[Antithesis]

I'm a 19 year old ISTP female and I've never been in love or felt a definite romantic attraction to someone.

The thing is, I think I may be judging by the wrong standards. All the depictions in the media of women in love, or romantically attracted to someone, are clearly depictions of emotional F-types. That's not, and will never be, me. But because I'm not like that, I think I've ended up subconsciously believing that I'm not loving, or loveable, and that there is something 'wrong'.

Sometimes I think I am maybe attracted to someone. I'll think that they're good looking, and enjoy their company, and think if they asked me out I'd say yes, and would (eventually) sleep with them. But I never get 'butterflies' when they're around, or lose the capacity to speak, or do any of those 'head over heels' things. I don't get hung up if nothing comes of it, because that's life. I can see myself becoming very attached if I was in a relationship, but as I can control my feelings quite well, I tend to remain detached if I'm not sure how they feel.

I'd just like to know if this is 'normal' in terms of Thinking-Type attraction or if I haven't felt real attraction for anyone yet?

 

[WildWinds]

I can relate. I'm not easily impressed....And thats probably my biggest problem (or blessing depending on how you look at it). The love you see in movies is just shallow fantasy, fctional crap...Its not a good idea to use that as a standard for how to determine if/when you are in love because for most people, its not like that. Or it may be like that in the beginning, but reality will hit later and you'll be left confused. I don't want to know how many relationships end because people use happily ever after chick flicks and their perfect, ideal love as a standard for how a relationship should be, and as soon as they start hitting problems or bumps in the road, they automatically think that it means they're no longer in love.

Personally, I fall for the mind first before anything else. I'm an NT, I need somebody that I can connect with on an intellectual level. I do stay quite grounded and a mild case of "butterflies" is about the extent of my being hung up. I don't think there's anything wrong with either of us.

 

[Namaste]

I think it is that you just haven't found anyone yet. I have fallen deeply in love before (although only a few times) and I am in love right now (with my boyfriend). I don't know if there is a difference between TP women falling in love and TJ women falling in love however.

 

[Surreal Snake]

I'm so emotional!!!!

 

[susurration]

I'm a "feeler", 19 as well. Have probably liked 2 people in my life. Throughout highschool I didn't like anybody at all. I'm not very easily attracted to people either. Looks are superfluous it seems, because i've met plenty of attractive men.

I don't think it's abnormal. Perhaps you need to know someone for a while before you feel in any way attached, or you haven't met someone you've really clicked with yet.

 

[Aßbiscuits]

I don't think it's type related.

 

[Vaka]

EDIT: I think that different types may view love differently or approach love differently. It's possible...

I'm only 17 and I can say that I've definitely never been in love and have never been romantically attracted to anyone. I don't even know what that'd feel like, but I'm assuming I'd know if I've ever felt that way.
Anyway, I'm not sure if anything will happen in the next 2 years, but it's really weird to think that I might feel that pressure in just 2 years. I don't think there's a clear-cut way to form a connection with someone and I don't think you should feel that it has to be the way it's presented in movies or that you have to fall in love because you've reached a certain age. I don't think there's anything wrong with you.

 

[WildWinds]

Some types will be more grounded in certain situations while others will be more "head in the clouds". This is the only thing I can see that could make a difference when it comes to how different types fall in love or deal with love.

 

[username]

I've fallen in love hard a number of times in my life, and my love is not fickle. I'm not afraid at all to commit to someone I've fallen for, and once I do commit, I take that commitment very seriously. I've been like this since my early teens, and I am now thirty.

I have a very loving, affectionate family (due to my cultural background), and it seems to have rubbed off on me!

 

[U-80]

I'm a 19 year old ISTP female and I've never been in love or felt a definite romantic attraction to someone.

Consider yourself lucky.

 

[Filigeedreamer]

I'm an INFJ, and I don't act like people in romantic movies...I don't do all the sappy stuff, I find it superficial.

You don't fall in love at first sight. You aren’t going to love people you meet and find attractive or mildly acceptable people. I dated my ex for a while before I felt "love," the proper kind, not just infatuation. The butterfly feeling is just that, infatuation, it's shallow and transient. Real love doesn't hit you like a thunder bolt. It creeps under your skin, and it pisses you off.

 

[vel]

The T-equivalent of love is respect. If you have ever respected someone, that is thinker analogy to loving them. People usually want to be in presence of others whom they hold is great respect. Do not think you are incapable of bonding with someone if you don't easily feel the emotional component. If you respect them, you can be in a relationship with them.

For ISTJs the feeling function is their tertiary one. According to MBTI theory the tertiary function develops in period of life ranging from early 20s to late 30s. So as you age more you will probably start discovering more of the feeling side to yourself.

 

[Filigeedreamer]

I think T's are capable of love in exactly the same way as Fs, like how we can all feel sorrow or joy. They might express it differently or be less idealistic...but love is love, respect is a component, but there is more to love than that.

 

[Aßbiscuits]

The T-equivalent of love is respect. If you have ever respected someone, that is thinker analogy to loving them. People usually want to be in presence of others whom they hold is great respect. Do not think you are incapable of bonding with someone if you don't easily feel the emotional component. If you respect them, you can be in a relationship with them.

