Is Being The Other Woman Wrong?

One thing that I hate emotion is the fact that with emotion comes morals, and morals are subjective. Whether you believe something or not doesn’t always matter, because it cannot control those that believe something else.

Take for example the moral of ‘don’t cheat’: sure, you can follow this but will your partner? ‘Cheating’ in itself doesn’t necessarily outline any boundaries nor any moral code per se.

I think most people would agree that if you sleep with someone while in an agreed-upon monogamous relationship other than your partner, this is cheating. That’s a simple truth, I believe.  But why is it wrong? Pushing beyond the acceptable boundaries of trust, respect, commitment and pulling on emotional heartstrings, cheating is just something most people cannot deal with.

What about the flipside, not the person being cheated on nor the person doing the cheating, what about the person who they are doing the cheating with? Are they doing something morally wrong?

Taking the scenario from the beginning, imagine A meets B, but B is already with C. A and B hit it off and hook up. I think it is safe to assume that amidst all of this, we can agree that B has done the wrong thing for cheating on C. But at this point, is it ok to judge A?

If B never mentioned that they were in a relationship, how can A be held accountable for the actions? I think the only ‘morals’ that they can be questioned on is sleeping around with other people, which, for some, is not important.

Taking it a step further, what if B had mentioned that they were in a relationship but was still wanting to go ahead with it, does this then mean that A has broken moral code? Being ‘the other woman’ can be a big thing for any guy or girl, but is it necessarily wrong?

Going from the perspective that both A and B were fully aware of the situation, there is one main point that I can think of to tease out. This is the idea of who did what. Did the person in the relationship initiate the hook up, or did the single person? I think that if A were to try and persuade B then this would be the first flag to say that A is doing something morally wrong. If it was fully initialised by B, however, A has little to worry about.

A quick google shows me that there are many people who believe that ‘the other woman’ can live with a clean conscious, however thinking about it my mind races with other questions. If this happened to me, I do think that I would have some emotional anger for the other woman, but I do think that I would vent most of it on my partner/ex-partner to the point until logic took over.

Is the other woman doing something morally wrong?

40 Hour Famine, 2010

If you are in Adelaide then I urge you to read this to the end. It may just be something you are interested in.

It is estimated that  in the north eastern Uganda area alone there are 1.2 million people in need of food and shelter. Food issues can affect anyone living below the poverty line, as many people in third world and developing countries do. There is a big onus on developed countries and its citizens to help those that are not as privileged.

In 2009 I participated in The Worlds Greatest Shave raising over $1000 to go towards cancer research and support. I was going to do the same this year, however after contemplating it for a long time I decided that I would instead put my efforts and time towards raising money for those that need it more- those in third world countries such as Uganda.

If you have received this then it means I need your help. I’m not asking you to donate money, no not yet! What I want instead is your abilities and know-how. Please read on and see if you are able to assist me.

What I aim to organise is a camping weekend- spreading out over 2 nights to occur at an undefined location around Adelaide. There will be a set entry fee which will include the bare essentials (including camping ground fee). The money that remains above this from each person will be donated towards a charity of choice. At the moment the [very rough] estimate is that the cost itself is about $15 per person, anything above this is donate able. For example, a $50 entry fee would see a $35 donation per person: if we could get 50 people to do this then that is $1750 already. It all adds up: the more people not only the more money we raise, but the better time we would have!

The idea at the moment is to have the weekend as a ’40 Hour Famine’ weekend: no food, no alcohol. Just water and barely sugar. We would also request that electronic devices are switched off for the entirety of the weekend: no mobile phones, no laptops, no facebook, no twitter and no contact. This minimalistic lifestyle is exactly what many people live day by day doing, and we want to impress this upon the people participating.

How can you help? There are three ways you can help:

-Participate! The first, and most obvious, is come along once all the details are smoothed out. It will be near the middle of the year, so that there is plenty of time for organising and arranging things, so dates aren’t yet decided!

-Secondly if you have access to resources such as tents, sleeping bags, etc (such as through Scouts, Guides, etc) then this could be very helpful. As organising gets under way we will be approaching certain places to lend a hand, but if you have access to anything that could lend a hand this early on we are well on our way!

-Last of all, and possibly the most important, is your networking skills! Only be getting this event out there and happening will we see money being raised and people participating! Remember, we’re not asking people to go out and try and raise dollars, just get a group of friends to come along .If you and, say, 5 friends were to come then that’s 6 people! That’s already [about] $210 raised!

