them.

 

[Etheri]

Hmm, now that is interesting, when I was in my teens I was smitten a few times but I kept it to myself, then there was one time I fell in love in a deeper way with a girl I only really knew intellectually, it didn't work out, since then love could not have been further from my mind and I only just realized that while reading your post. All I want now is sex and companionship (not necessarily in that order) to me that's all there is, which is not cold per say, by "companionship" I mean going places, doing stuff, kissing, cuddling, watching sunsets, etc, I have no lack of affection to give, but love?

I'm straining to remember what love is.

That "need you" feeling isn't it?
Huh, wow it's gone, I mean really gone, which as I think of it does explain a few things.

Hmh. I lost it for a couple of years. The last years of middle school into the first years of uni. I can completely agree with just needing sex and companionship. But then I had my one real 'internet fling'. Strictly speaking, altho the girl was in love with me, we never were 'boyfriend / girlfriend'. We were never truly together, but it would've been just a name to it anyways. And I did talk to her about how I felt with her, and how I thought I loved her, but I wasn't sure. How could I be? It had been years, and it's not like I constantly needed her. When she got over me and left me, however, I came to realise just howmuch I depended upon her companionship, unconditional love and affection. How could I deny loving her, while feeling heartbroken? In the end, I don't mind. For a while, I felt as if my feelings were fading, now I know I can still feel and sometimes my feelings can even compete with my thinking.

Would you notice the diffrence between unconditional companionship, affection and sex and 'love' ? I only lost my doubts once it was far too late.

 

[Polaris]

I'm straining to remember what love is.

That "need you" feeling isn't it?
Huh, wow it's gone, I mean really gone, which as I think of it does explain a few things.

Oh...whoa....but....nononononononono......true love (in my view) is not needy.

I could write pages about this topic....

Spoiler

I've had an exhausting week, but I will come back to this thread...just need sleep....

 

[intpz]

I'm not willing to give up/compromise much. I want to live as close to how I want to live as possible, and if someone doesn't like that, chances are, I don't like her either. Small and rare short-term arguments, perhaps, but not long-term arguments, like putting the seat down after taking a piss... Especially if there's a lot of such occurrences.

Hm, thinking about this example, why do men are asked to put the seat down? First of all, you can NOT pee on the seat. Secondly, why women can't put the seat up instead? It's inconvenient either way, for one of the other party, why are men expected to be at a greater inconvenient than women?

 

[Etheri]

Hm, thinking about this example, why do men are asked to put the seat down? First of all, you can NOT pee on the seat. Secondly, why women can't put the seat up instead? It's inconvenient either way, for one of the other party, why are men expected to be at a greater inconvenient than women?

While I see your point, I find it a very immature one. If you want to be together with someone, is it truly worth playing the 'nanana imma be lazier than you!' game? I'm not suddenly going to become less messy, or sleep in regular patterns and wake early, or stop thinking or stop needing time for myself... But refusing to put the toilet seat down out of the idea 'one of us has to do it, so how about you?!' seems ridiculous if you're striving for an actual relationship.

(You yet again prove your point made in another thread, you enjoy being a dick )

 

[Words]

So there's the matter of compromise, how much should you and how willing are you to compromise the very essence of who you are for the sake of being in a relationship?

Almost nil.

How much would you compromise to get your ideal?

Almost all.

you go all out and advertise like there's nothing to lose (is there?) putting yourself on a stage for all to see?

yeah.

I'm not sure why i can answer this so easily. I'm not so concerned about affectionate partnership, but, generally, its always either ideal or nothing for me. The middle is boring.

 

[intpz]

Deleted the message I was writing, I noticed you quoted the second, unrelated part of my message.

Let's see now...

While you're saying that it's immature, I say it's logical. One of us has to put it with either putting it up and down when we want to take a piss, therefore, it's not a "I'm lazier than you" game. The solution is to not put it back to how it was before you took a piss (leave it up or down), so your partner has to change it's position. Otherwise, one of us will still be the "lazier" one anyway.

