[NT] xNTx fidelity

[Valiant]

Oh, you so wouldn't!!!

 

[tinkerbell]

ENTP have turned into very averagy non NT dogs...

 

[Katsuni]

ENTP have turned into very averagy non NT dogs...

That or ENTP's are just the only ones looking at it from a broader perspective than the given question.

 

[entropie]

That or ENTP's are just the only ones looking at it from a broader perspective than the given question.

That or I am naked right now ! ... No wait ..

 

[tinkerbell]

That or I am naked right now ! ... No wait ..

now now, we'll have none of that on this thread... go and put some pants on :hi:

 

[Katsuni]

now now, we'll have none of that on this thread... go and put some pants on :hi:

Yeu mean... pants... aren't optional? >.>

I'll uhm... brb... I need to go... do... something.

*Runs for the closet*

 

[garbage]

That they are, 100% always faithful so far. Unfortunately, this's an open poll reviewed by one's peers... it can be viewed as a contest "the INTP's are winning! I can't let myself bring them down!" or as a matter of honour, fear, or several other reasons. Sadly, it means that the answers presented are not neccesarily 100% accurate, as some people won't consider themselves cheating, others will be unwilling to admit to such.

Or, alternatively, the people who voted that they're not cheating really aren't cheating.

also please for the love of god use the correct vowels.. the rest of that was a major pain to read

 

[Cypocalypse]

Problem in NT forums, we treat infidelity as if it's a matter of 100% choice. While deep inside, we probably envy SFs who can easily do it. I think we're getting more hypocritical here than we should be.

 

[Kra]

The point is that this's a prime example of someone being so excessively insistant on a fairy tale relationship, that rather than work towards an understanding, they'd rather ditch it entirely and give up the second a problem arises.

I wouldn't say I bail at the first sign of trouble. I've been more than willing to talk out problems and inadequacies, and attempt to work things out. I believe that if I don't take steps to maintain honest communication, infidelity is as much my fault as it is the SO's. It's more that I bail after the ship has capsized (SO skips straight to the strange).

The suggestion of a 'open' relationship is one that's generally mentioned from the start, so before it's even really begun as a relationship, and they've truly had time to learn more about the other person, they've already given up all hope and called it quits.

I suppose I should clarify. It takes me a very long time to actually get to a point of committing to someone. I will concede that it's highly unlikely by that point that this suggestion would occur.

In the beginning however, "open relationship" very simply means that they are not looking for the same thing as I. This may change in the future, and it may not. In either case, I'm happy to continue as friends, and I don't rule them out from ever being a possibility, but I'm not investing anything at that point.

In this case, they aren't being unfaithful from the start, they're just wary after being burned time and time again without deviation. A relationship is built on trust, however, if that trust has been broken time and again, over and over, 100% of the time, that trust is not given freely anymore and must then be earned. Getting pissy over someone being cautious is understandable, but also isn't really that fair to the person who got burnt either. They have every right to be a bit wary of suitors claiming "zomg trust me I wubz uu!"

There's no commitment at this stage, so there's no wrong to be done yet. That's just wise caution.

I agree with the rest of your post, in that communication is quite vital. Of course no relationship is perfect, and they all require work. It's just that if, after taking all precautions, an SO still cheats, I don't see the point of carrying on with what is apparently a charade, and cut losses.

 

[SubjectA]

Never cheated, never will. I'd be stupid to do so because I have a hard time getting into relationships as it is. Why would I want to throw it away based on a mere infatuation? And if I didn't want to commit to that person, I wouldn't enter that kind of relationship to begin with.

 

[Katsuni]

Sorry too Kra, I probably made that sound like I was burning yeu alive for it XD

It was overexaggerating a statement to make the concept more clear, have a bad habit of trying to 'blow up' a picture to be easier to see, but at the same time, this can come off poorly if it's loosely based on someone in particular. So no intentional offense there, sorry for using yeu as an example in quite such a manner. My point still stands, I just didn't mean to imply yeu do all that, nor on nearly that scale ^^



And yes, at some point yeu have to just say, okei, this isn't working, we aren't meshing correctly, and the effort we're expending on trying to make it work is... not... working. That or we, or at least one of us, isn't putting any effort into this at all, or at least nowheres near enough. If we can't get it to work, it's best to just let it die.

It IS possible for people to change drastically enough to no longer be compatible, which I didn't really cover... and at some point yeu do have to have a breaking point. I just try to stress that people don't give up too easily, and to at least try to give it a chance, as that's whot the vast majority of cheating boils down to... one side or the other gave up before they even tried.

 

[Gewitter27]

I think that if you make a commitment to somebody, then you should honor it.

 

[sonata]

I think that if you make a commitment to somebody, then you should honor it.

Agreed.

But I wouldn't call it an aversion to promiscuity, exactly. If someone isn't in a committed relationship, and wants to have loads of casual sex with multiple different people who are also not in committed relationships, I have no real problem with that.

I doubt I'd do it myself, but if you like it, 'tis your deal.

 

[entropie]

Agreed.

But I wouldn't call it an aversion to promiscuity, exactly. If someone isn't in a committed relationship, and wants to have loads of casual sex with multiple different people who are also not in committed relationships, I have no real problem with that.

I doubt I'd do it myself, but if you like it, 'tis your deal.

Would be a problem only if you needed to be with that guy later on who was in lots of casual relationships.

Do you want to go out for lunch one day by chance ?

