Is it type related?
Is it type related?
lol. not type related ime. not going into detail.
do you realize that these questions are likely to make people uncomfortable and that this may be a barrier to garnering responses? i also wonder about the importance of knowing whether this sort of thing is type-related or not considering it's not likely to be used as evidence in typing someone. you're looking for whether you should be open to dating ENFjs or not? maybe you should just ask the individual ENFj? (in a non-discomfort-generating manner, if possible.) i say this for one because i don't think it's type related and for two i don't see you making much headway with these polls. anyway, good luck.
This sort of question doesn't make me uncomfortable at all, although I doubt that comfort/discomfort with discussing sex is type-related.
I'm not sure that "soft versus grinding" is exactly a description I'd have settled upon. "Grinding"? Hm. Maybe I could describe this in my own way as light pressure versus strong pressure. That said ...
I find a lot of truth in the Gulenko erotic-attitudes stuff. Other people have said they don't. In my own case, it has taken me many years--and many opportunities to experience the difference between sweet/soft and harsh/difficult sex, with a loved partner--to be very clear about what I do and don't prefer.
With any partner, I want to experience a range of things physically. I appreciate variety and don't want sex to be the same every time. But without certain experiences, my sexual relations feel incomplete. I do not feel complete without "hard" sex or "rough" sex. I do not feel great about even simple holding and embracing if it isn't strong. A lot of force feels natural to me and makes me feel safe and awakened to my partner. It makes me feel desired and somehow understood.
Two hours of soft caresses would drive me up the wall. Just no! So if my partner's primary focus or need is for soft contact, I will be unhappy. I will feel a need to introduce more force but will probably not succeed, because if they're not already using strong force, it must not be what pleases them.
Now, is it type related? I can only say that my preferences do correspond almost exactly to the Gulenko descriptions. (There's more to my sex life, but I think that other stuff relates to the Gulenko material even though it gets into stuff that's too individual to be type-related.) Some other IEIs on this board have implied that they have somewhat similar preferences, or at least fantasies, to mine. That's all I know so far.
It would be helpful if people were more open about discussing sex, and I don't think it's a big deal to talk about it openly, but I understand that for many forum members it's tmi.
Edit: Is this in fact an indirect way of asking whether to get involved with an ENFj? I've been with both an ENFj and an INTj. Both were pretty good partners for me, far from the worst. With an ENFj I found that there was something common in how we moved, pace, ideas of what is or isn't a turn-on. With an INTj I actually was pretty happy at the time physically. Doesn't answer the question, but ... my response is "why not?"
i prefer not to talk about it openly, but i understand that some people find it important to talk about openly for purposes of being a more open society, not seeing it as "dirty," whatever, lol. (i'm sure everyone has their own reasons.) but i don't mind other people talking about it. i assumed the tmi issue was the reason for both this thread and tcaud's other thread going unanswered (until now, you're welcome, tcaud ).
i've felt kind of conflicted in that there have been times i've wanted to talk about it on here... because even though i sort of hesitate to talk about something i find so personal, i've also been really annoyed by the EII stereotypes. (this conflict coming forth in the "not going into detail har har" in my previous post.) i think the reason the sterotypes bother me so much is because they reflect the sort of things i've run into in real life, people telling me i "seem like a virgin" and stuff. ahahah.
so, uh, ya, i don't really relate to the stuff out there about EII's preferences. i relate to what they prefer romantically, but not when extrapolated to the sexual arena.
I wonder if the erotic-attitudes stuff just makes certain styles out to sound really wimpy. I mean, sex involves erectile tissue and (usually) penetration and whatnot, so it's not like just a big pile of cotton candy, no matter one's individual preferences.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is and not
but anyway. ya, no cotton candy thx.
I like soft sex.
I don't think sexual force/pleasure ratio is related to erotic attitude, but I do think it's related to quadra, with beta demanding the most force/freedom and alpha requesting the least. Seems like gamma would be the next most intense, with delta in between gamma and alpha.
Basically, the more valued the Se and Ti, the more forceful the sex, while the more valued the Si and Fe, the less forceful and the more emphasis there is on position as a means of stimulation. This gives you a 4-point spectrum between beta and alpha, with all members of a quadra being on the same point.
But any articles you guys can think of on the matter, please link.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-03-2011 at 02:35 AM.
