What is Intimacy?

[BigApplePi]

Can someone explain to me what intimacy is? Do you have it? Have you experienced it? Who is good at it? Is it a problem especially for INTPs? Does it exist but would you prefer not to talk about it?

It is one thing to talk about one's past intimacies for they are now distant. Safe. It is another to talk about one's present ones. I'd better stop here before I hit a sore button.

Wait. I'll take a chance and continue. Intimacy has something to do with closeness. I'm thinking Goldilocks.
http://www.dltk-teach.com/rhymes/goldilocks_story.htm

 

[Words]

I'm a bit against "prostitution" and I see intimacy as a very exclusive and "special" affair and only for the largest bourn. It is, after all, my "final attack"---and thus, very draining.

I've defined intimacy as mainly for its heavy expression of emotions. It could be simply "closeness" but closeness is anyways shown by the "participants'" careless portraying of feelings.

 

[I'mProbablyanINTP]

I'm relatively young and I've had many intimate moments and passages of time.

I'd describe them as feeling comfortable in your skin, with another person comfortable in their skin, and exchanging deep emotional and or physical communication. Trust is the key, my partners will reveal things about themselves to me and I'll share with them and a report will be built and a connection will be installed and from that moment intimate moments will befall you often.

I feel comfortable speaking infront of people, despite being most introverted. If I'm not talking, I'm thinking, and if I'm alone I'm not talking, and I'm alone a lot of the time.

The desire to be alone proves a burden when trying to maintain a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, so I stick to casual relationships but they still contain love and intimacy. I accept all relationships will end one way or another, so I try to have as much fun in every relationship and I try not to get too attached to any body.
This is a huge message and probably nonsense IMO.

 

[Trebuchet]

In the usual meaning of the word, it just means closeness, or sex, or having detailed knowledge of something. From the context of the question, I think it goes further than that, so here is my take on it.

I would describe intimacy as making oneself emotionally vulnerable to another. Your intimates could hurt you. They know your weaknesses, fears, or hopes. But you trust them anyway, because you believe they won't abuse this knowledge. It need not have anything to do with physical or romantic intimacy, and it does not require intimacy in all aspects of life. If you tell a psychologist something you never told anyone else, or a coworker that you are seeking another job elsewhere, you have made yourself vulnerable to that person. I would say that whatever was shared was an intimacy.

Of course, there is also physical intimacy, which basically means letting someone have more access to your body than you would allow to people in general. Tongue kissing, massages, and physical exams are all physically intimate for most people. I am sure some people can have sex without making themselves vulnerable, and it is not intimate for them. For someone who hates being touched at all, even a handshake could be intimate, because again it is a matter of being vulnerable.

I also like ProbablyAnINTP's take on it, about making a connection. I agree that that is part of it.

 

[BigApplePi]

It is easier to look at the physical side of intimacy. It's easy to identify since it contrasts so much with ordinary physical distance with another. A new mother and her baby may be the most common intimacy. Perhaps that is where we recognize our longing for it when it is absent for a while. When we are discomforted for an extended period we recognize it and seek out comfort.

Another is lovers where "I want to know all about you" is expressed and the partner reciprocates. My experience with this is once one gains this knowledge, one then resumes where one was before -- unless it's marriage. Even so, when married going about separate activities is inevitable, thus breaking intimacy.

The harder situation to understand and bring about is the general interpersonal one. Mature adults have a large measure of independency. But I assume the more mature they are, the easier it is to recognize situations of possible closeness and reciprocal closeness.

What do you think prevents intimacy from just happening all the time? Maybe it's those "F's" who hold the secret.

 

[Trebuchet]

What do you think prevents intimacy from just happening all the time? Maybe it's those "F's" who hold the secret.

As I said, it is risky. Even people who like to take risks have to maintain some awareness of them.

It takes a lot of work. There isn't time in the day to be intimate with absolutely everyone. Being intimate isn't like being naked. You can take your clothes off in a minute, but to be intimate requires actually focusing on someone, doing something that is a little scary, and it takes time.

Not every pair of people is appropriate for intimacy. Even if there were time for it, and the risk didn't bother you, you still would have to choose which people should share intimacy with you.

 

[BigApplePi]

As I said, it is risky. Even people who like to take risks have to maintain some awareness of them.

