# NTs Less Likely to Demand Romantic Ownership?



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

I've been thinking recently about romance, love, sexual relationships, and how I contextualize these things both personally and culturally. My experiences are of course, anecdotal, and built on my position as a woman and as an ENTP. I suppose as I've been exploring these concepts and considering applying an MBTI framework onto the concepts, I wondered if being an "Intellect" or a "Rational" is a determinant for how I feel about these issues?

Examples would be that I have been in open relationships in the past (with people also seeing others) and been able to enjoy being with someone and not be jealous of them seeing other people, nor of their past relationships and experiences. While I am in a monogamous relationship now, I don't feel uncomfortable exploring the idea that what matters to me is our romantic love and that connection, and that the sexual relationship is another side to that (the caveat to this entire thing is of course, safety and health etc. as obviously important issues to always consider). 

I suppose in my experience I have noted that NTs I have known have had less judgements about unconventional relationships, less jealousy of past relationships their partners have had, less worry about cheating or "looking at another man/woman, and I suppose have operationalized things like romance, love, and sex discretely. With other personalities I have encountered, it seems harder to disentangle love/sex/romance in partnerships or even casual affairs, and this leads to a very different outlook, IMO. I look at the I supposed urban legend (if it is even true) of Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell being together for decade after decade, never feeling that they needed to officially get married but having a family, having a strong romantic love for each other but being able to sleep with others, and that being healthy and right for them. It seems like with many people that would just break down the relationship straight off. Of course, it could just be experience and confidence and self love (probably is partly that, independent of MBTI, like many/most things). 

I am not proposing that all NTs feel that monogamy is out - just that there seems in this demographic to be a different operationalization and even conceptualization of relationships with partners/dating and even sex that often contrasts with other types, and I wondered if others have noticed this.


----------



## Hurricane Matthew (Nov 9, 2012)

I can't relate. I'd much rather have a relationship be monogamous. If I have genuine love for a partner, I get extremely loyal and if I don't get that same loyalty in return, I get drained pretty quickly and I don't want to do it anymore because it ends up feeling so one-sided. That takes way too much energy. Having relationships with more than one person at a time sounds really draining, too. I'd rather avoid all of this and stick to only having one mutual partner so then I can focus all of this type of energy sufficiently on one person instead of spreading it out to multiple people. I hate spreading myself that thin. Keeping up with multiple friendships and friendly acquaintances is hard enough as is... Why burden yourself with multiple romantic partners?!


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

It's interesting, perhaps just as an ENTP I have a short attention span and so before my current partner I dated around a lot and didn't really have a strong focus on one person or another and was fine with open relationships. The moment I met my current partner, I immediately stopped seeing the other two people I was seeing and just wasn't interested in being with anyone else but him. I think it is a difference because we are such a good match (he is INTP, I am ENTP), but I also recognize that before this relationship I was really able to separate love and sex, casual and more serious relationships, and escape the pressure of social norms.

That said, I can see what you are saying @Hurricane Matthew in terms of effort being spread thin - just managing me, our dog, keeping up with friends from home and doing laundry for my INTP is almost overwhelming. Not to mention that you have to factor in when he gets sucked into a black hole of research at work for 2 days


----------



## Santa Gloss (Feb 23, 2015)

I like monogamous unconventional relationships. For example, I'd prefer to lead the relationship although I'm a woman. I'd like my kids to have my last name. I'd like to marry a man with strong stereotypically maternal instincts who can also teach our kids sports. 

But monogamy is important for me. I fully expect that my SO's heart and body belong to me romantically and sexually. I wouldn't make a deep investment in someone without that. I am slightly possessive and I don't try to hide it. 

That being said, I'm fine with my partner and I being social flirts. I am one sometimes, and I find that I am drawn to men who are social flirts, especially ESFJs.


----------



## richard nixon (Sep 14, 2017)

A paper from Keirsey pretty much said that SJs and SPs are more prone to jealousy than NFs and NTs but then a survey was mentioned in Anna N Moss's books about what was important in a romantic relationship for each type and the only type that didn't place a high value on fidelity was ENTP.

ENTPs have less prenatal Testosterone than all the other types (closely followed ESTPs and ENFJs, they have the highest right hand 2d4d ratios of all the types from what I've observed of many, many people; callousness, thrill/adrenaline rush-seeking, narcissism, and strong id drives are strongly negatively correlated with prenatal T, it's actually having high superego strength that is primitive--you could never build civilization or make new things if everyone had high superego strength and low id drive; the Anglo-Irish, White South Africans, and Israelis and their matrilineal descendants had/have much lower prenatal T/much higher right hand 2d4d ratio than the people they conquered who couldn't build anything), so maybe that's why they don't get jealous. 

INTPs have a lot more prenatal T than ENTPs and are also likely to have a 4 wing (and to be 1w9 sx) so it would make sense that they'd be more likely to be jealous.


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

I think NTs, generally speaking, are more open to unconventional relationships, both in personal preference and in acceptance of others (although not always, I had a INTJ feminist call me out for not doing relationships "normally"). Overall we probably value individualism more, so are less 'follow the crowd' and more 'rational', so more focused on what 'works' (for us anyway). I see many NT women who want to 'lead' the relationship. My ENTP (male) friend has open relationships. These things are far from my taste but to each their own.

