Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
ILE-Ne 7w8 sp/sx
Joined
·
2,022 Posts
I've heard of that kind of macho violence, or men challenging other men because of other offenses like that.

I wondered about how common it is for women to try to get men to engage in this type of macho behavior because I've heard accounts from men that they've observed that. Even like women making eyes at guys and then trying to get their boyfriends to start something.


That is an interesting point about socionics--I've never met a woman who acted like that (that I knew) but when I think about it, some men might also try to encourage catfights, though in different ways. Like an Se dom ex I had tended to stoke jealousy when dating a woman--which seemed to result in him trying to pit his partner against other women...and I have also seen Ni dom guy act sort of like that too. I've always found it really bizarre.

I am probably too averse to violence to really understand it. It just seems stupid to me--if you like someone, then that is what is important. Not whether they will fight with other people for you. But then...that would be more like the caregiving/infantile (Si/Ne) socionics people--like you care more about the well-being of your partner than to see them in some shitty fight over something stupid.
IEI men are particularly notorious for encouraging catfights. They tend to fetishise sexual violence (cough cough BDSM) and often try and provoke two girls into fighting themselves to the death over them. To me, this seems like such a tragic waste of harem potential - why kill one girl off when you could enjoy the pleasures of both?

One of the main reasons I prefer SEIs over IEIs is that the former care more about whether you are fun and entertaining than how many 100kg deadlifts you can do. Also, SEIs are so much better in bed. IEIs just lie there like a limp fish - you could be forgiven for wondering if you are making love to a corpse.
 

·
Retired Administrator
Joined
·
15,780 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
IEI men are particularly notorious for encouraging catfights. They tend to fetishise sexual violence (cough cough BDSM) and often try and provoke two girls into fighting themselves to the death over them. To me, this seems like such a tragic waste of harem potential.

One of the main reasons I prefer SEIs over IEIs is that the former care more about whether you are fun and entertaining than how many 100kg deadlifts you can do. Also, SEIs are so much better in bed. IEIs just lie there like a limp fish - it is like making love to a corpse.
It does seem like a waste of people--and it is nicer to get along when possible imo.

Though, from the perspective of people with strong aggressor/victim styles, people with infantile romantic styles are probably unexciting. I mean, imagine trying to get an infant to get in a fight with someone over you and just seeing the infant get beat up.

I think that's another reason I dislike it so much, because to me it feels like some kind of betrayal to have someone want to put you in situations where someone's going to try to hurt you. It really doesn't work well.

But maybe that is why you had such bad sexual experiences with the IEI--because they weren't impressed by your infantileness. Maybe with another type they would be more active in bed. 🤷‍♀️
 

·
Retired Administrator
Joined
·
15,780 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
Ugh now I wonder if I could be an SFP because I get the urge to white knight so often, and if that's an aggressor thing or if it's just completely separate because it has more to do with values and feeling protective than sexual or romantic expression.
 

·
Registered
ILE-Ne 7w8 sp/sx
Joined
·
2,022 Posts
It does seem like a waste of people--and it is nicer to get along when possible imo.

Though, from the perspective of people with strong aggressor/victim styles, people with infantile romantic styles are probably unexciting. I mean, imagine trying to get an infant to get in a fight with someone over you and just seeing the infant get beat up.

I think that's another reason I dislike it so much, because to me it feels like some kind of betrayal to have someone want to put you in situations where someone's going to try to hurt you. It really doesn't work well.

But maybe that is why you had such bad sexual experiences with the IEI--because they weren't impressed by your infantileness. Maybe with another type they would be more active in bed. 🤷‍♀️
Victim women do tend to find the sexual preferences of Infantile men annoying (and vice versa). This IEI and I had many interests in common, such as psychology and poetry, so I found her company stimulating and liked to hear her take on things. She seemed like an unusually deep and thoughtful woman. Unfortunately, she didn't understand that to me, the process of becoming intimate should be unambiguous, pleasant and playful - much like savouring a fine wine while you watch a buffa opera. I don't see intimacy as a struggle, or as a game with a prize to be won, but as a gift that you give freely to your lover because you take joy in their happiness.

