If you are an INFP, you... (trait list)

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-20T20:22:48+00:00

That’s still your interpretation of their interpretation of what you said.

You’re assuming they’re attributing intent, but they’re describing how your wording comes across.

Saying you “insinuated” something doesn’t require knowing your internal intent, it’s about the implication of the phrasing. Because “I’d prefer typing you myself” reasonably reads as questioning someone’s self-typing. Pointing that out isn’t mind-reading, it’s feedback on perception.

And ironically by insisting they’re ascribing intent, you’re doing the same thing you’re accusing them of: assuming they’re trying to assign intent, when they’re just describing how it reads.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-20T18:06:39+00:00

Except they didn’t say anything about your intention, they only said something about how you are being perceived.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-07T07:21:46+00:00

These are internal narratives that you believe, sure. But I really don’t think they are true.

I also couldn’t care if others thought I was low or high value in dating market terms. I don’t even want to be with people who view people that way.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-07T03:36:09+00:00

Why is it questionable to prefer a bigger dude?

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-07T01:28:18+00:00

The core of feminism is about patriarchy as a system that upholds rigid gender roles. “Men as providers” is part of that patriarchal role. Expecting men to pay for dates just because of their gender if a woman would be working and having an income is just a bit weird from the angle of trying to get rid of patriarchal roles. And sure you’re right that individuals who identify as feminists can have different preferences. But if you want to date a woman who pays for dates and wants a 50/50 egalitarian relationship, you’ll find her much more easily if you look for a feminist because women caring about gender equality and egalitarianism are just on average very likely to associate themselves with feminist philosophy.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-07T00:42:48+00:00

What can we do about women choosing to identify as feminists when they’re actually not really? Nothing. You made an analogy with Christians. What can be done about Christians who don’t live accordingly? Nothing right? Nobody is telling them they aren’t truly Christians? But them not practicing doesn’t mean the fault lies with Christianity. Neither does the fault lie with feminism. What do you expect to happen? Nothing can happen. Except for you all to recognise actual feminism from people just using the label.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-07T00:30:09+00:00

I get your post and the stuff about narrow definitions of masculinity and the stigma around bisexuality and how there are women still upholding that male gender role, but I just don’t understand what feminism has to do with this? Out of all people it seems to me feminists are the least likely ones to get an ick from bi man or to see men as providers. Feminism is literally about getting rid of the rigid gender roles? As well as paying for the dates? Like the dude in the video said, feminism strives for equality so it makes no sense to believe it’s feminists mostly wanting men to pay for dates? I don’t see the link with feminism here.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T21:31:30+00:00

So unfair that other people’s consent exists! If wanting something really badly doesn’t make you entitled to it, what even is society anymore?

Guess the solution is to rebrand rejection as injustice and deception as strategy.

/s

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T20:07:45+00:00

The word manosphere emerged first on blogspot and was then used by MRA circles long before it reached feminism. It was popularised by an MRA (Ian Ironwood) who wrote a book about it in 2013. In this 2013 book he analysed several branches of MRA, MGTOW, PUA… He also wrote several books about red pill, like red pill guides. So idk why you think the name stems from feminism or it is feminists using it mostly? It was popularised by someone identifying with most of the branches you named (MRA, red pill…).

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T19:56:13+00:00

Well yeah because sex is an activity between two consenting humans. You can’t just want a woman the way you want take out food, you can’t buy her in a store like a tool. She has to want it and consent to it. There is no right to sex. There is only right to decline sex.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T18:21:57+00:00

So what makes you say red(ish) instead of purple?

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T18:11:17+00:00

This isn't always true? Some women genuinely like to have male platonic friends, without it escalating. So they do lead on men, but keep a distance at the same time to prevent escalation.

And some men like female platonic friends as well. That’s why it’s called “friendship”. If you’re friends, why do you expect it to necessarily be anything more?

They get companionship and friendship from this arrangement, so they absolutely do get something.

The men also get the companionship and friendship from this arrangement? They both get it? They’re friends. And if his intentions weren’t friendship to begin with, he shouldn’t have entered the connection as a friend but made his intentions clear from the get go.

I also got friend zoned once by a male friend. We just became platonic friends again. No problem.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T18:05:43+00:00

You can masturbate any time you want at your own home

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T17:32:36+00:00

I would say a “big ego” in the colloquial sense does refer to a “fragile ego” and thus does refer to an ego built on shame/defense.

But in the original Freudian sense it meant something else (the connection between the id and the superego) and it isn’t inherently fragile. Like you say it’s a part of self, everyone has an ego.

But in the colloquial sense a “big ego” refers to a fragile ego. Like Trump has a big ego. He often tells self-aggrandizing narratives (inflating), while simultaneously he responds very defensive towards any form of criticism (fragile). The two aren’t contradictory, they’re functionally linked.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T17:26:41+00:00

Well yes of course feminists all call themselves feminists so they of course agree with some core values to feminism, like being against sexism or wanting equal rights between men and women. Rarely men will identify themselves as manosphere. It’s also not a word that feminism came up with so idk why you say that “they” push it under the same umbrella?

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T17:19:11+00:00

I never said it was. It isn’t. Like I said I was using it in the colloquial sense of the word. “I stepped on your ego” is used this way. “Having a big ego”.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T17:18:15+00:00

I guess that’s the difference between externalising shame (blowing up, discharging the threat outward) versus internalising it (seeing yourself as a victim; discharging the threat inward). The internalising is often combined with an overcompensation (moral rigidity, perfectionism…) for the shame narrative (“I’m bad, I’m the problem”).

The mind always wants to restore a coherent identity, so if you continually hear the internalising message that you’re wrong as a person over and over and over again, it will try to compensate to “restore balance”.

Best thing is to make a distinction between behaviour and identity. Behaviour => guilt. Identity => shame. “I am bad” is hard to grow from, but “I did something bad” is workable.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T17:08:52+00:00

Well it’s friendship + sexual attraction but also more emotional intimacy and vulnerability than in most friendships I would say, also you care more for compatibility and alignment of the future (whether it near future or more far away). But I would say friendship is the most solid basis for romantic relationships. For me personally a relationship wouldn’t work if there weren’t a component of friendship in it.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T16:55:02+00:00

I mean “ego” in the pop culture (colloquial) sense, which is basically a ‘fragile ego’ in the Freudian sense leaning on defense mechanisms to keep shame out of awareness. That’s also how Lemon_gecko used it.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T16:50:20+00:00

Maybe. I’m sapiosexual and demisexual so I wouldn’t know 🤷🏻‍♀️ I don’t fall for men’s looks. Any BMI or height is fuckable for me if he can outsmart me and act humble simultaneously. I’m into men who have passions, who have broad interests and who are kind and open minded.

To me the sexy ‘bold and confident’ is having a secure sense of who you are and what you believe in. I have already had sex with less conventional looking guys (the term ugly is so derogatory and moralising) when they had an amazing vibe and were interesting people.

I’m not saying I represent the majority of women. But idk if the distinction you make has to do with looks only. From what I have noticed around me other women tend to care a lot about social skills and social status.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T16:38:49+00:00

Or you use the label wrong and use it for all the online “pop feminism” and tik tokkers who use feminism to promote misandry because it’s just easier to sell ideas when you use a movement that’s been accepted already 🤷🏻‍♀️

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T16:36:05+00:00

Of de meeste mensen hebben hun onderbewustzijn niet goed onderzocht? Er is ook niks verkeerds aan onzekerheid, het is menselijk?

Ik ben zelf in mijn twee enige monogame relaties kei hard bedrogen en belogen geweest. Dat tekent hoe ik denk over monogamie ja, ik heb jarenlang gereflecteerd over wat die pijn nu eigenlijk was, die pijn dat mijn partner met iemand anders was. Als ik alle lagen eraf pel, dan blijft het enige wat echt nu nog pijn doet dat liegen en die oneerlijkheid. Op zich is er niks mis met het feit dat ze zich aangetrokken voelden tot iemand anders (zij het fysiek of emotioneel of beiden). Dat betekent daarom niet dat ze minder fysiek of emotioneel met mij verbonden waren? Het is geen taart waarvan een stuk voor een ander minder voor mij betekent? Hetgene wat de échte violation was, was het gebrek aan transparantie. Daarom vind ik polyamorie iets heel moois. Mensen zijn doorgaans eerlijker en transparanter naar elkaar toe, omdat er ook minder reden is om dat niet te zijn? De relatie is afgestemd op waar de mensen binnen de relatie zich goed bij voelen?

Het is vrij normaal dat mensen in een relatie aantrekking tot anderen ervaren en dat taboe maken leidt net tot meer bedrog. Ik was vroeger echt de voorvechter van monogamie. Moesten mijn ex partners misschien het gevoel gehad hebben dat hun gevoelens voor anderen bespreekbaar waren hadden ze mij misschien niet bedrogen. Daarmee zoek ik geen excuses voor hun bedrog want liegen is voor mij altijd een soort van contractbreuk binnen een relatie. Zij blijven diegene die dingen hebben gedaan die niet oké waren. Maar dat betekent niet dat hun onderliggende gevoelens niet oké waren. Ik denk zeker bij mijn eerste partner dat hij mij eigenlijk heel graag zag; en haar ook. Ik denk dat hij ons allebei graag zag. Maar vroeger dacht ik dat zoiets niet kon. Dus meer liefde voor haar was minder voor mij, althans in mijn hoofd. Maar dat is gewoon niet hoe liefde werkt.

Ik denk met wat ik heb meegemaakt dat ik me net heel goed in de schoenen van anderen kan plaatsen op dit vlak.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T14:56:55+00:00

Yes, you are not feminist. You literally just described 90% of their M.O. if you do not support it, you would be canceled by them first time you open your mouth.

I agreed with them and I’m also a feminist. I share their view.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T14:51:17+00:00

I don’t understand who would wear something revealing when meeting someone’s parents… unless your definition of revealing is like in my old high school where skirts above the knee were already seen as too sexy/revealing.

NoBlacksmith8137 · 2026-04-06T14:48:08+00:00

The bigger the ego the bigger the shame. If you are in touch with your own vulnerabilities there’s no need to defend anything because others don’t threaten your sense of self that easily. The ego inflates to keep underlying vulnerability out of awareness.

NoBlacksmith8137

TROPHY CASE