[NT] NT women and femininity *thread split*

[Zarathustra]

What? I said that you needed to do so in order to make any sense.

No, you didn't.

You simply said that I hadn't done it.

And I said I hadn't attempted to do so.

"Coming up with some" what?

More possibilities.

You can't say at once that certain types are more masculine/feminine than others (in essence) and then come back and say that this essence is only applicable in certain domains of life. Either some types (or individuals) are more masculine/feminine than others, period, or every type exercises a fluidity in masculinity/femininity that adapts to the different circumstances of life. If the former, it is fair to say that more masculine types might be attracted to more feminine types (and vise versa.) If the latter, you cannot say anything about the mate selection preferences of ANY type because they may manifest their masculinity/femininity in vastly different ways depending on type, individual, background, and, most importantly, circumstance. So you cannot say that NT women at once desire feminine mates AND a dominant masculine mate to "ravish" them, and that this is a trait peculiar to NTs (much less NT women.) It's either one or the other, or it's not determined by type.

Sim, please read this and understand why it is that I Ti.

Well I reserve my admonitions for people who seemingly can't help but commit the fallacy of the false fallacy.

Not being able to come up with strong alternative counterarguments is the same as setting up a straw man.

That's why I told you to come up with more possibilities.

Go back and read the whole conversation. You sound like... I'm gunna stop myself here.

*

Honestly, I'm done with this argument.

I don't really feel like explaining each logical connection step by step to some weak Ti user who doesn't get it.

I've got better things to do.

 

[Orangey]

Blah blah blah

M'kay.

 

[Zarathustra]

Fuck it.

You can't say at once that certain types are more masculine/feminine than others (in essence) and then come back and say that this essence is only applicable in certain domains of life.

Either some types (or individuals) are more masculine/feminine than others, period,

or

every type exercises a fluidity in masculinity/femininity that adapts to the different circumstances of life.

...

It's either one or the other, or it's not determined by type.

Where you fail has been bolded.

The reason I told you to drum up more possibilities is because I have one very plausible one sitting in my head at this very moment (and have had it there from the get-go) that you obviously haven't yet thought up, that very clearly answers your question.

I'll give you a go though.

Try to come up with a possibility to answer this question.

Ruminate on it for as long as you might take.

Then let me know it once you think you got it.

I'll let you know whether it's the same one I have in my head.

If it's not, then maybe you came up with another good explanation, or maybe you still haven't figured out as good of an answer as mine yet.

If it is, congratulations.

In two out of those three cases, you're on your way to critical thinking.

 

[strawberries]

zarathustra's musings suggest that T women and F men are somehow inherently broken or at odds with their gender, which is patronising, offensive and a strange thing to argue.

the ability to analyse is gender-neutral as is the ability to feel. why do you want to project notions of gender onto those traits?

if you're talking about femininity in terms of appearance; one's capacity to have long hair and look hot in a tight dress is not type-specific.

 

[Zarathustra]

zarathustra's musings suggest that T women and F men are somehow inherently broken or at odds with their gender, which is patronising, offensive and a strange thing to argue.

That is sort of what I argue.

If you find it patronizing, offensive, or strange: that is simply your interpretation.

I'm just laying out the facts as I see them.

And I know my ENFP girlfriend largely agrees with me.

Hell, even YWIR said I'm pretty much accurate.

Of course, as an ENTJ (which I called, along with ESTJ, the most masculine of the types), she is probably more masculine than you (an ENTP, which I called rather low on the masculine side), and, as such, may better understand my point.

the ability to analyse is gender-neutral as is the ability to feel. why do you want to project notions of gender onto those traits?

I never said the ability to analyze or to feel is gender-specific, and I feel no such thing.

I simply said that Ts tend to be more masculine, and Fs tend to be more feminine.

If you can't see the difference, that's your problem.

if you're talking about femininity in terms of appearance; one's capacity to have long hair and look hot in a tight dress is not type-specific.

I'm talking about femininity in terms of behavior.

Maybe you don't understand what that is very well.

I've essentially heard as much about Australian women.

 

[strawberries]

you're not even pretending to not be a troll anymore.

 

[Zarathustra]

What the hell is the definition of a troll then?

Cuz I obviously pointed out plenty of genuine and real problems with your analysis.

Just cuz I decided to flame broil it, doesn't change that fact.

 

[Kasper]

Zarathustra has been thread banned for flaming. Please don't do that kids.

Resume topic: NT wimminz

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

That is sort of what I argue.

If you find it patronizing, offensive, or strange: that is simply your interpretation.

I'm just laying out the facts as I see them.

And I know my ENFP girlfriend largely agrees with me.

Hell, even YWIR said I'm pretty much accurate.

Of course, as an ENTJ (which I called, along with ESTJ, the most masculine of the types), she is probably more masculine than you (an ENTP, which I called rather low on the masculine side), and, as such, may better understand my point.


