User Tag List

First 4121314151624 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 250

  1. #131
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    No, categorically not, and not the other way round either. The two can be either linked or completely divorced from each other, to me.
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I don't think it's worth getting myself all riled up if I know already that nothing is going to come of it.
    Yes.

    I'm unable to consider allowing another person into my mind and home on a semi-regular basis, unless they have more to offer me than sex. Results reaped from being coupled, must be greater than the sum of our parts alone.

  2. #132
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    For clarity's sake, I think Synarch's point is that someone who is able to have sex without any complicating intimacy is akin to a sociopathic serial killer. That person is able to kill without guilt or remorse, which is something that only the smallest percentage of humans can do. They may not even realize that killing is wrong or understand why.

    I don't mean to equate casual sex with murder. But the quality of "otherness" and the inhumanity are of a like kind.
    Uh huh, and it's my contention that that's totally inaccurate.

    His point is based so heavily on his personal experience with this that he assumes no one else could possibly feel differently than he does without being somehow broken or defective, and I, for one, think that's bullshit.

    I never said everybody can handle it, or even most people...but I am a little tired of his projection of imaginary mental defects on everyone else for not feeling the way he does.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #133
    Once Was Synarch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    8,470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Uh huh, and it's my contention that that's totally inaccurate.

    His point is based so heavily on his personal experience with this that he assumes no one else could possibly feel differently than he does without being somehow broken or defective, and I, for one, think that's bullshit.

    I never said everybody can handle it, or even most people...but I am a little tired of his projection of imaginary mental defects on everyone else for not feeling the way he does.
    Ad hominem.

    You're not countering the substance of the claim, only the origin of my belief.

    Furthermore, have you ever made a point based on anything other than your personal experience? Let's not pretend you are making your argument on anything other than a subjective view. The worst part is you have done nothing to support your view.

    Scientifically speaking there is no "turning off" of the emotions, only detaching from them, and who knows how real this detachment is? It could be a suppression of emotions or a denial of emotions. Detachment from emotions does not "turn off" or negate emotional consequences. You seem to suggest a separation between mind and body that does not exist.

    My claim is that you cannot separate emotions from physical intimacy. You still have not proven otherwise. Until you prove otherwise, why do you persist in disagreeing? You don't want to believe what I think. You don't have to. Just acknowledge that this unwillingness is based on a feeling, equally subjective and no more or no less valid than my own.
    "Create like a god, command like a king, work like a slave."

  4. #134
    Once Was Synarch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    8,470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Synarch View Post
    I've never seen anyone who could TRULY do this. If they could, they would be monstrous.
    To expound on this:

    1. There is no separation of mind and body.
    2. There is no mind without emotion.
    3. Therefore, there is no physical intimacy devoid of emotional content.
    4. Therefore, anyone who can actually fuck without emotional content lacks emotion, therefore they are fundamentally inhuman or sociopathic, aka monstrous.

    Those who claim otherwise are likely just wrong, rather than inhuman. The emotional reactions herein (by ceecee, et al.) at FEELING labeled as "monstrous" serve only to support the lie of the rational, detached NT.

    You cannot fuck without feeling SOMETHING. Why is this so revolutionary? I can't even imagine what kind of sex that would be otherwise.

    Your anger is an emotion, your desire is an emotion, your hunger is an emotion, your excitement is an emotion, your satisfaction is an emotion. The tender emotions are there, too, even if you operate in a mode of intensity or roughness. Does your tenderness drop away when you are railing the fuck out of someone? Or, does it simply feed the flames of your passion? It is more complex than any of you care to acknowledge.
    "Create like a god, command like a king, work like a slave."

  5. #135
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Synarch View Post
    Scientifically speaking there is no "turning off" of the emotions, only detaching from them, and who knows how real this detachment is? It could be a suppression of emotions or a denial of emotions. Detachment from emotions does not "turn off" or negate emotional consequences. You seem to suggest a separation between mind and body that does not exist.

    My claim is that you cannot separate emotions from physical intimacy. You still have not proven otherwise. Until you prove otherwise, why do you persist in disagreeing? You don't want to believe what I think. You don't have to. Just acknowledge that this unwillingness is based on a feeling, equally subjective and no more or no less valid than my own.
    This actually supercedes even the sexual aspect of the problem. Can you detach from your emotions-which seem to have moved far beyond the original definition of simple love-during any act during the day? If you can do this then it seems to equivelant to being sociopathic?

    Where is the boundary between no emotion and quantized partitioned emotion to protect yourself from pain and injury? Where does being unhealthy start? Are there really thoughts and periods during the day where there really is no emotional "response" to be ignored?

    Is the arguement that sex is such an intense experience that even a thinker should have an emotional response and to supress that response is sociopathic to some extent? (not ax murder sociopathic, more lacking in emapthy sociopathic, the term monster muddies the waters terribly)

    To carry this through, if I sleep with a man once in a one night stand, but carry with me an emotional connotation, a remebrance , a piece of his soul with me, little flurries of memories, and during the act touched his emotions if only briefly, am I still a sociopath or foul for engaging in something that I know will never occur again?

    Is it not better to share the smallest quanta of love/connectivity/joy and both gain physical pleasure, understanding that we will walk away never seeing each other again, rather than to sit and be alone and isolated and never share those emotions/intimacy?