Ever heard of "one-way intimacy"? This is when one party lets down their hair, opens themselves up and then gets exploited by the other party. They don't know what hit them.

It takes a lot of work. There isn't time in the day to be intimate with absolutely everyone. Being intimate isn't like being naked. You can take your clothes off in a minute, but to be intimate requires actually focusing on someone, doing something that is a little scary, and it takes time.

Agreed. It must therefore be like details. We can take a broad brush with a lot of people like on this forum. Then we can choose which thread to "indulge" in. The more involved the more details are released. Not sure how that relates to intimacy though.

Not every pair of people is appropriate for intimacy. Even if there were time for it, and the risk didn't bother you, you still would have to choose which people should share intimacy with you.

There is another thread on "small talk." Perhaps that is where we feel out for common things. We look for common things. We find out some things matter more than others. Will the other person care what matters to us? Will we even say what matters? In some cases are we sure we even know what matters?

Notice how leery INTP people seem to be of "F" and "J" people! Yet they (I do) seem to love their fellow INTPs!

 

[Trebuchet]

Ever heard of "one-way intimacy"? This is when one party lets down their hair, opens themselves up and then gets exploited by the other party. They don't know what hit them.

Great example of how it is risky. And a bummer when it happens.

Agreed. It must therefore be like details. We can take a broad brush with a lot of people like on this forum. Then we can choose which thread to "indulge" in. The more involved the more details are released. Not sure how that relates to intimacy though.

Well, you posed the question of what keeps intimacy from happening all the time. I say that the time intimacy requires is part of the answer. I guess I didn't phrase it well if the relationship wasn't clear. I hope it is now.

There is another thread on "small talk." Perhaps that is where we feel out for common things. We look for common things. We find out some things matter more than others. Will the other person care what matters to us? Will we even say what matters? In some cases are we sure we even know what matters?

I could believe that. It makes sense. If you never get past the small talk phase, probably intimacy with that person isn't in the cards.

Notice how leery INTP people seem to be of "F" and "J" people! Yet they (I do) seem to love their fellow INTPs!

I am not sure if you are referring to me or all INTPs or what, but I don't actually choose my relationships based on the MBTI. I choose my RPG characters based on it, but it doesn't really determine anything else in my life. It is useful sometimes, of course, to figure out how to approach someone. But now I'm the one who doesn't see what that has to do with intimacy.

 

[BigApplePi]

Trebuchet I'm replying in blue and hope it's visible at your end. I read this as black on white normally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigApplePi
Ever heard of "one-way intimacy"? This is when one party lets down their hair, opens themselves up and then gets exploited by the other party. They don't know what hit them.

Trebuchet-Great example of how it is risky. And a bummer when it happens.
BAP-I may be loosening the meaning of intimacy here. I don't think intimacy can be one-way or it can't last. If I bare my soul to someone and they don't reveal how THEY feel I haven't learned anything about them and they aren't any closer to me. So that ain't intimacy. That doesn't mean everyone should try falling in love one-way at least once in their lifetime.
Quote:
Agreed. It must therefore be like details. We can take a broad brush with a lot of people like on this forum. Then we can choose which thread to "indulge" in. The more involved the more details are released. Not sure how that relates to intimacy though.
Well, you posed the question of what keeps intimacy from happening all the time. I say that the time intimacy requires is part of the answer. I guess I didn't phrase it well if the relationship wasn't clear. I hope it is now.
Sometimes people can hit home with something with a complete stranger. Less risk. One can take away something valuable. If it is embarrassing because it was a stranger they won't have to face that again.

Quote:
There is another thread on "small talk." Perhaps that is where we feel out for common things. We look for common things. We find out some things matter more than others. Will the other person care what matters to us? Will we even say what matters? In some cases are we sure we even know what matters?
I could believe that. It makes sense. If you never get past the small talk phase, probably intimacy with that person isn't in the cards.
True.

