Ni/Se erotic attitudes

[Joy]

The victim romantic style is widely misunderstood, partly because of it's name. The extrovert in a relationship is the initiator and the one who sets the pace.

ENxj and ISxj: The ENxj sets things up the way (s)he wants them to play out, and the ISxj responds to the ENxj's cues, doing what the ENxj wants when the ENxj wants him/her to do it (just in terms of hooking up, not in day to day stuff). The ENxj likes the ISxj not only because (s)he responds to cues promptly (EJ's are impatient), but also stands up to the ENxj. ENxj's are intense people and need to be with someone who's strong enough to comfortably handle them. They need to feel as though they've "met their match" in terms of strength of will.

ESxp and INxp: The ESxp rapes the INxp and claims the INxp as his/her own. As far as I know, this is the only way to get with an INxp. (Feel free to expand upon or correct this description.)

[marooned]

ESxp and INxp: The ESxp rapes the INxp and claims the INxp as his/her own. As far as I know, this is the only way to get with an INxp. (Feel free to expand upon or correct this description.)

Thank you. That was special.

The victim romantic style is widely misunderstood, partly because of its name.

But not for ESXps and INXps, clearly. (See above.)

[Joy]

I asked for help with it, didn't I?

[marooned]

I hate to feed the misconception, but I don't think I'd mind if someone I wanted to be with anyway "raped" me and claimed me as his own - this could only create a feeling of security in our relationship. Sorry, I'm of no help. I admit it.

[Blaze]

I think the erotic attitudes greatly overstate the case. You're grasping at straws.

Anyway, the ethical type usually has a firmer grasp on the relationship between duals of any type, IME.

i agree that ethicals have a firmer grasp. although the extravert partner may initiate, the introvert may always decline or drag their feet, and in this way express control. it's more of a balancing act between the partners in duality, semi-duality, and illusionary, than it is a leader-follower type of dynamic. each partner will have areas in which they take the lead. ethicals i think will naturally be more attuned to the workings of the relationship, sex...while logicians will have more of a handle on things like money.

of course, gender dynamics have an influence as well, but psychologically speaking, ethicals are in better control of data about the relationship.

i am not sure that INP's need to always be "raped" either. i know at least one male IEI who doesn't fit that mold very well. perhaps females are more likely to want this due in part to cultural stereotyping?

[Joy]

I would tend to think that the ethical type is the one who's responsible for understanding how close the relationship is. Ethics vs. Logic is a different matter though.

[Joy]

A leader is not the same thing as an initiator.

[Blaze]

I would tend to think that the ethical type is the one who's responsible for understanding how close the relationship is. Ethics vs. Logic is a different matter though.

possibly, esp for Fi ego types.

[Blaze]

A leader is not the same thing as an initiator.

initiating is one aspect of leadership. but what is the person initiating exactly? i think each partner will initiate different things and in different areas. it's all part of the essential negotiation of roles and expectations that takes place in the first couple of years of a close relationship.

[Animal]

A leader is not the same thing as an initiator.

Fair enough. Does it help you to think of your relationships in that way, Joy?

No matter how much I play around with these concepts, the erotic attitudes don't offer me any insight into my relationships at all. They don't help me understand myself or other people. And thinking about my relationships this way seems clumsy and monochromatic. In order to actually see this particular dynamic at work, you have to selectively choose to ignore about 90% of your entire relationship and then cerebralize the remaining 10% to get within the ballpark. Gulenko was a fucktard.

[FDG]

Fair enough. Does it help you to think of your relationships in that way, Joy?

No matter how much I play around with these concepts, the erotic attitudes don't offer me any insight into my relationships at all. They don't help me understand myself or other people. And thinking about my relationships this way seems clumsy and monochromatic.

Most definitely.

And I do not need a partner that can "stand" me. I never related to this part of Joy's descriptions. I am generally fair and mean well, the very rare moments in which I lose control the last thing I need is somebody that will try to stand up to me.

[Joy]

Fair enough. Does it help you to think of your relationships in that way, Joy?

No matter how much I play around with these concepts, the erotic attitudes don't offer me any insight into my relationships at all. They don't help me understand myself or other people. And thinking about my relationships this way seems clumsy and monochromatic. In order to actually see this particular dynamic at work, you have to selectively choose to ignore about 90% of your entire relationship and then cerebralize the remaining 10% to get within the ballpark. Gulenko was a fucktard.

It's about the way a relationship starts, imo, more so than the relationship itself (except for the Si caregiver thing, I think that's more of a life attitude than erotic attitude for most of them). And yes, it makes sense to me. And no, I don't have to ignore anything in order for it to work.