The argument of yours, "one of us has to do it, so how about you?!" would apply to my partner if not to me, therefore it would still be unfair to one of us. The better way of putting it is this: "why should I do it when you don't?", which then could evolve into her putting the seat up and me putting it down, which then doesn't make much sense.

The best solution of course is to have your own bathroom, in which case you won't have this particular argument.

I don't see it as immature, I see it as an element of equality, which then leads to logic. I'm indifferent about being a dick, however I do like comfort.

 

[Etheri]

While you're saying that it's immature, I say it's logical. One of us has to put it with either putting it up and down when we want to take a piss, therefore, it's not a "I'm lazier than you" game. The solution is to not put it back to how it was before you took a piss (leave it up or down), so your partner has to change it's position. Otherwise, one of us will still be the "lazier" one anyway.

The argument of yours, "one of us has to do it, so how about you?!" would apply to my partner if not to me, therefore it would still be unfair to one of us. The better way of putting it is this: "why should I do it when you don't?", which then could evolve into her putting the seat up and me putting it down, which then doesn't make much sense.

The best solution of course is to have your own bathroom, in which case you won't have this particular argument.

I don't see it as immature, I see it as an element of equality, which then leads to logic. I'm indifferent about being a dick, however I do like comfort.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying your argument is invalid. I'm saying it's immature since putting a seat down is the smallest thing. Why would you go into a relationship with someone yet argue with them about the seat? Hell, putting the seat down is less work than arguing with people to me. Two bathrooms? Lets be honest, if one was upstairs and one was downstairs - it's less work to put the seat up / down than to go upstairs / downstairs.
My point is not 'you should do it, not her!!!', my point is if you'll argue over something as stupid as this, why would you possibly bother with a relationship? If putting a seat down is too much work, then what about all those other small efforts a relationship often requires?
This being said, if i built my own home, i'd easily be in favour of having a piscine in the bathroom. Nothing better than a piscine when you have to go to the toilet all night cause you got drunk.

I didn't mean to offend you by saying any of this, it just feels so pointless to me. I think the diffrence between us, is that I rather avoid confrontation if avoiding confrontation is easier than dealing with the confrontation itself. I feel you, on the other hand will seek out confrontation deliberately just to be able to make small, logical points and remarks, which, while true, probably won't lead anywhere (imo).

 

[intpz]

Same for putting the seat up. Why isn't putting the seat up immature? It's equally small as to putting it down, and I don't see any difference between these two actions.

Two bathrooms can be closeby, though I do agree that that would be odd, and I probably wouldn't want that in my house.

My point is not about the effort, it's about the annoyance, unfairness and inequality. More on that can be found in the first paragraph.

"Piscine is an adjective denoting things pertaining to fish." I have no idea how those... toilets are called, but I know what you're talking about. That's another idea, they are made for men obviously. I wonder if they smell. Never used one actually, only seen them in the movies.

Why would I be offended? I enjoy discussions, that's why I post - to express my opinion and potentially get a comment on it. I do enjoy making logical points and act logically, even if it's a tiny point or act.

 

[Cognisant]

It's not that much effort either way, I think the issue here is that intpz objects to being told to put it down and he takes offence precisely because it's not much effort either way, if anything it takes more effort for her to force him to change than for her to simply put it down herself, so it's seemingly not about the toilet seat at all but rather a contest of will for dominance.

I think the whole thing is stupid from start to finish, stupid that she can't just do it herself, stupid that he has to make an issue of it, and stupid for both of them for not realizing how incredibly petty the whole thing is, I mean if you're going to have a contest of will to determine who is dominant in the relationship at least have it over something more important than a fucking toilet seat, it's just so pathetic.

Personally I couldn't even participate in such a contest, in regard to most things I'm quite happy to be bossed around, not because I'm meek, I'm just easy going, and if it comes to something I'm not willing to change on I say as much, for example if a girl wants me to go shopping with her I'll be blunt, I'm not interested and if you want me to be your pack mule then explain to me why I want to, in other words give me an incentive.

