When a female INTP reveals herself.

[crippli]

May have been said already:

1. Female reaction to female
2. Gay reaction
3. Reaction to lesbo

It's a bit strange, I just posted a post that appeared further up the thread, Not sure I understand your points, but if that was what was left out, then I think I get it. Thanks.

 

[skip]

I don't think it's rocket science either.

1. Higher percentage of male INTPs than females, in the INTP population. (Heck, there's a higher percentage of males in the T population in general in the USA, I think.)

2. Female INTPs often possess behaviors that are attributed as masculine ones in Western culture, compared to other females.

3. We often pick names that are androgynous or masculine sounding, from my own observation. (I specifically chose otherwise with my userid.)

Not sure why we have to assume there's some level of foul play going on when the most obvious factors easily explain the phenomenon at least on the very general level we are bothering to approach it....

+1

 

[NinjaSurfer]

I find it curious, you say that single men see any forum goer that happens to be female as a potential mate. However, on forums there isn't usually a way to tell how old another person is, what they look like, if they're married or not, etc. As you mentioned, as soon as you find out they're too young or too old, your opinion of them changes. So with so little information about a female you meet on a forum, why do you go as far as to change your behavior in order to appear less offensive to her? It seems a bit illogical.

I don't know about most women, but I find it very offensive when a man opens a door or pulls out a chair for me just because he thinks I'm attractive.

re: point 1
I'll respond to the ageism thing first; I'll just speak for myself; I'm inclined to value an older person's ideas more than a younger person's. Generally, with age comes experience and often wisdom. Sure, there are teenagers way beyond their years in terms of intelligence and wisdom and spirituality and life knowledge. Maybe there's a bit of a respect issue for me; I'm very liberal and open-minded and very INTP too-- so that I can value ideas in and of themselves without letting the nature of the speaker skew my perception of the idea. However, imagine when your parents told you something, and you ignored their advice. Then, when your best friend tells you the same thing, you take your best friend's advice. Extrapolate that same effect to ageism. If Kim Kardashian says "Yes, we can" vs Barrack Obama saying "Yes, we can"-- it seems to have a whole different effect. So it would be totally ignorant for me to say that it doesn't matter who speaks an idea; very often, although we don't like to believe it, it really is not the IDEAS that we value, but we place emphasis on the SPEAKER who speaks the idea.

and, responding to why a guy would change his (or my) behavior once it is found out the other party is a girl-- it probably is illogical, but the penis doesn't have a brain. If guys thought logically, they would never get laid. That girl will probably not sleep with me, so I should not hit on her. This girl on the internet is not even in the same country, we will probably never meet, and there's a one in a million chance we'll even get beyond first name basis... BUT! the same energy that a guy taps to walk up to the girl of his dreams (who will obviously turn him down) and goes for gold and attempts to get her digits, is the same illogical nature that baffles you; it is not going to be understood with "T"


re: point 2, pulling out the chair being offensive for you
Well no one's going to blame you for feeling one way or another; but I think your feeling is misguided and misdirected. Why not feel flattered? It becomes logical when you understand guys are just doing what is in their best interests (to get laid). Now if they knew YOUR personal preferences then that behavior would be counterintuitive, and you'd probably be a "let's split the bill" type of person... but often it's just better to play the odds and appeal to the knight in shining armor gentleman-like behavior.

I actually can't really recall if I've pulled out a chair for a girl while on a date, it does seem a bit old school, but I would defend the practice; I'm not conservative by any means-- but I do have a little sister and I'd probably approve of a guy that proved that chivalry is not dead. Maybe if you press me for a more logical explanation I could give one to you later.

 

[BigApplePi]

I've been so occupied with thinking how other people think (I dunno just guessing) that I forgot to say what I think.

I always assume nothing about a poster. Not their sex, age, religious orientation, sexual orientation, knowledge, etc. I can see their avatar. That's a clue, but not always. Architect has a beard. That's a strong suggestion he's male, but not proof. He mentions his wife. That's stronger yet but still not proof. Sometimes a supposed male will say something of sexual uncertainty. Then that throws me into a dither. Sometimes a poster of unknown status reveals something and I miss it or forget it. Then when others respond with greater knowledge I get confused. Who made the wrong assumption?

When someone responds they are female, I'm almost always happy. Why? Because I've been on boards where male aggressiveness and flaming are displeasing to females and they leave. (Posters are less like that on this forum.) I'm for more equal representation. I hate onesidedness. Why? Because then something is always left out. Why don't I like that? Because then I'm left at the mercy of my ignorance ... vulnerable.

 

[shortbuss]

People ALWAYS assume I'm a dude online. I don't take offense to it, though I dunno, maybe I should, but I don't like to make a big deal about something I'm fairly sure won't be understood, like trying to defend a nuanced feminist perspective to a general public that will only rip me apart for even trying to suggest that women are anything but totally and completely equal.

I have no reservations about disclosing my female identity, but only if it's relevant. It's fun to let people figure it out based on what I say sometimes though in chatrooms, but never explicitly stating it. You get the 'Wait? Are you a female!?', haha, like you've just admitted you were a fucking sea monster. It's funny.

