INTjs Si/Se and training for the cold

[MysticSonic]

Avoiding lust is more difficult with women around wearing shorts. All those sexy legs... It doesn't help with keeping my thoughts pure. For a little while I tried to reward the women who wore long pants by looking at them while studiously avoiding those who wore shorts, on the grounds that they were looking for attention, but I quit on the grounds that the women wearing long pants might not like being stared at (which defeats my purpose). I still tend to avoid women in shorts.

I understand now that many women wear shorts to keep cool in the summer, but that seems like a poor excuse...

I understand you're religious, but I can't help but rage when I read this.

[RSV3]

I think there is some validity to the literal interpretation of the statement. I almost purposefully dress one level below what I should be wearing every day during the winter (e.g., wearing just a t-shirt when I should be wearing at least a jacket). For some reason, it's oddly satisfying, maybe because it gives me momentary control over my mobilizing function? Who knows.

[munenori2]

I understand you're religious, but I can't help but rage when I read this.

lol no joke

[Brilliand]

I understand you're religious, but I can't help but rage when I read this.

Could we discuss why? In my mind it's a question of dressing modestly vs. keeping cool, and there isn't much competition between those. What other variables do you see?

Now, if you're mad about the staring at girls in long pants to reward them for wearing long pants, I'll agree that was ridiculous; not everything I've done in the past was good. Fortunately, I don't think anyone even noticed.

[MysticSonic]

Could we discuss why? In my mind it's a question of dressing modestly vs. keeping cool, and there isn't much competition between those. What other variables do you see?

Now, if you're mad about the staring at girls in long pants to reward them for wearing long pants, I'll agree that was ridiculous; not everything I've done in the past was good. Fortunately, I don't think anyone even noticed.

Coming from a very non-religious, socially liberal perspective, I find the idea that a girl wearing shorts is being immodest in a way that is _wrong_ to be relatively repulsive and socially backwards. I understand that you are not outright saying it is wrong, but obviously your contention with the immodest is precipitated by some sort of thought that the act itself is in someway wrong, and if you don't mind, I feel myself at the liberty to infer that you are asserting that what they are doing is "sinful" in some manner, or at the very least not conducive to holy thoughts of your own. I mean, if you are religious and authentically feel compelled toward the religion you are compelled to, you are without a doubt justified in believing as you do and feeling that way about shorts in general. You've done nothing wrong(a word of contention here I understand, but of course this is from my secular perspective), but just the very thought of supporting that manner of thinking is, again, repulsive to me.

[Brilliand]

Coming from a very non-religious, socially liberal perspective, I find the idea that a girl wearing shorts is being immodest in a way that is _wrong_ to be relatively repulsive and socially backwards. I understand that you are not outright saying it is wrong, but obviously your contention with the immodest is precipitated by some sort of thought that the act itself is in someway wrong, and if you don't mind, I feel myself at the liberty to infer that you are asserting that what they are doing is "sinful" in some manner, or at the very least not conducive to holy thoughts of your own. I mean, if you are religious and authentically feel compelled toward the religion you are compelled to, you are without a doubt justified in believing as you do and feeling that way about shorts in general. You've done nothing wrong(a word of contention here I understand, but of course this is from my secular perspective), but just the very thought of supporting that manner of thinking is, again, repulsive to me.

To be honest, this is not a tenet of my religion (I thought of it myself), and for that reason I would not go so far as to say that any woman is sinning by wearing shorts. I simply see wearing shorts as a bad practice, like many others that are so prevalent that there is no use in fighting them.

You've come very close to the truth in this post, but I don't see the issue of shorts as something worth fighting over. Call it a personality quirk. (or perhaps an judgement, defended with all the vigor of the role function... )

Thank you for explaining yourself. I am sorry that I have angered you; I truly...

Um... In typing this post, I am blocked at every turn by the sight of in my post. I simply can't go on while simultaneously throwing my type into question and using Socionics to make decisions. I'm stopping here.

[Wynch]

Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah.

SLAM ON THE BREAKS.

I think my brain just imploded all over this thread. Four times. I...don't even know where to start.

[Banana Pancakes]

Women shouldn't wear shorts???

this thread illustrates to me why I'm not an LII.

[Ms. Kensington]

Women shouldn't wear shorts???

this thread illustrates to me why I'm not an LII.

i suggest you clarify that these two statements are not related.

[Brilliand]

You weren't staring at them to reward them. You were staring at them to reward yourself.

I don't see how that fits. It was an attempt at manipulation; I didn't get any gratification out of it, except perhaps the hope that someday all women would wear long pants (or dresses; I had/have nothing against those).

[Brilliand]

Blah,blah,blah...words,words,words...been there.

----

Do you really think that I am interested in constructive conversation? I assure you that I'm not.

OK, I'll ignore what you said then, except to say...

You attacked my integrity. Please be more careful in the future.

[tcaudilllg]

OK, I'll ignore what you said then, except to say...

You attacked my integrity. Please be more careful in the future.

Integrity is not to be taken without question. It must be demonstrated.

Regarding the topic of the post, it is meant metaphorically. INTJs have a certain distrust for those who emphasize gamma Te. And nothing makes them madder than seeing watered down Fe courtesy of Te. When asked to abide by this, they will do an Si check and if it turns out negative or even languishing, they will get upset and deeply determined to rebel against the present social situation (held in place by Te's compulsory might). So what can ENTJ do in this case? They can force others to act against the INTJ, or face becoming jobless and poor. People talk about Se being the great villain to INTJ, but ESTP actually has a certain respect for INTJ. It's ENTJ who the INTJ must watch out for.

[Brilliand]

Integrity is not to be taken without question. It must be demonstrated.

Wow, a counter to an ancient post by me! As much as I agree with your statement in principle, I think it's irrelevant in the context of the statement you're quoting. The person I was replying to had just refused to defend his position; I was saying don't make the claim if you're not willing to defend it. In other words, the burden of proof was on him.

Hmm, I suppose I was implying that my integrity was unassailable, which makes your statement slightly relevant. Not very much, though.

[tcaudilllg]

Yeah I didn't look at the date before replying. Sorry about that.