 

[sonata]

Would be a problem only if you needed to be with that guy later on who was in lots of casual relationships.

Do you want to go out for lunch one day by chance ?

True, s'pose that way of life might be hard to break out of. Or the SO would be constantly suspicious that the person hadn't really broken out of it.

I'll be on your side of the pond in about a week. I like cafés.

 

[alpaca]

It's funny how rational types seem to empathize so much that they are disgusted by breaking a promise without the other person even knowing. Just the pure idea is so off-putting. Why is that?

My relationships either last months and months.. or not at all. If I sense that I have no future with a guy, I'll usually end it in the first one or two weeks. In theory I have no problem with promiscuity, but... bleh. I'd be missing out on an emotional/intellectual connection with casual hookups, and it just doesn't seem like it would be fun.

 

[Valuable_Money]

Ive always looked at it this way.

Sex is a biological function, women will stick all sorts of strange and scary phalic objects into themselfs if theyre lonely enough and men will hump pillows if theyre soft enough.

So looking at it this way I really dont feel very motivated just to have sex for the sake of having sex, that doesnt mean I dont WANT to its just I dont feel comfortable following such irrational impulses.

That being said once Im in a relationship all the stops come loose

 

[CzeCze]

These responses are interesting because I never thought that being NT would sway you one way or another towards cheating. Basically I thought it had no bearing. I did think (from comments made on the forum) that ENTPs are prone to cheating and the results here back that up (and so far ENTPs are the least faithful of the NTs).

I wonder if regardless of it being an anonymous poll some habitual or past cheaters are hesitant to answer? Or just don't care?

Some of the comments in the thread resonates with what I've seen and heard from INTPs I know irl. The INTPs I know fall hard for people. And they get one-track minded. Once they are enamored with one person, they cease seeing other opportunities (or perhaps they mentally register but they are not interested). And they put a lot work and unnatural effort into obtaining the relationship and don't take it lightly.

Cafe - the INTPs on INTPc who hook up - do you mean with each other? The likelihood of someone cheating also depends on how many opportunities they have to cheat. Maybe meeting fellow INTPs online is just one big opportunity to hook up and therefore cheat and is something you can't replicate irl.

PS I'm gonna start a poll in NF sub-forum if there isn't one already...I know there was one on cheating a while ago but not sure if a poll was included.

 

[jenocyde]

Being the "least faithful" of the NTs does not mean we are prone to cheating. I think most NTs see everything we do as a well thought out decision and not an arbitrary impulse, so to cheat on impulse would be to betray our very nature. Premeditated cheating would more than likely lead us to question our own rationality and objectives, which would discourage the act.

For the most part, I guess.

 

[Katsuni]

These responses are interesting because I never thought that being NT would sway you one way or another towards cheating. Basically I thought it had no bearing. I did think (from comments made on the forum) that ENTPs are prone to cheating and the results here back that up (and so far ENTPs are the least faithful of the NTs).

I wonder if regardless of it being an anonymous poll some habitual or past cheaters are hesitant to answer? Or just don't care?

I wouldn't put much faith in the poll honestly, yeu can have people from whichever denomination voting for personality types they aren't, and there's already been expressed concerns of people trying to force 'their' type into just going with the group as a matter of group honour "zomg intj if yeu say yes yeu'll make all intj's look bad!" kind of thing.

There's also the fact that NOT ONE person has said they would cheat, and I think my posts have been the closest so far at even suggesting such, simply because of the way I'm broadening the question to cover more things than was originally asked.

This could just as easily be a poll testing whot definition yeu think 'cheating' has, or a poll of 'how scared are yeu of people thinking yeu MIGHT be cheating', to several other possibilities.

Note as well that noone has actually put down anything other than 'rare occasions', and this probably also implies significant reason behind why such would occur and the definition may be broadened.

I will admit that I did put down 'ENTP - Occationally been unfaithful', as I was making that decision based on all forms of 'cheating' I'd outlined, not just the one listed. I'm virgin so obviously I can't REALLY have cheated sexually dur >.> However, in terms of not trusting my SO at the time with something emotional? Yeah, which I honestly consider worse... 'sex' on its' own is meaningless without context, if there's no emotional attachment it doesn't mean much. If I found out my SO was cheating on me sexually but insisted it didn't mean anything and was just a physical thing, I'd probably question it to ensure such, but wouldn't care much if that were the case; the emotional attachment's the important part. The STD worries are kind of... important as well considering I do know someone who did get cheated on and caught a permenent one unfortunately.

But anyways, the point is that if they were caught cuddling someone, I'd be way more pissed than the sexual thing... hookers have been around since the start of time, and obviously they aren't getting clients based on emotional need, so we can pretty safely say that 'not all sex is emotionally attached', and as long as someone was careful about it, it'd be frustrating that it'd imply I wasn't providing 'good enough', but that can be worked on as well. I'd just be furious if they felt that I didn't care enough, because if that's the case, then really, why would yeu be going out at all in the first place and considering it to be a significant relationship?

Regardless, there's just alot of things being factored into this whole poll, many of which aren't being shown clearly, One may look further into it and just state that only TWO NT's in total put anything down that they're rarely or never faithful, both of which were the ENTP section as well, in which case they may very well be just using a different definition. It's hardly a clear and accurate poll, despite the best attempts to make it so. For one of the other 'more straightforwards' types, it'd probably be alot more accurate, for the NT forum though... well yeu're asking the people who are most likely to think outside of the given problem, and evaluate the information differently.