I'm too mercantile for dominance to be a factor.

 

[Etheri]

Same for putting the seat up. Why isn't putting the seat up immature? It's equally small as to putting it down, and I don't see any difference between these two actions.

Two bathrooms can be closeby, though I do agree that that would be odd, and I probably wouldn't want that in my house.

My point is not about the effort, it's about the annoyance, unfairness and inequality. More on that can be found in the first paragraph.

I think the whole thing is stupid from start to finish, stupid that she can't just do it herself, stupid that he has to make an issue of it, and stupid for both of them for not realizing how incredibly petty the whole thing is, I mean if you're going to have a contest of will to determine who is dominant in the relationship at least have it over something more important than a fucking toilet seat, it's just so pathetic.

^That's what I mean. Why the fuck bother? q-q. Agree with the following part of your post aswell, and that's what I mean with 'i'll avoid confrontation if avoiding it is easier than the confrontation itself.' Why would I argue for 5 minutes about a seat, if i can place it down in less than a second? Likewise, if she'd want me to be her slave all day, it'd only take me 15 minutes to talk her out of that idea. Unless she knows how to make up for it.

"Piscine is an adjective denoting things pertaining to fish." I have no idea how those... toilets are called, but I know what you're talking about. That's another idea, they are made for men obviously. I wonder if they smell. Never used one actually, only seen them in the movies.

Why would I be offended? I enjoy discussions, that's why I post - to express my opinion and potentially get a comment on it. I do enjoy making logical points and act logically, even if it's a tiny point or act.

Derp. We call them piscines in dialect (dutch). I thought it was some bastardised french word. But I just realised piscine means pool in french. I wouldn't mind pissing in french pools but hey. I obviously mean the men toilets, yeah. I have NO clue what they're called in english. How the f. can you NEVER have used them? If you had, you'd just have these built in your house cause they're even easier than toilets. You don't even have to aim. You don't even have to try. You can stand drunk with your head against the wall and fall asleep while pissing. I wouldn't do that in public tho. Most have a 'light sensor' which will flush for you when you leave. You place some kind of chemical in it that kills germs and shizzle. Only work you've got is placing that in, it doesn't smell. As soon as you start using them, will you argue that it's not your task to flush the toilet, the next person can do it just as easily?

 

[Cognisant]

Oh...whoa....but....nononononononono......true love (in my view) is not needy.

Is there a distinction between "needy" need and the romantic "I need you" need?

Come to think of it I don't think I want to be needed either, sure I can see the appeal of it, that ego boost of importance and the security implicit in being special to someone, but it also invokes a sense of duty which seems a bit off-putting to me. In my mind duty is an aspect of professionalism and professionalism requires detachment so to be dutiful doesn't seem appropriate for a romantic partner type relationship, that's more like how I would approach parenting, y'know loving and protective but not in-love.

Duty is also kind of selfish, a matter of personal honour, if it's my duty to do something then doing it is a matter of self affirmation like being honest is a matter of integrity, you build integrity by being honest, also with the parenting example if someone messed with a nephew of mine (to whom I'm in a partial, acting parental role) it would be my honour at stake based on my duty in that role, to obtain an appropriate level of recompense.

In contrast if someone were to attack my hypothetical girlfriend and I as we're out and about it wouldn't be my duty to defend her like some knight and his princess, rather it would be my role as a friend to assist her in defending herself, to paint the picture I'd grapple the guy and she'd kick him in the nuts, teamwork unless of course she went to pieces on me and just stands there uselessly, in which case I would be forced to defend her and feel appropriately impinged upon.

Bodyguards get paid y'know.
My nephew can get away with it because by agreeing to mind him I've signed a verbal contract with an implicit value, it's unwritten & unspoken but you look after your family and your family will look after you, and besides he's like two years old, can't expect him to mind himself.