I notice that if my gender status is known that people seem much more eager to question the things I write, especially if I am defending women, or suggesting that we are not mass produced in an assembly line factory, but instead have unique traits, like you know, real human beings. It's a surprisingly difficult concept for some people to grasp.

I like being a female INTP. I enjoy not fitting certain female stereotypes, and surprising people, particularly men. I try to be an "ambassador" on behalf of my gender by being down-to-earth. I'm a very average looking girl, but I find that if I get the chance to really talk with a guy, that they often REALLY like me. I'm not sure why, but I'll take it.

The best thing about being INTP is that I refuse to present myself as anything I am not, because I want a person to like me for who I really am. I would rather be single forever than be fake to appease someone else.

 

[Architect]

People ALWAYS assume I'm a dude online.

Maybe, because well, you have a avatar with a male in it (Jon Stewart?)

In the old days women on the internet would make a big deal of it, using handles like cybergurrrrl or some such nonsense. I found that annoying, you didn't see men calling themselves cyberguyzzzz. In the last few years, along with the rise of social networking interestingly, women are doing that less, and on boards like this they tend to go incognito, which as I said I wish they wouldn't.

My avatar is obviously male, I'm obviously male, I think it helps for people to relate to me as a poster. I prefer it when women posters have an avatar which is even faintly feminine, or feminine indicating.

I also don't like it when male posters have feminine avatars, there are a few on this board.

 

[shortbuss]

Maybe, because well, you have a avatar with a male in it (Jon Stewart?)

Yeah, I can totally understand that. I'm not upset that I'm assumed to be a male. I think it does say something about society, but I'm not entirely sure what that even is honestly. Maybe how the male perspective dominates society and culture in much the same way that heterosexuality is the default sexual orientation assumed of all people until they themselves clarify otherwise.

I personally don't think it's practical to expect for people on the internet to always practice such a high level of conscientiousness, although it never hurts either. It's not like any malice is intended in the act of assuming my gender as male.

But I want to be able to choose the avatar that I think represents who I am, and not what I am, so I'm never going to pick an avatar that communicates my gender.

Oh, and yes, it is Jon Stewart

 

[Puffy]

Yeah, I can totally understand that. I'm not upset that I'm assumed to be a male. I think it does say something about society, but I'm not entirely sure what that even is honestly. Maybe how the male perspective dominates society and culture in much the same way that heterosexuality is the default sexual orientation assumed of all people until they themselves clarify otherwise.

I personally don't think it's practical to expect for people on the internet to always practice such a high level of conscientiousness, although it never hurts either. It's not like any malice is intended in the act of assuming my gender as male.

But I want to be able to choose the avatar that I think represents who I am, and not what I am, so I'm never going to pick an avatar that communicates my gender.

Oh, and yes, it is Jon Stewart

+1

I can't really think of any current members who have been deliberately misleading about their sex with their avatars (if I was being misleading I'd pretend I am biologically female.)

There's probably some truth in what Ninjaturtle says to, but I don't think it's universal. The way I communicate in PM varies a lot, but I think it varies depending on the individual rather than on sex. The internet is a strange site for attraction, anyway. I find for me that it requires some kind of immediacy where online most people are abroad/ inaccessible.

Treat people as they would like to be treated.

 

[BigApplePi]

Treat people as they would like to be treated.

I would like to be treated to an INTP T-Shirt. BigApplePi@INTP Forum.

 

[Fukyo]

The reason why some of the women choose to go incognito has to do with how males in the community react to them. This is not exemplified in this community but in others women get various reactions, ranging from overwhelmingly positive attention to prejudice, harassment and verbal abuse. When said women just want to discuss their pertinent interests and don't want their gender being made a big deal out of, positively or negatively, and they think that people will change their demeanor around them, or pay more heed to their gender (and stereotypes about it) than their words, they obfuscate or outright deny their gender.

 

[warryer]

It's just like finding out Bruce Wayne was Batman all along.

--------

I think it could be because males who frequent forums ones who have a social stigma applied to them - "nerd", "outcast", "anti-social", etc etc... So when a girl pops online its like 'holy shit a chance for some redemption!' Then they do what they can to get some female acceptance as some kind of justification to counteract what real-time people call them.

Whats her name, ah yea @Bird definitely used it to her advantage.

 

[skip]

The reason why some of the women choose to go incognito has to do with how males in the community react to them. This is not exemplified in this community but in others women get various reactions, ranging from overwhelmingly positive attention to prejudice, harassment and verbal abuse. When said women just want to discuss their pertinent interests and don't want their gender being made a big deal out of, positively or negatively, and they think that people will change their demeanor around them, or pay more heed to their gender (and stereotypes about it) than their words, they obfuscate or outright deny their gender.

I've never had that experience online. Hm...

 

[Fukyo]

I've never had that experience online. Hm...

Me neither, but I don't participate in many places online and where I do the atmosphere is not like that, but I have read horror stories about communities like Reddit.

 

[crippli]

My avatar is obviously male, I'm obviously male, I think it helps for people to relate to me as a poster.

Depends. Fe(Male) are identities. Identities are established to gain authority. It's my impression that these identities are not as powerful as they used to be. In any case. Showing off as female or male can trigger aggression. Indeed. Most people will react, sometimes surprisingly strong, if you overdo, and push the boundaries on both masculinity and femininity. People actually feel(unaware?) that they are being attacked. And the ultra feminine will be trodden down, unless they are resourceful enough to shield against the onslaught.