Quote:
Notice how leery INTP people seem to be of "F" and "J" people! Yet they (I do) seem to love their fellow INTPs!
I am not sure if you are referring to me or all INTPs or what, but I don't actually choose my relationships based on the MBTI. I choose my RPG characters based on it, but it doesn't really determine anything else in my life. It is useful sometimes, of course, to figure out how to approach someone. But now I'm the one who doesn't see what that has to do with intimacy.
I meant there are a good many people on this forum who seem to understand each other (at some level) and can talk to each other without undo friction. I used to belong to a bulletin board system of many boards filled with F's and J's (I didn't know the temperament concept at the time) and fought like crazy to see eye-to-eye with them but couldn't. I was unable to convince them with my limited reasoning style. The more emotional some got, the more I withdrew into reason. It was impossible to make friends with some. Friends existed but were rare.
I am pleased to be on this forum and to meet you because you are interested in the topic and hope we can continue anywhere with that kind of thing when we happen to meet. Not sure what your interests are ...

I don't think I choose relationships. I choose ideas. If someone comes along and shares an interest then the relationship happens. How are you using "RPG"? When I was programming, that meant "Report Program Generator."

 

[Trebuchet]

Trebuchet I'm replying in blue and hope it's visible at your end. I read this as black on white normally.

Blue works for me. I always use the default color and font since I figure it will work for most people. Thoughtful of you to consider it.

BAP-I may be loosening the meaning of intimacy here. I don't think intimacy can be one-way or it can't last. If I bare my soul to someone and they don't reveal how THEY feel I haven't learned anything about them and they aren't any closer to me. So that ain't intimacy. That doesn't mean everyone should try falling in love one-way at least once in their lifetime.

I don't know what BAP is, sorry. I agree that real intimacy must go both ways. But some people are really good actors and can convince others there is intimacy when there isn't. In the situation you describe, I would instead use the term "betrayal" or maybe "dirtbag." Of course, it can be appropriate to do that with a psychologist, but the risks are reduced there by confidentiality laws.

Sometimes people can hit home with something with a complete stranger. Less risk. One can take away something valuable. If it is embarrassing because it was a stranger they won't have to face that again.

Anonymity definitely changes people's behavior. Phil Zimbardo described studies of children, adults, men and women, and all of them felt much less risk when anonymous. They became more agressive and sometimes changed their behavior altogether. But I still think if you don't risk anything, you don't have real intimacy. People can find intimacy online, but an enthusiastic conversation with anecdotes from one's own life aren't enough to qualify in my mind. I don't think I have ever found any intimacy online, personally.

I meant there are a good many people on this forum who seem to understand each other (at some level) and can talk to each other without undo friction.

Yeah, that is a lot of what I like about this forum.

I used to belong to a bulletin board system of many boards filled with F's and J's (I didn't know the temperament concept at the time) and fought like crazy to see eye-to-eye with them but couldn't. I was unable to convince them with my limited reasoning style. The more emotional some got, the more I withdrew into reason. It was impossible to make friends with some. Friends existed but were rare.
I am pleased to be on this forum and to meet you because you are interested in the topic and hope we can continue anywhere with that kind of thing when we happen to meet. Not sure what your interests are ...

Yes, I have friction with F's, J's, and S's, too. It seems like most of my fellow moms around my home are xSFJ, and I feel very awkward around them sometimes. So I know what you mean. You are right that reason doesn't reach such people. I had an ESFJ boss once who couldn't follow the simplest logical statement:

Me: "The thing you assigned me is impossible with these resources."
Boss: "Bring me solutions, not problems."
Me: "If I had a solution, I'd have done it already."
Boss: "Every problem is an opportunity."
Me: "Okay, then here's an opportunity for you. I can't do this."
Boss: "You need to work on your communication skills."

Needless to say, I left that job. But there were other ESFJs I met who could at least respect me for who I am, and in once case an INTP who couldn't, so you can't just go by MBTI type.

As for my interests, right now I am pretty fascinated with cognitive psychology and neural plasticity, but only as a layman. I am interested in parenting, and politics, and nutrition, and lots of other things.

I don't think I choose relationships. I choose ideas. If someone comes along and shares an interest then the relationship happens. How are you using "RPG"? When I was programming, that meant "Report Program Generator."

I don't think anyone chooses relationships, except to say yes or no when one comes along. For me, too, mostly they are based initially on shared ideas. As for RPG, it stands for Role Playing Game. I never used RPG as a programmer - I was a C++ person back when I did that at all.

 

[BigApplePi]

Blue works for me. I always use the default color and font since I figure it will work for most people. Thoughtful of you to consider it.

Actually I don't know what the default color is I'm so used to black on white.

I don't know what BAP is, sorry.

That's because we are not on an intimate enuf level. BAP=BigApplePi.