Returning to my opening question about there being a distinction, I don't think there is, at least I can't think of one right now.

 

[Cognisant]

Unless she knows how to make up for it.

I think I speak on behalf of all men here when I say: We take bribes.
You don't have to be in a relationship with a guy to bribe him with food, social favors, money, etc.

Sometimes brownie points are quite literally brownie points.

 

[intpz]

Derp. We call them piscines in dialect (dutch). I thought it was some bastardised french word. But I just realised piscine means pool in french. I wouldn't mind pissing in french pools but hey. I obviously mean the men toilets, yeah. I have NO clue what they're called in english. How the f. can you NEVER have used them? If you had, you'd just have these built in your house cause they're even easier than toilets. You don't even have to aim. You don't even have to try. You can stand drunk with your head against the wall and fall asleep while pissing. I wouldn't do that in public tho. Most have a 'light sensor' which will flush for you when you leave. You place some kind of chemical in it that kills germs and shizzle. Only work you've got is placing that in, it doesn't smell. As soon as you start using them, will you argue that it's not your task to flush the toilet, the next person can do it just as easily?

Love this.

It's not that much effort either way, I think the issue here is that intpz objects to being told to put it down and he takes offence precisely because it's not much effort either way, if anything it takes more effort for her to force him to change than for her to simply put it down herself, so it's seemingly not about the toilet seat at all but rather a contest of will for dominance.

I think the whole thing is stupid from start to finish, stupid that she can't just do it herself, stupid that he has to make an issue of it, and stupid for both of them for not realizing how incredibly petty the whole thing is, I mean if you're going to have a contest of will to determine who is dominant in the relationship at least have it over something more important than a fucking toilet seat, it's just so pathetic.

Personally I couldn't even participate in such a contest, in regard to most things I'm quite happy to be bossed around, not because I'm meek, I'm just easy going, and if it comes to something I'm not willing to change on I say as much, for example if a girl wants me to go shopping with her I'll be blunt, I'm not interested and if you want me to be your pack mule then explain to me why I want to, in other words give me an incentive.

I'm too mercantile for dominance to be a factor.

Wrong. It's about the fact that "man is supposed to put the seat down" - why? Why not the woman? It's unequal. There ought to be a solution or a compromise. It's not about the dominance.

 

[Cognisant]

Mhmm, it's trivial, so why do you care so much?

 

[intpz]

I just told you why, 3 times I believe.

 

[Cognisant]

Spoiler

My bad

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think I speak on behalf of all men here when I say: We take bribes.
You don't have to be in a relationship with a guy to bribe him with food, social favors, money, etc.

Nah, not if strings are attached.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHx7vaa9Fwo

 

[Etheri]

I think I speak on behalf of all men here when I say: We take bribes.
You don't have to be in a relationship with a guy to bribe him with food, social favors, money, etc.

Sometimes brownie points are quite literally brownie points.

The way to a man's heart is through his stumache. And the only moment I'm NOT thinking is ... nevermind. It's not bribes, it's trade. It's social currency, in many ways. It's fundamental to any relation, friends, romantic, any. Give some, take some.

That being said, actual bribes work too, ofcourse :smiley_emoticons_mr

I just told you why, 3 times I believe.

Yes, I can live with being inequal and having to put the seat up, as long as she can live with other subtle inequalities. Life isn't fair, yet in a relationship, you'd seek out perfect balance in every simple trivial thing? And again, it's more effort to fix the inequality than just to live with it. Does a small inequality bother you that much? Don't worry, i'm sure there's woman who won't mind. Don't forget to make a shedule for all mundane chores, to make sure they're perfectly balanced out.

 

[intpz]

The more correct wording would be illogicality, rather than inequality.

It's easier to get on with it, but it's not easier to live with it.

I don't like schedules.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Since a relationship can only really work if two people are compatible, it's rather pointless to go around pretending to be anything except what you really are. If you end up with someone for an extended time, the facade of whatever you pretended to be wares off and then neither one of you are happy. Usually, this is when the relationship falls apart. This is why the most logical option is to find someone you're truly compatible with.