I also see the game aspect of things. If you want to play chess it's not going to work well bringing ludo pieces. On the internet, there is no visual, so everyone should theoretically be able to play whatever game is played. IRL one is going to be measured visually, and there is no easy way around this one. And that measure is going to disqualify you for a whole lot of games.

I am not really sure why it is like this. But it is pack behavior. Perhaps at times it's been necessary for survival?

I also don't like it when male posters have feminine avatars, there are a few on this board.

Interesting. Have you analyses your emotions and picked this apart, to see, where they come from?

 

[redbaron]

I don't think it's rocket science either.

1. Higher percentage of male INTPs than females, in the INTP population. (Heck, there's a higher percentage of males in the T population in general in the USA, I think.)

2. Female INTPs often possess behaviors that are attributed as masculine ones in Western culture, compared to other females.

3. We often pick names that are androgynous or masculine sounding, from my own observation. (I specifically chose otherwise with my userid.)

Not sure why we have to assume there's some level of foul play going on when the most obvious factors easily explain the phenomenon at least on the very general level we are bothering to approach it....

+1

Majority of the females I interact with on a regular basis are not interested in discussion or reading about astronomy, science, literature, technology etc.

I know a lot more males who I can discuss these topics with. I do know a couple of women (one is a physicist, the other a psychologist) who enjoy talking about those topics. Two females, compared to probably 15-20 males who I've had discussions with about these topics.

Whether this is a result of personality or societal values I don't know - but given that this is my experience, when I do come across someone who talks about or is interested in these topics and their gender is not made immediately obvious, my natural expectation is that they will be male.

I haven't really seen this, 'Holy crap you're a girl!?' reaction that you speak of either on this forum.

Interesting. Have you analyses your emotions and picked this apart, to see, where they come from?

I'm fairly sure all he meant by it was that it's annoying because it can be misleading.

I agree.

 

[crippli]

I'm fairly sure all he meant by it was that it's annoying because it can be misleading.

I agree.

I don't see the avatar relevant to the post so not misleading. I have disabled avatars. For me, redbaron your user name is enough information. And I tend to not take them literary. So no problem, people can use whatever avatar they like, I will be unaware, as I prefer.

 

[redbaron]

I don't see the avatar relevant to the post so not misleading. I have disabled avatars. For me, redbaron your user name is enough information. And I tend to not take them literary. So no problem, people can use whatever avatar they like, I will be unaware, as I prefer.

Somehow you're missing the point Architect was making, and I don't know how.

 

[Architect]

Yes I'll make the point a third time; I like to know the gender of the person addressing. I'd also like to know some other basics such as race, or a simple outline of how they look. I have to have some mental image of who I'm talking with, and I'd prefer if it was accurate. Otherwise I don't act differently in either case.

 

[catatonic]

Reading though the posts here I’m always amused with the comments that follow when a female INTP shares her gender. The ‘Holy Crap you’re a girl!?’ reaction. I wonder if it’s our sexism, ego or our social upbringing that makes males assume we have the monopoly on the mind and intelligence.
With that thought.
Ladies, do you consciously not advertise this for the above reasons or something else.
As a side note, a female INTP is dangerous…think about it lol.

I thought that INTJ females rarer than INTP females?
A female INTJ is more dangerous, even more dangerous than the male INTP, at least that's what my friends think.


But, IMO the most dangerous females are the ESTJs.
The second are the ISTJs.

Be careful of the xSTJ females.

 

[crippli]

Redbaron; I noticed the point. But I made my own as well. Like if redbaron is accurate. I would think it is. You're novelty, that is clear, the red I presume is temper. Or are you misleading us? Seriously. I still don't see a feminine avatar with a male as misleading. It would be informative. It would indicate to me either a rift between mind and body. Or mastery of more qualities. The text should provide the answer. This is how I would judge it, and I notice it's different then how you would judge it. Interesting.

Yes I'll make the point a third time; I like to know the gender of the person addressing. I'd also like to know some other basics such as race, or a simple outline of how they look. I have to have somhe mental image of who I'm talking with, and I'd prefer if it was accurate. Otherwise I don't act differently in either case.

I think the issue is if you will act differently. If people didn't act differently, there would be no point in sharing personal information? People will act differently, won't they? You, me, everyone? Are you certain you are able to keep the mental discipline? If so, I would be impressed.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

I thought that INTJ females rarer than INTP females?
A female INTJ is more dangerous, even more dangerous than the male INTP, at least that's what my friends think.


But, IMO the most dangerous females are the ESTJs.
The second are the ISTJs.

Be careful of the xSTJ females.

That's only because INTJs are more likely to mistype as INTP than vice versa

You as a case example

 

[Lot]

But, IMO the most dangerous females are the ESTJs.

I was just thinking about this earlier today. They scare me. It's as if they have this constant chip on their shoulder and doing what ever they can to prove everyone wrong, even if no one said anything to them. Although if I was a business owner I'd probably hire one as a manager, because I'd know that the job would get done the way I want it done.


I agree with Architect. It makes it easier for me to relate to other people's situations. I can see where they might be coming from, where other wise I would be confused.