Maybe analysis is actually more gender-specific than I previously thought, cuz you seem to have done a piss-poor job analyzing what I said.
I never said the ability to analyze or to feel is gender-specific, and I feel no such thing.

I simply said that Ts tend to be more masculine, and Fs tend to be more feminine.
If you can't see the difference, that's your problem.


I'm talking about femininity in terms of behaviour.
Maybe you don't understand what that is very well.
I've essentially heard as much about Australian women.

I STILL agree with you. Maybe they're misreading what you are saying, or are offended by your view point. I have no idea. O_O... I don't think you are trolling.

I have noticed the same thing. Most NT females DO tend to emulate a more "masculine" quality, as do most NF men with the "feminine" quality( or how society defines feminine and masculine qualities for each sex-- there have been plenty of of great and diverse discussions on TypoC).



---------------------------- ON TOPIC

I think NT women are great for relationships that require independence and very little " feeling"-talk from both partners involved.
I however, have mentioned that it's a pain in the ass when it comes to " talking about what you are feeling" or "Where is this going". God that's awkward.. ><!
I never want to be in that situation again.

 

[Orangey]

ladidadida

I'm not going to respond to your patronizing and juvenile post by flaming you. I understand that the fallacy you've been trying to point out in my post is the false dilemma (though you've confused this with the straw man.) Quite simply, you claim that:

(1) All people have a mixture of masculinity and femininity.
(2) This mixture varies in composition depending on personality type.
(3) NTs tend to have more masculinity and less femininity.
(4) More masculine/less feminine types are attracted to more feminine types.
(5) More masculine/less feminine types are still attracted, in their heart of hearts, to more masculine types.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore...

(C1) NTs are attracted to more feminine types.
(C2) NTs are attracted to more masculine types.

You are saying that these incompatible conclusions are indeed compatible because, with your spectacular "outside the box" thinking, you imagined a scenario in which an NT could be at once both more masculine/less feminine and, because of their lesser feminine side, still attracted to more masculine types.

I don't deny that this scenario is possible (or even probable, I wouldn't know.) I'm sure that there are NTs in the world that are more masculine/less feminine that, because of their lesser feminine side dominating in certain domains of life (i.e., relationships), nevertheless desire to be "ravished" by another more masculine/less feminine type.

But I do deny that your argument provides any plausible explanation for this possibility. I deny it because you can't assign dominant masculinity/femininity (even generally) to personality types and say that these qualities determine attraction to ANY degree (#2, #3, and #4 above) IF it is the case that the less dominant quality (for lack of a better word) can play, for whatever reason, just as determinate a role. That would mean that masculinity/femininity plays no significant role in determining attraction, and that it is rather the qualities of the individual or his/her circumstances (or whatever...something biological, for instance) that plays the bigger role. In other words, accepting your claim that NTs are more masculine than feminine, I could equally desire a more feminine/less masculine partner because of my dominant masculinity as I could a more masculine/less feminine partner because of my lesser, though (according to you) no less powerful or determinate, femininity.

Also, to admonish someone for failing to "think outside of the box" is indeed a moral judgment. You are essentially telling me that I ought to be more creative in my future posts. If you do not see that that is a moral judgment, then it is simply because you do not properly understand the meaning of the phrase "moral judgment."

 

[Spartacuss]

You can ask my girlfriend.

She's posted in this thread.

:hi:

Yes, I'm sure the girlfriend of someone with obvious sensitivies about and warped ideas of masculinity, i.e. this amusing hogwash:

Masculinity is consciousness. Femininity is existence.
Consciousness is unchanging. Femininity is always changing.
Masculinity is the witness. Femininity is that which is witnessed.

will confirm his lack thereof

 

[Tallulah]

FWIW, I think I think in a more typically masculine way, and I don't defer to men just because they're men. But no one would ever call me masculine.

I tend to be attracted to men who are pretty balanced as well--maybe the flip side of me. Seemingly pretty masculine at first glance, unafraid to pursue if he sees a woman he's attracted to (or at least willing to put himself out there anyway), but not married to gender roles and not fixated on what masculinity is, and what femininity is. It's really less of a formula than the feeling of two personalities complementing each other without worrying so much about the labels.

 

[strawberries]

Yes, I'm sure the girlfriend of someone with obvious sensitivies about and warped ideas of masculinity, i.e. this amusing hogwash:

will confirm his lack thereof

i would blush if my boyfriend engaged in foolhardy trolling. ew - not sexy.

 

[SillySapienne]

I'm Z's girlfriend, and I haven't read all of his posts, or, to be honest, most posts in this thread.

A few things that may or may not be pertinent.

I think Z and I are fairly compatible regarding our femininity/masculinity.

Depending on who you ask, I could be perceived as either extremely feminine or quite masculine.

How would I rate myself?

I am a bit more masculine than the average female.