Being intuitive, INTPs usually have a good sense of who other people are. Based on my intuition about people, I have an interesting theory about all of this that has worked for me in a real-world sense. We all have what I like to call "parallels" and "dualities". On a broad level, the parallel of an INTP is another INTP, and the duality of an INTP is a ENTJ. The parallel shares all of the original personality tendencies of the individual, and so is very similar. The duality shares the same basic type of thought process, but possesses an exact mirror-image of the individual's traits and worldviews. When you think of a mirror-image, many times the idea of opposites comes to mind, but this isn't exactly the case. A mirror-image is an exact replica, but inverted, so that rather than being completely different, it is more like a polarization of the same thing. When speaking to your duality, you will find that their views give a different perspective to your original views, and add to them to create a cohesive whole. This is what true compatibility stems from.

There are many parallels and dualities for each individual that share different characteristics and inverse characteristics. In other words, the human race is a complex equation, in which each of us belongs to a relative group. I believe that where each of us has at least one exact parallel and duality, there are others that are variants.

I have put my theory into practice and have had positive results. I have been in relationships with several variant dualities in my relative group. In all cases, we were able to speak the "same language" on the same level, and accept one another for who we really were. But there were some undesirable differences, some variants, that eventually caused each relationship to fail. I have most recently been with an ENTJ who is as close to a perfect duality as I have found. Things have worked out wonderfully, and I have grown and developed rapidly through our interaction.

I am not completely sure of the effects of a parallel to parallel relationship, since I have done less experimentation with parallels than dualities. I do have a couple of good friends that are my parallels, however, and collaboration on plans and projects is about as good as it gets. Interaction with a parallel is smooth, with very little conflict. However, conflict stimulates growth, so a relationship with one's parallel may prove to be less rewarding than a relationship with a duality.

 

[PhoenixRising]

From my own POV, which one may find difficult to compromise, Love is not so much about compromise as it is willing submission. Willing submission provides an escape route from the ever present Oppressor-Oppressed relationship that dominates most human transactions.

'Turning the Other Cheek' is not a compromise, but a sacrifice of an Other kind. I believe that instead of the oppressed compromising his or her ideals, a willing submission, albeit temporarily, to the will of an Other provides a better foundation than mere compromise. Parents quite often submit to their children's wishes, but the wise parent never compromises.

How can compromise actually work long term in any event? There are just a few types of compromise possible: Both parties are incorrect, so the compromise is incorrect; One party is correct, so a compromise is at least partially incorrect or Both parties are correct, given assumptions and the POVs derived from different sets of assumptions, so that a compromise is a chimera of assumptions and an abstract POV held by neither party.

Love is perhaps more genuine as a surrender of will, than as a negotiated compromise.

Who can One hope to surrender to and who can hope to surrender to One?

Unconditional love is possible only after an unconditional surrender.

I think you're right that love is more about willing submission/surrender. With true love, there is no selfishness, but willingness to give of one's self. If one person is controlling the other in order to get their way, then they are not acting out of love.

 

[warryer]

I think Da Blob is spot on.

Compromise carries with it a sense of expectation: "If I do this for you, what will you do for me?" Love means you adapt without expectation.

 

[Polaris]

Is there a distinction between "needy" need and the romantic "I need you" need?

Hmmm...I think so. There's emotionally needy and physically needy, I suppose. When you blend the two you get a lethal cocktail.....what we commonly refer to as "love".

Come to think of it I don't think I want to be needed either, sure I can see the appeal of it, that ego boost of importance and the security implicit in being special to someone, but it also invokes a sense of duty which seems a bit off-putting to me.

The need to be needed....is needy too. It is a relief when one can release oneself from the shackles of one's own need to be needed.