For ISTJs the feeling function is their tertiary one. According to MBTI theory the tertiary function develops in period of life ranging from early 20s to late 30s. So as you age more you will probably start discovering more of the feeling side to yourself.

It's not even that.

The MB theory isn't a core for all knowledge in which we can pick what makes sense because of it.

This is completely unrelated. Love is a feeling, some hormones, blah blah blah but not personality.

It's a nice feeling, just like happiness, that's created by chemicals, not personality. Personality doesn't cause happiness right? The factors of it can have an influence on it, but it doesn't determine your happiness. So why would it be the same with love?

The only thing I see blocking people from embracing these feelings is the unwillingness to do so as to not seem like weak women/whatever other reason a woman with a thinking preference might have. Women with feeling preferences can look at it the same way though.

It's not a common thing to fall in love, really. If you're picky, have high standards and you're reluctant to. That's what I'd boil this down to.

 

[AirMarionette]

It's not even that.

The MB theory isn't a core for all knowledge in which we can pick what makes sense because of it.

This is completely unrelated. Love is a feeling, some hormones, blah blah blah but not personality.

It's a nice feeling, just like happiness, that's created by chemicals, not personality. Personality doesn't cause happiness right? The factors of it can have an influence on it, but it doesn't determine your happiness. So why would it be the same with love?

The only thing I see blocking people from embracing these feelings is the unwillingness to do so as to not seem like weak women/whatever other reason a woman with a thinking preference might have. Women with feeling preferences can look at it the same way though.

It's not a common thing to fall in love, really. If you're picky, have high standards and you're reluctant to. That's what I'd boil this down to.

Personality is also just a bunch of chemicals (one perspective - everything is chemistry). It can definitely affect whether you allow yourself to fall for someone or not. But I see your point in that sometimes these emotions emerge extemporaneously, independent of our being.

I'm pretty sure the act of interpreting emotion when trying to understand and then coming at an impasse is more of a hindrance for me in the process of loving (romantically) than anything else. When analysis desists, it becomes less of a problem for me to accept (as in, 'not police over') feelings. Security is huge, too; a lot of fears involving relationships stem from basic insecurity or distrust, connected to familiarity and comfortability with the experience in general.

 

[Hiccups24-7]

Remember when you were like seven and you thought you knew what love love was? That crush you had felt so real.... and it was but it was only like 10% of what you consider love to be now. I'd say with time and experience ones understanding of love grows, your capacity to understand the very things that create the feeling of love grow as you get older. I thought my first "relationship" (when I actually took it to the next level of sex) was "the one", but after that experience I grew and viewed love so differently. And with each relationship new understanding came to me. I'd say my capacity to understand love will always grow like this. I don't feel there will be a time when I can say "I understand love completely".
I guess my point is there are no time limits and it will happen.. with time. I didn't have that first relationship until I was 21 and by 25 my understanding had increased ten fold. Regardless of how you view thinking and feeling, love is love.

 

[thehigher]

It's just a challenge :wink:

 

[Vaka]

Remember when you were like seven and you thought you knew what love love was? That crush you had felt so real.... and it was but it was only like 10% of what you consider love to be now. I'd say with time and experience ones understanding of love grows, your capacity to understand the very things that create the feeling of love grow as you get older. I thought my first "relationship" (when I actually took it to the next level of sex) was "the one", but after that experience I grew and viewed love so differently. And with each relationship new understanding came to me. I'd say my capacity to understand love will always grow like this. I don't feel there will be a time when I can say "I understand love completely".
I guess my point is there are no time limits and it will happen.. with time. I didn't have that first relationship until I was 21 and by 25 my understanding had increased ten fold. Regardless of how you view thinking and feeling, love is love.

Love and attraction are things that I've always thought about, but I've never really had any time when I've thought that I knew what love is. I've had crushes, though...In those times when I've had crushes, I've stopped and asked myself why I had those crushes.--I think too much, I know.-- I've wondered if those were just physical attractions and why they would mean anything to me, but I've never really thought I was in love. I've actually always looked at myself as too immature to be in love. It's almost as if it's something I don't even know if I'm capable of because it seems weird to be in love from what I've seen. And I've played hypothetical situations in my head and have tried to imagine what type of person I might fall in love with and why, but I still don't know...Hell, when the time comes, I'll know...hopefully :crazy:
Like I said, I think way too much :laughing:

 

[vel]

It's not even that.

The MB theory isn't a core for all knowledge in which we can pick what makes sense because of it.

This is completely unrelated. Love is a feeling, some hormones, blah blah blah but not personality.

It's a nice feeling, just like happiness, that's created by chemicals, not personality. Personality doesn't cause happiness right? The factors of it can have an influence on it, but it doesn't determine your happiness. So why would it be the same with love?

The only thing I see blocking people from embracing these feelings is the unwillingness to do so as to not seem like weak women/whatever other reason a woman with a thinking preference might have. Women with feeling preferences can look at it the same way though.

It's not a common thing to fall in love, really. If you're picky, have high standards and you're reluctant to. That's what I'd boil this down to.