In the book Socionics Demystified, both INFj and INTj are described as "late developers in life with regards to pleasure-seeking and dating." and both share a "closely guarded fear of intimacy and a similar attitude to living a healthy lifestyle". He goes on to relate these to Se PoLR (with Si hidden agenda). Although these seem a bit exaggerated they are probably the root of the "prude" sterotypes you are referring to. Just take solace in the fact that women are usually more well respected for having these characteristics.
That being said, the closest dichotomy I can see for soft vs rough sex would be Judicious vs Decisive. I agree Beta characterizes this best but that might be because Gamma doesn't talk about it as often
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
i shouldn't be using this thread to vent, lol. i present this link as an offering of general post goodwill:
Its hard to imagine this being type related....
Laghlagh that's awesome. Yes that is just the link I needed. Thank you.
Lucid both the exes I've had sex with meet the descriptions to a T. This is a type-relevant phenomena, and probably the main reason to at least date a dual or activity partner.
What's lacking is hard data about all the... 240 possible sexual relations between types (is that right?)
If anything about socionics would succeed over MBTI, it would be this. People would eat this stuff up and over the long term it would probably change our culture. Not radically but, you might see like different how-to guides about how to please partners of specific types.
Oh BTW: this article needs to be linked to on Wikisocion.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-03-2011 at 05:21 AM.
I don't know man, I'll be honest, my entire attitude to this is that instead of analyzing and compiling a how to guide on how to please certain types, I'd much rather explore having sex with different partners and see what the experience was like. However at that point, its hard to determine typing. I'm weary about solely trusting my typing skills, as in the following thought process.....
This person was type X --> I had sex with this person, it was like X ---> Therefore sex with type X is like X.
I'm uneasy about that because the whole notion of your results are completely dependent on your ability to correct discern that person's type.
It's a little different if you get the notion in two directions.....
Socionics theory claims X --> therefore logic should imply that X type like X in bed
and then stitch that together with the idea presented above about your personal experiences... so that the theory matches reality.
But the problems don't stop there. Because then you have to determine whether you're accurately consider erh um experimental error. The sex may have been bad so non type related issues.... it may have been bad or good for reasons outside of jungian functions. I'm not solely convinced that jungian functions can account for every little drop of human interaction.... sometimes I think it relates to deeper things.... like maybe poor timing. Maybe a relationship went bad because two people intersected at bad times in their life and say if they intersected at different times it wouldn't have gone bad, but great.... its hard to know stuff like that for sure, but needless to say its plausible. No one is going to except great sex from someone who is depressed because they lost their job and they are whoring themselves out as a prostitute.
Sure you may be duals, but really its not going to have that proper ambience or mood to really make that relationship take flight.... where as one could imagine if the person didn't loose their job and was working somewhere and meet them around town and cliched in a positive non-business way, that they could hit it off, move on to the sexual part of a relationship and then really enjoy each other.
Non of that has to do with jungian functions... it's experimental error in the same way that a lab technician experimenting around with electronics may get interference in signals from background noise and such.
Further because there are all these complex issues, there is a certain practical limit to which knowing stuff about sexual and type can really help you in life. There is no way your going to be able to extrapolate a quality theory directly from a simple two thread thought process like above... you need more than just the simple
experiment -> theory
theory -> experiment
you need to understand the environment in which things take place.... that environment for people is life at large.... you have to understand life and the deeper implications behind sex and relationships and existence if your going to make a perfectly accurate model.
Unfortunately life is too big, and you can only go one way with life and that is experiment -> theory. And that means living life, and having experiences.....
When I say its hard to imagine it being type related this is what I mean, I mean it at this deep level. As in what is the domain to which socionics is useful in life. I don't think its useful enough to write a manual that if you were to follow the directions, you'd be garenteed a perfect bedroom experience or that if you select this person of this type, you'll be garenteed a perfect bedroom experience.
So since that can't be accomplished what remains as the use in analyzing types and sexual styles? I don't know, I'm sure there is one, but it would have to be taken with a huge grain of salt as to its accuracy and scope of use and relevancy.
I find its better to work from experience and observation and tie that into understanding the theory better, making sure that the stuff you tie in can be established from the reverse perspective too (founded on some theoretical principles).
And personally I'm not lying, I'm having a hard time imagining how one could successfully establish a good theory or system of understanding sexuality. And secondarily why its important, beyond the more practical goal of just shooting the breeze and talking about sexual experiences, which by the way doesn't need socionics to do so.
It wouldn't be any worse than what's already being tried.
Man back in 2006 talk of this type was par for the course. I remember Herzy put a squirting penis icon in her sig. Of course in 2008 it all changed along with the great purge....
But Lucid do you think "shooting the breeze" is common except between close friends?
In fact I look at shooting the breeze as a purposeful exercise to kind of explore the other person in a conversational way, like seeing if you two can collectively drive the conversation into something deep and meaningful.
In order to do this with complete strangers you have to learn how to pick up on the way they express themselves on the surface.... like say someone may talk like a dude-bro but deeper they have a consciousness that is unpresented to you, they may not be aware of it themselves.... and other people may talk like a stereotypical black man to fit in, but deeper they also have a consciousness that is unpresented to you that they are aware of, like a narrator in the back of there head.... being able to communicate at this level is hard to maintain because it requires more intimacy but a very fun and challenging endeavor for the conversationalists to try to navigate their conversations into this territory.
Last edited by male; 01-03-2011 at 06:33 AM.
Soft sex usually = boring. If it's with someone you actually care about, soft sex can be great and at times, better than the rougher stuff but in general, you can't go wrong with rough sex. I mean really. But, if I were having nothing but rough sex with someone I loved, I'd be concerned. You have to throw those 'soft' moments to balance it out to show you care and to not make the other person feel like a cheap hooker.
It's hard to say. I like medium-firm pleasure though, I suppose. When I'm with hard guys I want them to be softer/nicer and when I'm with soft guys I want them to be harder, so I think I prefer the happy medium. Or like Goldilocks and finding a porridge and bed that is just right instead too hot/cold or too hard/soft.
A lot of men are hot and cold. When they're emotional, they're such wimps like these emo pathetic things that can't do anything or take any action in life - and when they're 'hot' it's like they want to literally destroy you while fucking you. It's just can't you be warm dude? Jeesh.
It's really nothing you can put a pretty bow on. Sometimes I want to be used like a whore, I literally want a guy to make me puke with his cock. Even make me pass out... because eroticism is sort of on the brink of death like that. But then I want to be held like a fag and say how important I am, and be touched softly. Ideally I'd prefer to be roughed and then touched softly and romantically. But I've yet to meet a guy that can do that. Either they want some Nickelodeon relationship or they want to just treat me like a whore and nothing else. They don't even like or respect me at all. And if they do like or respect me, they can't throat fuck me very good. That's what annoys me. Like don't think love has to take away from treating me like a slut. (and vice-versa)
Yeah I want medium pleasure/pressure. What's wrong with that? I mean come on. It doesn't have to be SOFT or HARD as if those were the only two choices in life. Somewhere in the middle is what I want, definitely.
n0ki: If it weren't for faggy civilization, people like me and bnd would be totally dead by now.
Rough is better, but not always I mean I was with this guy that was rough. But he wasn't 'rough' so much as nasty. All of a sudden he wanted me to eat his shit.
I got up and left and said 'Dude lol, I'm not gonna eat your shit. Sorry bye.'
LOL guys are so weird. Like wtf. You just turn around and start defecating and then order me to eat it. Uh....no. That isn't 'rough' that's just pathetic.
I can't imagine a woman doing that, but I'm not really sexually into women of course.
I actually want a guy that's more girly and 'respectable' but still masculine and attractive. That still does 'shocking masculine' things like that but not so shitty and nasty.
It's the right recipe that works for the individual.
n0ki: If it weren't for faggy civilization, people like me and bnd would be totally dead by now.
Yeah be careful, don't want to wake up in the morning shit faced.
I think I'm gonna link to this thread on my OKCupid journal.
Nah, I'll just link to the article.
That's a great way to get people to delete their posts
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Example of soft:
Example of hard:
DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Hard is good.
Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.
Everybody likes variety.
yes. and you can have really good sex with someone who's not your dual.
Sure, everyone likes variety, although ... no, they don't, lol. Some people are sexually repetitive to me, so maybe variety itself gets defined differently.
And obviously sex is often more than purely physical, so the erotic-styles idea really only tells me that the physical is an expression of something deeper.
Within different partnerings I've played different roles, but what do I find most comforting and exciting (both at once) in a long-term relationship? And what do I miss if the partner is unable to provide it?