It's funny, I have always found that kind of dependency a little creepy and off-putting. Over the years I have come to understand why. The child-like (perceived as weak) dependency is a turn-off for a specimen looking for a suitable other specimen, the actual need is that of nature itself; ensuring the strongest genetic material for breeding purposes. Perhaps this is why some females instinctively go for the "Alpha-male"; although that can often lead to disappointment (high expectations usually produce the opposite result) as the whole Alpha-male thing turns out to be an act, seeing that most people are brought up to believe that love and/or partnership is some sort of pathological reciprocal neediness dynamic.

In my mind duty is an aspect of professionalism and professionalism requires detachment so to be dutiful doesn't seem appropriate for a romantic partner type relationship, that's more like how I would approach parenting, y'know loving and protective but not in-love.

Hmm, I actually think this is a more rational way of approaching a relationship, long term, if that is what one wants. But if one is a pleasure-addict, that won't really work long term, unless agreeing upon a more relaxed boundary, like that of more "open" relationships. This is why I ideally would like an older partner for companionship and mental stimulation, and a couple of younger lovers on the side for the obvious other physical needs....

Duty is also kind of selfish, a matter of personal honour, if it's my duty to do something then doing it is a matter of self affirmation like being honest is a matter of integrity, you build integrity by being honest, also with the parenting example if someone messed with a nephew of mine (to whom I'm in a partial, acting parental role) it would be my honour at stake based on my duty in that role, to obtain an appropriate level of recompense.

One can also choose to approach the concept of duty from a more pragmatic perspective. It is useful and necessary for the progression of the clan/society. But...of course...that has to be an independent decision.

Bodyguards get paid y'know.
My nephew can get away with it because by agreeing to mind him I've signed a verbal contract with an implicit value, it's unwritten & unspoken but you look after your family and your family will look after you, and besides he's like two years old, can't expect him to mind himself.

There you go, you just rationalised duty.

Returning to my opening question about there being a distinction, I don't think there is, at least I can't think of one right now.

Oh yeah, that........oops.

/derail

 

[Cognisant]

This is why I ideally would like an older partner for companionship and mental stimulation, and a couple of younger lovers on the side for the obvious other physical needs....

Indeed, we only live once right?
Although if neural interfaces significantly develop in the next few decades then the complications of such relationships could be a thing of the past, instead of seeking desirable people we could instead change our bodies to be whatever each other desires.

I imagine then issues of personality compatibility will be much more important.

 

[intpz]

Mainly I hope to have enough money to prolong my life as much as possible. Not for a girlfriend, but to satisfy my interests. Knowledge, research, invention, etc..

 

[Etheri]

Indeed, we only live once right?
Although if neural interfaces significantly develop in the next few decades then the complications of such relationships could be a thing of the past, instead of seeking desirable people we could instead change our bodies to be whatever each other desires.

I imagine then issues of personality compatibility will be much more important.

Lets be honest. It's easier to find a partner you'd have sex with, than to find a partner that's actually interesting. (Yes yes, i'm shallow). Then to find a partner who's the combination of both, and wants you aswell, despite our lack of social skills and showing of love... Might aswell try save the world... serveral times. That being said, would it not be the combination of those things we'd require to truly fall in love?

In that regard, I think in a way it's rather rational to split up our needs (physical / intellectual / emotional) and search satisfaction for these with diffrent people. Unfortunately, mankind is a jealous species, making things so much more difficult.

 

[skip]

Same for putting the seat up. Why isn't putting the seat up immature? It's equally small as to putting it down, and I don't see any difference between these two actions.

The lid goes down before you flush, resolving that issue.

 

[Da Blob]

It is rather sad, that no one has spoken of Love as a Family experience. An experience that brings the deepest meaning of the word, We, to light. The talk of sex displayed, is not sex as the beginning of Family, but rather masturbation with sex objects.

It may be that true love is limited to Family. Of course, one can adopt friends and pets into one's own Family, so that Families are not limited to biological relationships. The inverse is also true, just because there exists a biological relationship, does not mean that there is a familial relationship.

