Personality Cafe banner

25941 - 25960 of 26446 Posts

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,430 Posts
INTJs

Do you ever find your goals far outreach what society can cater for? In a sense that, your dreams or visions are not yet compatible with the way society currently functions and the dream is too dear to compromise so its kept in the closet labeled 'rumination'. How - did it go / is it going?
No. I am a future thinker - not delusional. Everything is just in reach, with (high amount of work - on a timeline) but may or may not be worth the energy. This helps with a effective reward system, and not fall into unproductive daydreaming + unnecessary stress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
heres a question for you.

if you ask and INTJ if they want to be a couple, eg your bf/gf and they ask you if they can think about it.
how long should you give it before you assume that the answer if no and walk away ??
I personally would know right away because if I’m not interested I wouldn’t let it get that far in the first place that the guy thinks that he might have a chance. Others might operate differently, so I’ll probably be willing to wait 2 days tops if I’m not involved in the thought process.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Plague Doctor
Joined
·
5,927 Posts
Are you aromantic?
To a degree. I don't actively seek relationships out; they find me. As long as I can see a good reason to "be" with someone as a partner, I'll do it, but it does have to make sense and be practical as well as rewarding. I don't know if this actually varies from person to person - it's hard to imagine wanting to be in a romantic relationship that doesn't make sense in some way.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
Are you aromantic?
Nah, I'm just pretty content without one but if I have one it's icing on a cake I guess. I think what @brightflashes said is pretty in line for me too. I don't generally look to have a relationship to have a relationship, that has never been me. It's always the person specifically that then leads to wanting or having a relationship. Then I usually get the yearnings for that closeness or relationship with someone, but it's usually stirred up by having an interest in a specific person who has turned that switch on, so to speak.

I used to think that was normal for everyone but I have since learned it is not and I guess some people want to be in a romantic relationship no matter what and the person they have the relationship with is kind of interchangeable in a sense or a "this will do". I don't mean that at all to disparage people who think that way, I do think they truly love and are into their romantic partner they end up with or whatever, it is just foreign to my mind on how to approach relationships: looking for someone to be in a relationship with (not me) vs. meeting someone who makes you want to be in a relationship (yes me)

But yeah, generally no I am not aromantic if I understand the definition correctly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brightflashes

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,153 Posts
Are you aromantic?
. . . . i don't know, maybe? i don't even see a common thread in what most people might be meaning when they say 'romance'. so that makes the flipside question pretty impossible to answer.

i can sort of divide what seems to be the cultural spectrum on 'romantic' into a kind of pyramid. kind of. i think i have the bottom layers pretty taped out, but don't get very far into it before i run out of gas.

bottom of the pile: people who say 'romance' when what they're discussing is 'sex'. i despise these people.
next up: the cliche bucket. candles, beach walks, gestures involving some form of 'see what you're worth to me' performance counter from either side. definitely never been into this stuff.
level 3: um?

lol. i guess based on the pitifulness of that performance there's evidence that i'm romance-deaf if nothing else. but i'm serious when i say i don't know waht people are talking about when they use the word. i googled the concept and some sources seem to imply it's about relationships, which seems right there to be a bit of a mismatch to me. to others, it seems to be about a performative yardstick - not just that the 'romantics' these people are talking about are defining 'romance' by the gestures performed towards them, but also that there's some concept of 'romantic attraction' making the 'romantic' person want to make gestures like that to the other person. or want the other person to make gestures like that to them.

none of that makes any sense to me. i think - but this is a mental-struggle kind of topic just figuring out what my terms of engagement with it are - i thiiink that i don't relate at all to 'romance' as a presentation concept. like, the best i can tell from a quick poll of my internal self, i can't see the difference at all between the gestures you make because you love someone and the gestures you make that get given the 'romantic' tag. i don't get why one gets the markup or special flavour to it, and another doesn't. it's just affection to me. the rest is individual detail about how emotionally precise and true to the affection the gesture might be.

tl;dr i am damned if i know.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
. . . . i don't know, maybe? i don't even see a common thread in what most people might be meaning when they say 'romance'. so that makes the flipside question pretty impossible to answer.

i can sort of divide what seems to be the cultural spectrum on 'romantic' into a kind of pyramid. kind of. i think i have the bottom layers pretty taped out, but don't get very far into it before i run out of gas.

bottom of the pile: people who say 'romance' when what they're discussing is 'sex'. i despise these people.
next up: the cliche bucket. candles, beach walks, gestures involving some form of 'see what you're worth to me' performance counter from either side. definitely never been into this stuff.
level 3: um?

