Actually I noted that the two tend to go hand in hand for me in another thread. Sometimes they are separate(ie when I'm not in a relationship), but any serious romantic feelings towards another human being are all encompassing for me.
Romantic Drive
- Thread starter slant
- Start date
Well, correct, but it's also possible to want sex without any sort of emotional intimacy; and since, people all time time isolate how high someones sex drive is, this thread is isolation how high someones 'romance drive' or 'emotionally intimacy' needs are, and it is intended to be separated from sexual intimacy needs.
When you're asked how high your sex drive is, you don't imply you have cravings to talk to someone for hour and hours about your inner most deep feelings- that's emotional intimacy.
If we can separate sexual intimacy from emotional intimacy why can't we separate emotional from the sexual?
I believe it is possible.
When you're asked how high your sex drive is, you don't imply you have cravings to talk to someone for hour and hours about your inner most deep feelings- that's emotional intimacy.
If we can separate sexual intimacy from emotional intimacy why can't we separate emotional from the sexual?
I believe it is possible.
I get where you are coming from Slant, its just for me personally I've never been able to enjoy a sex only relationship. It is hollow and leaves me emotionally wrecked. Likewise if the relationship is only emotional, no touching, only head and heart...it will eventually die. To a large extent this is why I cannot engage in a relationship only over the internet or the phone, having no memories of the smell of the woman I have feelings for...the feel of her skin, the sensations of my fingers running through her hair, it eventually founders and dies as well. I must have balance of intimacy, while I may crave one over the other when I am alone...I know that only fulfilling one side of this only leaves me depressed.
If you can compartmentalize and retain balance in your needs and desires then more power to you. I just wanted you to know where I stand on this.
Ragner's model suggests that for the general population such things might be interconnected. I am not part of the majority of the population so this is why such things are prone to confusing me, I can with ease separate romantic inclinations from sexual inclinations, as for me, these things are in two different ballparks and in no way interconnected. Thank you for the clarification of how others might view it.
I'm married, and I have my soul bond. Nonetheless, I don't have much of a drive for romance, whereas I would say that my husband actually has an extremely high need for it.
We're a flip-flop relationship; I can't go more than half a day without sex, and he could actually do without it for over a week at a time. In other ways, I'm more the stereotypical man (even though I am a woman) and he's more of the stereotypical woman.
I'm an INFJ, he's an ENFP.
We're a flip-flop relationship; I can't go more than half a day without sex, and he could actually do without it for over a week at a time. In other ways, I'm more the stereotypical man (even though I am a woman) and he's more of the stereotypical woman.
I'm an INFJ, he's an ENFP.
I said high.. because without a lot of emotional intimacy and connection I don't feel the relationship is anything special. But I don't mean it in the sense of candles and candies and roses and poetry.. not really into that.
But mutual self-disclosure and developing trust and security--investing emotions and letting the emotions grow and deepen.. I need that a lot to feel the relationship is meaningful.
I didn't say extremely high because I got the impression that extremely high would include extreme highs and lows emotionally in relation to the other person--extremely high standards and demands that aren't very realistic.
But mutual self-disclosure and developing trust and security--investing emotions and letting the emotions grow and deepen.. I need that a lot to feel the relationship is meaningful.
I didn't say extremely high because I got the impression that extremely high would include extreme highs and lows emotionally in relation to the other person--extremely high standards and demands that aren't very realistic.
Last edited:
I'm a romantic INTP, oxymoron though it may seem. Happily, I have had lovely romance for all of my 34 years of marriage. There was a time when my INFJ younger son, seeing my wife and I hugging, doing other PDA's, etc., would comment "how romantic" in the most obnoxious and annoying way. He stopped saying it at a certain age. And, it didn't stop us anyway--we kept on with the hugs, romance, etc. Still do, and both sons are out of the house.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
My romantic drive is extremely powerful (and to be honest, I don't like it). It has caused the worst emotional pain and in general strongest emotions I have ever felt thus far in my life. So much so that I can become unable to distinguish between physical and emotional pain (the lines blur). I very very badly want to be madly in love with someone, and I want every (good) aspect of a relationship more then anything else. This goes through phases whether it is in the front of my mind, or the back of my mind. Making it seem to change. However further analysis has revealed to me that the core of it is ever present.
As such, I said extremely high.
As such, I said extremely high.
I don't see that as oxymoronic at all. Far from it.
Aspirational Fe typically means that emotions are focused on very few individuals (possibly even only a single person), but when they exist they are of an extremely rare intensity and purity.
I am a strong INTP, and I'm not sure I know anyone more romantic than myself. I know I'm more romantic than my INFP mother, and way more romantic than my INTJ father or especially my (ISFJ?) sister. When I finally expressed my feelings to my (unrequited) first love (and now, years later, good friend), an INFJ, I got the impression that she may consider me more sensitive and romantic than she is.
In general, introverts desire more intimacy than extroverts. In the Eysenck model, introverts are those with high default levels of cortical arousal, and extroverts low levels. The Yerkes-Dodson law shows that humans (and other animals too, I think) are more comfortable and productive under moderate arousal/stress. (Well, technically, over-stressing causes no detriment in accomplishing extremely simple tasks, but those are rare in the real world). Social interaction of any kind can be a significant stressor, but strangers cause far more cortical arousal than close friends. Everyone needs and craves some social interaction, but strong introverts need to limit this to a few intimate friends rather than large groups of acquaintances in order to avoid the sort of stress on which extroverts thrive.
I'd guess that romance is also strongly correlated with Intuition (of either attitude) and Extroverted Feeling. There is some Introverted Sensing correlation too, especially when it comes to reminiscing about meaningful events in a couple's past and recalling how one felt but also when it comes to cliches like bringing flowers and chocolates. I think it may be my strong Tertiary Si and corresponding nearly eidetic memory of emotionally resonant events that can give me a romantic edge over an INFJ. A highly stressed INTP would tend to shift towards the use of Si and Fe, making him more conventially demonstratives of love if he has a partner to whom to show it, making hard times more likely to bring a couple closer together instead of tearing them apart.
I've read before that while NFs (especially INFJs) tend to be the most loyal and committed to their current relationships, NTs (especially INTPs) tend to be the most loyal over the course fo a lifetime, and have the hardest type abandoning a lost love. NFs tend towards serial monogamy; NTs, true monogamy. I also read a study showing many traits associated with Intuition to be strongly correlated with a desire for monogamy in men, but there was no correlation among women. It claimed the lack of the trend in women is because society teaches women to be just as mongamous, but I wonder if it might also be because most N women are NFs instead of NTs.
Not that I put much faith in Enneagrams, but INTPs are typically 5w4s in that system, and 4 is strongly associated with romance.
hmmm extremely high. I can tell if it bothers someone if I do too much, but I do enjoy keeping it sweet....in a way that both can enjoy 
A few people who were close to me died, and I just gained an understanding that life is short...Tell the ones you love that you love them, and the ones who like hugs...hug them. I will never be sorry for those moments. Life is short.
A few people who were close to me died, and I just gained an understanding that life is short...Tell the ones you love that you love them, and the ones who like hugs...hug them. I will never be sorry for those moments. Life is short.
That was such INTP post I can't even help but laugh. I don't think I agree with all of it. But thats another thread entirely.
But wasn't it ROMANTIC?
Of course, he kind of lost me after "Eysenk model..." and "Yerkes-Dodson Law" but then completely redeemed himself after "...making hard times more likely to bring a couple closer together instead of tearing them apart."
I approve and would give it about a 10 on the romanticometer.
But wasn't it ROMANTIC?
Of course, he kind of lost me after "Eysenk model..." and "Yerkes-Dodson Law" but then completely redeemed himself after "...making hard times more likely to bring a couple closer together instead of tearing them apart."
I approve and would give it about a 10 on the romanticometer.
Not really just another XNTP showing off and gloating about how much better they are at everything than other type. Even types that have a good skill set for romance.
It seems to be an XNTP trait. That tends to be how a lot of XNTP's come across to me without even trying. I guess that comes from having so much tied to ones intellect and ability.
But in concession if that was a women saying those things to me I might humor them for a bit. I'm not sure.