I like a 'conventional' relationship done unconventionally. Of the type but a different depth. More 'merging' than mere monogamy. If he can't demand all of me in a passionate rage or quietly remind me to whom I so willingly belong in a well placed hand sort of way, I lose interest. I can't separate sex, romance and love -- I need all three streams rushing to a single concentrated point to get the intensity I crave (I'm enneagram instinct SX). Sex outside of "ownership" doesn't 'compute' for me (I'm demisexual). The joke about INTJs wanting "one life stands" is true for me (I score very high in both T and J).

It's hard to answer the poll question bc in theory XNTJs should differ from XNTPs in the way TJs more expressly value teamwork in a relationship (Te). From what I've seen, TPs prefer to be a little bit more 'you're on your own' within a relationship than TJs do. The following is from https://personalityhacker.com/personality-type-ask-love/


* *




How “Accuracy” asks, “Do you Love Me?”
Myers-Briggs types: *ENTP, INTP*, ESTP, ISTP

Do you think I’m totally competent?
Are you impressed with my performance?
Do you trust that I’m not lying to you or B.S.’ing you in any way?
Does it make sense that you love me? That you stay with me?

How “Accuracy” answers, “Yes! I love you!”
I will be rigorously honest with you. If I have a ‘wandering eye’ I will tell you, and provide a solution.
I will gift you with my precision. I will learn you and give high performance at all levels.
I will protect you from others, but not from yourself.
I will never judge you. Instead, I will be there for you when things go bad, no matter why they went bad.


How “Effectiveness” asks, “Do you love me?”
Myers-Briggs types: *ENTJ, INTJ*, ESTJ, ISTJ

Will you handle things – can I rely on you?
Will you make my life easier, can I relax knowing you’re “on it?”
Will you support my career and/or goals and be self-sufficient?
Are you loyal?

How “Effectiveness” answers, “Yes! I love you!”
I will be endlessly loyal on principle.
I will educate myself on you and learn how you operate.
I will take pride in you, boasting about your accomplishments even before my own.
I will protect you.
*I chose you. I continue to choose you. Case closed.*


----------



## Sandstread (Jun 4, 2017)

@Dare

Nice. Dense. Personalized.

If he can't demand all of me in a passionate rage or quietly remind me to whom I so willingly belong in a well placed hand sort of way, I lose interest. - Interesting order. Usually order hierarchy reflects the preferences more than one could ever consciously do. Masculine vs feminine, maybe?

Ownership. Like calling out plural emotional involvements type of activity? I know what you mean. Ive had that too, its true, just once, but still have had it. Feelz like treason. Charming impact. Loved it. Would pay to go through that again. Its my wet dream. And thats not metaphorically.

Open relationships. J vs. P, neat observation.

Cheating. ExxP vs IxxJ. Thats a rule too. Fortunately and unfortunately.

Spoiler alert. Click here to dodge the msg.

I chose you. Continue to... Case opened.

XNTJ I will protect you from others in every possible way, and beyond the current possible. I will teach you how to protect yourself from others when Im not around. And I will go as far as protecting you from yourself if you make mistakes that will more than certainly get you to trouble. I will tie you to the roof, and burn my own flesh in front of you with hot iron to traumatize you so badly you won't ever endanger yourself again. 

And the smell of burning flesh aint no flower.


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

All very interesting thoughts and insights. @Dare I like the conventional relationship done unconventionally. I see that. Neither my INTP nor I care for social rules or constructs, and we don’t really operate within them very much. Not in how we met, got together, nor in how we act in terms of I guess general responsibilities. That said, because of how we communicate and operate, it is difficult if not impossible to discretely identify love/romance/sex, as they are all intertwined, and others might not even recognize the components if they tried to draw them out. In terms of I suppose some things though, we are more traditional, which is more emotional support for me sometimes and bringing me back to earth (but of course, I am the extrovert and he the introvert), and me caring and taking care of daily things (he’s the introvert stuck in his head). So, those look like male/female dynamics. And then physically our connection is very male dominant which is more traditional, but even that is perhaps to many in a more modern society against the grain, where most feel that it should be completely equal. 

Interesting thoughts all around.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

My husband's an INTP and I'm an ENTJ. We're both into monogamy, disinterested in non-monogamy. IMO, monogamy or not is an issue of heritability and epigenetics.

https://www.nature.com/news/gene-switches-make-prairie-voles-fall-in-love-1.13112