lol. i guess based on the pitifulness of that performance there's evidence that i'm romance-deaf if nothing else. but i'm serious when i say i don't know waht people are talking about when they use the word. i googled the concept and some sources seem to imply it's about relationships, which seems right there to be a bit of a mismatch to me. to others, it seems to be about a performative yardstick - not just that the 'romantics' these people are talking about are defining 'romance' by the gestures performed towards them, but also that there's some concept of 'romantic attraction' making the 'romantic' person want to make gestures like that to the other person. or want the other person to make gestures like that to them.

none of that makes any sense to me. i think - but this is a mental-struggle kind of topic just figuring out what my terms of engagement with it are - i thiiink that i don't relate at all to 'romance' as a presentation concept. like, the best i can tell from a quick poll of my internal self, i can't see the difference at all between the gestures you make because you love someone and the gestures you make that get given the 'romantic' tag. i don't get why one gets the markup or special flavour to it, and another doesn't. it's just affection to me. the rest is individual detail about how emotionally precise and true to the affection the gesture might be.

tl;dr i am damned if i know.

From what I understand in use in culture currently, aromantic = not interested in romantic relationships, as opposed to friendships, with others (i.e. being in a relationship like boyfriend/girlfriend, having a special person, coupling up, whatever), not referring to “romance” as a concept.

I think it may have come about in the whole asexuality realm in that asexual people are not necessarily aromantic and making a distinction as they tend to be conflated with asexuality, that’s my suspicion anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lilysocks

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,153 Posts
From what I understand in use in culture currently,
yeah, but . . . the way you dereference it (can see why you do) makes it, what? another word for monogamy? a precondition to [either of] monogamy OR polygamy? but then, what, the best i can tell we never even mention mono or poly unless there's a context that's sexual too. or maybe not. maybe it's about the romantic-emo alone. and honestly i'ts not hard for me to imagine people who are or would like to be in love with more than one person at once.

aaghhh. to me all of htis really gets nebulous when you start analyzing.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
yeah, but . . . the way you dereference it (can see why you do) makes it, what? another word for monogamy? a precondition to [either of] monogamy OR polygamy? but then, what, the best i can tell we never even mention mono or poly unless there's a context that's sexual too. or maybe not. maybe it's about the romantic-emo alone. and honestly i'ts not hard for me to imagine people who are or would like to be in love with more than one person at once.

aaghhh. to me all of htis really gets nebulous when you start analyzing.

I’d say it would encompass both or would be a precondition I suppose, just a general interested in romantic relationships or not. Poly and mono romantic relationships are still romantic relationships whether that’s love with one or many. Aromantic people, as I understand, don’t care to have a partner in that way/don’t have romantic love type interest in others. Or something like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
What brings you gladness or delight? That thing that plasters a shit eating grin on your face (or finds you reveling internally while externally appearing placid?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,159 Posts
Would you guys text an opposite gender friend every day if you’re not romantically attracted? I’m the Enfp friend here lol
Yes. I don't have a huge circle of friends so the friends I have are very dear. Additionally, most of my friends are the opposite gender.

That said, it can go either way: I have friends that I have some form of communication with almost daily (even just one text) and some friends I don't talk to for months (or more). They're the same level of importance, just different dynamic.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
Yes. I don't have a huge circle of friends so the friends I have are very dear. Additionally, most of my friends are the opposite gender.

That said, it can go either way: I have friends that I have some form of communication with almost daily (even just one text) and some friends I don't talk to for months (or more). They're the same level of importance, just different dynamic.
^ Pretty much same.

I will say it's rare that there's people I text daily but yeah it's not an indicator on whether I'm romantically interested or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stathamspeacoat

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,153 Posts
What brings you gladness or delight? That thing that plasters a shit eating grin on your face (or finds you reveling internally while externally appearing placid?)
affection and funniness are my big ones right now. either one of those can keep me happy for quite a long time.

Would you guys text an opposite gender friend every day if you’re not romantically attracted?
i'm not sure i'd do it if i were attracted, actually. when i'm sure it's solidly platonic i don't have to worry about boundaries or mixing the messages. others' mileage may vary though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
Would you guys text an opposite gender friend every day if you’re not romantically attracted? I’m the Enfp friend here lol
I believe it's safe to say: not (necessarily) indicative of romantic attraction.
But I don't text a whole lot of people everyday either way.
 
25941 - 25960 of 26446 Posts
Top