 

[PhoenixRising]

re: point 1
I'll respond to the ageism thing first; I'll just speak for myself; I'm inclined to value an older person's ideas more than a younger person's. Generally, with age comes experience and often wisdom. Sure, there are teenagers way beyond their years in terms of intelligence and wisdom and spirituality and life knowledge. Maybe there's a bit of a respect issue for me; I'm very liberal and open-minded and very INTP too-- so that I can value ideas in and of themselves without letting the nature of the speaker skew my perception of the idea. However, imagine when your parents told you something, and you ignored their advice. Then, when your best friend tells you the same thing, you take your best friend's advice. Extrapolate that same effect to ageism. If Kim Kardashian says "Yes, we can" vs Barrack Obama saying "Yes, we can"-- it seems to have a whole different effect. So it would be totally ignorant for me to say that it doesn't matter who speaks an idea; very often, although we don't like to believe it, it really is not the IDEAS that we value, but we place emphasis on the SPEAKER who speaks the idea.

and, responding to why a guy would change his (or my) behavior once it is found out the other party is a girl-- it probably is illogical, but the penis doesn't have a brain. If guys thought logically, they would never get laid. That girl will probably not sleep with me, so I should not hit on her. This girl on the internet is not even in the same country, we will probably never meet, and there's a one in a million chance we'll even get beyond first name basis... BUT! the same energy that a guy taps to walk up to the girl of his dreams (who will obviously turn him down) and goes for gold and attempts to get her digits, is the same illogical nature that baffles you; it is not going to be understood with "T"


re: point 2, pulling out the chair being offensive for you
Well no one's going to blame you for feeling one way or another; but I think your feeling is misguided and misdirected. Why not feel flattered? It becomes logical when you understand guys are just doing what is in their best interests (to get laid). Now if they knew YOUR personal preferences then that behavior would be counterintuitive, and you'd probably be a "let's split the bill" type of person... but often it's just better to play the odds and appeal to the knight in shining armor gentleman-like behavior.

I actually can't really recall if I've pulled out a chair for a girl while on a date, it does seem a bit old school, but I would defend the practice; I'm not conservative by any means-- but I do have a little sister and I'd probably approve of a guy that proved that chivalry is not dead. Maybe if you press me for a more logical explanation I could give one to you later.

I guess my views on the subject are not the "norm". Not surprising since I am an INTP. I also hate it when people are fake, so maybe that's why I don't prefer chivalry. Personally, the only thing that gets me interested in a guy is his logic. Intelligence and wit are a turn-on, empty social behavior is a turn-off. In fact, some of the best relationships I've had started with the guy being 100 percent logical, honest and to the point; he says "I wanna sleep with you" and I say "ok". Wouldn't it be nice if everything was that straight-forward? I abhor legal proceedings and courtship for the same reason, they defeat the purpose of Occam's razor.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

^^^ lol that shit usually gets you slapped or a sexual harassment case

 

[PhoenixRising]

^^^ lol that shit usually gets you slapped or a sexual harassment case

That's because most people take things too personally, and they have preconceived notions of what's socially "right" and "wrong". I'm getting a headache thinking about how people over complicate things

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I find the best way to deal with chivalry is to counterattack with over-the-top chivalry.
It's actually a rather fun twist and can become a running joke. Though it takes a specific sense of humor, some guys get mad if you treat them like a princess.

 

[kora]

I guess my views on the subject are not the "norm". Not surprising since I am an INTP. I also hate it when people are fake, so maybe that's why I don't prefer chivalry. Personally, the only thing that gets me interested in a guy is his logic. Intelligence and wit are a turn-on, empty social behavior is a turn-off. In fact, some of the best relationships I've had started with the guy being 100 percent logical, honest and to the point; he says "I wanna sleep with you" and I say "ok". Wouldn't it be nice if everything was that straight-forward? I abhor legal proceedings and courtship for the same reason, they defeat the purpose of Occam's razor.

I second this 100% , I wonder if it's a female INTP thing?

 

[redbaron]

I want to sleep with both of you at the same time.

Is it working?

 

[BigApplePi]

We often pick names that are androgynous or masculine sounding, from my own observation. (I specifically chose otherwise with my userid.)

‘Holy Crap you’re a girl!?’ Though you may not be surprised I said that, it doesn't take away from my surprise.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I want to sleep with both of you at the same time.

Is it working?

no. At least in my case, I would have to analyze you first to see if you were a compatible enough match. And right now I'm in a relationship with an ENTJ, which is scientifically interesting in its own right.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I second this 100% , I wonder if it's a female INTP thing?

Perhaps it's a side effect of letting logic rather than emotions dictate your decision making process. Like attracts like right?

 

[Etheri]

Perhaps it's a side effect of letting logic rather than emotions dictate your decision making process. Like attracts like right?

