On the Victim + Aggressor Relationship

[Satan]

I think that to some extent, I do this even with friendships. I don't think it's even conscious though. There's this SLE that I've gotten to be friends with after a long drawn out thing such as this. It's been over 2 years now and I finally consider us real friends. I wasn't sure of him at first (he's an E-3 and I felt at first that I may have been just part of his larger plan to know everyone and be generally well-liked) but he's been completely solid and patient, ever ready to respond to me when I indicate that I want a response but never pushy. And now I trust him. Of course with friendship the stakes aren't as high and it can take longer without anyone getting frustrated or annoyed. But looking back, I can see that this was much the way things played out for us.

So why are you married to a fruit cake.

[redbaron]

So why are you married to a fruit cake.

that's not very nice.

[Satan]

that's not very nice.

No, it's not, I meant to say why are you married to an ESFj. Then I thought I could say ESE; then I decided to just screw it and go with the easy option.

So, why are you married to a fruit cake?

[Satan]

I noticed at one stage, that I seem to need resistance to respect a girl. Otherwise it's like she's just a piece of meat. One that probably wouldn't taste that great. With the look that some girls seem to have.

It's like I actually find myself having to be careful not to push too hard with most girls. And I don't want to have to be careful all of the time. That said recently I've been careful in situations where I don't have to be.

[Satan]

??

She's married to someone non-ideal. It's kind of like eating dessert for dinner, and wondering why you don't quite feel satisfied.

You might feel special when you're eight years old. The novelty wears off.

[Satan]

Ironic since you have no clue whether she's married to someone ideal or not.

In Socionics terms it's non-ideal. This is a Socionics forum. Do you have a problem?

[Satan]

Which is why I hate these kinds of ESTps. How can INFps be their Duals?

First things first, the INFp has to start drinking.

[redbaron]

No, it's not, I meant to say why are you married to an ESFj. Then I thought I could say ESE; then I decided to just screw it and go with the easy option.

So, why are you married to a fruit cake?

The relation (being supervisory) is not ideal in a socionics sense, you're correct. But I met him in 1990, long before I knew anything about socionics (and probably before you were born ) and we hit it off. I'm not one to subscribe to the notion that you should only marry your dual, even if you know about socionics. I love him still after all these years (married 14 of them!) so I'd appreciate it if you'd cut out the fruitcake nomenclature. Besides, I have other ESE friends and I like them too. (the SLE I was talking about is a friend who is married to one of my IEI friends and the four of us do things together so it's not as if I'm going about seeking SLE guy friends to take the place of the ESE or something. Just to make that clear).

[Blaze]

This is my interpretation (though, from the Victim's point of view):

The Victim will at first put up a fight. He will build simultaneously a feeling of tension and comfort between himself and his partner. The Aggressor must undertake these challenges with grace under fire. She must never show anger. Must never show weakness of will or affection. Most importantly, she must not break under the strain of the tension her partner is building. In fact, must be comfortable and at home with the suspense - excited by it, even. This tension will build to an almost sadistic and animalistic apex. When the suspense becomes suddenly unbearable, the Victim will at once soften to his partner's advances. Will say by word or by gesture: "I am yours." And will submit himself to his partner's appetite and allow himself to be entirely vulnerable, such that the purest form of intimacy can be achieved. The Victim's greatest pleasure is to see how happy he is making his Aggressor. The intimacy will build until climax.

Then all cools for a while. Warm, affectionate feelings remain, but the gauntlet is thrown down once again to be scaled once more.

if this is truly what infp does across the board, i don't think i can deal with it. too much work.

[Satan]

Of course I do. I didn't think you were really that dumb that you couldn't figure out that you were being an ass or not, but I guess you really are that dumb. Nice work!

You hold onto your intelligence too much. It'll hold back your progress. I don't care if I'm dumb.

[Satan]

The relation (being supervisory) is not ideal in a socionics sense, you're correct. But I met him in 1990, long before I knew anything about socionics (and probably before you were born ) and we hit it off. I'm not one to subscribe to the notion that you should only marry your dual, even if you know about socionics. I love him still after all these years (married 14 of them!) so I'd appreciate it if you'd cut out the fruitcake nomenclature. Besides, I have other ESE friends and I like them too. (the SLE I was talking about is a friend who is married to one of my IEI friends and the four of us do things together so it's not as if I'm going about seeking SLE guy friends to take the place of the ESE or something. Just to make that clear).

Well, if you're happily married it can't be too bad. Okay - I'll stop calling him a fruit cake.

[Satan]

if this is truly what infp does across the board, i don't think i can deal with it. too much work.

If it's too much work, you're trying too hard. Just lighten up and see it as a game.

[Blaze]

If it's too much work, you're trying too hard. Just lighten up and see it as a game.

yeah i can do that about half the time....but you know life for me is stressful right now. i just started a new job where everything is effed up, i'm working a second job, taking care of my kids, dealing with my ex, and trying to have a relationship. so the other half of the time, sorry, feels like way too much work.

[ladyinred]

Well I offer:

- Initiative-taking behavior
- A reasonable capacity for gathering information and producing new ideas
- A decent sense of humor
- A lot of energy to get tasks done

What I need (I don't purposefully look for these qualities but that's what I have noticed):

- Prompt responses to my initiative-taking behavior: I am not slow-and-steady-win-the-race; so I wouldn't stand a "victim" trying to "test" me: I would just drop it because I'd think they didn't like me. In this sense, I need no ambiguity in what the other person is feeling.
- A person that isn't too strong or emotionally hardy: the more somebody is hardy towards me, the more I become hardy towards them. Instead, if somebody is gentle and easy-going, I become more gentle and easy-going.
- Somebody that does for me some things that I always forget about doing; usually it's some paperwork that is absolutely necessary for the bureucratic part of something. I can do many things and work a lot, but I don't necessarily like to revise everything I do multiple times. Somebody that is naturally attuned to taking care of these details would be nice.

Now I am of the opinion that much of what is said about the rational pairs of resolute quadras has a lot to do with their base function. For example, how an ENFj seeks for somebody which is strong: that's not Se-seeking, that's Ti-seeking. In this sense, you will not find any commonality between this part of mate-seeking behavior of a Beta NF and the mate-seeking behavior of, say, an ENTj - the latter will be inclined to look for Fi because at the end of the day their base function is still extraverted thinking.

how similar are EIEs in this regards?

[ladyinred]

I'm generally attracted to slightly femminine girls (at least in the relationship roles sense) so it's usually not a problem. There's some unspoken rule of attraction in my opinion, that makes two similar poles repel.

Baby: I don't know, why then all the Se-creative girls I've dated behaved that way? Shouldn't have they hunt my cock down with a knife?
In any case yes the bar scene is where that problem reaches its apex but it's actually pretty widespread.

i second the bolded question, is this or is this not the way of ISXjs??

Anyway, why do you people think what I posted is Se? Wouldnt a Se person be less straighforward and more concerned about keeping the upper hand?

again, i second this

So will victims generally try to test their aggressor and try to act coy as a means to sustain interest? Is this due to some insecurity on their part? They need to be reassured?

?

[jessica129]

That's why I generally don't identify with Agressor much. Not to sound full of myself, but I think it's because I've never had to try. Any guy I've ever wanted has felt the same way. I just strategically place myself in situations that makes one thing lead to another. It's so easy. I guess if it weren't easy for me, I'd have to actually try. I sound so full of myself. Just stating facts.

[EyeSeeCold]

?

Are you asking?

I can't speak for my subconscious, but on the surface, I know I "torture" my victims to induce feelings if they don't already have some for me. This can go on even to the point of even anger. I have to take things slowly, I need intense experiences first before I could enter something as grand as a relationship. Otherwise I wouldn't "feel it" and I wouldn't care much for neither the person nor the relationship.

The powerplay is less controllable though, it's a spontaneous thing. They give and show and I take and hide.

[Singu]

There's no real such thing as romantic erotic attitudes... it's all just HYPE. At least, not to the extent people are usually expecting. You can not say, how a type wants to be loved, or how a type will love, because everybody is different. Everybody has completely different approaches to love, romance, and relationships. And even that dynamic may change during their lifetime, due to having had some changes in themselves. There seems to be some sort of an extremely generalized pattern of a person's overall way of behaving in the "erotic attitudes", but I don't really think that it has anything to do with romantic relationships or love life.

[golden]

I noticed at one stage, that I seem to need resistance to respect a girl. Otherwise it's like she's just a piece of meat. One that probably wouldn't taste that great. With the look that some girls seem to have.

This is funny. The guy I'm currently with uses this term, "piece of meat."

What did you mean by "the look that some girls seem to have"?

And what qualifies as resistance to you?

[EyeSeeCold]

There's no real such thing as romantic erotic attitudes... it's all just HYPE. At least, not to the extent people are usually expecting. You can not say, how a type wants to be loved, or how a type will love, because everybody is different. Everybody has completely different approaches to love, romance, and relationships. And even that dynamic may change during their lifetime, due to having had some changes in themselves. There seems to be some sort of an extremely generalized pattern of a person's overall way of behaving in the "erotic attitudes", but I don't really think that it has anything to do with romantic relationships or love life.

There is misapplication, I think it's taken to mean degrees of lust or something similar. It's merely a measure of presentation and power-play. Aggressors have power and try to exert it in time, Victims resist the impact. Caregivers have a need to supply for others, Infantiles take this help willingly while helping Caregivers in other aspects. From this there is a difference in preference of attitudes toward relations.

[Singu]

No, that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with power-play and all that other crazy BDSM crap that people are thinking of - that's definitely not related to types.

[redbaron]

No, that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with power-play and all that other crazy BDSM crap that people are thinking of - that's definitely not related to types.

really? you don't think it's related to types? hmmm. not even tangentially?

[Computer Loser]

Yeah, I think although the descriptions are a bit over the top, I think they are simply just illustrations with some truth to it.

I think our instincts of how we give/receive love are type related, just like in our dual-seeking function, we have expectations.

Like in my past relationship with an ENFP, I persistently did what I could to show my love through dedication, time sacrifice and actions that took a toll on me. Ultimately she didn't really appreciate these things though, and I could see she didn't really love me. Is it because she's a bad person? No, its just that she had a different way of expressing and receiving that was not compatible with my instincts.

[Singu]

really? you don't think it's related to types? hmmm. not even tangentially?

I doubt it. Well I mean, at least not in the way that some people are expecting, like how people act in bed, or how they wish to be pursued, how they wish to pursue, etc. I mean, of course I don't relate to my every identicals regarding that - that much is obvious.

[EyeSeeCold]

No, that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with power-play and all that other crazy BDSM crap that people are thinking of - that's definitely not related to types.

I never implied BDSM. "Power play" as in not going along with the other person. I have a tendency to hold back parts of myself, even to people I've known for years. Being with someone who is trying to get you to open up creates resistance.

[Singu]

Well then that's your problem.

[silverchris9]

Well then that's your problem.

But it's a "problem" that is presumably fairly common to Ni- (and perhaps Fi-)leading types. And a problem which Se (and perhaps Te-)leading types are particularly apt to solve.

This is a pretty straightforward deduction from the theory: party one has an intense interior world, with which they identify strongly, and which is by nature difficult to communicate. Party two has an interest in experiencing as much as possible, knowing about things in the most straightforward ways possible (that is, what is closest or most analogous to 'seeing' or 'touching' or 'manipulating').

It makes sense that party one would try to hide that interior world (about which they feel passionate, but which they are uncomfortable sharing), and that party two (if they are interested in party one) would try to uncover said interior world.

This has happened rather predictably with just about every SLE I know, romantic or not, and if I were ILI, it would probably happen more with SEEs.

Se egos are generally interested in "more than meets the eye," especially if it's "a lot more than meets the eye," it defies expectations in a pleasing way, like a piece of music, and stimulates the suggestive function by providing an "unclear symbol" which will gradually reveal itself, but never completely.


(I'm trying to follow the "more paragraphs" rule. I'm not likin' it...)

[Singu]

But why wouldn't you open up to people, most people open up to people. Are you led to believe... that some kind of an arbitrary sense of resistance, is type related? That's the problem with Socionics... or at least the people's interpretation of it. They think that pretty much everything is "type related", even your own shortcomings.

[Bardia]

But why wouldn't you open up to people, most people open up to people. Are you led to believe... that some kind of an arbitrary sense of resistance, is type related? That's the problem with Socionics... or at least the people's interpretation of it. They think that pretty much everything is "type related", even your own shortcomings.

It's not always easy to open up to people and not always a good idea. You have to be careful who you let in.

[silverchris9]

But why wouldn't you open up to people, most people open up to people. Are you led to believe... that some kind of an arbitrary sense of resistance, is type related? That's the problem with Socionics... or at least the people's interpretation of it. They think that pretty much everything is "type related", even your own shortcomings.

...there's a difference between "opening up" to people period and being fully open and revealing your "innermost self." If nothing else, this proves the point of socionics: people's ways of being can be so radically different that whereas to one person it makes no sense at all to be "closed," and it's even seen as unhealthy, to another person, it's only natural to be guarded about your interior self.

If I met you, you would think I was a pretty "open" person, and I am about the vast majority of things. But I'm extremely closed about the things that are closest to me, and I'm quite conscious of that. I think that, rather than talkativeness or something, is a socionics-related trait.

[Singu]

But we're identicals though, so how do you explain THAT. But isn't "opening up" just a matter of personal choice? Isn't it just a matter of trust, a matter of how comfortable you are with yourself, and others? Aren't most IEIs fairly "open", anyway?

How did this conversation come about from gulenko's erotic attitudes?

[EyeSeeCold]

But isn't "opening up" just a matter of personal choice? Isn't it just a matter of trust, a matter of how comfortable you are with yourself, and others?

Yes and the differences in these criteria are evident in types. leading is the most prone to resist an all out exposition.

[golden]

really? you don't think it's related to types? hmmm. not even tangentially?

Why do I get the sense that I'm supposed to step in and say something?

[redbaron]

Why do I get the sense that I'm supposed to step in and say something?

[golden]

The sidelines: a good place to be.

[Satan]

why do people keep bumping these old threads? it always ends up just tossing over the stale meat.