On a more serious note, I've noticed that modern Anglo culture has a tendency to fetishise passivity in its women. Women are often compared to flowers - fragile, elegant and innocent, incapable of deception or malice. Men, by contrast, are often compared to animals (being called a "bull" or a "stallion" is apparently a compliment, not an insult) which implies to me that we are valued for our physical strength and virility, but little else. Intelligence and good taste in art are today conflated with effeminacy, a development that would have shocked the Ancients.

A Victim woman will take advantage of this bias and deliberately play the damsel in distress, as she knows her motives and intentions are unlikely to be questioned. The Aggressor male's protective instincts and tendency to act before thinking make him easy for her to manipulate, and the latter rarely appreciates that he is viewed as an expendable utility, cannon fodder for the cause. Thus, if the Aggressor fails to live up to his lady's expectations and slay the monster, he simply will be replaced by another, "tougher" man. Many of the feminine stereotypes that you will find in PUA/RedPill theories were written with Victim women in mind.

That being said, I'm getting a bit off topic here and want to let this thread breathe a little. If you want, we can continue our conversation in PM format.
 

·
Registered
INFP
Joined
·
63 Posts
It is a real thing.

Because for whatever fucking reason we still live in a society that views sexuality as a virus of the soul of someshit.

Also.. body positivity fucks exist.
875633
 

·
Retired Administrator
Joined
·
15,780 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
Victim women do tend to find Infantile men annoying (and vice versa). This IEI and I had many interests in common, such as psychology and poetry, so I found her company stimulating and liked to hear her take on things. She seemed like an unusually deep and thoughtful woman. Unfortunately, she didn't understand that to me, the process of becoming intimate should be unambiguous, pleasant and playful - much like savouring a fine wine while you watch a buffa opera. I don't see intimacy as a struggle, or as a game with a prize to be won, but as a gift that you give freely to your lover because you take joy in their happiness.
That's interesting--I don't see intimacy like either of those things. It's trust and knowledge to me. So I guess just based on that desire--to be trusted, to understand, and to be understood.

Anyway...when I refused to choke, humiliate and rape the aforementioned IEI, she accused me of cowardice, withheld affection from me and then began to flirt with other men behind my back. I presume she thought this would goad me into a state of anger where I would fight "for her" and "prove myself" once I found out. Of course, it had the opposite effect - I merely lost respect for her and decided to end our tryst for good. So much for my love life, haha.
I am sure you mean consensually to do those things--like role playing. But that sounds painful--especially to be accused of cowardice for not wanting to do something you didn't feel comfortable with, sexually. Any kind of sexual criticism can feel bad, but that sounds like it was really painful for you. I'm sorry that happened to you.

I relate to not wanting to fight for people. My first instinct is to just leave. lol I'm not a violent person maybe--lol maybe I am kind of a coward. I don't want some crazy bitch pulling my hair out over a guy. haha I mean...I'm serious too though--I really want nothing to do with that.

On a more serious note, I've noticed that modern Anglo culture (men before the modern era had a much, much more pragmatic view) has a tendency to fetishise innocence and passivity in women, viewing them as paragons of moral behaviour. A Victim woman is quite aware of this bias and will deliberately play the damsel in distress, as she hopes to attract a knight in shining armour, someone who will take revenge on her behalf (and often this malice is directed at a previous sexual partner, like me). That being said, I honestly feel sorry for Aggressor men. They are slaves to their own ego, and don't realise the extent to which their duals will come to see them as an expendable utility. I think many of feminine stereotypes that you will find in PUA/RedPill theories were written with Victim women in mind.
I imagine people could play out archetypes unconsciously too.

I don't have a great knowledge of history, but here's my understanding:

Men have had a really ignorant view of women for much of Western history--like that our period blood will turn a dog rabid and rust mirrors. The paragon of moral behavior was already set up from the Bible, I think--with biblical figures like the Virgin Mary. Basically--it was about purity. Women had to adhere to a pure lifestyle in order to be considered...not-terrible. Like the Virgin Mary who got pregnant without having sex.

So it was already part of the misogyny of that time, that women would be pure like that...because if they were a tiny bit less pure, that would confirm that they were basically pure evil. And at the time there were even witch burnings. Men like RedCrossKnight could earn their morality through work and effort and defeating dragons. But women either were moral or they weren't. And once a woman's morality was gone (or how society viewed her) then that was it. She was condemned to being impure forever.

So the purity fetish was tied in with the misogyny imo. Innocence and passivity were what women were expected to embody, while also avoid falling from grace. I think it's kind of contradictory to expect someone to be innocent and passive and not "fall from grace" except that it would be the men in her life that would protect her. Because she was sort of like a chattel.

I didn't notice anything to feel bad for my ex who was an Se dom Aggressor style--he did try to make me jealous I think, and he made his next gf (after I left him) absolutely hate me. With me, he felt like he "had his feelings frozen" from this affair he had (before we met--she was cheating, he was single) with a girl who was engaged. (I always imagined she was an IXFJ because she was all magical and girly) And who later (right after I broke up with him) he went and slept with and she had become a stripper "for fun." Ugh--she wrote him letters with little vegetable drawings in the borders of the paper. And he didn't tell me at first either. I guess maybe she could have been his dual.

With sex--I just didn't feel a really strong emotional connection during sex, and we didn't really talk about it ever much...it was like, physically it felt good but afterwards I just kind of felt like "what was that about?" Didn't really feel mentally good--and he had a thing for threesomes with two guys, and I never wanted to do that (and I didn't)--and I just don't feel that compatible with it...at all. Though he didn't call me a coward or anything for it. The only thing we really had in common were politics and care for the environment...which happened to be a big part of his vision.
 

·
Registered
ILE-Ne 7w8 sp/sx
Joined
·
2,022 Posts
Ugh now I wonder if I could be an SFP because I get the urge to white knight so often, and if that's an aggressor thing or if it's just completely separate because it has more to do with values and feeling protective than sexual or romantic expression.


That's interesting--I don't see intimacy like either of those things. It's trust and knowledge to me. So I guess just based on that desire--to be trusted, to understand, and to be understood.



I am sure you mean consensually to do those things--like role playing. But that sounds painful--especially to be accused of cowardice for not wanting to do something you didn't feel comfortable with, sexually. Any kind of sexual criticism can feel bad, but that sounds like it was really painful for you. I'm sorry that happened to you.

I relate to not wanting to fight for people. My first instinct is to just leave. lol I'm not a violent person maybe--lol maybe I am kind of a coward. I don't want some crazy bitch pulling my hair out over a guy. haha I mean...I'm serious too though--I really want nothing to do with that.



I imagine people could play out archetypes unconsciously too.

I don't have a great knowledge of history, but here's my understanding:

Men have had a really ignorant view of women for much of Western history--like that our period blood will turn a dog rabid and rust mirrors. The paragon of moral behavior was already set up from the Bible, I think--with biblical figures like the Virgin Mary. Basically--it was about purity. Women had to adhere to a pure lifestyle in order to be considered...not-terrible. Like the Virgin Mary who got pregnant without having sex.

So it was already part of the misogyny of that time, that women would be pure like that...because if they were a tiny bit less pure, that would confirm that they were basically pure evil. And at the time there were even witch burnings. Men like RedCrossKnight could earn their morality through work and effort and defeating dragons. But women either were moral or they weren't. And once a woman's morality was gone (or how society viewed her) then that was it. She was condemned to being impure forever.

So the purity fetish was tied in with the misogyny imo. Innocence and passivity were what women were expected to embody, while also avoid falling from grace. I think it's kind of contradictory to expect someone to be innocent and passive and not "fall from grace" except that it would be the men in her life that would protect her. Because she was sort of like a chattel.

I didn't notice anything to feel bad for my ex who was an Se dom Aggressor style--he did try to make me jealous I think, and he made his next gf (after I left him) absolutely hate me. With me, he felt like he "had his feelings frozen" from this affair he had (before we met--she was cheating, he was single) with a girl who was engaged. (I always imagined she was an IXFJ because she was all magical and girly) And who later (right after I broke up with him) he went and slept with and she had become a stripper "for fun." Ugh--she wrote him letters with little vegetable drawings in the borders of the paper. And he didn't tell me at first either. I guess maybe she could have been his dual.

With sex--I just didn't feel a really strong emotional connection during sex, and we didn't really talk about it ever much...it was like, physically it felt good but afterwards I just kind of felt like "what was that about?" Didn't really feel mentally good--and he had a thing for threesomes with two guys, and I never wanted to do that (and I didn't)--and I just don't feel that compatible with it...at all. Though he didn't call me a coward or anything for it. The only thing we really had in common were politics and care for the environment...which happened to be a big part of his vision.
I didn't notice anything to feel bad for my ex who was an Se dom Aggressor style--he did try to make me jealous I think, and he made his next gf (after I left him) absolutely hate me. With me, he felt like he "had his feelings frozen" from this affair he had (before we met--she was cheating, he was single) with a girl who was engaged. (I always imagined she was an IXFJ because she was all magical and girly) And who later (right after I broke up with him) he went and slept with and she had become a stripper "for fun." Ugh--she wrote him letters with little vegetable drawings in the borders of the paper. And he didn't tell me at first either. I guess maybe she could have been his dual.

With sex--I just didn't feel a really strong emotional connection during sex, and we didn't really talk about it ever much...it was like, physically it felt good but afterwards I just kind of felt like "what was that about?" Didn't really feel mentally good--and he had a thing for threesomes with two guys, and I never wanted to do that (and I didn't)--and I just don't feel that compatible with it...at all. Though he didn't call me a coward or anything for it. The only thing we really had in common were politics and care for the environment...which happened to be a big part of his vision.
Se doms may try to persuade you to change your desires and behaviour to suit them, but if this fails, they will just dump you and find someone else more malleable...and in this case, a "magical and girly" part-time stripper (this sounds a bit like an adult remake of Sailor Moon, haha). Ah well, you live and you learn. At least you managed to avoid being recruited into his ménage à trois. To your last point, political beliefs say much less about someone's character than their personal lives do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WickerDeer

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,249 Posts
I do think it's a real thing.
Thinking back at University, I remember going to a preparty, Turns out I was the only male invited.
After a few hours of hanging out, drinking and eating I distinctly remember the girls discussing a "pact".
Namely, they all agreed to not "make a move" on the guy they had a crush on.

I'm not sure if this was just drunk ramblings, though I do know one girl who "broke" that.
And she was teased relentlessly. the others, from what I know, upheld their word.

As for males. I do find it more to be like a race or competition -- cock blocking, IME, is rare among guys.

As for intervening. I have intervened several times before where the guy seemed to be pestering or trying to drag the girl into something non-consensual. And I know pretty much all my friends have, too, if they've seen something.
Usually it's good enough to just walk up and say "sorry, she's already got company". And smile broadly.
I realize this might not work for every culture -- but it seems to work here. And I've gotten a drink or two out of it, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WickerDeer

·
Registered
ILE-Ne 7w8 sp/sx
Joined
·
2,022 Posts
I do think it's a real thing.
Thinking back at University, I remember going to a preparty, Turns out I was the only male invited.
After a few hours of hanging out, drinking and eating I distinctly remember the girls discussing a "pact".
Namely, they all agreed to not "make a move" on the guy they had a crush on.

I'm not sure if this was just drunk ramblings, though I do know one girl who "broke" that.
And she was teased relentlessly. the others, from what I know, upheld their word.

As for males. I do find it more to be like a race or competition -- cock blocking, IME, is rare among guys.

As for intervening. I have intervened several times before where the guy seemed to be pestering or trying to drag the girl into something non-consensual. And I know pretty much all my friends have, too, if they've seen something.
Usually it's good enough to just walk up and say "sorry, she's already got company". And smile broadly.
I realize this might not work for every culture -- but it seems to work here. And I've gotten a drink or two out of it, too.
The problem is, you don't actually know how the girl feels about her paramour here. Let's say you walk into a room and observe some intimate overtures which the girl withdraws from. You don't have any context to make a decision about whether this is right or wrong. Maybe the girl is genuinely uncomfortable, but she could also just be shy, or tired, or spacing out while thinking about the Flying Spaghetti monster eating a condom. Perhaps she likes men who are quite forward and clear about their intentions. By intervening, you imply that the girl lacks any agency and can't make rational decisions.

Also, in more masculine cultures than Sweden, behaving this way is viewed as an attempted cockblock, and will quickly escalate into a fight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,249 Posts
The problem is, you don't actually know how the girl feels about her paramour here. Let's say you walk into a room and observe some intimate overtures which the girl withdraws from. You don't have any context to make a decision about whether this is right or wrong. Maybe the girl is genuinely uncomfortable, but she could also just be shy, or tired, or spacing out while thinking about the Flying Spaghetti monster eating a condom. Perhaps she likes men who are quite forward and clear about their intentions. By intervening, you imply that the girl lacks any agency and can't make rational decisions.

Also, in more masculine cultures than Sweden, behaving this way is viewed as an attempted cockblock, and will quickly escalate into a fight.
It's possible to make an educated guess, usually, IRL.
Especially since such help rarely comes from thin air, such as merely walking into a room with zero context.
Much more apt would be a comparison of sitting in a bar and having seen a lady being pestered for a while.
Then step in. If you happen to be wrong, so what? Apologize, buy them both a drink, move on. No big deal.

As for intervening, that's your subjective take on it. I see it as helping; without implying this or that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WickerDeer

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
How about cock blocking a 60+ year old man flirting with your 20 year old co worker who is clearly uncomfortable. Like dude, go away. No sugar girls here. 🤢
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,809 Posts
agree that a lot of men are peculiarly fixated on the cliche that 'women are nastier to one another' and some of them try to create antagonism to keep their belief reinforced. i've worked around quite a few childish and mean-spirited men who thought they could use the fact that they had colleagues who were women to stir up a little drama within their own partnerships.

to be clear, they had no actual interest in me. they just used the idea of me to put their partners off-balance emotionally. that's a kind of self-gratification I've cockblocked all the way when i came across it.

weird to me that most of the discussion has been about the men in a standard dynamic. what does the other guy think about it? how is the other guy going to react? is the other guy going to get pissed off or not? it's a very women-as-territory kind of approach. i get the superficial appeal of 'oooh, i'm important enough that attention is being paid' when you're stupid and young. but ultimately, don't see any validation in presenting or looking at yourself as turf, or using the behaviour of people who see you as turf to measure your own significance.

final point from my lifelong experience: nobody's brought up what has personally been the most common instance of it of all in my own observation: women using imaginary men to cockblock another man.

i can't even count the number of times women have told me about 'winning' some struggle for personal right to autonomy by pulling the 'i have a boyfriend', 'my [imaginary] boyfriend/husband the heavyweight boxer/kung fu fighter/special forces marine will be here any second now to pick me up'. hate it. hate that its used so often because it's the thing that most often succeeds. but to me, again, it just enables the 'nobody cares what the woman thinks' and i've never used it. i go more for 'no means no and now fuck off and leave me alone'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WickerDeer

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
i can't even count the number of times women have told me about 'winning' some struggle for personal right to autonomy by pulling the 'i have a boyfriend', 'my [imaginary] boyfriend/husband the heavyweight boxer/kung fu fighter/special forces marine will be here any second now to pick me up'. hate it. hate that its used so often because it's the thing that most often succeeds. but to me, again, it just enables the 'nobody cares what the woman thinks' and i've never used it. i go more for 'no means no and now fuck off and leave me alone'.
I think it's genius. It's not a tactic that enables apathy over what a woman thinks. It's a tactic that takes advantage of the fact that men fear other men. And that fear needs no enabling whatsoever. Throughout all of history, we have routinely killed each other for the smallest of reasons. This is actually a great example of positive cock blocking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,809 Posts
I think it's genius
eh, we disagree. i think it's passive-aggressive and i'm not a big fan of that way of going through life. it definitely leverages the cultural status quo rather than challenging it, so i guess your pov depends on where you stand about the csq itself. personally, i'd give up any number of small tit-for-tat 'wins' for the single big one of getting to speak for myself and be heard when i speak.