Copy pasting what i've recently read and has been posted somewhere on this forum before (I think). It seems to describe the point you people are making fairly accurately. It's also something I truly recognise in myself, which is probably the reason I keep making connections between this thread and this article.

source

A rational craves a mindmate, and here's an example of what that means. You can put an insanely gorgeous woman in front of me, and, of course, I'll feel desire. For a long time, I thought I would desire her because she was beautiful, but I've learned that's not true. Everyone likes what we find beautiful, that's no secret, but it's just a start. Without realizing it on a conscious level, I would fantasize that her beauty is an indication that her mind is going to match that attractiveness. If she hasn't opened her mouth yet, the fantasy can grow. If she never opens her mouth, that fantasy can become a false truth. She can remain utterly amazing forever. However, if she does open her mouth, or I can observe her actions, something often happens. If her mind turns out to be a turn-off, the attraction will evaporate, regardless of her beauty. Honestly. The sad truth is that I don't think there's a double-bagger solution for anti-mindmates. It's not something that can be ignored. (I should note that the reverse is also true. Mind connections can spark desire regardless of a person's appearance.)

 

[PhoenixRising]

Copy pasting what i've recently read and has been posted somewhere on this forum before (I think). It seems to describe the point you people are making fairly accurately. It's also something I truly recognise in myself, which is probably the reason I keep making connections between this thread and this article.

source

Indeed, attraction is more than skin deep. There is an intricate psychological science to it.

 

[catatonic]

Most of the INTJ females are not really into the sex, we appreciate emotional connections more than sex. Maybe that's why the tagline of the forum is "Masterminds, Innovators, Villains, Virgins."

Be In Purity, Be In Abstinence.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I guess my views on the subject are not the "norm". Not surprising since I am an INTP. I also hate it when people are fake, so maybe that's why I don't prefer chivalry. Personally, the only thing that gets me interested in a guy is his logic. Intelligence and wit are a turn-on, empty social behavior is a turn-off. In fact, some of the best relationships I've had started with the guy being 100 percent logical, honest and to the point; he says "I wanna sleep with you" and I say "ok". Wouldn't it be nice if everything was that straight-forward? I abhor legal proceedings and courtship for the same reason, they defeat the purpose of Occam's razor.

^^^ lol that shit usually gets you slapped or a sexual harassment case

There is nothing logical at all about that, straightforward yes, but also stupid. It's irrational to expect any female would be receptive of a straightforward sexual-relationship approach when (1) the prevailing societal attitudes are against that and (2) laws are against that. Like NinjaSurfer already said, either way you're asking to get slapped, on the face or on the wrists(with handcuffs).

 

[PhoenixRising]

There is nothing logical at all about that, straightforward yes, but also stupid. It's irrational to expect any female would be receptive of a straightforward sexual-relationship approach when (1) the prevailing societal attitudes are against that and (2) laws are against that. Like NinjaSurfer already said, either way you're asking to get slapped, on the face or on the wrists(with handcuffs).

What law says a man can't tell woman he wants to have sex with her? Now rape, yeah that's illegal and it should be, but what happened to freedom of speech?

My point wasn't that most females prefer straightforwardness, most don't since INTP females only make up about .00025 percent of the human population. Most females are EXFJ types. Most females are overly emotional and tend to overreact to the tiniest of things. Like mice, or lack of fashion sense, or being hit on by someone. They are also very social and rely on constructs such as $2000 diamond rings that they force men to buy them before they'll have sex with them. Many of them like getting free stuff, and will use sex like a carrot on a string to get a man to buy them things. My question is, if men will date women like this, why not just pick up a bum off the street, dress him up nice and date him? A freeloader is a freeloader.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

What law says a man can't tell woman he wants to have sex with her? Now rape, yeah that's illegal and it should be, but what happened to freedom of speech?

Not those direct words of course, but having such an attitude towards females for males would definitely lead to trouble with the law & society.

My point wasn't that most females prefer straightforwardness, most don't since INTP females only make up about .00025 percent of the human population. Most females are EXFJ types. Most females are overly emotional and tend to overreact to the tiniest of things. Like mice, or lack of fashion sense, or being hit on by someone. They are also very social and rely on constructs such as $2000 diamond rings that they force men to buy them before they'll have sex with them. Many of them like getting free stuff, and will use sex like a carrot on a string to get a man to buy them things. My question is, if men will date women like this, why not just pick up a bum off the street, dress him up nice and date him? A freeloader is a freeloader.

I don't accept MBTI statistics, since they are usually unfounded, but I understand the point you're making. I know public society is like what you're describing, you were talking about your preferences & expectations so that's what I'm addressing.

It's fine to like what you like but I'm just saying that going by what you described you're looking for someone who is brash and impulsive, which is far from being logical, since as said before, expecting for women to be receptive to that attitude and behavior is absurd.

There are intelligent, self sufficient women out there if you're not too lazy to find them. Intelligent women will usually value honesty over social niceties.

So, with that said, people should be able to be real, be themselves, and not get slapped for it because spoiled, freeloading sissy bitches want to control society.

Honesty is one thing, but flat out saying "I wanna have sex with you" is on a whole different level. I agree that we shouldn't have to beat around the bush, or that we shouldn't have to spend time & money on useless social rituals, but your expectation/preference of forwardness invokes the double standard.

 

[redbaron]

Honesty is one thing, but flat out saying "I wanna have sex with you" is on a whole different level. I agree that we shouldn't have to beat around the bush, or that we shouldn't have to spend time & money on useless social rituals, but your expectation/preference of forwardness invokes the double standard.

To be honest, I found this is the best way for me to make any real progress with women that I don't know, or am not hugely familiar with.

For example, in a club/bar setting on the dance floor. I really have NO idea how I'm supposed to approach someone that I like in that situation. So I just make some eye contact for a while. After some time if she returns glances and responds to a smile, I go over and grind on her. If the girl isn't interested in the first place, she won't continue to exchange glances for 20+ minutes in the first place. I haven't been slapped or outright rejected yet, and it's WAY better than approaching a girl and trying to strike up conversation in a loud environment.

Same as if I approach a table full of girls, I'll walk up and indicate who I'm interested in pretty much immediately. I introduce myself to the rest of them, ask them some questions, give a little information. It's difficult, but just some information about something on the news or event around the world is usually enough to strike up some basic conversation and it shows that you have outside interests/intelligence. Depending on the reaction I might sit down, or ask one to dance.

Guys SHOULD indicate when they want to sleep with someone. They don't have to outright say it, but I'm pretty sure the girl who I'm grinding on is aware that I think she's hot and I want to have sex.

I can understand what Phoenix and Higs mean, I see so many guys who just screw things up by approaching girls on a dance-floor for example and TALKING. Leaning into her ear, half-yelling stuff that she can barely hear - because the reason she came to the dance-floor was probably to talk! Smooth moves bro!

Or when they approach a girl at the bar or a table they ask something like, 'what do you study at uni?' or some other generic question that they probably hear 5 times a day.

These things just sends the message that, 'I'm too scared to express the fact I want to do bad things to you'. I can see the frustration that could arise for females when few guys have the balls to express themselves as men.

So as far as I'm concerned and from what I've seen of certain friends who...struggle(?) to even get to first base with women, frustration at how utterly scared most guys are of expressing their intentions is valid.

 

[MissQuote]

What you describe is quite different than outright saying to someone that you want to bed them.

In fact, it is the more natural instinct and basic beginning of the mating game. Flirting begins with body language.

The male searches for receptive females and when he notices one whom he is attracted to and who is noticing him back he attempts to get her attention more with glances and subtly over exaggerated movements continuing to watch for her response. If she is interested she responds by watching and looking away alternately, lowering the forehead and raising the eyes, making her body seem more open- exposing the weak points such as the neck, by tilting her head away from him while turning the body toward him, or the wrists- the hands go outward instead of in toward herself. She preens her hair, and moves her knees in his direction. He continues to watch and pretend he isn't watching at all all the while throwing his shoulders back more and moving his body in ways that make it look bigger, as well alternating putting his hands in his pockets or belt loops to draw attention, like an arrow pointing, to his male area.

When the female has indicated enough with her body language that she is attracted and interested, he approaches her. If her body language continues to be receptive in the ways described above he begins to move in and touch her, on the arm, shoulder, lean closer, talk her into liking him.

nearly all of this up until the male approaching the female is completely instinctual and subconscious. It won't be remembered by either party that she invited him to her- both parties, if asked later, will say he made the first moves. When really he was simply surveying for an invitation from any attractive female and she sent the invitation out specifically to him.

No different than with the animals.

 

[redbaron]

Well, I suppose you're right. But not many males know how to do the 'lead-up' you and I are describing, which is what I was sort of getting at. Most are pretty hopeless at approaching members of the opposite sex and don't have the confidence to just walk up to a chick they've been exchanging looks with and grind/dance with them.

I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree that being direct and saying you want to have sex will get you sued or slapped. If you don't know what cues to look for an act on, yes. If you have mutual acquaintances and you've built some rapport, you could say it. Although unless the girl had already decided she wanted to fuck you, I doubt it would be ultimately successful without building any excitement and expectation for her.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Well, I suppose you're right. But not many males know how to do the 'lead-up' you and I are describing, which is what I was sort of getting at. Most are pretty hopeless at approaching members of the opposite sex and don't have the confidence to just walk up to a chick they've been exchanging looks with and grind/dance with them.

I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree that being direct and saying you want to have sex will get you sued or slapped. If you don't know what cues to look for an act on, yes. If you have mutual acquaintances and you've built some rapport, you could say it. Although unless the girl had already decided she wanted to fuck you, I doubt it would be ultimately successful without building any excitement and expectation for her.

In other words, double standard. You pulled the topic towards clubs and bars which I don't think PhoenixRising(not trying to speak for you) or I was talking about. That's a different venue, people go there to have a good time and even I understand and agree that at least some effort/skills should be involved. But I was talking about people you meet and socialize with outside of clubs & bars, that you're interested in. No female wants to be bluntly approached like that in a casual setting, at least after living in my state, interacting with my peers, absorbing social media, watching the news, and hearing what people say, for so long that's the feeling I get.

I could be wrong about my perceptions, but facing claims of sexual harassment or being labeled as a creep isn't worth it.


I guess this leads back to what PhoenixRising was saying:

That's because most people take things too personally, and they have preconceived notions of what's socially "right" and "wrong". I'm getting a headache thinking about how people over complicate things

 

[redbaron]

In other words, double standard. You pulled the topic towards clubs and bars which I don't think PhoenixRising(not trying to speak for you) or I was talking about. That's a different venue, people go there to have a good time and even I understand and agree that at least some effort/skills should be involved. But I was talking about people you meet and socialize with outside of clubs & bars, that you're interested in. No female wants to be bluntly approached like that in a casual setting, at least after living in my state, interacting with my peers, absorbing social media, watching the news, and hearing what people say, for so long that's the feeling I get.

