Is it just me

[Creepy-male]

or do the sexual types seem fucked up?

Infantile-Caregiver

and

Aggressor-Victim

Its like socionics is saying you can either have a sexual relationship that is BDSM or one that is baby-parent fetish.

I mean is it possible that people just have normal sexual relationships?

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

it's all about polarization.since it's everywhere, will eliminating it from socionics save our souls?

[Suz]

i just thought of it allegorically, like some people just love to care for people, some people just need to be cared for or looked after (say because they're clumsier, scattered, and have a lot on their minds all the time). some people like a more aggressive approach to love, and some people tend to be more aggressive in love and romance.


Those terms dont need to represent the most extreme sense of them. I also think that these romantic approaches tend to permeate one's regular behavior too (even though some say not).

[Slacker]

Like many dichotomies, the names are misleading. But there's truth to it. Just don't take it too literally.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Some of the titles here remain on the silly side but these descriptions seem more true-to-life.

[ashlesha]

i'd rather not think about them and just see Se ego, Ne ego, etc...i can see where they come from but all the weird connotations that have been attached because of the names are stupid and embarrassing. i think knowing the functions is good enough.

[Suz]

i'd rather not think about them and just see Se ego, Ne ego, etc...i can see where they come from but all the weird connotations that have been attached because of the names are stupid and embarrassing. i think knowing the functions is good enough.

yeah, agree.

[Suz]

Some of the titles here remain on the silly side but these descriptions seem more true-to-life.

I actually dont like those either...

[FDG]

Slater has created an addendum which allows for rational function in relationships / sexual styles. If you unite the two (check out his blog), you get something more balanced rather than those weird representations of careful-infantile-aggressor-victim.

[Jarno]

or do the sexual types seem fucked up?

Infantile-Caregiver

and

Aggressor-Victim

Its like socionics is saying you can either have a sexual relationship that is BDSM or one that is baby-parent fetish.

I mean is it possible that people just have normal sexual relationships?

No you are right. Agressor means they will bring a knife, and victim means you will end up dialing 911. That's exactly how you should interpretate this stuff.

[Creepy-male]

ftr this isn't a topic where I refute socionics, I'm just interesting in what you think about them.

[Jarno]

ftr this isn't a topic where I refute socionics, I'm just interesting in what you think about them.

I think the descriptions are correct. Though they not only point towards attitude during sex.

Agressors are people who feel they need to be strong. Victims are people who have a high regard for strong people, who need strong people to 'protect' them.

Infantile can be very childish in their thinking and planning, sort of naive, and demanding. The caregiver is the one who can provide their demandings.

It's quite easely to see how this would fit into certain roles in a relationship. But you have to have some experience with the different relationships, to actually get a feeling for how the descriptions are to be interpretated.

[ashlesha]

does infantile get the short end of the stick or is that just my bias?

[FDG]

I think the descriptions are correct. Though they not only point towards attitude during sex.
ì

Actually my personal opinion is exactly the opposite: they only point towards attitude during sex. In any real-life dealings the rational function becomes much more important, especially for EJ and IJ types.

[ashlesha]

i'm so cute and innocent oh no my pants just fell down teehee!

[The Ineffable]

Its like socionics is saying you can either have a sexual relationship that is BDSM or one that is baby-parent fetish.

I mean is it possible that people just have normal sexual relationships?

I think fetishes of any kind - additional message, meaning - are rather Ni/Se. On a related note, think about the Playboy bunnies, do they seem Alpha/Delta to you?

I have the feeling that what you call "normal" relationships is more on the Ne/Si side. With this "normal" I'm rather thinking of "nature/simplicity", because many kinds of sexual relationships may be considered normal, though having additional elements - eg the ones which involve religion, officiality, recognition, tradition. It's one thing to be a missionary (instead of X difficult position) in your bed (instead of the elevator), because you have no idea/don't care of/prefer it over something else, and to be one because in your opinion this is what's supposed to be.
These things depend on one culture, too.

All in all though, the romance styles are not necessarily related to the sexual intercourse itself, IMO.

Like many dichotomies, the names are misleading. But there's truth to it. Just don't take it too literally.

My thoughts. Caregiver/Infantile for example is IMO not about a conscious such attitude towards each other. Si types are anyway concerned about immediate necessities, for themselves too. Infantiles are simply not inherently concerned about being taken cared of, they tend to prioritize their hobbies and mental activities in detriment to physical or household needs. So when you look from a 3rd party perspective, they appear as if the Si type is taking care of the Ne type, however they have not necessarily such intentions, they do their usual activities. I know both Caregivers and Infantiles who live alone and have no problem with that.

For an SXE, Ne would be the intrusive function (aggressor of Se), Ni would feel relaxing (caregiving), and Si-types are seemingly victims for liking that annoying Ne.

LOL! I think I understand what you mean. In fact Ne is felt kinda aggressive/demanding/whiny (although understandable and acceptable) by other Ne as well - and I can tell this from my experience, too.

[EyeSeeCold]

i'm so cute and innocent oh no my pants just fell down teehee!

I think fetishes of any kind - additional message, meaning - are rather Ni/Se. On a related note, think about the Playboy bunnies, do they seem Alpha/Delta to you?

I have the feeling that what you call "normal" relationships is more on the Ne/Si side.

I see where you're coming from, but you missed by a long shot.



Taking the highly theoretical, extremely functional approach as you:
Se/Ni, especially paired with Fe/Ti, would have more pronounced fetishes, and because of that they tend to be the fetishes that are common in society.

Ne/Si, especially paired with Te/Fi, would have more subdued fetishes, and because of that they tend to be the fetishes that are socially deviant, and not just because they are fetishes in the first place.

[The Ineffable]

Ne/Si, especially paired with Te/Fi, would have more subdued fetishes, and because of that they tend to be the fetishes that are socially deviant, and not just because they are fetishes in the first place.

I disagree. In fact most Deltas I know who touched the matter are vocal against sexual deviance.

[EyeSeeCold]

I disagree. In fact most Deltas I know who touched the matter are vocal against sexual deviance.

Keyword: *SUBDUED*

Fe/Ti vs Te/Fi...or expressing yourself as an individual(but conforming internally) vs conforming on the outside(but being an individualist internally)

Expect Deltas to be the most quiet about their sexual nature(although, all that repression has to manifest somehow, right?), while Betas being the flip.

[Galen]

[them]

ive always ignored this erotic attitudes stuff.

[anndelise]

Yep.

[ashlesha]

lmao i like where this thread is going

[Slacker]

I guess I'm not sure by the specific parameters of your definition of "sexual deviance", but I'm going to say NTR regardless.

[Marie84]

Its like socionics is saying you can either have a sexual relationship that is BDSM or one that is baby-parent fetish.

I mean is it possible that people just have normal sexual relationships?

If just looking at the labels it's going to sound odd, but it's just describing the basics behind / and / dynamics with rather uninviting titles

does infantile get the short end of the stick or is that just my bias?

idk, I guess they can all sound equally offensive. Though I think Caregivers got the better end of this with the worst criticism being that "they're boring"

[Aiss]

I thought this thread couldn't possibly get worse after pathetic drama-stirring attempt of the OP, but somehow, it still did.

You know those names aren't meant to be taken literally. OP knows it. No n00bs on the horizon. It's been discussed here more times than it's worth. Get over it.

[Birdie]

If you think about it, you'll see the rationale.

I promise it's there (:

[Jarno]

Actually my personal opinion is exactly the opposite: they only point towards attitude during sex. In any real-life dealings the rational function becomes much more important, especially for EJ and IJ types.

ah yes, i can see what you mean.

the irrational functions are less important in real life yes.

[The Ineffable]

You know those names aren't meant to be taken literally. OP knows it. No n00bs on the horizon. It's been discussed here more times than it's worth. Get over it.

Human creativity is endless, though.

the irrational functions are less important in real life yes.

I think he means conscious attitude, reasoning, decision-making. I think though that Irrational functions are pretty visible in daily life, though not so easy to put one's finger on.

[Slacker]

I don't agree that my irrational function is less important in my daily life than my rational function.

[FDG]

Err I meant "compared to how much important it can be during sexual encouters", thus relatively speaking, not in absolute terms. Probably for rational types this difference is even more emphasized.

Basically, given that sex is a very "sensing" activity, and sensing functions are always irrational, our perceiving side of the psyche will be relatively more emphasized during sex wrt our whole set of human behaviors.

[Slacker]

I really think our whole romantic relationship is basically an Ne and Si relationship. Not exclusively, but the "caregiver/infantile" thing, as much as I'm not a fan of the name, works for us overall.

Maybe this is different for rational couples vs. irrational couples.

[Creepy-male]

Ok so it is just me,

later

[Jenna]

It's seen from a Ne perspective. Si-types "caregive" Ne-types (relax their Ne), Se-types ruin (aggress) their Ne-flow and Ni-types seem weird for liking Se-types (seemingly victims).

For an SXE, Ne would be the intrusive function (aggressor of Se), Ni would feel relaxing (caregiving), and Si-types are seemingly victims for liking that annoying Ne.

etc. etc. for the other types and u can make a ring of it if you want, just make general names for it (names that will fit any function). As in "ds-function/HA" for "caregiver"-functions, etc........

(You can probably argue that it's only the extraverted functions that are aggressive/infantile and the introverted functions are the caregiving/victim functions, but hey we have both in our ego, so doesn't really change much.)

Ime, the descriptions are pretty accurate, anyway.

omg omg omg it's ananke! Female rape. Why did I get so happy. Is that awkward. /shrug. Anyways I haven't read the rest of the thread yet. I got too excited.

[The Ineffable]

omg omg omg it's ananke! Female rape. Why did I get so happy. Is that awkward. /shrug.

Perhaps because you're EIE.

[Jenna]

Perhaps because you're EIE.

Lmao.

[The Ineffable]

Lmao.

That actually meant Fe-Base in a less disturbing manner