Your personality does determine who, what, where, and how you will be happier with. Personality types exist because people of similar personality have the "feel-good" neurotransmitters (chemicals) released in their brain in response to certain same stimuli in the environment. And love exists between two people because their personalities 'clicked' together. To the contrary if people cannot find common interests, common ground, common understanding, if their personalities conflict then likely they will not be together.

Ask yourself, if you had no personality, which parameters or which characteristics in another person would you be make happy? If it is not your personality that determines with whom you would be happiest with in a romantic relationship, which people become your friends, which co-workers you respect most, then what does?

 

[susurration]

I can see myself becoming very attached if I was in a relationship, but as I can control my feelings quite well, I tend to remain detached if I'm not sure how they feel.

I'd just like to know if this is 'normal' in terms of Thinking-Type attraction or if I haven't felt real attraction for anyone yet?

I looked back on this because I didn't mention what I wanted to earlier. Some points;

• You say you are detached and specify this is the case if you're not sure how they feel. I would say it's very difficult to adjoin to an object until you are in some way aligned with it. You are an introvert, and adjacently may feel detached to external things (or even your own feelings) overall. Perhaps you need to pierce through the detachment in order to feel any romantic attachment to anything.
  Would you say you need some kind of reciprocation before you are willing to invest your emotional energy in someone? are you guarded and prefer to know exactly where you stand before committing yourself in any degree to a person?
  
• Every person in a personality type is going to have a different attachment style (contentious theory, but it has ramifications for relationships). Adults have four attachment styles: secure, anxious-preoccupied, dismissive avoidant, and fearful avoidant. Attachment in adults - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
  Somewhat related to this is love style;
  * Eros – a passionate physical and emotional love based on aesthetic enjoyment; stereotype of romantic love
  * Ludus – a love that is played as a game or sport; conquest
  * Storge – an affectionate love that slowly develops from friendship, based on similarity ( kindred to Philia )
  * Pragma – love that is driven by the head, not the heart; undemonstrative
  * Mania – highly volatile love; obsession; fueled by low self-esteem
  * Agape – selfless altruistic love; spiritual; motherly love
  
• Every person of a personality type is not going to share the same enneatype or instinctual variants. Perhaps you aren't a dominant SX and don't share the same fervor for relationships as such type?
  
• Most fictional depictions of romance are based on limerence. A situation where "obsession" is very quickly intense (but it's different from lust in that it is a desire to merge and be loved in return, rather than just sexual attraction). Limerance is a phenomenon that appears to effect all types. Indeed, there are many intx boards featuring extended discussion of this subject.
  Some people contend many relationships in everyday life and as depicted by mainstream media are based on limerence, and any relationship that doesn't develop past this point usually ends up being severed by one of the parties within a few months, or years (4 years appears to be the magic number here) as a result.
  Some people do NOT experience limerence and don't obsess over an interest or feel that intense passion, or they experience limerence and go through the phase so quickly, they lose interest in their "love interest" before it really develops at all. Perhaps you are in the former group, and don't experience this kind of "passionate obsession".
  
  On limerence;
  

  in 1978, Elaine Hatfield wrote a seminal book on the topic of love - teasing apart passionate and companionate love. She defined passionate love as "a state of intense longing for union with another" and companionate love as "the affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply entwined". Around the same time, Dorothy Tennov was trying to answer the same question in her book "Love and Limerence" and, similar to Hatfield, quickly differentiated between the “love” that is sincere concern and caring as opposed to the “love” that is fiery, euphoric and ephemeral.....
  
  ....The central paradox of limerence is that someone who is actively limerent feels like they are experiencing the most unique, rapturous experience in the world even though limerence seems to have fairly universal characteristics (at least in Western cultures, although it could be argued that traditional Asian cultures do understand limerence but don't use it as a basis for marriage). In fact, as Tennov noted, there is a very well-rehearsed cultural script for falling in and out of limerence: the initial buoyancy, the ensuing anxiety and self-consciousness, intense distraction and euphoria, usually followed by a devastating disillusionment. Everyone knows this script.
  
  And one reason why we know this script so well is because we’ve been hearing about it since we were children. We have all gone to bed as a child with the freshly-told fairy tale story still bubbling in our mind. Marcia Lieberman has criticized fairy tales as conditioning girls into becoming submissive women who believe that beauty and docility are the only traits that are rewarded in life, but in her essay “Some Day My Prince Will Come”, she also points out something very interesting about romantic love itself. Most fairy tales end with the “happily ever after” clause, but these same fairy tales almost always have the protagonist come from a broken family. Either one of the parents is dead, missing, or there is an evil step-parent. These fairy tales imply that romantic love leads to happy marriages and yet all the families that they portray are broken. The paradox of love in fairy tales is that everyone ends up happily ever after, but no one seems to be happy. The “happily ever after” of love is always emphasized, but never shown.
  
  What does it mean to grow up with stories with such a strange juxtaposition of what romantic love is? But in fact, these symbols and themes still surround us as adults. The prince and princess merely change forms and show up on TV sitcoms, movies and fill the roles in novels, plays and even songs. The same story is being re-enacted over and over again for all ages.