It was really just an example to highlight that most guys really aren't straightforward enough. The same principle still applies to a casual setting.

I don't know why you assume it's unwanted in a casual setting either. If a girl is interested in you, it should be easy enough to get her into a more private situation in the first place, at which point you should be blunt. She's interested and you have her alone, you're an idiot if you aren't straightforward at this point.

I'm going to say that you're failing to read between the lines here. I don't think PhoenixRising was referring to being in a casual setting at all, where someone just blurts out, 'I want to have sex with you'. I'm assuming that it was in a situation of at least some privacy, or if it was in a public setting, she was comfortable with the guy already.

My point: She wasn't suggesting you blurt out your thoughts at an inappropriate time or place, or to someone you don't know, simply that she prefers it if guys who were interested in her make obvious their intentions.

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think her suggestion was that you tell just anyone you want to have sex with.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It was really just an example to highlight that most guys really aren't straightforward enough. The same principle still applies to a casual setting.

I don't know why you assume it's unwanted in a casual setting either. If a girl is interested in you, it should be easy enough to get her into a more private situation in the first place, at which point you should be blunt. She's interested and you have her alone, you're an idiot if you aren't straightforward at this point.

I'm going to say that you're failing to read between the lines here. I don't think PhoenixRising was referring to being in a casual setting at all, where someone just blurts out, 'I want to have sex with you'. I'm assuming that it was in a situation of at least some privacy, or if it was in a public setting, she was comfortable with the guy already.

My point: She wasn't suggesting you blurt out your thoughts at an inappropriate time or place, or to someone you don't know, simply that she prefers it if guys who were interested in her make obvious their intentions.

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think her suggestion was that you tell just anyone you want to have sex with.

Well I read not liking/disapproving of "fake-ness, chivalry, courtship, empty social behavior ", you don't really get far(e.g. comfortable, reciprocal) without any of that.

And yeah, maybe not just anyone, but still, to even get to know someone in the first place you have to engage in certain social procedures, and if you're honestly direct about your intentions, whether you could even get to the point of being comfortable and reciprocal with each other is already determined at initially meeting each other and her deciding if she's interested.

So that's what I'm saying, you can only be blunt with someone you're already comfortable with, but by then your intentions would already be clear. Being blunt initially in the process of getting to know someone is irrational because that is not what seems to be accepted by females and society(and so I thought Phoenix' preference/expectation of people to be that way, and considering it "logical", was controversial) .

 

[MissQuote]

It's not very "logical". A lot of people consider anything "straightforward" that a male does to be logical, simply because of his maleness.

Male = Logical (in society)

 

[Jennywocky]

Most of the INTJ females are not really into the sex, we appreciate emotional connections more than sex. Maybe that's why the tagline of the forum is "Masterminds, Innovators, Villains, Virgins."

Be In Purity, Be In Abstinence.

Oh dear. How boring.

Don't get me wrong, as an sx/sp type I do value emotional depth and quality time as a primary factor in my relationships. But sex is fun; consider it "Ne at Play." The thought of chaste love isn't exactly appealing to me.

In fact, it is the more natural instinct and basic beginning of the mating game. Flirting begins with body language.

The male searches for receptive females and when he notices one whom he is attracted to and who is noticing him back he attempts to get her attention more with glances and subtly over exaggerated movements continuing to watch for her response. If she is interested she responds by watching and looking away alternately, lowering the forehead and raising the eyes, making her body seem more open- exposing the weak points such as the neck, by tilting her head away from him while turning the body toward him, or the wrists- the hands go outward instead of in toward herself. She preens her hair, and moves her knees in his direction. He continues to watch and pretend he isn't watching at all all the while throwing his shoulders back more and moving his body in ways that make it look bigger, as well alternating putting his hands in his pockets or belt loops to draw attention, like an arrow pointing, to his male area.

When the female has indicated enough with her body language that she is attracted and interested, he approaches her. If her body language continues to be receptive in the ways described above he begins to move in and touch her, on the arm, shoulder, lean closer, talk her into liking him.

nearly all of this up until the male approaching the female is completely instinctual and subconscious. It won't be remembered by either party that she invited him to her- both parties, if asked later, will say he made the first moves. When really he was simply surveying for an invitation from any attractive female and she sent the invitation out specifically to him.

No different than with the animals.

Fancy that. But yes, I think you have captured it nicely here. I also find it rather odd when there's a guy I meet who I do like, and I catch myself doing all of these kinds of things, along with smiling, laughing, raising the pitch of my voice and using far more inflection... and I feel more like an observer/rider in my own body than I do a controller of it.

I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree that being direct and saying you want to have sex will get you sued or slapped.

I think it will only get you slapped if you are a clueless wonder who thinks he can read women far better than he actually can, as you go on to say. Basically, the signals are there if both people have been free enough to provide them; and you simply have to be prepared to shut things down / move in a different direction if you realize that you've made a mistake.