What is love without pity? What is compassion but a gift to an Other in need?
Perfect people, those striving for perfection or pretending to be perfect, are difficult to love for they wish to be envied not pitied and they attempt to hide their vulnerabilities as weaknesses.

Love is a giving and if that which is needed is being withheld, where is love? Of the thousands of so-called love songs, I believe very few deal with the reality of love. This one does perhaps... To me it speaks of Family

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJyP5WwOu0

 

[intpz]

The lid goes down before you flush, resolving that issue.

No idea what you're talking about, care to elaborate?

 

[PhoenixRising]

Lets be honest. It's easier to find a partner you'd have sex with, than to find a partner that's actually interesting. (Yes yes, i'm shallow). Then to find a partner who's the combination of both, and wants you aswell, despite our lack of social skills and showing of love... Might aswell try save the world... serveral times. That being said, would it not be the combination of those things we'd require to truly fall in love?

In that regard, I think in a way it's rather rational to split up our needs (physical / intellectual / emotional) and search satisfaction for these with diffrent people. Unfortunately, mankind is a jealous species, making things so much more difficult.

I believe you can find all these things in one person. Using my theory of compatibility I have found many men who are mentally compatible with me, as well as highly physically attractive to me. They have all also shared my interests and sense of humor. Every aspect of my personality and physical traits have been what they desired as well. I do believe that one's personality and their physical appearance go together. Unless of course you simply let yourself go, there are undoubtedly many people out there that will find you both mentally and physically attractive.

It's really very simple, you just have to know what to look for in order to find your "perfect mates". It's no wonder people think there's no such thing the way they go about dating whatever guy/girl they happen to talk to. I'll tell you one thing, I've never dated a ESFJ and I never will because I know it would be a miserable experience. Relationships have logic to them, the important thing is to be intelligent about the way you choose your mate.

 

[Etheri]

I believe you can find all these things in one person. Using my theory of compatibility I have found many men who are mentally compatible with me, as well as highly physically attractive to me. They have all also shared my interests and sense of humor. Every aspect of my personality and physical traits have been what they desired as well. I do believe that one's personality and their physical appearance go together. Unless of course you simply let yourself go, there are undoubtedly many people out there that will find you both mentally and physically attractive.

It's really very simple, you just have to know what to look for in order to find your "perfect mates". It's no wonder people think there's no such thing the way they go about dating whatever guy/girl they happen to talk to. I'll tell you one thing, I've never dated a ESFJ and I never will because I know it would be a miserable experience. Relationships have logic to them, the important thing is to be intelligent about the way you choose your mate.

What makes you think i'm not? I honestly don't ever date. I just live life, hoping to 'find' what i'm looking for, without actually searching. Delusional? Perhaps. I'm not too bothered at the moment. I'm sure there are people that have it all, I'm just saying it's easier to find people that apply to less of your requirements, they also teach you how to deal with diffrences. That being said, you don't have the same kind of relationship with them. They're friends, sometimes with certain benefits.

 

[intpz]

For one, I wouldn't want to constantly fight with my mate. Conflicts that end up in one truly changing his/her mind or not influencing your life in any negative way and not caring that you have a different opinion, would be favorable though.

 

[Turniphead]

I just sit down to pee.
Problem solved.

 

[intpz]

Seems like Turniphead dislikes me due to the posts about the toilet seat.

Pee like a woman if you find it comfortable. Personally, I prefer taking a piss like most men do, standing up. I find it more comfortable for some reason.

 

[PhoenixRising]

What makes you think i'm not? I honestly don't ever date. I just live life, hoping to 'find' what i'm looking for, without actually searching. Delusional? Perhaps. I'm not too bothered at the moment. I'm sure there are people that have it all, I'm just saying it's easier to find people that apply to less of your requirements, they also teach you how to deal with diffrences. That being said, you don't have the same kind of relationship with them. They're friends, sometimes with certain benefits.

