Maybe you’re just you, and the self-judgment of being this or that can piss off?
Best to You,
Ian
Rethinking Intimate Relationships?
- Thread starter David Nelson
- Start date
Maybe you’re just you, and the self-judgment of being this or that can piss off?
Best to You,
Ian
Haha. Seriously, I'm sorry to hear that. Hmm. I find that distractions work in the interim. If I create enough distractions for myself, I can stop existing in the space where I feel I am being burdensome. I give space. I also sleep. I type on the forum. Hahaha.
But mostly, I'm finding that it's important to acknowledge my needs first for myself. And then work from there.
Possible. It may be the demands of tradition or culture where we are taught to respect the ones we love. Defiling one for sexual needs seem to be separate as an experience. Interesting.
Sigmund Freud is going to eventually looped into this discussion possibly. It must be an id thing.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,419
- 247,154
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Most problems in relationships (intimate or not) arise from an inability (ignorance) or unwillingness (fear) to communicate properly.
Simple yet profound insight. Our fears, designed to protect us, often do the opposite in modern times sadly. Our parental and cultural teachings can also mess us up, no matter how well they are intentioned. This probably is more of an issue for us INFJs. Damn, we need our own planet
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,419
- 247,154
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Fear is a liar, as they say. Often people simply want to avoid pain at whatever the cost. Life is pain though.
Going through the fire, burning away what does not truly serve us is what living is all about.
It's in pretty much every spiritual text.
There will always be blind spots in the ways we are raised. It's up to ourselves to identify them and learn to handle them appropriately as best we can.
Humans are forever flawed. That's another spiritual thingamabob.
Damnit.
I was just thinking that it's easier to die than to have to explain myself. But if death were voluntary then there'd have to be a voluntary suicide note and then it's back to square one. Explanation is exhausting.
I'm a little confused by this thread just in the sense that everyone knows you don't have to go by societal expectations, right? Like we all just create our own version of what is right for us and ignore people who tell us otherwise because it's not their life to live.
I can understand that stress of living in a culture that doesn't fit with your lifestyle but there are always subcultures and groups of people who feel the same way.
I think instead of trying to change culture we should focus on how to find like minded people and, eventually, if enough people feel the same way norms and culture might change.
But you're talking a number games here. Unless enforced by an authoritarian structure, generally culture comes about because it resonates with a large number of people. I do think people with certain sexual behavior or interests are outside of the "most common" category and they need to find clubs or social circles to hang out in to help them with that. But if most people don't really feel that way, I think it's ok that culture caters to the majority. It is up to you to build the social network and environment you need to suit your preferences.
I can understand that stress of living in a culture that doesn't fit with your lifestyle but there are always subcultures and groups of people who feel the same way.
I think instead of trying to change culture we should focus on how to find like minded people and, eventually, if enough people feel the same way norms and culture might change.
But you're talking a number games here. Unless enforced by an authoritarian structure, generally culture comes about because it resonates with a large number of people. I do think people with certain sexual behavior or interests are outside of the "most common" category and they need to find clubs or social circles to hang out in to help them with that. But if most people don't really feel that way, I think it's ok that culture caters to the majority. It is up to you to build the social network and environment you need to suit your preferences.
Good point, and I was thinking the same. People generally do what they want, and how do you change a culture? But many people, especially certain personality types, go with conventional and ‘societal norms’. That’s always going to be the case.
My point is that I feel many are ‘led’ the wrong way because they follow convention and suppress their own desires. Some, or many, of course won’t do this. We are all susceptible to peer and family pressure to act certain ways, and going outside of that is always an effort.
Books are a good way to slowly bring about change. So who has the time to write a book on this subject? I’m already writing 2 books, so don’t have the time. It would be a fascinating project. I’ll take 10% of the profits for giving you the idea lol
Culture is less so created as much as it is preformed. Going between them for a change lies difficulty in individuality as much as responsibility holds it’s importance too. I think that misunderstanding is what causes cultural confusion or “shock”. A culture of acceptance doesn’t require acceptance of individuality. Nor does self growth require rejection of principle.
I find this quite confusing. I’m going to report you to the Plain English Society lol
The book I am envisioning would be aimed at individuals. The idea is they analyse their own desires and needs and consider if they are best satisfied in the current paradigm. Yes, people do what they want, but often that is highly coloured by public/peer group opinion, either directly in self assumptions or by fear of social disapproval.
Poetry, dude.
It’s however a person interprets it. Individuality, society, or expectation is all a part of the self.
This raises an interesting observation. Fukuyama’s prediction of the ‘end of history’ was wrong as it assumed technocratic neoliberalism was the best and only sensible option.
But in many ways, we are at a crossroads and an age of choice. New cultural fashions don’t really exist. Lifestyle choices are the same, and of course this extends to sexual choices. We have moved more to the individual and away from societal expectations (other than being legal). But the general sexual prudery and conservatism has not vanished. Why? Is it coming more from individuals? Needs of children and family are of course entwined, as have been STDs, abuse and the like, and these pay a part.
No doubt the media play a big part. Governments have become increasingly intrusive in morality, contrary to the wishes and expectation of libertarians. It seems the elites do not trust the masses to make their own choices. They feel they need to be preached to since the decline of church attendance, and their bias is control over personal fulfilment and happiness.
This is probably another way our governments have lost the respect of many people. They often ignore our wishes, economically deceive and screw us, and patronise us with what they think is good for us. It’s largely a 1-way discussion.
But many don’t listen to government, especially wrt their personal behaviour, so maybe cultural norms come more from individuals (sensors lol).
End of rant lol
But in many ways, we are at a crossroads and an age of choice. New cultural fashions don’t really exist. Lifestyle choices are the same, and of course this extends to sexual choices. We have moved more to the individual and away from societal expectations (other than being legal). But the general sexual prudery and conservatism has not vanished. Why? Is it coming more from individuals? Needs of children and family are of course entwined, as have been STDs, abuse and the like, and these pay a part.
No doubt the media play a big part. Governments have become increasingly intrusive in morality, contrary to the wishes and expectation of libertarians. It seems the elites do not trust the masses to make their own choices. They feel they need to be preached to since the decline of church attendance, and their bias is control over personal fulfilment and happiness.
This is probably another way our governments have lost the respect of many people. They often ignore our wishes, economically deceive and screw us, and patronise us with what they think is good for us. It’s largely a 1-way discussion.
But many don’t listen to government, especially wrt their personal behaviour, so maybe cultural norms come more from individuals (sensors lol).
End of rant lol
I profoundly believe that a golden rule in our closest relationships is to do no harm - to really take some time to understand the needs of our possible and actual partners, and to give them the same weight as our own.
So just thinking and exploring out loud ....
I guess it does depend on the people involved, but it can be complicated and messy as far as I can see. That's because sexual or romantic relationships are not necessarily easy to control, and people can find that they are possessed by them rather than being able to manage them. As we get older as well, many of us will continue to carry the weight and commitments of our earlier relationships - for example if we or our prospective partners have children whose lives and welfare could be profoundly affected by our adventures whether we intend it or not.
I don't think it would be easy in practise for many of us to stay just in the space of plain vanilla sex and / or romance - at least not past early adulthood. Maybe we don't have it written on our foreheads but many of us long for a home and family of our own and want a stable, secure relationship as the foundation and heart of our family. Sex and romance are hard-wired into this visceral longing and can’t easily be disconnected from it. I certainly think it's the case for many INFJ men that we crave a soulmate - someone to walk with together down the long road of our lives, sexually, romantically, spiritually, as our closest friend and companion, in our children and grandchildren if we have any, and in every other way we can share the joys and hardships of the world. Anything less than this is always going to feel inauthentic to us, though sadly we may have to settle for less. I suspect if we don't have that, it will haunt us in every relationship we explore.
If we have found our soulmate, then exploring other relationships alongside that could also feel very inauthentic. Maybe if we have an agreed open sexual arrangement with our partner then it's possible, but we must accept the risk it could destabilise our core relationship if things go in unexpected ways, and the loss of a true soulmate would far outweigh any gains. I suspect exploring non-sexual, romantic relationships in those circumstances would be playing with fire just as deeply, if not more so. I think the risk of someone getting hurt would be considerable.
I don't think a cultural shift can easily change this situation because it isn't just resting on cultural foundations - there are economic and biological factors there too, and Maslow's Hierarchy rules in this as it does elesewhere. Sex and romance are bound up inextricably with the way we bring children into the world and raise them, which typically is a decades long adventure. The future of our societies depends critically on how well we do this, so the way we approach sex and romance lies at the heart of the long-term health of our communities. Perhaps others like me have seen the problems people can leave in the lives of their children by damaging their family relationships when their children are young and dependant. I think that change could take place, but it would need to be as fundamental as changing the nature of the family to something that is long term and effective. I could imagine people living in communes - extended family groups - for example where everyone shared and owned things in common, and raised their children collectively. I suspect that we evolved in small communities like this over hundreds of thousands of years, but bringing them about in a modern developed society would be challenging. There are lots of issues that would need to be worked out though - like men maybe never knowing exactly who their children are (though modern technology could help here of course)..
Today the most radical option would be to go completely old school: no sex before marriage, then pairing for life.
I'm finding all the "pushing the boundaries" ideas stale, naive, hollow, and repeated to death.
Just had a look at these. I'm 100% straight (if that's possible). I was thinking more in relation to ones sexual preferences, or what turns a person on in terms of interrelational dynamics, if that makes sense.
I think your idea is largely based either on a personal ideal or a 'best fit' for the average person. There might be a lot of wisdom in this, but such a traditional approach leaves many people sexually frustrated and lonely for many years. I don't see much wisdom in that for everyone and all situations and circumstances, which points back to my original idea. No doubt it's complicated to say the least, but I'm sure many people have bent the "rules" and far from regretting it, have gained from the experiences.
I wonder if INFJs in general struggle with this area of life. Hitler was dysfunctional sexually, even though he had great personal charm and charisma.
A few years ago, I had a female customer who was attractive enough, come onto me in a blatant way (asked me out, tried to almost coerce me into bed) but her level of desperation and methods (among other things) completely killed any desire I might have had. Of course, being an INFJ, we are super fussy as to who we are attracted to (although less so if it's just a casual thing). I wouldn't have been at all averse to such a direct and quick encounter had the chemistry been right, but it wasn't. I smelt desperation and trouble in her. As a general and related point, the more you try and make someone like you, the more you tend to repel them.