I usually just don't want to be cold-approached by guys I haven't even looked at twice, who I haven't given any cues to, when it's obvious I'm busy with the people I'm with, who beat around the bush when the fact they've approached me in a cold situation makes it clear what their intent is, and who don't take negative cues and words to heart if I offer them.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Well I read not liking/disapproving of "fake-ness, chivalry, courtship, empty social behavior ", you don't really get far(e.g. comfortable, reciprocal) without any of that.

And yeah, maybe not just anyone, but still, to even get to know someone in the first place you have to engage in certain social procedures, and if you're honestly direct about your intentions, whether you could even get to the point of being comfortable and reciprocal with each other is already determined at initially meeting each other and her deciding if she's interested.

So that's what I'm saying, you can only be blunt with someone you're already comfortable with, but by then your intentions would already be clear. Being blunt initially in the process of getting to know someone is irrational because that is not what seems to be accepted by females and society(and so I thought Phoenix' preference/expectation of people to be that way, and considering it "logical", was controversial) .

I'll be blunt with you and I don't really even know you. I think you are afraid to experiment with letting social rituals go. You're afraid of judgement. For me, I don't care what people think about me, I'm straightforward and speak my mind in all circumstances. I'm not afraid because I realize that social acceptance, whatever the ends, is a futile and useless thing. It is better to be an example of reality than to feed the "all mighty" social norms that make people lie about themselves.

If I simply wanted to get laid (since apparently that is the end goal for single males), then I would do as I always do, be myself, and whoever doesn't like it isn't worth my time. That's how you find meaningful interaction. Besides, if you do pretend to be a jock and manage to sleep with a female with a low IQ, what if she gets pregnant? What if the child gets their intelligence from their mother's side? Then you've got a dumb kid on your hands, with a dumb mom that pursues you for child support because she isn't smart enough to hold down a job.

See my point? It isn't that I think everyone should go around telling anyone they find attractive that they want to sleep with them. Redbaron is close to capturing my meaning in that respect. It's that if you're going to get together with someone, they should like you for who you are, be at least somewhat compatible, and be clear about your intentions. Anything else is illogical.

 

[MissQuote]

Fancy that. But yes, I think you have captured it nicely here. I also find it rather odd when there's a guy I meet who I do like, and I catch myself doing all of these kinds of things, along with smiling, laughing, raising the pitch of my voice and using far more inflection... and I feel more like an observer/rider in my own body than I do a controller of it.

The burden of knowing too much, you end up only ever watching, even when participating.

I had fun writing that little thing out, though I figured it was the sort of common knowledge people around here would have, it amused me to write about humans like I were writing for a nature documentary.

 

[ememisya]

I think this entire thread is one giant flamebait, and you folks gave Tc76 the satisfaction. The subject first of all includes the words like "female" and "reveal herself" to get your mind into sex immediately. EyeSeeCold, saw straight through the clever disguise yet was nice about it. NinjaSurfer went for the bait. Tc76 gave up on the time it takes to get the conversation into sex, and went straight for the use of ...boobs. And progression of events from there on lead to even a reaction to lesbos.

In the end, nothing other than your monkey parts you just revealed.

Avoid the flamebait. BEEEWAAARE OF THE FLLAMMEEBAAIT!
And don't feed the trolls. Especially not this one.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'll be blunt with you and I don't really even know you. I think you are afraid to experiment with letting social rituals go. You're afraid of judgement. For me, I don't care what people think about me, I'm straightforward and speak my mind in all circumstances. I'm not afraid because I realize that social acceptance, whatever the ends, is a futile and useless thing. It is better to be an example of reality than to feed the "all mighty" social norms that make people lie about themselves.

I'm not promoting that we engage in or cling to social rituals or social acceptance, I'm saying that there are consequences that a male would face for negative social actions(i.e. unwanted and barefaced sexual/relationship approaches).

If I simply wanted to get laid (since apparently that is the end goal for single males), then I would do as I always do, be myself, and whoever doesn't like it isn't worth my time. That's how you find meaningful interaction. Besides, if you do pretend to be a jock and manage to sleep with a female with a low IQ, what if she gets pregnant? What if the child gets their intelligence from their mother's side? Then you've got a dumb kid on your hands, with a dumb mom that pursues you for child support because she isn't smart enough to hold down a job.


See my point? It isn't that I think everyone should go around telling anyone they find attractive that they want to sleep with them. Redbaron is close to capturing my meaning in that respect. It's that if you're going to get together with someone, they should like you for who you are, be at least somewhat compatible, and be clear about your intentions. Anything else is illogical.

Nobody's saying we should pretend to be jocks. My other response to you was more relevant, I'm not sure why you skipped it since I already said I agreed with you on some points.

:

Honesty is one thing, but flat out saying "I wanna have sex with you" is on a whole different level. I agree that we shouldn't have to beat around the bush, or that we shouldn't have to spend time & money on useless social rituals, but your expectation/preference of forwardness invokes the double standard.

The bold still applies, but the other stuff doesn't matter since you clarified yourself. I didn't really get the same perspective that you're now explaining, before it seemed like you meant a tactless approach to relationships, but now it seems about "being yourself" which of course I agree with. I would think that's a given here.

 

[ememisya]

The bold still applies,

I addressed your entire post by responding to a single sentence from it.