According to World Vision, “Every $40 helps 5 children for 1 month”.

So, where to from here? All I need at this point is a show of who would even be interested in helping out. You’re welcome to reply but if you could email mcgee210@gmail.com to let me know, this would be appreciated.

PLEASE guys, show your support for such a great cause as helping a third world nation.

Is it okay?

If you knew your partners Facebook login details would it be morally wrong of you to access their page and read their messages?

What if during doing this you found out that they’ve been having a bit on the side for the past 6 months, and had no intention of telling you? Would that change your stance towards the moral stance?

Leave a comment with your thoughts on this, would love to know. Bigger blog coming soon

How To Get Youth Into Church

One topic that a person cannot go through their life avoiding is religion. From the moment we are born we have religious decisions thrown upon us, and from there onwards we’re on our own.

Some parents decide to baptise their children, while other do not. Some circumcise their children for religious reasons, some do not. Some are taken to church weekly, some are kept home and some are told that god does not exist. It seems that it does not matter what we may believe ourselves as a child but rather what those around us believe.

Personally I was not christened or baptised.  I grew up in a household where I was considered a little strange for not swearing, smoking or drinking as I grew up. The A grades that I received on my school work was a little out-of-the-ordinary and my stance towards God and religion was somewhat… unliked. Growing up I honestly don’t think that the words ‘god’, ‘jesus’ or ‘christ’ were muttered in a sentence unless accompanied by ‘fuck’, ‘hell’ or ‘burn in’.

I’ve written briefly about my religious stance before, which isn’t easy to put in a nutshell. I’m not for or against God per se. Not really. What I am for or against is religion. What I mean by this is the devout following and faith in the God and the rules dictated by the religious scripture- that being bible, Koran or whatever book it may have been labelled. For arguments sake, they all are the same.

I’ve been shown no proof that God exists, merely some compelling stories and somewhat-convincing fanatics. On the flipside, the non-believers have also been very convincing and very rightly pointed out the flaws, mostly of which consist in the fact that religion somewhat goes against a lot of proven facts. How much evidence does one need to sway me one way or another? Well, that isn’t the point of this article.

Recently I watched the 7pm Project and I saw a great segment which featured Father Bob Maguire. To be honest, I’m a great fan of this man. He has done a lot of hard work in the community and he himself has been stuck on an anti-church pedestal for his approach at Catholicism. The segment, which you may have seen, was about how we can get more youths into the churches. You know what: What a great question!

I would seriously love to experience what church is like. I’ve only ever been in a church twice- the first being for a christening of a family friends child, and the other while I was dancing [back in the days of my traditional-greek-dancing]. Since then, I’ve never been. And yes, to put it plainly: I’ve never been to a service.

Many people my age are quick to jump on the idea that church is boring and that the services are enough to put you to sleep. The weird thing here, contradictory as it is, those of my friends who regularly attend church often say the opposite of their churches. So what brings about this contradiction?

My first assumption would be preconceptions. Entering into a church I suppose I would think that I was about to be getting a lecture from some old guy standing out the front. In such a modern time though, I find it hard to believe that all churches are like this. Does Australia [pray, Adelaide] have any of those ‘modern’ churches where people are involved and the youth have fun?

To answer this question I suppose that I should just ask myself. What better place to start? Why does Brodhe not go to church?

Here’s a few reasons:

• Too early on a Sunday morning
• I don’t like to be told off for the things that others perceive as wrong
• My friends do not go
• I do not follow the bible

So is there a place for us Generation Y young adults where we can freely talk about our own religious views without the worry of being told off. I’m yet to be answered the questions of ‘Why would God care?’ I mean, if I said the word ‘fuck’, without it meaning to be an insult, why would god care? Sure, if I said it with the intent to belittle someone or to make them feel uneasy then I can understand. But any words can do that, and we can say them freely!

Also, when I drink I do not act aggressively nor do  I perform illegal deeds. I do what is deemed socially right [on the normal occasion] and keep myself in line. Why would god say I cannot get drunk?

If there was a church which promoted that people merely get along and do what is morally and socially right for each other, and stopped worrying about condemning us to hell and telling us that we are all sinners- well, that’s a church that I would go to.

