[ENFP] ENFP and casual sex

[ubee0173]

Do women 'test' men more than vice versa? Is it usual for women to set bars like this? In my experience, being in a relationship involves a fair amount of strength-testing.

This made me think about my criteria for a girlfriend. The main thing is that she enjoys doing things with me (both in and out of the bedroom) and spending time with me and is warm-hearted and won't try to boss me around and won't take advantage of my easy-going nature and won't seduce the hunky tradesmen who fix up the house.

if you have to wait and see about what sort of heart they have then its not casual. you are evaluating their potential as an actual partner and not a toy to be used as such. i dont know, i guess i take a more typically masculine approach to this, but there are Great Big Differences in people i will date and people i will do dirty terrible things to. the only criteria the latter have (had, i guess) to meet are : stand out at least a tiny bit ,no complete idiots, not wanting to take me to some far away torture chamber or something, nice hair for the pulling, and a metric fuck-ton of just, i dunno, just sex appeal or charisma or something. the people i date dont have to have any of those (except the not-murdering-me one) since i am invested in the whole person and not just the physical rewards. they must be actually intelligent, maybe a smidge of charisma and have their shit together at least enough that i dont have to tell them what to do. it seems kinda weird that my fling list is longer than my ltr list- but i guess everyone wants to be with a good-hearted person, and that can mask a lot of undisireable superficial traits. whew! wtf was that so long winded?

 

[tortoise]

if you have to wait and see about what sort of heart they have then its not casual. you are evaluating their potential as an actual partner and not a toy to be used as such. i dont know, i guess i take a more typically masculine approach to this, but there are Great Big Differences in people i will date and people i will do dirty terrible things to. the only criteria the latter have (had, i guess) to meet are : stand out at least a tiny bit ,no complete idiots, not wanting to take me to some far away torture chamber or something, nice hair for the pulling, and a metric fuck-ton of just, i dunno, just sex appeal or charisma or something. the people i date dont have to have any of those (except the not-murdering-me one) since i am invested in the whole person and not just the physical rewards. they must be actually intelligent, maybe a smidge of charisma and have their shit together at least enough that i dont have to tell them what to do. it seems kinda weird that my fling list is longer than my ltr list- but i guess everyone wants to be with a good-hearted person, and that can mask a lot of undisireable superficial traits. whew! wtf was that so long winded?

Your response is very, very interesting -- I don't think you're the only woman I've come across who has 2 sets of criteria, one for a casual encounter and one for a longer term prospect. It seems quite common. I get the feeling that for a lot of women, this is a cause of inner conflict, that gets played out in their relationships if the great long-term prospect doesn't have the sheer sex appeal of (say) the builder who comes to fix the house that the long-term partner is out working hard to help pay for. I think a lot of women are wanting a man who has both immediate sex appeal and long-term value, which places a lot of pressure on the man. I get the impression, from friends and magazine articles, that there are an awful lot of dissatisfied women out there, and I think this conflict between the kind of guy who makes them wet and the kind of guy who will partner them long term, is part of it.

If I'm completely off the wall here, please shoot me down, because I don't like to carry around misconceptions!

 

[You]

...And thus, the friend zone.

 

[tortoise]

Ah, the famous 'friend zone'. I'm not so sure about this so-called 'friend zone'. It's simply the case that there will sometimes be unrequited desire, which hurts, but you just have to deal with it and get over yourself. If you don't want to be 'just friends' with a girl, just choose not to hang out with her if it causes you pain. Lamely hanging around a girl in case she changes her mind is the 'friend zone'. It's a waste of time and energy. It's the laddie who's creates the 'friend zone' not the lassie, by choosing to hang around with foolish hope. Move on and find a girl who actually does want to be more than 'just friends'.

It feels emasculating to be told 'but I just want to be friends'. It's a horrible feeling. If the reality is that you want more and she doesn't, then trying to be friends is just stupid and you're opening yourself up to having that horrible feeling all the time you're with her.

Being in the 'friend zone' and getting all upset about it is probably a sign that there aren't enough things going on in your life so you end up obsessing over this one girl who doesn't want to ride your disco stick.

It's all about taking control of your own life and not letting the fact that this one girl doesn't fancy you get you down.

 

[You]

Sophmore year in high school was my last friend zone experience. Good times...Good times...

 

[tortoise]

I think you only need one such experience to stop you putting yourself through that kind of agony again!! Mine was in my last year of secondary school. I cringe when I think about it.

 

[You]

Yea. We can make an ass ourselves in more productive ways.

 

[ubee0173]

Your response is very, very interesting -- I don't think you're the only woman I've come across who has 2 sets of criteria, one for a casual encounter and one for a longer term prospect. It seems quite common. I get the feeling that for a lot of women, this is a cause of inner conflict, that gets played out in their relationships if the great long-term prospect doesn't have the sheer sex appeal of (say) the builder who comes to fix the house that the long-term partner is out working hard to help pay for. I think a lot of women are wanting a man who has both immediate sex appeal and long-term value, which places a lot of pressure on the man. I get the impression, from friends and magazine articles, that there are an awful lot of dissatisfied women out there, and I think this conflict between the kind of guy who makes them wet and the kind of guy who will partner them long term, is part of it.

If I'm completely off the wall here, please shoot me down, because I don't like to carry around misconceptions!

you are totally right on that one- i just lucked out and found someone with both! by best friend however, just got out of an 8 year marriage to someone she wasnt attracted to and didnt like as a person- and i knowa lot of girls in that boat. i just cant see how they would delude themselves into thinking they can be happy like that.

 

[Uytuun]

I'm curious, how exactly do you make sure that the other person knows it's casual sex?

 

[stalemate]

I'm curious, how exactly do you make sure that the other person knows it's casual sex?

Dress down.

 

[ubee0173]

I'm curious, how exactly do you make sure that the other person knows it's casual sex?

you just.. know. also it helps if they dont know your # or permanent residence

 

[You]

Fuck!

 

[stringstheory]

I'm curious, how exactly do you make sure that the other person knows it's casual sex?

i usually just informed them flat out "i'm seeing other people" and/or
"i'm not looking for anything serious right now". I was pretty good at slipping it into the conversation so it wasn't as awkward as i think it sounds typed above . it made it obvious, but not explicit. generally if the person was looking for something long-term they didn't stick around.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

i usually just informed them flat out "i'm seeing other people" and/or
"i'm not looking for anything serious right now". I was pretty good at slipping it into the conversation so it wasn't as awkward as i think it sounds typed above . it made it obvious, but not explicit. generally if the person was looking for something long-term they didn't stick around.

I have one female friend (INTP) who uses the phrase, "Companionship without ownership." Every guy I've asked, immediately got that this meant casual sex. I, of course, missed the thrust (no pun intended) of her comments. So well done indeed.

I've spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out why I completely missed the portent of "Companionship without ownership" comment. I normally pick up on social cues whether I want to or not.

Sigh.... Perhaps it's just hard for me to believe anyone would really want just casual sex.

 

[stalemate]

I've spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out why I completely missed the portent of "Companionship without ownership" comment. I normally pick up on social cues whether I want to or not.

I would not have understood it and think I know why. "Ownership" does not in any way relate to my personal relationships with anyone, so I would have been completely clueless. I don't own anyone, nor do they own me, so my companionship is always without ownership. The phrase is meaningless.

 

[Vamp]

I would not have understood it and think I know why. "Ownership" does not in any way relate to my personal relationships with anyone, so I would have been completely clueless. I don't own anyone, nor do they own me, so my companionship is always without ownership. The phrase is meaningless.

I think you're taking "own" too negatively and literally.
I'm stealing the "companionship without ownership" line.

I'm still figuring out how to lay down the law with people my own age. Asking older female friends would be a great help but I'm embarrassed. All I know is if the other person's understanding of what I want is not agreeable to me, I don't have sex.

 

[stalemate]

I think you're taking "own" too negatively and literally.
I'm stealing the "companionship without ownership" line.

I'm still figuring out how to lay down the law with people my own age. Asking older female friends would be a great help but I'm embarrassed. All I know is if the other person's understanding of what I want is not agreeable to me, I don't have sex.

I get what it is going for and I understand that it is not literal, but if I had heard it without already having had it explained to me, I don't think I could have made the leap that ownership is a relationship. It would notnhave crossed my mind. Assuming that companionship equals sex is less of a leap but also not completely obvious to me either,

 

[stalemate]

And actually I do kind of think it implies/assumes a negative attitude toward being in a relationship.

 

[Vamp]

And actually I do kind of think it implies/assumes a negative attitude toward being in a relationship.

True but it's not that negative or literal. People who want to be in a relationship but want to remain unattached/not "owned" and "free" are cheating out of the concept of a relationship; there are certain things you cannot do in a relationship. The relationship does influence the actions of the people in it; that's part of the 'ownership", it's not as if you're in a relationship alone- interpersonal demands are made and fulfilled. If someone doesn't want to be bonded or have any of their decisions reliant on others or demands to made, they're much better than 80% of people if they're honest with themselves and the other person by making that known.

 

[tortoise]

True but it's not that negative or literal. People who want to be in a relationship but want to remain unattached/not "owned" and "free" are cheating out of the concept of a relationship; there are certain things you cannot do in a relationship. The relationship does influence the actions of the people in it; that's part of the 'ownership", it's not as if you're in a relationship alone- interpersonal demands are made and fulfilled. If someone doesn't want to be bonded or have any of their decisions reliant on others or demands to made, they're much better than 80% of people if they're honest with themselves and the other person by making that known.

In a relationship you are sacrificing some freedom in return for greater emotional security -- knowing that someone's there for you. In theory anyway.