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

I suppose harboring (NT-ism), enables a certain capacity for such relationship(s) in various degrees. In other words, sex wise, monogamy is a (strongly entailed preference of mine because_ it is better -_ + more enhanced for myself, not particularly because I cannot derive pleasure in another way); and I like anything that is _enhanced_ in forms of sexuality/romance/love, etc. I do harbor the capacity to "flexible" (and can detach my emotions) from certain activities with ease - which does and can pass over into sex and romance for myself. As SP/SO, it takes me awhile to get "personally meshed into someone," emotions wise - but does not stop the flow between two people and seeing the potentiality/connectivity, I never feel the personal effects hard, do not feel things like cheating, jealousy, et al is a possibility, or stress out about much stuff other types do. It may be an independence thing; as well. I still view myself as separate in relationship(s). On another cue, I am very in-touch and open with my sexuality for an NTJ; which had made some specimens skeptical of my typing. I do not need a romantic bond (or a promise of something) in the future to be affectionate with a specimen if the "mood" is right, we connect well intellectually and there are no red flags. It is quite possible I could blow a dude off in the backseat and not feel a shred of guilt/shame or have any personal feelings about it. I got sexually active pretty young. So, there is some spiritual aspect attached to sex for many women that I do not relate to; aside from the psychological aspect - in terms of psychological stimulus; I must be present (mentally) wise - but what connects me psychologically is distinct among all individual(s) and for myself. 

I would definitely be a whore if I had higher "openness" (i.e., Big 5) and did not harbor a strong particular value-system. No offense. I am wired with the capacity to have sex with many people (if not crave it outside of monogamy) - but romantically/mentally monogamous - in that I could not possibly love more than one specimen - and do not like sharing in that sense. I do not share and can only bond very intensely with 1. Because of the effect psychologically with being 'romantically monogamous' is _naturally follows_ that I do not want the specimen being with anyone else except myself.

As for conventionality - very much prefer complimentary (power-roles) and/or equality - adding something complimentary of value that I can utilize and not stressing me out in the process. I am just always ending up with (NFs) and tend to attract lots of (NF) men for reasons they have vocalized as being opposite. I prefer emotional - "rough on the outside - soft on the inside", dudes so the relationship(s) are generally unconventional (e.g., psychologically/mentally wise - in that he does most of the caring/tenderness lifting), but never in a sense I have the beard and a bigger cock than he does or something, lul. I put strong emphasis on physical (non-stereotypical) femininity, aesthetics and beauty. There should never be a time where "man and woman" is ambiguous by just looking at the us. I do not want him "prettier," or more sexually alluring than me - as I associate sexuality with femininity. Aphrodite/Aphrodisia. In other words, I do not emasculate him [unless he likes that], just because some roles naturally reverse out of instinct/order of preference. It is quite obvious he is the dude.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

My ideal relationship is relatively traditional (other than that I would prefer a woman who works full-time), but I am open to trying a few different things. Monogamy is something that I am unwilling to compromise on, however; I would rather raise my own children and not another man's, something which I, for various reasons, believe would be the most probable outcome of any non-monogamous arrangement. I would also hold that the decline in monogamy is inextricably linked with many problems that exist in the dating scene today, but that is another topic.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Not only do I demand it, but I won't settle for less than having it demanded of me. My ideal relationship is one in which the enrichment and pleasure from mutual imprisonment is well worth casting freedom aside. 

Now, finding that enrichment? Difficult. Pleasure's easy though.


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

I feel like there are some factors to consider here,

*Age:* (note: my experiences are just as anecdotal as yours) I've noticed that younger folks often tend to be more open to the idea of separating romantic love and sexual desire. This can be for a number of factors including declining belief in religion, teenage angst/rebellion against social norms, less responsibility/pressure in life that allows for experimentation, and ideals pushed by third wave feminism that encourages promiscuity. 

*Location:* Do you live in a small town? Do you live in a city? Do you live in the bible belt? Do you live on the coast? (note: these questions are rhetorical) Population and culture are factors that will determine if someone is more likely to be willing to and able to carry out an open or polyamorous lifestyle.

*Job:* There are some jobs where you can fade into the background and somewhere you're in the spotlight and depending on how who or what you work for wants to be represented, you might have a harder time carrying out that type of lifestyle.

*Desired direction in life:* This is rather cut and dry. Your values are central to your actions, and some people's values just don't align with that type of lifestyle. 

Thus, I don't think this can be pinned down to a personality type, it could be added in as a factor on this list because there's many more I could have added, but you know, trying to keep it somewhat short. However, I don't think it's as big of a factor as you might be alluding to.


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

I think in many ways the conversation has gone down the path of whether a couple is open to being polyamorous or not. I think that is a relevant part of romantic ownership. But one of the big things I also think of is jealousy, time commitment, and being able to reconcile oneself with a partner’s past relationships. A lot of that is huge when it comes to the content of romantic ownership. Less commonly does it manifest in actual non-monogamy.


----------



## Zosio (Mar 17, 2015)

Not the experience I've had with NTs. Especially not INTJs.


----------



## tannin (Jun 18, 2018)

I'm not sure. I would not mind sharing my partner with someone else, but I'd still prefer it if I were their priority or "number one". I'm not a jealous person - rather than blaming it on them, I'd most likely distance myself. I don't care to conform to traditional views, so anything would be pretty much be fine. Neither less nor more demanding in general...


----------



## Isa (Sep 13, 2018)

I voted neither less nor more likely. We INTPs have tertiary Si, so we can often become sentimental about our relationships. I've also read INTJs really value loyalty, so wouldn't say they are all free love either.


----------