While I know that it wouldn’t happen, I’d love to see the idea of a congregational venue- perhaps a ‘church’, however it would be open up to ALL religions. It would be a place of meeting and conversation. Peer review about each others beliefs. It would be a meeting of sorts, where people spent the first half hour or so saying thanks to their own religious idols, then spent the following few hours in discussion about different topics. Political, environmental, moral and ethical topics would be discussed and religion would be kept civil and polite. There would be no judgement of ones sins, but merely the reminder of what is morally right on the path to the afterlife.

I would call this setting Urban Belief. It is those that live in a modern society, have belief of God or gods, but simply do not feel that following a set religious scripture is the correct way to live their life. I suppose that’s me in a nutshell: an Urban Believer.

I would personally love to hear the ideas that Father Bob Maguire has to get the youth back into the church. While the church may condemn my lifestyle “choices”, I still see a heck of a lot of good being done by the church. I still strongly believe in the family unit and doing what is morally right, I just believe that the archaic way that they enforce their rule is wrong.

I would really love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this, so if you are in Australia or Adelaide or just have some general views on this, I’d love to know!

HIV+ Bareback III

In response to this and this post.

Question:

My partner and I are seeing our DR next week i will keep you posted. But my partner is still telling me he is willing to take the risk of catching HIV so good to see i have someone who will last the distance. Thank you brodhe.com

Answer:

I’m glad you guys are seeking professional help with this. Like I said previously, the choice is ultimately up to you and him- and so long as you are both fully aware of the situation and risks involved then there is no reason why you can’t ake an informed decision.
But I think the best way to reach an informed decision is by seeking professional help. Doctors especially, but also councilors, will be able to talk with you about different perspectives you may not have considered.

One of the big risks, of course, is that your partner will also contract HIV and be in a similar situation. If one of you progresses to AIDS and your situation becomes worse there is the chance (I believe) of there being other complications to consider.

Just make sure you are fully aware before making a life changing decision. I’m glad you are getting through this well
=]

Who is Your Favourite Biblical Character?

Question:

Who’s your favorite biblical character? You can’t say Joseph and his amazing technicolor dreamcoat, either.

Answer:

I haven’t yet thoroughly read the bible (nor any religious texts really) but look forward to doing so in 2010. I’ve already been given a nice copy of the Koran, and will be acquiring other texts to read over when I can!

Should Australia Become a Republic?

Should Australia Become a Republic?

Right now as it stands, no Australian will ever be the Head of State for Australia. That is simple fact. Why? Because Australia is a Democratic Monarchy. This means that while we elect our leader, the Prime Minister, we also must follow the rule of the ‘Motherland’, England. Unless there are some very radical changes to Australian Law, the Head of State will always be a blood relative of Queen Elizabeth II.

Right Now

As it is Australia is a constitutional monarchy which defines that the Queen is our current Head of State technically, although our own constitution limits her powers. They are limited, however she has ways of going around this. Her representative in Australia is called the Governor General (GG). The GG has the power to remove our Prime Minister from his place, and this has happened before.

Is this not a good thing- that the GG can keep a balance and ensure that the leader-in-charge is not doing his job illegally? Well, a mechanism should certainly be in place to do this, however should this mechanism really be a non-publicly-appointed person who is the representative of another country? Or should it be the laws and regulations put in place through the use of democratically appointed politicians and judiciary representatives by the common people of our nation? The GG’s role is out dated and should be performed by the public, not by England.

The Arguments

There is the old analogy of ‘if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’. It seems that the system adopted for Australia at the moment is working- and has for a couple hundred years. What’s the point on revamping it?

One of the big arguments that springs forth from Monarchists is that one of the few remaining identities that Australians can trace back is the relationship the country has with its motherland. This was a lot more predominant when Australia had a larger percentage of direct migrants, immigrants and convicts from the UK, and is slowly fading as the generations move on, and other migrants from around the world help to create our diverse community. The argument is easily countered with the fact that a very large and substantial proportion of our country do not come from England anymore, and yet we do not honour the birthplace of all these other people. Why is that fair?

It was England, originally, who came across and invaded (not ‘discovered’ or ‘settled’) Australia and so this does make it the first tie that white Australians have to a ‘birth place’ for ‘our people’.  Many claim that this is how it should stay.

Undeniably becoming a republic would cost a hefty amount of money and time to implement. Currency would need to change, laws would need to be amended- everything from the voting system to our constitution would need to be looked over. It is something which would undoubtedly take multiple years to complete. Is it worth all that work?