Well, that was kind of my point. Just sitting around hoping someday the perfect lover for you will happen to walk up and sweep you off your feet, that is delusional. It's so improbable, it's almost 100 percent guaranteed not to happen. It really depends on your priorities though. If you like just having friends with benefits then you can afford to be lazy. If you ever want to have a fulfilling relationship with someone you're truly in love with, then you should make sure you understand your own personality, and then match yourself with a compatible person.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Seems like Turniphead dislikes me due to the posts about the toilet seat.

Pee like a woman if you find it comfortable. Personally, I prefer taking a piss like most men do, standing up. I find it more comfortable for some reason.

What is the big deal about the toilet seat being up? Are most women really that anal?

 

[intpz]

Who knows, I just gave an example of something often talked about in the movies.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Who knows, I just gave an example of something often talked about in the movies.

oh, ok then.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I read through much of the thread, though, honestly, much of the toilet stuff was utterly irrelevant. (Though, to stay on that theme for a moment, it's a rather simple thing: keeping the seat down for the females in the house is simply a matter of respect for other people. It doesn't have to be anything other than that. What's wrong with making others' lives easier?)

Ideally you would be loved for who you are, ideally there is someone out there that wants the sort of person that you are, of course the world cares little for ideals and as INTPs (or thereabouts) we are often quite unusual people, quite unlike what people usually want, indeed as types go we're pretty shit at relationships in general.

Point 1) Ideally, yes. Point 2) We don't have to be bad at relationships--that's a choice.

So there's the matter of compromise, how much should you and how willing are you to compromise the very essence of who you are for the sake of being in a relationship?

Everyone makes compromises everyday. Getting out of bed is a tradeoff. So, for me, the compromises I have made (and they have been significant) have been worth it or I wouldn't have made them. I haven't had to trade away who I am though. I wouldn't have gotten involved with someone who asked that of me.

How much would you compromise to get your ideal?

This is hard to answer. I'm not honestly sure what my "ideal" would be. I rather find the world composed of non-ideals. So, I have what I have.

Alternatively do you think it's better to be uncompromising, that the surest way to find someone to love you for who you are is to simply be yourself despite how much it may alienate you from everyone else?

Or, perhaps, it's a good idea to investigate yourself and make choices about what to change. After all, being stubbornly narcissistic and telling yourself "I'm just being me" is dishonest. There are a LOT of people (including plenty of INTPs) who have some weird attachment to their own idiosyncratic view of the world that, for the most part, ends with "I'm too lazy to change."

If so then clearly it's a numbers game, so how should the game be played, do you wait for providence to bring the ideal to you, do you go looking but not to aggressively so as not to shame yourself, or do you go all out and advertise like there's nothing to lose (is there?) putting yourself on a stage for all to see?

You ask difficult questions here. I think it's a matter of what you really want. If you really want a deep, satisfying relationship, that you (as it were) put all your eggs in that basket and do what it takes (which probably includes self transformation) to get what you want. Of course, this may require repeated iterations and a lot of suffering. Alas, if it's what you want, you'll do the suffering.

I did.

It was worth it.

Dave

 

[crippli]

Seriously. If I was in charge. All toilets would of today would become obsolete. There would just be 'snakes' that sucks onto the necessary spot, and then retreat into the wall. Even if the recipient was blind it should work excellently.

 

[Hawkeye]

Seriously. If I was in charge. All toilets would of today would become obsolete. There would just be 'snakes' that sucks onto the necessary spot, and then retreat into the wall. Even if the recipient was blind it should work excellently.

I imagine everyone would be pulling this face

 

[Cognisant]

 

[finalTruthSage]

I NEVER COMPROMISE! (not )
The truth is ALL xxxPs compromise. It is easier for us to do it because of the P effect. The xxxJs find it extremely tough to compromise because there is only one RIGHT way to do something. While xxxPs see many ways to approach a situation; hence, we are naturally flexible and much more able to adapt/compromise.

 

[intpz]

That toilet reminded me of Al Bundy.

 

[addictedartist]

know love, know compromise.