[Blaze]

Fair enough. Does it help you to think of your relationships in that way, Joy?

No matter how much I play around with these concepts, the erotic attitudes don't offer me any insight into my relationships at all. They don't help me understand myself or other people. And thinking about my relationships this way seems clumsy and monochromatic. In order to actually see this particular dynamic at work, you have to selectively choose to ignore about 90% of your entire relationship and then cerebralize the remaining 10% to get within the ballpark. Gulenko was a fucktard.

i agree. the best application for myself that i can come up with is something like:

if my partner is "too aggressive" "too passive" or "not emotional enough" or "too boring"

so it's what isn't attractive rather than what is. or something like that.

hell, i know a good fuck when i feel it.

[marooned]

I thought the "erotic roles" were sort of like a deep, but very slight, subconscious, natural inclination. Putting them into words makes them more than what they are, placing more importance upon them than they actually hold. And so, in words, they can really only be said rather lightly or playfully... In the context of actual reality, they take on a severity that they don't hold. I think it's difficult to discuss them.

I mean if it's serious and severe that doesn't work... because it is human nature to want to be free to follow ones own will or desires... any relationship that is all screwed up and denies either person to do this, is unhealthy, and creates suffering. People have to be free.

As for ESXp-INXp and ENXj-ISXj dualities... I think I agree that the ethical type in the pair will have a better command on the relationship in general... And also that the type will be doing things (intentional or otherwise) to guide the course of the relationship. So it might for instance appear that the ESXp is "in charge," but s/he isn't really, it's just that his/her will may be easier to see on the surface, and may be more visible. But no one is really in charge, and both parties know it... or there could be an exchange of initiating in certain realms... in any case it should flow naturally as it does in any interaction... Unless of course the relationship is twisted and/or unequal on its own merits (in which case that just means it's not a very healthy relationship).

There, I've tried to be more serious. Feel free to crucify me.

[marooned]

So you seduced me into seducing you?

'xactly.

[Logos]

The victim romantic style is widely misunderstood, partly because of it's name. The extrovert in a relationship is the initiator and the one who sets the pace.

ENxj and ISxj: The ENxj sets things up the way (s)he wants them to play out, and the ISxj responds to the ENxj's cues, doing what the ENxj wants when the ENxj wants him/her to do it (just in terms of hooking up, not in day to day stuff). The ENxj likes the ISxj not only because (s)he responds to cues promptly (EJ's are impatient), but also stands up to the ENxj. ENxj's are intense people and need to be with someone who's strong enough to comfortably handle them. They need to feel as though they've "met their match" in terms of strength of will.

ESxp and INxp: The ESxp rapes the INxp and claims the INxp as his/her own. As far as I know, this is the only way to get with an INxp. (Feel free to expand upon or correct this description.)

Not to sidetrack, but if you think that the victim romantic style is misunderstood, try being part of the caregiver/infantile dichotomy where you are being accused of either being babied or babying others.

[Joy]

Not to sidetrack, but if you think that the victim romantic style is misunderstood, try being part of the caregiver/infantile dichotomy where you are being accused of either being babied or babying others.

I know a few Si and Ne creative types pretty well, so it's easy for me to understand it. I posted a topic a while back in Delta about an EII/LSE story that I think illustrates at least the Si aspect of it pretty well. But I can see where you're coming from. "Infantile" and "caregiver" don't sound like very attractive roles, either. I think "aggressor" is probably the only one that doesn't sound bad, come to think of it.

[BLauritson]

