.
Which types tend to get laid?
.
Last edited by suedehead; 04-08-2016 at 04:27 PM.
All women types
This is definitely not type related.
Everything interests me but nothing holds me.
my EII sx/so ex (whose pic everyone had the pleasure) would get more women (students included) than many SLEs kinda anytime.....if he wanted to.
Your can do attitude will fit in right in to PUA, or have given up on that already?
Just one of unlimited number of people you parade your pathetic little hateful self in front of.Originally Posted by suedehead
Get over your pride, and get medicated. You are not doing ok/thinking right.
what a weird thread
I agree with you, I don't see SLI in there though, not ILE either. And add all gammas besides ILI. And IEI is on the borderline.
but it's the fact that you're so curious that makes it weird. What could you possibly do with that info?
It seems you know that it's really not type related, but you'd like it to be so you just assume it to be in the question. The presupposition is just an excuse for your own mentality.
You're one ESI. When I think of the type of people that get laid often, ESI fits the bill.
For who? You?
Would you prefer that it wasn't?
I'm pretty sure stiff and serious people have sex too. Whether you're having sex or not is pretty much just a function of your standards.
Sex is a personal preference not a personality preference hombre.
SO many things effect sex and one's sex drive; specifically your hormones and chemical levels within your body. Not your socionics type.
Everything interests me but nothing holds me.
I think you could find a correlation, but its clearly not a causation. Se types are naturally inclined to pursue, and the act of being vulnerable and possibly being rejected is something not everyone is willing to do. So that inclination is good for getting laid. Everyone would like to have a perfect bombshell do all the work for you in order to connect with another person, even if only just sexually. But that doesnt really happen, so the peoole who dont pursue ever end up with a non bombshell who pursued them. Just the act of going out of your way to show your interest in someone is tremendously helpful.
Being happy is another matter. But just sex? Yeah just risk the shame of being rejected. Problem solved.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Really because when men are 'merry' I generally tend to think they are the next god damn Ted Bundy and my ass is going to end up murdered.
#ThanksNoThanks
Everything interests me but nothing holds me.
I find this post constructive but cannot mark it as constructive (wtf) so I am just going to do this awkward thing and say it.
Everything interests me but nothing holds me.
Oh. I did not know my experiences and opinions were invalid because I was female. I forgot this was 1598.
Everything interests me but nothing holds me.
if you appeal to this you're missing the point
Dont put your experiences on women then Suede.
Everything interests me but nothing holds me.
Do it anyway.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
No it is:
Top are SEE
ESE: pleasure hunters
SLE: conquers
LSE: your business man
EIE: miley cyrus
IEE: adventurous hippy
LIE: your adventurous researcher
ILE: goofy outgoing nerd
LSI: Controlled robot
SLI: lone artisan
Bottom ILI and LII
The grass isn't greener on the other side....
If you are a dominant prickish alpha male drug dealer (and black) you will get pussy very easily and girls will fly to you. However, it's still hard to find a special relationship, it's still hard to know if any of those girls really care about you or just because you have a big dick. You still feel depression and hurt... being an alpha male isn't going to miraculously solve all your problems. Attracting the lowest common demoniator of humans/basic bitches isn't the same as a special relationship that makes you smile.
Heterosexuality isn't a cure-all for life's ailments. People tend to think that, but it's not true.
lol
What about ESI?
SLE and SEE extroverted aggressors
This.
... and people who are not bitter and set on a "get off your high horse approach"...but more smth. like ....dunno ...seductive one way or another. That works better than abusive lines and being a huge jerk ime.
there's hardly any difference between men and women when it comes to chances of getting laid based on preferences, sex drive, looks, personality, interpersonal communication skills, lifestyle and so on.Posted by suedehead in response to Birdie
Your opinion is invalid because you're projecting the relationship women have to sex onto men (implying that whether or not someone's sexually active is solely based on their preference or sex drive). Average men get laid based on their personality and charisma, so type could obviously be a factor.
I've never used any sort of PUA technique or lines, i've just spoke to women as people and it's never seemed do have done me any harm.
So true. Not only is it difficult to act like someone you're not, but if you get a woman on that basis, keeping her is going to be a tremendous amount of work, and will likely drive you nuts.
