[ENTJ] - 7 Signs You're Dating a LOSER! | Page 4 | INFJ Forum

[ENTJ] 7 Signs You're Dating a LOSER!

Are you dating a LOSER?

  • Yes, I'm dating a L-L-LOOOSER.

  • No, I'm fortunately not dating a LOSER.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Pin said:
Quality post.
Click to expand...
<3

Pin said:
I feel cold; it's rare I have affection for anyone and when I do there's always something.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, Pin. I hope you find what your heart longs for soon. (hug)



Ps: You don't need to be a millionaire. Your personality is already elite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flower, John K, April and 2 others
I'm not watching that all the way through in the interest of maintaining my sanity.

However, I see at least two issues with these type of women.

Firstly, lack of responsibility. The quality of the relationship should stem from mutual effort between partners. These women tend to expect men to take the reigns whilst they sit back and gatekeep from their carriage. Demanding equal pay whilst defaulting responsibility to the man. Men are not your servants. Pleasure stems from the reward center of the brain. In other words, you do not truly desire that which you expect by default. Men will leave if they feel unappreciated.

Secondly, defining someone as a loser because they have failed to meet your personal romantic prerequisites suggests entitlement. Your desires do not represent the standard by which others should measure their worth. You would think women, of all people, would understand that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: aeon, Pin, Anomaly and 2 others
I honestly wish there were fewer people like herself in society given that such have for the most part besides some other problems destroyed the dating market while scaring off so many of Gen Z and Gen Y from even trying. Hell even had a suicide in my family because of women like her so there is that. As for both men and women seeing people in such a light is horrendously toxic and makes me think ill of such personalities plus such just kills any sense of romance never mind any real connection between people after all if the other person is just resources then it isn't a relationship at all but just a business transaction if not a very poor one at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K, Anomalous, aeon and 4 others
Korg said:
In case anyone wants a TL;DW:

1. He doesn't put in over 50% financially. This means he's not stepping into his masculine role, not a provider, not generous.
2. If he makes you feel inappropriate for wanting commitment.
3. He's flaky, ghosts you, vanishes, is unreliable. If he does this more than once, he's a loser. If he really likes you, he'll move mountains. Men are spoiled today, so this is a common problem.
4. Lacks depth. Has no other interests than watching football, drinking beer, playing videogames and watching porn.
5. He lacks any form of basic gentleman skills. As in: holding doors, he offers his jacket, walks in front of her, selfish in bed.
6. He starts manipulating you. Getting aggressive when you put up boundaries, resistant to change.
7. Your in a serious relationship but he's a fuckboy who's still clubbing, partying and so forth.

---------

I think some of these could be grouped together. 4, 5 and 7 are likely symptoms of being immature and/or inexperienced. 2 and 6 are essentially gaslighting.

Overall, I don't disagree but that's because I believe women are allowed to have their standards. But I also believe women can have standards that are so delusional and/or entitled, they price themselves out of the dating market. I think if most women tried to follow this advice, they would end up disillusioned.
Click to expand...
yes-wise-you-are.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K, Roses In The Vineyard, aeon and 4 others
Pin said:
Makes sense, I imagine you'd be a spinster back then because men in the past would be too conservative for your liking.
Click to expand...

More like they wouldn’t abide her intelligence, or occasional questioning retort, and when her reasonable demeanor interfered with their schemes, she would be gaslit and eventually placed in a sanitarium for her insolence own good.

Cheers,
Ian
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K, Anomaly, acd and 1 other person
aeon said:
More like they wouldn’t abide her intelligence, or occasional questioning retort, and when her reasonable demeanor interfered with their schemes, she would be gaslit and eventually placed in a sanitarium for her insolence own good.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, it would be a mess. It's weird that there was once a time when women had less rights than they do today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K and Anomaly
Pin said:
Oh yeah, it would be a mess. It's weird that there was once a time when women had less rights than they do today.
Click to expand...

Weird? No, totally normative. Not right, but certainly to be expected back then.

Sex- and gender-based laws and rights can go suck it.

The progressive crawl is a long and exhausting slog.

Cheers,
Ian
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K, Anomaly and Pin
aeon said:
Weird? No, totally normative. Not right, but certainly to be expected back then.

Sex- and gender-based laws and rights can go suck it.

The progressive crawl is a long and exhausting slog.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...
Kamala Harris was the first acting woman president for a short time when Biden was undergoing surgery.
 
Wait a minute. Biologically were different but socially there’s no discrimination?! Wow! Everyone’s a loser I feel confirmed in my loser mentality and loathing my place of birth. Whew.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pin
Korg said:
female delusion calculator

:tearsofjoy:
Click to expand...
I scored 2/5: Down to Earth.

I'm not as picky about outward appearance or income as I am about character. If they added anything of merit, then I'd likely score higher on the delusional scale, given experience. ;p
 
  • Like
Reactions: aeon and Korg
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back