I agree that real intimacy must go both ways. But some people are really good actors and can convince others there is intimacy when there isn't. In the situation you describe, I would instead use the term "betrayal" or maybe "dirtbag." Of course, it can be appropriate to do that with a psychologist, but the risks are reduced there by confidentiality laws.

Dirtbag sounds good. The psychologist is a professional like a physician. Yes they are socially restricted so no problem.

Anonymity definitely changes people's behavior. Phil Zimbardo described studies of children, adults, men and women, and all of them felt much less risk when anonymous. They became more agressive and sometimes changed their behavior altogether. But I still think if you don't risk anything, you don't have real intimacy. People can find intimacy online, but an enthusiastic conversation with anecdotes from one's own life aren't enough to qualify in my mind. I don't think I have ever found any intimacy online, personally.

On-line intimacy is a very interesting issue and has been brought up many times in both my on-line experience and in real life when I tell them I'm on a bulletin board.

So what's the answer? In the first place I don't call the online experience anonymous once one has established a persona. You are Trebuchet and I am BAP and can't change that once you let out details. My own intuition says when one lets out details, there is the possibility for intimacy which is limited only a little more than in real life. One thing is this is semi-public. Intimacy may require a modicum of privacy. This forum has a good thing: one may send PMs (private messages).

Yes, I have friction with F's, J's, and S's, too. It seems like most of my fellow moms around my home are xSFJ, and I feel very awkward around them sometimes. So I know what you mean. You are right that reason doesn't reach such people. I had an ESFJ boss once who couldn't follow the simplest logical statement:

Me: "The thing you assigned me is impossible with these resources."
Boss: "Bring me solutions, not problems."
Me: "If I had a solution, I'd have done it already."
Boss: "Every problem is an opportunity."
Me: "Okay, then here's an opportunity for you. I can't do this."
Boss: "You need to work on your communication skills."

Needless to say, I left that job. But there were other ESFJs I met who could at least respect me for who I am, and in once case an INTP who couldn't, so you can't just go by MBTI type.

I think this will come up many times on other boards for discussion. Good topic.

As for my interests, right now I am pretty fascinated with cognitive psychology and neural plasticity, but only as a layman. I am interested in parenting, and politics, and nutrition, and lots of other things.

I'm interested in all sorts of things. I like to go into theory but tend to get stuck. If no one helps me out I leave for a vacation and try to think of a way to get back in later. Hang in there Trebuchet and try some threads or start a new one.

I don't think anyone chooses relationships, except to say yes or no when one comes along. For me, too, mostly they are based initially on shared ideas. As for RPG, it stands for Role Playing Game. I never used RPG as a programmer - I was a C++ person back when I did that at all.

Role Playing Games! I don't think we'll see much of that on this forum. INTPs are too serious. There have been some brilliant actors on another bulletin board in my experience. I used to take them all seriously but they became evasive If I questioned them too much. C++? Never used that. I programmed mainframes.

 

[Vrecknidj]

"The opposite of loneliness, it's not togetherness. It is intimacy."
-- Richard Bach

 

[Trebuchet]

That's because we are not on an intimate enuf level. BAP=BigApplePi.

I think "facepalm" is the correct response here.

So what's the answer? In the first place I don't call the online experience anonymous once one has established a persona. You are Trebuchet and I am BAP and can't change that once you let out details. My own intuition says when one lets out details, there is the possibility for intimacy which is limited only a little more than in real life. One thing is this is semi-public. Intimacy may require a modicum of privacy. This forum has a good thing: one may send PMs (private messages).

Ah, now in PMs, there is a chance for intimacy, so I think you must be right that some privacy is involved. At least for me. I always remember when I post here that it will be online forever. It is disturbing and influences what I write. I do see what you mean about established personae, too. Even if Trebuchet isn't exactly the same as me, I have a consistent online voice. So I have to agree with you, BAP.

Role Playing Games! I don't think we'll see much of that on this forum. INTPs are too serious. There have been some brilliant actors on another bulletin board in my experience. I used to take them all seriously but they became evasive If I questioned them too much. C++? Never used that. I programmed mainframes.

Too serious, eh? This is the first I've heard of that. Anyway, I have fun with them, and I have seen a fair amount of discussion about them on this forum. There is certainly a social stigma to playing them (nerd) but since when do INTPs stop doing something they like just to impress someone else?