ESFP-SEE's Romantic/Erotic Behaviour

[Olimpia]

What on earth?

Could you please elaborate more on the relevancy of romantic/erotic behavior in terms of determining socionics type? Because your explanation lacks consistency that conveys the accuracy of determining type based on romantic/erotic behavior. I strongly believe that type should be determined based on Aushra Augusta's interpretation of Classical socionics, using Model A as a tool to organize the psyche better. Perhaps we can have a Socratic discussion so that I can better understand your interpretation of this type and learn about your methodologies when typing people. I would be very interested to hear your response.

I was not making a case on typing people based on Romance Styles.
But rather, what types will more often act rather "Top" or "Bottom", based on how Se is placed in their psyche.

Again, not a typing measure.
I am just using the Model A theory plus the Romance Style theory to explain why/how certain types are more likely going to act like a Top/Bottom in a sexual encounter.

Personally, I have noticed the trend of 1D Se types being across the board the most commonly "Bottom" in a sexual encounter, whereas types with strong Se typically aren't. That made me conclude that there is a connection between Se and Top/Bottom preference/behaviour. One might refute this assumption. Though I find it almost self-evident to assume 1D Se will be no Top (naturally), given Se ego types are "Aggressors" and with that the most "Top"-like anyhow... (with certain limitations which I've explained earlier, as in Gamma SF being slightly less aggressive aka more Switch-like, I quote: "In daily life they may tend to be rather submissive and as a result may tend to carry over these tendencies into their romantic life.")

I am not a Logical type, so my logical reasoning may not be too clear.

[666]

I was not making a case on typing people based on Romance Styles.
But rather, what types will more often act rather "Top" or "Bottom", based on how Se is placed in their psyche.

Again, not a typing measure.
I am just using the Model A theory plus the Romance Style theory to explain why/how certain types are more likely going to act like a Top/Bottom in a sexual encounter.

Personally, I have noticed the trend of 1D Se types being across the board the most commonly "Bottom" in a sexual encounter, whereas types with strong Se typically aren't. That made me conclude that there is a connection between Se and Top/Bottom preference/behaviour. One might refute this assumption. Though I find it almost self-evident to assume 1D Se will be no Top (naturally), given Se ego types are "Aggressors" and with that the most "Top"-like anyhow... (with certain limitations which I've explained earlier, as in Gamma SF being slightly less aggressive aka more Switch-like, I quote: "In daily life they may tend to be rather submissive and as a result may tend to carry over these tendencies into their romantic life.")

I am not a Logical type, so my logical reasoning may not be too clear.

I don't think dominance/submission has much to do with it

What I -think- Se base is like in bed.. (based mostly on theory and perhaps one person I knew) Si ignoring makes the person less frivolous, less lingering in touch (at least beforehand). Aside from maybe a traumatized individual, the person is not hiding what they want, though they are still irrational and prone to change in the midst of something (probably more true of SEE). They can be submissive or bottoms or anything, but physically they will tell you what to do (maybe using words or simply moving you around). They expect this behavior will end hesitation and would probably be confused or turned off if someone continued to act coy past a point. For me it works because I don't have to worry if I'm doing something wrong; they will simply adjust it without comment or reflection. Additionally, in my limited experience, they pursue their own pleasure and worry little about yours, which is perfect for me who feels awkward when asked how this feels or if I'm having fun, et cetera

(relevant: I think I'm ILI but I keep trying to strike a medium between the system and reality, which is stupid)

[Olimpia]

I don't think dominance/submission has much to do with it

What I -think- Se base is like in bed.. (based mostly on theory and perhaps one person I knew) Si ignoring makes the person less frivolous, less lingering in touch (at least beforehand). Aside from maybe a traumatized individual, the person is not hiding what they want, though they are still irrational and prone to change in the midst of something (probably more true of SEE). They can be submissive or bottoms or anything, but physically they will tell you what to do (maybe using words or simply moving you around). They expect this behavior will end hesitation and would probably be confused or turned off if someone continued to act coy past a point. For me it works because I don't have to worry if I'm doing something wrong; they will simply adjust it without comment or reflection. Additionally, in my limited experience, they pursue their own pleasure and worry little about yours, which is perfect for me who feels awkward when asked how this feels or if I'm having fun, et cetera

(relevant: I think I'm ILI but I keep trying to strike a medium between the system and reality, which is stupid)

It was some time ago I said this... sigh.

Yeah, I have also realized that not all ego types will be the "Top" in a sexual encounter.
Most females are stereotypically "Bottom", but as you said, the kind can be sort of "aggressive" when it comes to fulfilling their own desires and so forth, whereas ego types are more passive in comparison.

Female Gamma SFs are rarely "Tops" like I previously suggested, but they often have a "switch" attitude.
Same thing for female Beta STs.

It seems like women who are thoroughly "Tops" are rather rare, and it is usually tied to them being a BDSM practitioner/dominatrix (no pun intended ).
I get the impression that most Dominatrix women might be lead or some aggressive ESI-Se with a sadistic streak, but I am not really sure, so take this with a grain of salt.

Based on my observations, I'd suggest that male Beta STs are the most clearly and often the "Top", followed by male SEEs, male LSEs who make use of their Demonstrative , and some LIE-Te guys who are really in their Pseudo-Aggressor element and refuse to show any "Victim weakness".

I could try to come up with a ranking of "Tops" and "Bottoms", but that could be rather silly and weird, haha.

[marooned]

I don't think dominance/submission has much to do with it

What I -think- Se base is like in bed.. (based mostly on theory and perhaps one person I knew) Si ignoring makes the person less frivolous, less lingering in touch (at least beforehand). Aside from maybe a traumatized individual, the person is not hiding what they want, though they are still irrational and prone to change in the midst of something (probably more true of SEE). They can be submissive or bottoms or anything, but physically they will tell you what to do (maybe using words or simply moving you around). They expect this behavior will end hesitation and would probably be confused or turned off if someone continued to act coy past a point. For me it works because I don't have to worry if I'm doing something wrong; they will simply adjust it without comment or reflection. Additionally, in my limited experience, they pursue their own pleasure and worry little about yours, which is perfect for me who feels awkward when asked how this feels or if I'm having fun, et cetera

yes, i think what it is, is that Se lead especially often knows *what it wants* (in bed) and is able to pull that in reality through whatever means (depends on the individual); but it's usually through more physically impactful means - though it doesn't necessarily *have* to be. so if an Se lead wanted the "submissive position" they would make that clear to their partner (not to be confused with Te-i'm-going-to-direct-you - they just *make* *it* *happen* though they could use directions in doing that of course).

but in a way even though they are "submissive" (in this example scenario) they are still actually dominant because the partner has become a (willing) instrument of their will. this i think helps the partner feel more confident in the situation too (there is a stronger more physical will being provided by the aggressor, and it makes it easier to let go of one's physical inhibitions or begin working on letting go of them - but really what it's helping you let go of is your mind which is creating all the inhibitions). anything that might feel like failure is just absorbed by the aggressor's will--it doesn't stop channeling, it doesn't flounder and sputter out (of course the aggressor can change their mind, but that's obviously different). so even though the Se lead in this scenario is "bottom" they are still actually "top" beneath it all (they make their will happen).

this kind of thing was why i initially identified with victim/aggressor until i became so mentally ill and confused (and i've changed a fucking lot - i have changed so dramatically it's not healthy probably - whatever mangled form i have now, isn't a normal human form). when i was with the Ne dom i felt constantly under pressure about these things. sometimes i'd freeze in bed and cover my eyes until he forcibly removed my hands from my face. but he didn't like using his Se role. i just felt deeply inadequate. and i was *trying* - i really was. the whole relationship was plagued by feelings where i just am not enough.

SEE-Fi though i think *can* be quite anxious and unsure (depending again on the individual). so that's where i'm uncertain about this. and i also think that partners are not just always like perfect puzzle pieces fitting together. work has to be put in, on both ends.

but i still think something is wrong here. victim/aggressor and Ni/Se i don't think align perfectly. it's not some perfect match. i think it's possible to be victim/aggressor and *not* be Ni/Se. it's become recently apparent to me that i'm head triad. it's always been there; the evidence was always there... i just was uncertain. i don't let go of my mind, like ever. i rev up my thinking in response to all of life's difficulties. all of my physical inhibitions are because i can't let my mind go.

eta: also *anyone* can lack confidence. even Se lead. oh, and haha, to make this worse (more difficult to pin down). i think some victims (especially more experienced ones?) might want to make *their* will happen instead. the aggressor (depending on who they are) could willfully like going along with that (again, still absorbing failures without incident really). sex can be so intimate that i think once deeply connected enough, each partner can maybe become more of the other?

(i think the opportunity to resist/fight is part of this too... because the mind doesn't simply shut itself off on cue or something - it has its own will)

so really all of what i said is just mind vs. body.

[Olimpia]

yes, i think what it is, is that Se lead especially often knows *what it wants* (in bed) and is able to pull that in reality through whatever means (depends on the individual); but it's usually through more physically impactful means - though it doesn't necessarily *have* to be. so if an Se lead wanted the "submissive position" they would make that clear to their partner (not to be confused with Te-i'm-going-to-direct-you - they just *make* *it* *happen* though they could use directions in doing that of course).

but in a way even though they are "submissive" (in this example scenario) they are still actually dominant because the partner has become a (willing) instrument of their will. this i think helps the partner feel more confident in the situation too (there is a stronger more physical will being provided by the aggressor, and it makes it easier to let go of one's physical inhibitions or begin working on letting go of them - but really what it's helping you let go of is your mind which is creating all the inhibitions). anything that might feel like failure is just absorbed by the aggressor's will--it doesn't stop channeling, it doesn't flounder and sputter out (of course the aggressor can change their mind, but that's obviously different). so even though the Se lead in this scenario is "bottom" they are still actually "top" beneath it all (they make their will happen).

I believe this is a pretty good description of what an SEE can be like, especially if they are a Bottom female.

I wrote a blog entry on how each type is being a Top or Bottom.
This is what most female SEEs are like, based on my observations:

Prefers being the receiver in a sexual encounter, but is more proactive. They will not wait indefinitely like a Pure Bottom for someone to approach them and/or "do all the work", but more or less actively seek out someone who "will give it to them". The modern dating scene is ideal for Bottom leaning women. Many women of this disposition are promiscuous in their youth.

While most male SEEs are like this:

In-between the Hard and Soft Top, they lead and dominate their partner to the extent that is culturally expected by the man in a sexual encounter. This is the ideal sexual disposition for a man in most (heterosexual) women's eyes.

As you can see, lead does not always equal Top – mostly when it is female.
But they will be "Power Bottoms" (I have heard a gay guy use this term before, haha, for someone who is a Bottom but not that passive about it).

[Olimpia]

You know when you fuck around with top and bottom too much it makes you seem Se polr

Why? Because only Se PoLR people are obsessed with Top/Bottom stuff? ;p

[666]

Why? Because only Se PoLR people are obsessed with Top/Bottom stuff? ;p

No. If you read the romance styles article, it sounds like caring who has the power in a relationship should be purview of Se, so talking about it would be conscious Se, and talking about it at length while remaining utterly clueless and falsely attributing it to a physical process would be superego. I figured polr sounds nicer than role

[Olimpia]

No. If you read the romance styles article, it sounds like caring who has the power in a relationship should be purview of Se, so talking about it would be conscious Se, and talking about it at length while remaining utterly clueless and falsely attributing it to a physical process would be superego. I figured polr sounds nicer than role

Hm, what a convoluted way to suggest I am mistyped.
Your reasoning is a bit weird, suggesting Se Seeking cannot be aware of Se...
I mean, maybe, if they did not know about Socionics – but I do, so...

Your reluctance concerning observing power dynamics like I do makes me think you are likely not Se valuing.
So, it is odd people would type you as SEE on this forum.
But hey, many people on here cannot type too well. I have been typed as probably almost any type by now.