If you’re argument against doing something is the amount of effort to do it is too large, then you should go get an attitude readjustment. There are many positives to becoming a republic and I’m sure those that tore down Berlin Wall also had to put a lot of effort into it, but look at the positives that came out of that.

Is it fair that no Australia child can ever have the same inspirations of leading a great country as another republic does, and is it fair that they must be content with being a Prime Minister rather than a President or other Head of State? Is it fair that Australia must bow to British law and be seen as the child of a dying Monarchy?  Should the right to rule a country not be done by merit rather than birthright?

So What Will Change?

Basically, nothing and yet everything. Try to remove yourself from the idea of America, in which most people automatically default to. That is one example of a republic, with a president. Ours could look similar, or different. We may have a president and a prime minister, we may have both or neither. That would be the choice of the people which would be elected through a referendum.

Our political parties would remain the same, and perhaps be even more representative of their parties beleifs.

Our currency would be reprinted to remove the queen and may reflect true Australian icons.

Our constitution would be re-written to exclude Britain and the rex or regina.

Your every day life would basically be no different. People may be instilled with a little bit more patriotism to a country which is finally standing on its own legs though.

The UK would still hold a close Alliance with us, as would most of Asia and the USA. Trade and commerce terms would not change with any one else, and there would be no power shift. Our place in the United Nations would remain the same.

One of the many things that pops to my mind when I write this is the quote of “Progress for the sake of progress must be discrouraged”. This was uttered by a famous character from a book, who was trying to impede changes being implemented to assist in positive change. It is often my quote to people to try to have them realise that ‘why fix what isn’t broke’ is a silly analogy. If the same attitude was applied to colonial-day Australia, then we would still be killing natives, demanding woman cook us dinner and ordering the hanging of homosexuals. Progress for the sake of progress is a must.

Sex With A Virgin? #SMH

I remember when I was much younger, one of my brothers friends once gave me some advice which, years later, still has me thinking. What he said was “never have sex with a virgin”. What a statement to make!

He was, naturally, speaking about heterosexual sex but is it any different to gay sex, really? Obviously there’s no hymen to break and there’s no girl who might be somewhat hesitant, but there is the need to have the other guy relax and.. well.. get on with it. Push back and breath!

Askmen.com has a nice list of 5 reasons why a guy shouldn’t be the first for a chick, however these don’t directly apply. I suppose a few do…

“2- There’s a freak-out potential

When it comes to having sex with a virgin, the potential for her to freak out before, during or after the sex act is quite high. She may decide at the last minute that she doesn’t want to go through with it or she may feel massively guilty afterward for having done it. Because so much importance is put on her virginity, her first time is bound to be an emotional experience, which means that you might have to deal with panic, sadness, guilt, and other unpleasant reactions. She has probably imagined the event for a long time and wants it to go absolutely perfectly. If even the slightest thing doesn’t go according to plan, it could result in tears and tantrums. If you don’t like watching girls cry, don’t sleep with virgins. That’s a lot of pressure and that’s why it’s among our five reasons not to sleep with a virgin.”

This I think is a valid thing. But is it necessarily bad? Well, if you’re a guy with a raging boner most likely, yes. I suppose if you were about to do it and they suddently had a freak out and wanted to stop, that might put a bit of unhappiness in your pants. Maybe be respectful and just finish off with oral? Who knows.

The next reason, to me, would be the number one thing. In fact, I’ll admit that it has in the past deterred me.

“3- She’ll likely get attached

It is fairly likely that a recently devirginized girl will expect to have a lastingrelationship with the guy that bedded her. If you’re not planning on becoming her boyfriend, or at least continuing to date her, don’t sleep with her. It’s really that simple. Very few girls imagine their first time with someone who drops off the face of the earth immediately afterward, never to be heard from again. She’s going to want you to stick around, so if a relationship is not in your plan, consider this point in our list of five reasons not to sleep with a virgin and find someone else to share your bed”

The idea of being someone’s ‘first’ always has the idea that they will get attached, doesn’t it? It’s what I’ve always heard and, personally, it is what happened. The guy was nothing special and yet I seemed to get attached. We did date for a few months (much of that before hand) so maybe I’m a little biased…

The final reason from their blog that I would agree with would be their #4:

“4- She lacks skills

Since she’s inexperienced, she’s probably not going to be that good in bed, and that’s a big reason not to sleep with a virgin. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, since there are plenty of skills a girl can learn before she loses her actual virginity. If, however, she has little experience with sexual activity in general, the encounter is not going to be all thatpleasurable for you. If all you want is the power trip that comes from taking her virginity, then you’re golden, but if you want a mutually satisfying sexual experience, you should look for someone who has had time to develop some sexual skills”

I suppose this is another big one. No one wants to be with a person who just lies there, doesn’t know what to do or tried to do the wrong thing with it. Go slow, push back, etc. I think this kinda ties in with the freak out aspect. If the ‘teacher’ isn’t very good, then it might lean towards the V from freaking out as they don’t know what to do!

One forum that I found had the post below:

“At university I took my first man-cherry.
He was 21-ish and I was stunned that he was still a virgin. Good looking, ex pro-athlete, nice guy, etc. and I hadn’t been a virgin since the age of 15.
He lasted somewhere under a minute and then I asked the fatefull question “So… did you lose it or did you come early?”
*slaps forehead* I could have just asked “So what level of pathetic are you?”
But with a bit of ego-stroking he was soon up for round 2, which was on par with my previous partner! The virgin ended up being a keen learner and a very generous lover for the most part.”

I lol’d hard. I suppose this would be the other thing. Instead of them freaking out and not wanting to go the whole way with you, what if they finish almost immediately and just leave you to fend for yourself? That would be bad, right?

Comment with your opinion

Ugly People: Just Evolution?

As a prelude I would like to point out that the content of this article isn’t necessarily my point of view, but a topic I was proposed with today and asked my thoughts on.

A social networking website with the single purpose of connecting beautiful people has culled near 5000 members after they put on weight and were deemed no longer desirable after the Christmas break.  This website which has already raised concerns both about discrimination based on physical appearance as well as promoting a negative ideal of body image is now raising eyebrows over this new and controversial policy.

The website has defended its actions in the following public announcement:

“As a business, we mourn the loss of any member, but the fact remains that our members demand the high standard of beauty be upheld,” site founder Robert Hintze said.

“Letting fatties roam the site is a direct threat to our business model and the very concept for which BeautifulPeople.com was founded.”

The questions that these actions raise vary but the idea that was proposed to me was the basic question of ‘is this right?’. To answer this question I first need to tease apart the fact that there are different ways to approach this. The angle that I want to discuss in this article is that from a Darwinian perspective, with the idea that people came about through evolution: as did other animals.

Society often places beautiful on pedestals and the rest of us seem to idolize them beyond anything else we know. Magazines, television shows, billboards, movies and, it seems now, social networking sites all promote that beauty is a physical thing which separates the high end of society from the low end.

Is this any different than natural instincts? If we take a peacock, lame example but I believe it holds true, we see that those that are aesthetically pleasing, are the ones that survive in life. Not necessarily survival in the sense of ‘live or die’, but in the idea of pass on your genes with the better of the species. Beautiful male peacocks are the ones, which mate with beautiful female peacocks. The same is true for most animal species, which mate, especially those that mate with a single partner for life (swans, etc). The more aesthetically pleasing in accordance with the species, i.e. the feathers on a peacock, the more likely the peacock is going to mate and pair. Why is it that we find this a wonderful thing in nature, yet rebel against it when it comes to our own species doing the same.

Darwinian evolution shows that the better looking of the species is always the more successful. If you believe in the Darwinian theory can you also be against promoting beauty as being purely physical?

Or is it simply that fact that, statistically there are less ‘beautiful’ people than ‘ugly’, and that as there are more the ‘ugly’ can join together and create a mob-mentality in our social circles which then claim that those that are ‘beautiful’ are doing the wrong thing? Wrong is, after all, simply something against social norms. Society is made up of the majority, which in our society is not the beautiful. Do the majority within our societal groups simply jealous?

There are claims that the mediums, which promote such a physical beauty, are contributing towards problems such as BDD, Anorexia, Bulimia, etc. While I do not disagree, can I raise the question of ‘so?’. In the wild animals chew of their own limbs to ensure the survival of their seed: are people just too precious about things?

Even if, like me, this is not your personal point of view… what are your thoughts?

I’m an INTJ

I recently did a couple different personality tests and they all come back saying that I was an INTJ. Interesting.Apparently this is the ’strategist’, which I quickly familiarise with. While the actual credibility of these types of profiling can be very subjective, I suppose the descriptions I’ve read online are very similar to what I think about myself.

Very often people perceive me as being very confident and have a lot of confidence. This has been the case all the way back to when I was a young child. This air of confidence and decisiveness can often be misconstrued as arrogance and the like. In honesty, it is a little.

My grandmother was happily telling my cousin and I the other day a story about when I was a young child. She said that even at the young age of about 4 when I was determined nothing would stop me. She told me about a story about how much I wanted to do something and when my parents denied me the right, I went on a hunger strike until they gave in.

I would like to believe that my determination, perseverance and intentions have carried with me, and this is what most people see as my confidence. I have every intention to carry through with what I say, and by shying away from a situation this would not be achievable.

INTJs seem to be perfectionists in some ways. To be honest I am not the cleanest person nor can I really be bothered with tying up all the loose ends which are left when I do my mundane chores, but undeniably I show a huge passion and will follow through when it comes to things which spark an interest. From what I read, the perfection comes in the form of ruthlessly hunting down the thinks which they are interested i. Lucky enough, INTJs are only interested in certain things.

It would appear that INTJs like to revolve their ideas around social norms and the question of ‘does it work?’. Apparently this allows an independence from the constraints of authority, convention and sentiment.

More than one website I read descriptions from used the words “system builders” to describe INTJs. This, apparently, comes from the fact that INTJs have the unusual combination of a very vivid imagination tacked together with reliability. Respect plays a big part of any INTJ which I would definitely agree with. Any lapse of respect is a big negative thing to me.

INTJs do not separate the difference between people such as co-workers and their superiors and will often attempt to implement changes which they see could improve their teams without worrying about the red-tape which often surrounds such topics.

INTJs need their interests to be satisfied and if their career and friends don’t help spark the intellect, they quickly become bored. To help do this, INTJs very often adapt a degree of surface conformism where they pretend to be the average everyday person however this is to simply mask their inherent unconventionality.

It seems that multiple sources state that the ‘Achilles heel’ for an INTJ is their personal relationships, especially romantic ones. Often INTJs find it hard to care deeply for more than a few people, and while they are more than happy to spend immense amounts of time in nurturing and improving the relationships they have, to actually instigate one is hard. The confidence and knowledge which helps them exceed in other areas can let them down big time when it comes to love.

INTJs can often find it difficult to interact with some people as they cannot readily grasp some social rituals such as small talk. To this, I totally agree. I don’t know if it is the fact that I cannot grasp it in the sense of I do not understand it, things like small talk simply do not appeal to me. I would much rather sit in an easy silence rather than try to force conversation I would rather not have. To add to this, it is said that INTJs are very private people. Most people would laugh at this with my over-exposure on Facebook, Youtube, Blog, Twitter and all my other mediums, but to be honest I don’t disagree with it. While I may have my life broadcast on these 21st century tools, how much does it really expose of myself? And to add further, all these websites simply portray what I want (as per my post here). To quote above “they pretend to be the average everyday person however this is to simply mask their inherent unconventionality”.

It seems that the ultimate double edged sword of an INTJ is what they want in other people: to make sense. When people act from passion, out of impulse rather than thought it can frustrate me- and INTJs it seems- to no end. I often point out to people that if we are A, and we want to get to C then draw a straight line and go for it. No need to visit D, E and F. I understand and accept that sometimes you need to smell the roses, but not if it is illogical to do so.

I think personally if I ever came against another strategist I don’t think we could date. Simple as that. Why? Because my own insecurities would play the better of me. Being one, I know that an INTJ thinks a lot, and one of the big things to think about is how to get what you want. Someone I used to do cognitive therapy with called this ‘manipulation’. At first I was against this description of my behaviour, however as she rightly put the definition of the word is to simple ‘handle or control in a skillful manner’, and any negative connotation which we associate with it is in our own head. With this in mind, I agreed that she was right. I would often take great length to plan and decide on how I would achieve what I want in life: often this included being able to bring people around to my way of thinking. In every sense of the word, to be a strategist. With this in mind, I really don’t know if I would like to be with another INTJ knowing that they could ust as easily be manipulating me. Luckily, I believe, the old saying of ‘takes one to know one’ holds dear here, and I have a great ability to be able to sense being manipulated better than a lot of my friends can.

One of the simple personality tests you can do (which also gave me INTJ!) is the facebook one here.

What is your personality?