It is far better to just be yourself, be kind, and try to connect with people you like and naturally get along with. Things will work out.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 05-13-2015 at 02:41 PM.
Heterosexual problems.
everything this Person says now sounds like some writing on the restroom walls of a psychiatry hospital.
Socionically -speaking I see Ne polr in putrefaction (add e4 sp/sx to it) stuck on a track that clearly doesn't work and beating a dead horse. Maybe dualizing is real and the whole theory is not wrong..?
Anyone can struggle, but if you have a job that pays okay money, have nice things like a place of your own, a car, and preferably are hetero (granted gay and bi men I know seem to have no lack of sex in their lives), then I can really say it means you are butt fucking ugly or your attitude is fucking disgusting, or you just don't try. If your demeanor is stiff or whatever the fuck, try practicing smiling in the mirror until it hurts. Learn to laugh instead of pining over pussy. People who can laugh in spite of the shit raining down on them tend to be at least moderately attractive.
Use dating sites. Some are free. It doesn't make anyone a loser. Just don't be creepy or demanding. No woman owes you shit. But she can tell if you only see her as a piece of meat. Your own mind has set you up for failure, though. Not sure why I bother replying because nothing I or anyone says will change the facts. But seriously, if you'd start with laughing at shit, you'd already improve your chances exponentially.
Says the mid twenty year old SEE virgin (shut up, mu. I'm making a point to be ironic). The difference between you and I, however, is I know I'm sexy whether I've gotten laid or not.
There are actual differences in what will get a woman versus a man to have sex, but that doesn't mean that men are more into casual sex than women are.
Anyone can learn to relate to people verbally, physically, etc.
Also, since SLEs came up for discussion. In my experience, SLEs are not necessarily out getting laid left and right; some of the SLEs I know have become pretty guarded, and some of them also prefer a challenge and avoid easy-to-get sex.
I think um people who succeed at whatever are generally people who are competent, don't have a ton of anxiety doing that task and spend a lot of time trying to succeed at it.
I don't think I ever really wanted "casual sex" but it has happened for various reasons. Like the "friends with benefits" when I was in my teens but even that was on a longer term basis, usually, and I cared about them and they cared about me. At this point in my life it is hard for me to have sex with someone I do not feel a bond and strong chemistry with.
I am more of a relationship person. I also have to be turned on mentally since physical touch does nothing for me without it. My body just shuts down or I would feel negative sensations even if I were consenting. I don't really consider myself a really "sensual" person unless it is the right sensation and all other necessary elements are in place first. Maybe being sx first is an influence too 'cause I am looking for that overwhelming draw to someone and unless I feel it I have no interest. I do think my role plays a big part in this. I haven't worked it all out yet.
I did not read this whole thread but I am pretty sure all types are getting laid though considering how many children are invading my neighborhood in the past 10 years.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
he's smoldering hot, highly intelligent (so smart that it's very hard for him to blunder), ambitious ... plus a very effective combo of "alpha" traits (physically&physiologically) and a brand of psychology that also includes feminine sides. Enigmatic > abusive; diplomatic > vulgar. He hardly ever talks about his private feelings (only very obliquely) and he's very focused on his career, friends, partner, hobbies etc. By no means self-absorbed. He also reads people like books and understands them to the bone. He has a rare ability to make many people feel special somehow ...more energized, more in tune with themselves....it's as if with him they don't have to pretend and that rocks.
Well, I'm a skeptic about everything, so I've been testing Socionics in my personal life for the past year, and so far, it is ringing true. In particular, the ESI's I have known are people whom I did not at first expect to like for one superficial reason or another (in all cases I didn't know their types when I met them or that such a thing as Duals even existed), but ended up liking them a lot. That has been true for every one of them. I've also seen how other people in my life, of other types, get attached to their Duals. So I would say that the theory is not wrong. What interests me is why it is right.
Maybe some are but maybe not with their duals (at least the ones I know) unless they are very young and naive. Depravity often draws depravity. In those situations they are a perfect match. I am more likely now to draw people who complement my energy, not disturb it. Most fucked up people are probably not depraved by the official definition?
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
You got something against people who work at McD's?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote