[Radiant Flux]

So, I've been thinking.

There's that whole tradition where the female is the submissive feller partener, and the male is the dominant, thinker partener. I think this is frankly ridiculous. I would think that though it's a balanced relationshiped, it would be a difficult one to sustain because of the clashes between the two preferences.

I find myself more attracted to feminine men. Slender, agile and softer features versus overly muscular and sharp features, but I would still prefer a thinker.

Your thoughts?

 

[Zomboy]

The key word here was 'traditionally'

'Traditionally' men shouldn't be attracted to other men, but it still happens

I think of relationships as though they were algebra equations

The outcome of the relationship is a combination of what each individual can bring to the relationship; and what they do to keep it, as well as a combination of their values and how it clashes with their significant others'

I do not believe that I need to be the dominant thinker partner in any relationship, and if I were, then I'd quickly get bored or start feeling used

I don't know what kind of girls I prefer. Lately I've been feeling abit asexual

EDIT: Just saw your signature. Albert and I have the same birthday

 

[Abyss Soul]

I agree that partners sharing some personality preferences have more sustainable and peaceful relationships. On top of that, they tend to understand each others needs and wants which may prevent or solve conflicts when they arise. The only scenario where sharing preferences could be a problem is when children enter the picture. Children may have emotional needs that thinker parents cannot adequately support.

 

[syzygy]

I agree that partners sharing some personality preferences have more sustainable and peaceful relationships. On top of that, they tend to understand each others needs and wants which may prevent or solve conflicts when they arise. The only scenario where sharing preferences could be a problem is when children enter the picture. Children may have emotional needs that thinker parents cannot adequately support.

Please excuse anything which may be taken as hostility, or an overly emotional response, but I think this is complete and utter bull.

As someone looking to have children in my future, I am currently thinking of ways in which I can fully support my kids--both emotionally, as well as with any necessary financial or other forms of support they may require to grow into strong, capable adults. Despite a predilection to raise thinking children, I fully desire to see my children flourish in their own personal way, and am fully committed to giving them the necessary tools. Children whom were emotionally damaged early on may become thinkers as a resort to trying to understand the world, but I think proper and thoughtful emotional care early on may help develop more balanced adults down the line. This is my hope, and one which will never be forgotten or diminished as I establish my family and raise my kids. Some things are just too important to be neglected.

 

[Abyss Soul]

Please excuse anything which may be taken as hostility, or an overly emotional response, but I think this is complete and utter bull.

As someone looking to have children in my future, I am currently thinking of ways in which I can fully support my kids--both emotionally, as well as with any necessary financial or other forms of support they may require to grow into strong, capable adults. Despite a predilection to raise thinking children, I fully desire to see my children flourish in their own personal way, and am fully committed to giving them the necessary tools. Children whom were emotionally damaged early on may become thinkers as a resort to trying to understand the world, but I think proper and thoughtful emotional care early on may help develop more balanced adults down the line. This is my hope, and one which will never be forgotten or diminished as I establish my family and raise my kids. Some things are just too important to be neglected.

You're welcome to disagree with me. But I think you were taking my post too personally. I was speaking only in general terms where it might be a problem in a stage of childhood development. Notice my choice of the word, might. And yes I agree that thinker parents may have the tools to provide emotional needs to children; it just depends on how well their emotional side is developed. But some parents are not yet capable of providing such emotional needs. From what it sounds like in your response, it seems like you have nothing to worry about when you have children. What I raised about childcare for thinker parents was that it could be a challenge in raising them, not an incapability. Once again, I am sorry if I stirred you up but I wasn't necessarily directing it at you.

 

[honestfi]

The outcome of the relationship is a combination of what each individual can bring to the relationship; and what they do to keep it, as well as a combination of their values and how it clashes with their significant others'

If I can misquote the old philosopher, we can't always get what we want, but sometimes we get what we need.

I may say that my ideal relationship is one that gives me the least hassle, or one that understands me, but in fact what I need is someone to pull me out of the clouds when need be, picks me up when I fall over, and matches most of my morals, values and beliefs. I found him, and he ain't NT.

 

[Mendelevium]

Compatibility is an unpredictable business. I still find that most of my relationships are short-term because I lose interest in most of my acquaintances once I understand them to a certain point, and they do not change quickly enough to suit my tastes. Detecting patterns in their behaviors lend a certain sense of triumph, but unpredictability keeps me on my toes more.

 

[Nitou]

I'm just going to be contrary and order a hairy, manly-looking NFJ. *swoon*
:crazy:

For children, I believe it is ideal that they have both a thinker parent and a feeler parent. Te/Fi go together and Fe/Ti go together.

Please excuse anything which may be taken as hostility, or an overly emotional response, but I think this is complete and utter bull.

As someone looking to have children in my future, I am currently thinking of ways in which I can fully support my kids--both emotionally, as well as with any necessary financial or other forms of support they may require to grow into strong, capable adults. Despite a predilection to raise thinking children, I fully desire to see my children flourish in their own personal way, and am fully committed to giving them the necessary tools. Children whom were emotionally damaged early on may become thinkers as a resort to trying to understand the world, but I think proper and thoughtful emotional care early on may help develop more balanced adults down the line. This is my hope, and one which will never be forgotten or diminished as I establish my family and raise my kids. Some things are just too important to be neglected.

INTP's can make fine parents in many ways, but we have our weaknesses. You can do your very best but INTPs are generally not well equipped to meet a child's emotional needs. Even if an INTP is good at comforting people, it drains our energy and children are very demanding. Feelers are better at it. No reason to take offense. I speak from personal experience both with my own parents and myself as a parent. But I am glad that you are considering your future child's emotional needs.

[soapbox]Our culture's insistence that children need to be forced to be independent at an early age, is garbage psychology that is contrary to millions of years of mammalian evolution and modern science. If it cries, pick it up. If it is scared at night, let it sleep in your room, even in your bed. The need to be held is just as real as the need for food and shelter. Little humans wither and DIE from lack of feeling contact. [/soapbox]

 

[Radiant Flux]

Compatibility is an unpredictable business. I still find that most of my relationships are short-term because I lose interest in most of my acquaintances once I understand them to a certain point, and they do not change quickly enough to suit my tastes. Detecting patterns in their behaviors lend a certain sense of triumph, but unpredictability keeps me on my toes more.

I find that I do this alot too. Whenever I either get bored of them, or as my mom would say, they "get comfortable" with me, I tend to stop hanging out with them. I think the whole get comfortable thing is because they act how they really act which is differentfprom when they first meet me, but my mom says it's because they get relaxed and goofy acting. I suppose it's a combination of both.

 

[Radiant Flux]

[soapbox]Our culture's insistence that children need to be forced to be independent at an early age, is garbage psychology that is contrary to millions of years of mammalian evolution and modern science. If it cries, pick it up. If it is scared at night, let it sleep in your room, even in your bed. The need to be held is just as real as the need for food and shelter. Little humans wither and DIE from lack of feeling contact. [/soapbox]

I'm going to disagree with that. I've met some other kids my age who can't even cook eggs without their parents help. Yes, I belive we should comfort that child if he/she has a problem with sleeping in the dark, or something with another child, but we also need to let them figure it out for themselves. The parents are there for rules and guidence, but the children have to do what is needed.

 

[Nitou]

I'm going to disagree with that. I've met some other kids my age who can't even cook eggs without their parents help. Yes, I belive we should comfort that child if he/she has a problem with sleeping in the dark, or something with another child, but we also need to let them figure it out for themselves. The parents are there for rules and guidence, but the children have to do what is needed.

You are speaking of functional skills which are a little different. We might say disparagingly, "S/he is just doing that for attention." But attention is a legitimate need. For the people to force very young children sleep alone when they don't want to, and to put them in daycare all day where they cannot get enough attention, is contrary to the intended function of the limbic brain. Many people will turn out just fine, but there are also many people taking medications for depression and anxiety. These malfunctions are largely preventable. I don't have many answers because little is known of this topic. But we do know that babies literally die from lack of contact even if all their other needs are met because that contact is necessary for metabolic regulation.

 

[knowyourenemy]

I'm going to disagree with that. I've met some other kids my age who can't even cook eggs without their parents help. Yes, I belive we should comfort that child if he/she has a problem with sleeping in the dark, or something with another child, but we also need to let them figure it out for themselves. The parents are there for rules and guidence, but the children have to do what is needed.

It sounds to me like you are comparing people. All people grow at different rates. Don't judge. If your child is scared of primal things and you ignore the child's fears, you will be ignoring what would have KILLED the child when we were cave men. When things probably would have KILLED us, it's either hard wired/programmed into our heads through natural selection, or it KILLS US and thus we cannot have children of our own to pass on the fearless genes. These fears (eg. of the dark) are real, deadly fears that cannot be ignored. If the child is thrown into independence, then they will be tarnished into thinking the world is a scary place, where they cannot find security in the shelter of their family, and thus anywhere. They will live in a world of nothing is safe. Slight independence may be a side effect of this, but most likely so will many other problems. It is only a MINORITY of us that grow out of our problems. MOST of us keep our problems. All of our problems started at a very young age and continued to get worse and effect our entire lives... except for the fortunate few that got to go to therapy, or just grow out of it. There are better ways of teaching independence to a child.
I hope I explained this enough; I'm tired. I'll be happy elaborate.

 

[Ecky]

I had to read the OP several times to figure out what exactly I was responding to.

I can't speak for other men, but I am impressed when a woman acts with confidence and directness, does what she wants and lets people know what she thinks. I find it can be a bit intimidating at first, but I would rather be challenged than submitted to.

I asked my INFP roommate, and he had a few thoughts on the matter. He says he would prefer someone submissive and "thinking". Capricious and whimsical women drive him nuts, but he admits he would feel a little uncomfortable in a relationship with a woman who is smarter and/or more successful than he is... so I guess he takes the middle ground.

 

[knowyourenemy]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed.

In regards to the original topic, I believe men and women do have roles to fill. Men can act like women and women can act like men, but over all men should be the "man" and women should be the "woman". This is not to say we are not equal. Women can take on a man's role and do anything a man can do in the business world, but in a relationship it is a different topic. Going back to the whole "primal" thing in my previous post, we have two different brains that run off different chemicals. Women tried to take control during the 60s and why didn't it stick? Think about that for a moment. I think it was because once women took control, they found they didn't like it. Something was wrong, and their men weren't acting like they wanted their true mates to act. That women's revolution also led to a men's revolution of being more emotional. Now, we are still coming out of all that, but with a more healthy and even balance, but I think that there still is a lot more confusion than there was prior to the 60s. It seems like it was easier before then to have a relationship. Men and women knew our primal roles and they accepted them, and things flowed like they naturally should. You can do and be whatever you want in a relationship, but I believe you will only be denying what you are. I suggest you let the man be the man in a relationship, but when the situation calls for it (say you have a great idea for a business) then, let the man qualities in you come out and run that business like no other person.

There is only one way to know for sure. Try it both ways.

Again, I hope I explained that right.

Women should not be submissive to anyone, and a man should not be dominant to his love. That's not what it's all about. I think you are confused.

 

[lookout]

Well the answer is obvious, isn't it? Most men are Thinkers while most women are Feelers. When generalized this means men and women are traditionally "supposed" to be how the majority of their gender is naturally like.

 

[luemb]

Well the answer is obvious, isn't it? Most men are Thinkers while most women are Feelers. When generalized this means men and women are traditionally "supposed" to be how the majority of their gender is naturally like.

I do not agree with that, I think we are supposed to be like what our personality is, not what other people think our personality is. If I, as a woman, am a thinker, then I can't help the fact that I find it hard to express my emotions. I just hope that I meet someone who can accept that.

However, I do agree that women and men do have different roles to play in a relationship. I am physically a woman, and my partner would be a man. I don't think living those sexual roles should be incompatible with our personality types. I think they are just two different things.

 

[lookout]

I do not agree with that, I think we are supposed to be like what our personality is, not what other people think our personality is. If I, as a woman, am a thinker, then I can't help the fact that I find it hard to express my emotions. I just hope that I meet someone who can accept that.

However, I do agree that women and men do have different roles to play in a relationship. I am physically a woman, and my partner would be a man. I don't think living those sexual roles should be incompatible with our personality types. I think they are just two different things.

What are you talking about? I was stating the underlying reasons for gender-stereotypes - of course we should be who we individually are. Obviously everyone does not fit into the norm, which is fine.

 

[luemb]

What are you talking about? I was stating the underlying reasons for gender-stereotypes - of course we should be who we individually are. Obviously everyone does not fit into the norm, which is fine.

Ok, maybe I misread your post. What I meant to say is that its not necessarily a dysfunctional relationship if we do not follow the gender stereotypes.

I'm agreeing with you I guess.

 

[Mendelevium]

...This is degrading into another pointless conversation now. Let's try something new, shall we?

Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. I'd feel uncomfortable with a male Feeling partner, just as a male Thinker may be uncomfortable with my personality.

 

[lookout]

Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. I'd feel uncomfortable with a male Feeling partner, just as a male Thinker may be uncomfortable with my personality.

Well yeah. As I wrote before the key here is we are our personalities, not our genders.

However, most men will want a female feeler, most women will want a male thinker. This is what the gender-stereotypes are based on although there will be exceptions. I'm not sure if there's more to this discussion than that.