Hmm.. this thread's been making me think back on a long-distance relationship (if you can call it that) that I had with an SEE girl about half a year ago. Basically we'd met over a dating website and she'd been the one to approach me. I wouldn't put too much weight on that particular fact because she probably had a wider reach of profiles to view - I was only searching for local profiles, yet we were about 160 miles away from eachother. Anyway, from what I can remember looking back on it, she was always the one making the first move in any steps of the relationship. From what I can remember, any time she was going to say or do anything to.. not really sure how to describe it without going into too much detail, but any time she did anything to advance the relationship, so to speak, I'd usually respond.. I suppose almost agreeing to it in a way. Not in the sense of "Let's do this!" "Oh yes, I agree, jolly good show ol' chap" but I'd respond.. almost echoing her advance. I don't know whether this is due to Ni-ego vs. Se-ego or Tx-ego vs. Fx-ego but she was always the one to push things forward. I'm trying to think of an example to help clarify what I mean, although obviously I don't want to get too personal about it . OK, it was the first day in which we'd started communicating and about mid-way through the conversation, she'd said something like "I'm sorry, but I think you're really attractive" or something along those lines. Which, looking back on it, pushed the relationship stage from generic acquaintance to potential romance. I responded by saying something like "I have to admit I think you're rather cute also". Again, those probably weren't the exact words but it was words to that effect. I know it's probably quite a universal example, but it was that sort of dynamic that characterised all stages of the relationship - i.e. she'd say or do something that was one step ahead of where we were currently, and I'd respond by doing the same thing. In some cases, I'd already decided in my head that I wanted the relationship to move to the next stage, but I was afraid to say or do anything on my own initiative because I wasn't confident that she felt the same. But once I had that assurance, whether it was through explicit speech or something more subtle, I then felt comfortable to respond likewise. Does that make sense at all? Based on how little I actually understand the erotic attitudes (even if the original writings are now being discredited by the more knowledgeable members of this forum) I think that's a basic overview of how the Ni-Se dynamic in relationships works. And, despite what the name "erotic attitudes" might imply, this dynamic doesn't just relate to physical sex but to the relationship in general. And it's generally a subtle manifestation, not an overt one. Assuming I understand it correctly that is. Feel free to print out this post and use it as bog roll if you so strongly disagree.

[Joy]

Hmm.. this thread's been making me think back on a long-distance relationship (if you can call it that) that I had with an SEE girl about half a year ago. Basically we'd met over a dating website and she'd been the one to approach me. I wouldn't put too much weight on that particular fact because she probably had a wider reach of profiles to view - I was only searching for local profiles, yet we were about 160 miles away from eachother. Anyway, from what I can remember looking back on it, she was always the one making the first move in any steps of the relationship. From what I can remember, any time she was going to say or do anything to.. not really sure how to describe it without going into too much detail, but any time she did anything to advance the relationship, so to speak, I'd usually respond.. I suppose almost agreeing to it in a way. Not in the sense of "Let's do this!" "Oh yes, I agree, jolly good show ol' chap" but I'd respond.. almost echoing her advance. I don't know whether this is due to Ni-ego vs. Se-ego or Tx-ego vs. Fx-ego but she was always the one to push things forward. I'm trying to think of an example to help clarify what I mean, although obviously I don't want to get too personal about it . OK, it was the first day in which we'd started communicating and about mid-way through the conversation, she'd said something like "I'm sorry, but I think you're really attractive" or something along those lines. Which, looking back on it, pushed the relationship stage from generic acquaintance to potential romance. I responded by saying something like "I have to admit I think you're rather cute also". Again, those probably weren't the exact words but it was words to that effect. I know it's probably quite a universal example, but it was that sort of dynamic that characterised all stages of the relationship - i.e. she'd say or do something that was one step ahead of where we were currently, and I'd respond by doing the same thing. In some cases, I'd already decided in my head that I wanted the relationship to move to the next stage, but I was afraid to say or do anything on my own initiative because I wasn't confident that she felt the same. But once I had that assurance, whether it was through explicit speech or something more subtle, I then felt comfortable to respond likewise. Does that make sense at all? Based on how little I actually understand the erotic attitudes (even if the original writings are now being discredited by the more knowledgeable members of this forum) I think that's a basic overview of how the Ni-Se dynamic in relationships works. And, despite what the name "erotic attitudes" might imply, this dynamic doesn't just relate to physical sex but to the relationship in general. And it's generally a subtle manifestation, not an overt one. Assuming I understand it correctly that is. Feel free to print out this post and use it as bog roll if you so strongly disagree.

I see most of what you said here as more of an extrovert vs. introvert thing, and it's what I was getting at when I said that the extrovert is the initiator. SEE/ILI duality is probably one of the strongest cases of one dual making everything in the relationship happen because SEE's are ethical, Se, and extroverts all at once (and at the same time, the ILI is logical, Ni, and an introvert). SLE/IEI duality is probably the second strongest case, but since the Ni introvert is also the ethical person, more of the responsibility falls on his/her shoulders.

Here's an example. Let's say it's a couple's first kiss, and the one who's an extrovert is also a Ni type: The ENxj sets things up for the kiss to occur, and may even lean in for it, but the ISxj is the one who actually physically makes it happen.

If the extrovert were a Se type, it would be more likely that they'd have to initiate the kiss and actually physically make it happen as well. If the Se extrovert is logical, (s)he would likely need the right type of reassurance and encouragement (Fe) from the ethical Ni introvert in order to feel comfortable moving forward, but in SEE/ILI duality, the SEE holds all the cards, so to speak.

Obviously it wouldn't have to happen that exact way every single time, but it's just an example of how being the initiator and being the aggressor (and providing the ethical support in a relationship) may or may not fall to the same person.

[Joy]

Alright, let me do my best to explain it:

If I say or do something and an IEI I'm interacting with responds favorably, I know I'm on the right track for whatever it is I'm doing. That makes me happy and secure in that the things I'm doing won't impact me in a crappy way that I didn't think of.

That seems quite simple, but it's actually very subtle and real when it's happening to me.

Makes sense.

[liveandletlive]

I see most of what you said here as more of an extrovert vs. introvert thing, and it's what I was getting at when I said that the extrovert is the initiator. SEE/ILI duality is probably one of the strongest cases of one dual making everything in the relationship happen because SEE's are ethical, Se, and extroverts all at once (and at the same time, the ILI is logical, Ni, and an introvert). SLE/IEI duality is probably the second strongest case, but since the Ni introvert is also the ethical person, more of the responsibility falls on his/her shoulders.

Here's an example. Let's say it's a couple's first kiss, and the one who's an extrovert is also a Ni type: The ENxj sets things up for the kiss to occur, and may even lean in for it, but the ISxj is the one who actually physically makes it happen.

If the extrovert were a Se type, it would be more likely that they'd have to initiate the kiss and actually physically make it happen as well. If the Se extrovert is logical, (s)he would likely need the right type of reassurance and encouragement (Fe) from the ethical Ni introvert in order to feel comfortable moving forward, but in SEE/ILI duality, the SEE holds all the cards, so to speak.

Obviously it wouldn't have to happen that exact way every single time, but it's just an example of how being the initiator and being the aggressor (and providing the ethical support in a relationship) may or may not fall to the same person.

i definitely thinks that makes sense. it's actually funny that you made this thread because i was thinking for a while now about making an aggressor bitch thread cuz sumtimes it's fucking tiring- just give it up already! i gotta do a song and a dance to get nething out of u damn s! gahhh i wouldn't have it any other way though- i hate how much i love you all

[strrrng]

ESxp and INxp: The ESxp rapes the INxp and claims the INxp as his/her own. As far as I know, this is the only way to get with an INxp. (Feel free to expand upon or correct this description.)

This is the most accurate piece of socionics information I have ever read.

[Satan]

Me: What happened?
Girl: I think you seduced me.
Me: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to.
Girl: Oh, no! It's ok. I think I wanted you to seduce me.
Me: So you seduced me into seducing you?
Girl: Haha. Probably.
Me: You're evil!
Girl: Haha. I am.
Me: Well, as long as we agree that I'm innocent.
Girl: Always.

Yes. It was quite clear who the victim was. She made me do it. And she even gave testimony to the fact:

"I saw the way you looked at people. Your eyes were so intense. I wondered what it would be like if you looked at me that way. And then you did. It was not what I expected. It was like you could see everything; even the darkest corners of my mind. I was afraid that you might not like what you saw. And then you smiled. I wondered what it would be like if you kissed me. And then you did."

Why do you need to be innocent?

See. If she didn't want me to kiss her, then I wouldn't have felt compelled to kiss her. Do I really look like the kind of guy who runs around kissing girls he doesn't know? She should

On that note, I kiss girls I don't know. And I don't think I really look like the kind of guy that does? Sometimes it's just like you said. You feel compelled to.

have wanted verbal contact first, and then physical contact. And she should have at least waited until after our first date before wanting me to kiss her. What kind of girl fantasizes about being kissed by a guy she doesn't even know? That girl had some serious impulse control problems.

<sniff> I feel so dirty.

I've kissed girls on first interaction.

Some girls are easy. Get used to it.

That said girls I kiss when I first meet, often fade into the background soon afterwards.

Actually, that's kind of a lie; it's infrequent for me to kiss a girl. It's mostly girls kissing me. I may kiss on forehead or something first though.

[Satan]

This is the most accurate piece of socionics information I have ever read.

Maybe Joy knows something after all! Although, I'm sure I've heard that thrown around many times before. She's just picking it up and putting it out there! GO TE!!!

[strrrng]

Maybe Joy knows something after all! Although, I'm sure I've heard that thrown around many times before. She's just picking it up and putting it out there! GO TE!!!

her statement coincided with the innumerous beta rapes I have experienced

[Satan]

her statement coincided with the innumerous beta rapes I have experienced

Well, whatever gets you off.

[strrrng]

Well, whatever gets you off.

it was actually quite disturbing