idk. everybody who's named it to me seemed to think she'd just done something brilliantly clever that no other woman, ever, in the entire history of vaginas and penises had ever thought of before. i never figured out how they could have that idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
eh, we disagree. i think it's passive-aggressive and i'm not a big fan of that way of going through life. it definitely leverages the cultural status quo rather than challenging it, so i guess your pov depends on where you stand about the csq itself. personally, i'd give up any number of small tit-for-tat 'wins' for the single big one of getting to speak for myself and be heard when i speak.

idk. everybody who's named it to me seemed to think she'd just done something brilliantly clever that no other woman, ever, in the entire history of vaginas and penises had ever thought of before. i never figured out how they could have that idea.
I'm confused. Do you want them to be aggressive? If so, that's a terrible idea.

I don't like the cultural status quo. If I ever saw a man hitting on a sister or daughter of mine, I would break every bone in his body. Having said that, reality does not care about our feelings. Fact of the matter is, it is common place for men to freely pursue women in society. Men are stronger than women. Therefore women have to find nonaggressive ways to keep themselves safe from the unwanted advances of men.

"I have a boyfriend" is simple, but genius. So what if the tactic has been used for all of human history. If it works, it works. Why wouldn't women make use of it?
 

·
Retired Administrator
Joined
·
15,780 Posts
Discussion Starter #39
i can't even count the number of times women have told me about 'winning' some struggle for personal right to autonomy by pulling the 'i have a boyfriend', 'my [imaginary] boyfriend/husband the heavyweight boxer/kung fu fighter/special forces marine will be here any second now to pick me up'. hate it. hate that its used so often because it's the thing that most often succeeds. but to me, again, it just enables the 'nobody cares what the woman thinks' and i've never used it. i go more for 'no means no and now fuck off and leave me alone'.
I used to use that excuse when I was young--but it didn't work since it's probably pretty common.

I got "well your boyfriend doesn't have to know," and calling the bluff "why don't you invite your boyfriend to come with us, then?"

I've never mastered the "fuck off and leave me alone" thing--but it seems like it'd work better, but also could trigger an aggressive response (which isn't desirable). I mean--I guess pepper spray works the same way though. And I do think it's good to carry.

Usually though, even with pepper spray I feel this nefarious need to be polite--"how would you like to be sprayed with pepper spray? I've never been! It seems like an interesting new experience, doesn't it?" But then they somehow get the point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,809 Posts
I'm confused. Do you want them to be aggressive?

yeah . . . :p i don't really advocate letting the swear words cross the inside-voice barrier. but non-covert assertiveness is a thing. 'i said no. leave me alone. go away.' these are not actually aggressive statements. they're merely clear and direct.

Therefore women have to find nonaggressive ways to keep themselves safe from the unwanted advances of men.

i agree that's exactly the purpose most people think the line serves. it's somewhat effective in the short term. sometimes. but wickerdeer just pointed out that they're not even that, a lot of the time.

i think in terms of right-here-right-now AND the long game. it perpetuates the problem for women to keep signalling they accept and buy into the mindset of 'it's all about whether some guy would object to what you're doing.' that continues to imply 'hey, i my own self don't have a voice in this situation and i am jsut fine about that.'

So what if the tactic has been used for all of human history. If it works, it works. Why wouldn't women make use of it?

it's a band aid. and actually, it's a band aid that works better in people's minds than in actual practice. and it's like every other thing that's just a band aid: it contributes nothing towards a true solution.
 
21 - 40 of 53 Posts
Top