But, I am a softy, I am deeply empathetic, I care about people, I care about inter-relationships, and intra-relationships, I care about you, I care about me, how you are doing, how you are feeling, etc. And, if these characteristics are categorized as "feminine", then, I am incredibly feminine.

Now, I am also a fiercely independent thinker, an autodidact, fearless in many ways, adventurous, sexually charged, interested in science, interested in the whys to the whats, opinionated, always up for discourse and debate. And, if these characteristics are characteristically "masculine", then masculine, I am, have been, and will be.

How would I rate Z on the masculine scale?

I think that he is quite masculine, but he also has a feminine sensitivity, and sensuality to him, in fact, it is his feminine aspect infused with his overall masculine energy that I am immensely attracted to.

I have spent years of my life with a masculine man who had damn near no iota of a feminine side, this hurt our relationship very much.

As I've already stated earlier in this thread, my INTP best friend is equally but differently masculine than I am, we both have our strains of femininity that emulate itself, and, upon first meeting us, despite my warmth, the average person would probably believe that I was more masculine than she is.

But, I have no shame in my game to assert a belief I had prior to even knowing about typology, that being...

That T-ness is more masculine than F-ness

That E-ness is more masculine than I-ness

That J-ness is more masculine than P-ness <--lulz

And that S-ness is more masculine than N-ness.

^The above statements are my own nebulous beliefs, and no, I don't care if they are not valid by any body else's standards, they're my own, thank you very much.

 

[SillySapienne]

I think NT women are great for relationships that require independence and very little " feeling"-talk from both partners involved.
I however, have mentioned that it's a pain in the ass when it comes to " talking about what you are feeling" or "Where is this going". God that's awkward.. ><!
I never want to be in that situation again.

See, I *need* to be in sync with my partner, both implicitly and explicitly, and this takes a lot of work, I need, and this, believe it or not, is quite difficult for me, to express how I am feeling in general, and how I am feeling about my partner, life, and our relationship, I also need to understand how he is feeling, what he is thinking, what he desires.

Intimacy is vital to me, in my romantic relationships, and thus far, the only way I've been able to facilitate and foster this is to constantly check-in and be *present* to both my, and my partner's needs/feelings.

Physical intimacy is so easy, mental/emotional/psychological intimacy, not so much... uch:

I am always thinking about the quality and health of my romantic relationships, if there is something that needs mending, I will do my hardest to try to do my part to fix the problem, nip it in the bud, so to speak.

I probably do this a bit too much, but what can I say, a good relationship must perpetually be nurtured in order to stay that way, or, better yet, get even better.

I want to inevitably grow closer to my partner, not farther.

And, at least for me, when I get silent, I start to slip away.

 

[SillySapienne]

FWIW, I think I think in a more typically masculine way, and I don't defer to men just because they're men. But no one would ever call me masculine.

I tend to be attracted to men who are pretty balanced as well--maybe the flip side of me. Seemingly pretty masculine at first glance, unafraid to pursue if he sees a woman he's attracted to (or at least willing to put himself out there anyway), but not married to gender roles and not fixated on what masculinity is, and what femininity is. It's really less of a formula than the feeling of two personalities complementing each other without worrying so much about the labels.

And, fwiw, I think you're incredibly feminine.

i would blush if my boyfriend engaged in foolhardy trolling. ew - not sexy.

I haven't read his posts, yet, well, I read a few, but, let it be known that Z writes and says shit sometimes that make me go

But, in all fairness, he probably feels/thinks the same about me.

 

[SillySapienne]

K, briefly perused some posts, and here's what I've got to add.

I have got a masculine side, always have, and there have been guys throughout my entire life who have been, YES, incredibly attracted to this "masculine side"

And by "masculine side" here, I mean, my confidence, intelligence, and don't-give-a-fuck attitude.

Every man whom I've deeply bonded with in my lifetime has bonded with me via my highly cerebral nature, not via my t&a.

I want to not only be appreciated for my caring nature, but respected and acknowledged for my intelligence.

Intelligence, and independent thinkers are sexxxay, regardless of whether or not their agents have ovaries or testicles.

 

[Tallulah]

And, fwiw, I think you're incredibly feminine.

Thank you, m'dear!

I would mostly agree with this as a rule, though I had never thought of it that way:

That T-ness is more masculine than F-ness

That E-ness is more masculine than I-ness

That J-ness is more masculine than P-ness <--lulz

And that S-ness is more masculine than N-ness.

 

[Kasper]

^ except by default that suggests that an INFP would be the most feminine type, which reality doesn't support. The INFPs I've known did not present that way.

 

[Tallulah]

^ except by default that suggests that an INFP would be the most feminine type, which reality doesn't support. The INFPs I've known did not present that way.

Hmm, that is also a good point. I haven't known many confirmed INFPs IRL to be able to say from personal observation.