[NT] NT women and femininity *thread split*

[Zarathustra]

Ni porn!

It did require the making of a connection that was not completely obvious.

Beautiful pictures for sure, but I couldn't possibly tell which are supposed to be feminine and which are masculine.

The point wasn't to point to specific masculine or feminine energies for each picture (although, I suppose you could try doing that if you wanted to), but to point to the various energies within each picture, as well as the general energy that is California (as well as the various distinct energies for the various regions of California shown), as well as a sort of riff on the cliche about California girls being very susceptible/open to anything with the word "energy" (I tried to find the link to a comedy bit I once saw about this, but I can't remember who it was that said it). Many of the pictures were also meant to get one thinking about the bigger things: life, the universe, the good, the true, and the beautiful, great spans of time, permanence/impermanence, recurrence, and, as such, the Perennial philosophy.

I'm tone death to spirituality and always have been.

Just fyi, it's tone deaf, not death.

The implication is that you cannot hear the tone.

The ironic thing is, being tone deaf does not imply that there is no tone -- only that one is not able to hear it.

 

[Red Herring]

Thanks for the commentary. I am not completely uncultured though, just bad at spelling in, any language when I don't concentrate properly (as I have repeatedly mentioned).

The point stands. I have trouble with the concept of energies and assume the California girl phenomenon can be explained by the favorable social climate for people with a tendency towards / interest in esoterics.

 

[Zarathustra]

I... assume the California girl phenomenon can be explained by the favorable social climate for people with a tendency towards / interest in esoterics.

In the parlance of Ken Wilber, that would be a very lower right quadrant way of looking at/talking about it.

There are other ways, and they tend to be more lively.

 

[Red Herring]

I can not exclude that possibility. However, liveliness is not a criterion for me. This is where the serpent is biting its own tail.

 

[Zarathustra]

I can not exclude that possibility. However, liveliness is not a criterion for me.

 

[Red Herring]

We prefer to be called Ti doms though, If you don't mind.

 

[EntangledLight]

I think part of the problem is that the Rationals are generally a more masculine group (well, not INTPs...).

Just check the statistics -- we're dominantly male.

The disproportion is ridiculous.

Anyway, sexual polarity is such that masculinity is attracted to feminity, and feminity to masculinity.

As such, equipping a female with a masculine personality is like putting a feminine personality in a male (like NF men, for the most part).

While masculine NT females may feel some kind of sexual attraction for feminine males (due to their sexual polarity), not only are feminine men a smaller percentage of the population (metrosexuals shouldn't be considered feminine, but just neutered, really ) than masculine men, but, perhaps at a deeper, more biological level, even though an NT woman's masculinity may be attracted to femininity (in men, or in women), she may still have instinctual urges to be ravished by a strong, masculine man.

But this creates a friction, because her masculinity will repel masculine men, like two sexual magnets of the same polar charge.

And the feminine men who her masculinity might be attracted to, probably won't be able to fulfill all of her instinctual female desires.

I can only imagine all the difficulties this would cause in romantic relationships.

Feminine men and masculine women seem kinda just unfortunate in love.

Kinda sad when you think about it.

this "sexual polarity" you speak of is what the person is consciously aware of, and it's obvious by the fact that we project our unconscious traits onto a potential spouse (i.e., we project the side of us we're blind to)--so, just because the NF male is 'feminine" in a social/conscious state doesn't mean the masculine side is non-existent, and believe me, you may very well see that come out... especially in intimate situations (it's a very natural, very in-born/primal aspect).

p.s.

lol at the 'feminine NF' male (you wound me!)--just kidding, i get what you mean, but i gaurentee (sp?) you that most NF males don't see themselves as feminine... it's just that there's a made-up/fake social construct that was based off of biological necessity that we term 'feminine/masculine', and it is an overdone/overplayed evolutionary throw back to the dark ages. we have come a long way, and now we can redefine things that we have taken for reality when, in reality, those aspects existed within our minds and our own one-sided view as humans.

2nd p.s.

interesting thread ... i hope all of this hasn't already been covered!

 

[Zarathustra]

this "sexual polarity" you speak of is what the person is consciously aware of...

Hmm...

Honestly, I don't know how concious people necessarily are of it...

...and it's obvious by the fact that we project our unconscious traits onto a potential spouse (i.e., we project the side of us we're blind to)--so, just because the NF male is 'feminine" in a social/conscious state doesn't mean the masculine side is non-existent, and believe me, you may very well see that come out... especially in intimate situations (it's a very natural, very in-born/primal aspect).

Oh, yeah, I mean, I don't believe that.

I believe both men and women dip in both feminine and masculine energies.

I just believe F men tend to dip in feminine energy more than do T men.

(And the same goes for F females vs T females, imo.)

lol at the 'feminine NF' male (you wound me!)--just kidding, i get what you mean, but i gaurentee (sp?) you that most NF males don't see themselves as feminine... it's just that there's a made-up/fake social construct that was based off of biological necessity that we term 'feminine/masculine', and it is an overdone/overplayed evolutionary throw back to the dark ages. we have come a long way, and now we can redefine things that we have taken for reality when, in reality, those aspects existed within our minds and our own one-sided view as humans.

Yeah, sorry, I just can't accept this as fact.

Once again (I have a feeling this might become a saying of mine), in the parlance of Ken Wilber, this is just Green Consciousness (i.e., Post-Modernism) speaking its belief as if its truth.

interesting thread ... i hope all of this hasn't already been covered!

Well, honestly, this thread had been dead for some two years before it was revived a day or two ago.

 

[Coriolis]

Well, honestly, this thread had been dead for some two years before it was revived a day or two ago.

What is the problem with "thread necromancy" anyway? Somewhere in new member guidelines is the suggestion that, before one starts a new thread, one search for existing threads on the same topic. The implication is that one should post in the existing thread rather than start another. What is the statute of limitations for old threads?

 

[Zarathustra]

What is the problem with "thread necromancy" anyway? Somewhere in new member guidelines is the suggestion that, before one starts a new thread, one search for existing threads on the same topic. The implication is that one should post in the existing thread rather than start another. What is the statute of limitations for old threads?

I have less of a problem with thread necromancy in and of itself, so much as thread necromancy occurring without the necromancer realizing it (add on top of such unrecognized necromancy an asinine accusation, and that pushes things well over the edge).

 

[Coriolis]

To profound thinkers, a slight indication is sufficient to discover great truths.

To one who himself is royal, the emperor's clothes look magnificent.

In any case, perennial philosophy sounds good to me.

 

[Orangey]

Hmm...

Honestly, I don't know how concious people necessarily are of it...





Oh, yeah, I mean, I don't believe that.

I believe both men and women dip in both feminine and masculine energies.

I just believe F men tend to dip in feminine energy more than do T men.

(And the same goes for F females vs T females, imo.)



Yeah, sorry, I just can't accept this as fact.

Once again (I have a feeling this might become a saying of mine), in the parlance of Ken Wilber, this is just Green Consciousness (i.e., Post-Modernism) speaking its belief as if its truth.



Well, honestly, this thread had been dead for some two years before it was revived a day or two ago.

Yes, because you and Mr. Wilber are obviously epistemically privileged individuals, capable of apprehending the reality behind the illusions that us common folk cannot.

Honestly, it's one thing to offer some insight up as one possibility among many to be critically examined or discussed (even if you believe in it 100%), but it's quite another to simply assert some shit as truth and then retreat into "well you aren't capable of deciding whether what I said is true or not because I'm special and operate on a higher plane of consciousness than you."

That's guru shit and ought not be trusted on principle. Even if some of the insights are true (or at least valuable in some way), we need not trust the messanger or the methods used to arrive at them, nor accept whatever other propositions about the world that are attached.

 

[Yami]

Originally Posted by tawanda
I was just curious to see if there are many female NT's out there who either find it difficult to find a relationship, keep a relationship, or just stay interested in relationships in general. Relationships are, in general, challenging, but is it more challenging for you compared to other people you're with? Do you find your friends getting into relationships a lot quicker than you, or is it easier for them, etc.?
So, do you find it difficult to find a date or keep a relationship in your interest, why or why not?

I'm ENTJ. And yes, I find it difficult. First off, the man has to be somehow incredible for me to like him. He has to be smart, charismatic and also he has to be good looking for me to like him.
If I found this guy and he's into me... but he shows it too much from the beginning, well.. there's no challenge for me, and I lost interest.
And even I like him, and he plays his cards well, and I'm into him, I could end up screwing things up for not being emotional enough. I show my affection with actions, so people have to be able to notice it, without needing me to "state" it. I need time to trust people with my feelings. But once you're in my life, you're there for good.

 

[Pseudo]

Yeah, but this can simply be attraction to the challenge.

I met an ESTJ on a plane once, and I was very intrigued with her from the start. She was a beautiful, strong black woman. Former model.

Ended up dating her, and, as I got to know her, I came to realize I was not attracted to her. I thought she was beautiful, but her highly rational nature did not stir up attraction in me. She lacked that feminine flair that gets a (masculine) man going.

It was a rather important learning lesson...

Having dated an extremely irrational ESFP for a long time, I thought I wanted a more "rational" mate.

Then I realized I'm not exactly attracted to women for their rationality...

What is feminine flair?

 

[Zarathustra]

What is feminine flair?

Trying to express it in a drab, highly rational manner would be more-or-less antithetical to it.

I've always felt this quote did the concept justice:

"One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star." - Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[Pseudo]

Please attempt to be drab because defining femininity as inner chaos and a lack of rationality makes it difficult for me to understand how I can attract men and be a functional adult. And besides I hate poetry.

 

[Zarathustra]

Sorry... can't really help you out there... it is what it is...

The functional adult part has to do with learning to balance the masculine and the feminine, though.

 

[Zarathustra]

I've seen it presented as such, and found it useful:

Stage 1: too far identified with the traditional archetype (masculine-male; femine-female) of your gender.
Stage 2: one swings to the opposite side, but goes too far, and loses many of the qualities of one's traditional gender archetype.
Stage 3: find balance in the middle, reclaiming both one's inherent masculinity and one's inherent femininity.

 

[Pseudo]

I've seen it presented as such, and found it useful:

Stage 1: too far identified with the traditional archetype (masculine-male; femine-female) of your gender.
Stage 2: one swings to the opposite side, but goes too far, and loses many of the qualities of one's traditional gender archetype.
Stage 3: find balance in the middle, reclaiming both one's inherent masculinity and one's inherent femininity.

Well then can you explain the archetypes? It just seems like your opinion of femininity is the old histrionic, childish damsel in distress which is tempered with the "masculine" traits of pragmatism, strength and independence.

It seems like a lot of people reach the same "I can't describe it" conclusions in these arguments about what's feminine. I hypothesize it's because "femininity" is really just a way from some men to describe a woman whose weak/ditzy/complaint enough to make them feel like a stud.

 

[Zarathustra]

Well then can you explain the archetypes? It just seems like your opinion of femininity is the old histrionic, childish damsel in distress which is tempered with the "masculine" traits of pragmatism, strength and independence.

It seems like a lot of people reach the same "I can't describe it" conclusions in these arguments about what's feminine. I hypothesize it's because "femininity" is really just a way from some men to describe a woman whose weak/ditzy/complaint enough to make them feel like a stud.

I don't think those are the conclusions I've reached at all, actually, and the fact that you think that they are, and the pattern of your responses thus far, show me that you're trying to hyperrationalize this stuff, which is likely precisely the reason why you have a problem being feminine in the first place.