  6. #136
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Serotonin
    Endorphins
    Vasopressin
    Norepinephrine
    Phenylethylamine
    Dopamine
    Oxytocin
    Estrogen
    Testosterone

    Those are the chemicals associated with desire, sex, and love. It's true that positive chemical reactions tend to take place between people that become sexually involved. Yes, humans are wired to continue the species. Procreation is rewarded by reactions in the body for evolutionary purposes.

    However, Oxytocin needs to be released during orgasm for the process of becoming emotionally attached to begin. Increase the number of times the reaction occurs during sex, and the emotional bond becomes more intense. People don't initiate that chemical cycle with everyone, or in every single sexual interaction. Nor will both parties always do it at the same time, at the same percentage, with everyone they encounter. Much less stick around long enough for it to build to a level that's consciously recognizable.

    Lacking romantic emotions during sex, has nothing to do with whether an individual is a sociopath or not. It's merely the nature of certain chemical reactions. What about couples that no longer love each other anymore, but continue to have sex. Or one person that's in love with someone, but it isn't reciprocated. Yet, they too have sex. Or one night stands, friends with benefits, or any other casual sexual encounter. This happens all the time, far more than interactions that lead to love.

    Sensation doesn't equal emotion. Yet, emotions can bring up physiological sensations.


    Sensation:

    1 a: a mental process (as seeing, hearing, or smelling) resulting from the immediate external stimulation of a sense organ often as distinguished from a conscious awareness of the sensory process compare perception b: awareness (as of heat or pain) due to stimulation of a sense organ c: a state of consciousness due to internal bodily changes <a sensation of hunger> d: an indefinite bodily feeling <a sensation of buoyancy>2: something (as a physical stimulus, sense-datum, or afterimage) that causes or is the object of sensation.


    Emotion:

    1 disturbance b: excitement2 a: the affective aspect of consciousness : feeling b: a state of feeling c: a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body.

  7. #137
    Senior Member Misty_Mountain_Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    In my opinion, sex does NOT equal love. I may even go so far as to say that sex inhibits truly falling in love with someone, as it may bring about a premature 'adoration' or feeling of obligation, especially where morals and upbringing dictates that people should only have sex with those they 'love'.

    The term 'love' is thrown about too loosely. I doubt that many have ever experienced real love. Rather they convince themselves that the confusing emotions that they are having equate to love (for whatever reason) and proceed accordingly into marriages that dissolve after their idea of what 'love' is wears off.

    True, Soul-Changing, all encompassing, irrational love does not come about from merely having sex. While there are emotions that can be stirred by having sex, I don't think that love is necessarily (or even OFTEN) one of them. Other emotions coupled with a subconscious desire to 'be in love' can convince someone that they had sex with someone they love.

    So no, Sex does not equal Love by default. I have had sex with people I do not love. I cared for them, and even wanted desperarately to be in love with one of them because he was actually a great guy, but it just wasn't there.
    Embrace the possibilities.

  8. #138
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Synarch View Post
    Ad hominem.

    You're not countering the substance of the claim, only the origin of my belief.

    Furthermore, have you ever made a point based on anything other than your personal experience? Let's not pretend you are making your argument on anything other than a subjective view. The worst part is you have done nothing to support your view.

    Scientifically speaking there is no "turning off" of the emotions, only detaching from them, and who knows how real this detachment is? It could be a suppression of emotions or a denial of emotions. Detachment from emotions does not "turn off" or negate emotional consequences. You seem to suggest a separation between mind and body that does not exist.

    My claim is that you cannot separate emotions from physical intimacy. You still have not proven otherwise. Until you prove otherwise, why do you persist in disagreeing? You don't want to believe what I think. You don't have to. Just acknowledge that this unwillingness is based on a feeling, equally subjective and no more or no less valid than my own.
    Because my claim only relates to my own experience!

    I'm not the one claiming that I can understand YOUR subjective experience better than you can.

    I've already said I believe you that this separation doesn't work for you. That's fine and good.

    And no, ad hominem = "at the man"; it's only ad hominem if I openly insult you.


    And dude, seriously, I haven't proven otherwise because you haven't proven the claim that I can't separate love from physical intimacy! I didn't say it was completely devoid of emotion; very little in life is entirely unemotional.

    But I can still have sex without developing romantic attachment. Once again, burden of proof is not on me; YOU are making an extraordinary claim about MY experience, and you need to justify it before I'm given any responsibility to prove otherwise.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #139
    o edward cullen! Ardea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    729

    Default

    There was a book... I believe it was Kiersey... that said that NTs look down on one night stands and meaningless sex, in general.

    I agree.
    Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #140
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    From Kiersey.com

    Rationals tend to be faithful, with Masterminds (INTJ) the most likely and Inventors (ENTP) the least likely. As a rule, Rationals have a more manageable sex drive than other temperaments. Sex is still very important to them, but usually not as all-consuming except during the teen years. Rationals are the most likely (along with Promoter and Crafter Artisans) to separate sex and love. When they do that, they may have little trouble justifying an affair. Inventors sometimes act like Artisans, going for the adrenaline high of conquest.

Similar Threads

  1. Does anyone love cricket as much as me
    By mystery in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 04-06-2014, 12:48 PM
  2. [NT] Question for NTs...
    By The Ü™ in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-23-2008, 07:56 PM
  3. Plot for NT World Domination
    By MerkW in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 12-18-2007, 02:13 AM
  4. Help Stop the Plot For NT World Domination
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-14-2007, 02:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO