Do you relate more to an erotic attitude that doesn't fit with your self-typing?

[marooned]

e.g. self-typed LSEs who identify as victim, or self-typed ESIs who identify as care-giver or self-typed ILEs who identify as aggressor, or self-typed IEIs who identify as infantile... so on... so forth (granted those would be pretty bizarre).

(I don't mean this as a thread in which to criticize concepts of the erotic attitudes... I'm just curious if there's anyone who at least has something of a self-typing but doesn't really relate to the erotic attitudes as they don't feel that whichever one that's supposed to go along with their type fits them for whatever reason... or who relates strongly to a particular erotic attitude but it doesn't go along with their self-typing).

Now that I've put this in as many words as possible, I think I'll leave it at that.

[Cat King Cole]

I think Caregiver is the closest fit, but I can relate a bit with Victim and Infantile.

• preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
• appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually "submitting" to them

In the attraction phase I'd say "strong" people are quite attractive to me. I find traits that are suggestive of someone with substance and backbone really encouraging.

I'm still a Caregiver though, at the end of the day the things I like most are someone who gives off "Feed me and help me not be a hermit" vibes.

[Creepy-male]

I relate more to the victim-aggressor dynamic than the caregiver-infantile.

I don't like the idea of people showing affection with the entire "caregiver" mentality, it feels condescending and patronizing to me. I find that in terms of relations with people where love/affection is involved I prefer the victim-aggressor dynamic. The idea of people having to earn your affection or you having to win someone over. I could really do without the entire soft caregiver thing entirely.

I've never really liked this aspect of socionics to be completely honest,

 

everytime I think of caregiver-infantile I think of some fat busty chick playing the caregiver and some scrawny little guy that is obsessed with tits playing the infantile, and they fuck with her being slow and dumb like a cow while slowly caressing everything like an idiot, and him being some infantile child moron that acts like a kid playing with tick tac toe pieces on a playscape. Reversing the genders its even worse... I imagine the male caregiver as some dumb gentle giant, and the infantile girl as one of those airheads that talk like a child even though they have the body of a 20+ year old (you know... oh daddy I want a treat... etc), anyways he's all slow and deliberate and she's all bouncy, and it plays out like a child molestation. I really.... really don't like the whole child-parent thing imposed on the idea of sexuality. I find it disturbing, really even any remnants of it. I don't know why, but whenever I hear this stuff it makes me go flaccid and does not turn me on a single bit, if anything it produces this sick vision in my head and I want to puke.

While victim-aggressor is not so bad, my only complaint there is that it makes it sound like some BDSM thing, like one sexual partner has to dominate the other. Which is annoying because my psychological concept of sex is more just a union of two people in a sensual way, and isn't about the assertion of dominance. Sex obviously can play out like that, but I don't see why every personality type must have an erotic attitude correlated to it. I've never understood why information preference has anything to do with primal raw sexuality. It's like saying there is a theory of food preference based off of information preference. It seems a little too primal to analyze. Sexuality of course has its psychological aspects, but I think the theory does a piss poor job at categorizing it by containing a simple 4 options... or really 2 options really because of the linkage between the archetypes. I think more is going on in people's heads concerning sex and psychology than these two simplistic archetype pairings. I mean is every person who gets or performs gangrape in prison as an expression of dominance, does this automatically mean the person who does this types as a victim-aggressor type? I don't think so, I think a better explanation involves explore the concept of libido personally and then from this exploration developing an archetype theory. Further I think cognitive preference (information elements) only play a passing role in sexuality. Sexuality to me seems to be more about how ones libido is channeled, what the balance is between one's raw primal urges and one's higher creative/emotional needs. Sexuality is on the surface a satisfaction of the raw primal urges, but beneath the surface it serves to insatiate a much more subtle urge for higher creativity/emotional needs. It's that relationship that translates the raw urges into psychological archetypes and vice versa. Odd fetishes are a result of those psychological archetypes expressing themselves into raw urges. I think cognitive preference tends to mitigate how "information" in a very "mental" sense is coming into one's psychology and effecting one's higher creativity/emotional needs. The problem I find with this theory is that 1 it does not have a large and robust enough library of sexual archetypes and behaviors, and 2 it does not take into account the psychological processes that occur between input of information and the primal urges. Why does introverted sensation lead to a need to release primal/physical urges in a "caregiver" style???? how does this satisfy a person's libido. Why does someone who instead prefers extroverted sensation become aggressive instead of a "caregiver"..... I'm hardly swayed yet as to the reasons. It seems like a mish mash of bad stereotypes.... the Si types are calm and relaxed.... the Se types are bold and action oriented... that's why! herp de derp.

[woofwoofl]

I fall pretty squarely in the Aggressor/Victim line of things; the specific point on that line may change, but I don't hop off the tracks and onto Infantile/Caregiver... I can see me being a bit more Victim-y than average, for whatever that counts for...

There was a Fe-SEI who had a thing for me, but the mismatch was obvious...

[Jenna]

While victim-aggressor is not so bad, my only complaint there is that it makes it sound like some BDSM thing, like one sexual partner has to dominate the other.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm a caregiver but I think I relate to it just because I'm a woman haha
Victim fits much better

[Creepy-male]

Yea those are pretty good descriptions, still hate the caregiver-infantile stuff though, the victim-aggressor stuff sounds much better.

What the hell is with the ESTj teacher thing.... "looking for a worthy pupil"... TIME TO INSTRUCT YOU PROPERLY IN THE ARTS OF PLEASURE.

[krieger]

i relate to all attitudes more than to "infantile".

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

lol hld

[somavision]

No.

I relate strongest to the infantile descriptions. I understand victim and aggressor somewhat and can probably fake these for a short period. Caregivering is where it is at..

[leckysupport]

The attitude descriptions from here fit me better (though I hate the title Employer/Employee).

Just a reminder:

Written by S. Stern or Spencer Stern.

http://spencerstern.me/EasyBlog/tags/tag/socionics.html

http://www.youtube.com/user/WhiteKnight0082

http://www.amazon.com/Socionics-Demy.../dp/184753595X

Was owner of the now defunct definitive-socionics.info site.

A copy of his book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ifi...page&q&f=false

[marooned]

squark deleted her post

I think I've always related to Victim and not so much to any of the others. But my whole point in posting this was I wanted to see how mismatched these might be with people. For instance I've noticed my ESE mom always seems to go for SLI guys, and although she would probably relate to caregiver were she to ever read these, she seems attracted to some sort of ideal of masculinity embodied by some SLI men and I'm sure the average LII man wouldn't exactly meet her ideals at first (until she realized how impressed she was with the Ti, that is).

Edit: well, with those Spencer Stern descriptions I might relate more to the "childlike" one than the others *hides head* not because I feel it's me but that I just don't really relate to any of them. "Throwing down the gauntlet" for instance just seems so over-dramatic and I don't think I could do that without dying of embarrassment and realizing maybe this whole relationship thing isn't worth it. I would relate to the pseudo-aggressor one except I don't really see myself as being very "aggressive" but it does feel safe if I can make a big objection about something and the other person isn't going to be blown away by it as it encourages me to be more assertive knowing that no matter what they'll always be able to take it and could even put out more than me if they wanted to (which is why they're not threatened or intimidated in the least, probably seeing me as kind of complaining when I think I'm being "big" about something).

I guess also that one simply needs more experience with others so they can watch themselves playing one of these out, so pondering is kind of pointless in that way.

I've really found these responses interesting so far though, and mainly exactly along the lines of my point in asking this question. (:

@HLD: I think they may play out more subtly than victim-aggressor being BDSM and infantile-caregiver being as horrific as your example.

[squark]

squark deleted her post

Oh. Only because I thought I was stating the obvious, so felt silly saying it. Someone can reinstate my post if they want/can. I didn't save it. Or, I'll just remember it. I said something like the stuff between the dotted lines here:

------------------------
I think we all have a little of each of these attitudes in us. In a long-term relationship where you're open with each other, you will see all these aspects in one form or another show up, even if one attitude is dominant.

I also said that I've known people whose socionics type and erotic attitude didn't seem to match all that well.
--------------------------

While these capture some part of relationships, they only go so far, because people are complex, and malleable. How we interact with each other changes constantly. I guess you could see these as a glimpse into one theme that plays out, but the sub-themes matter too. For example, a "victim" male is not my best match if he's stuck in that role, rather than in a personal interaction with me.

Tangent: Also, I dislike the idealization involved in having some kind of perfect match for your type/erotic attitude/etc. The only person who will ever be perfectly matched and suited to you in every way is an illusion. No real person that you have to interact closely with, and go through real life crap with is going to fit an ideal. They can not fit, because they're real, and ideals are only imaginary. Real people are better than ideals, and better than perfection, because you get to learn and grow with them. They challenge you, and question you, and keep you sane.

I don't want to be perfect in anyone's eyes either, I've experienced that, and it's somewhat like being invisible. It's fun to be worshipped sometimes, and it's an ego-trip, but in the end all you were was a representation of something in someone's head, and it wasn't YOU they were worshipping anyway. You're just the focal point they chose for their projections.

Okay, /end long tangent

[redbaron]

pretty much victim all the way. I don't even have a secondary preference.

[Park]

I am looking for a worthy pupil.

[Suz]

Yea those are pretty good descriptions, still hate the caregiver-infantile stuff though, the victim-aggressor stuff sounds much better.

What the hell is with the ESTj teacher thing.... "looking for a worthy pupil"... TIME TO INSTRUCT YOU PROPERLY IN THE ARTS OF PLEASURE.

I get the impression that these styles carry over into regular interaction and flirtation as well. I appreciate a good teacher or someone who enjoys teaching anything. So i actually think "looking for a worthy pupil" is an apt description for delta STs if they are to be a complementary match to someone like me.

[Park]

You seem like a worthy pupil, WA.

I posses kama sutra wisdom and would love to teach you some things.

[Suz]

You seem like a worthy pupil, WA.

I posses kama sutra wisdom and would love to teach you some things.

whoa now, chill out man! was not going to go there..

[Creepy-]

When one has fucked as many bitches as I have, it's pretty hard not to relate to all the erotic attitudes. Ahem, not that those actually exist or anything.

[Sumer1an]

When one has fucked as many bitches as I have, it's pretty hard not to relate to all the erotic attitudes. Ahem, not that those actually exist or anything.

IM SIGGING THAT!

[Sumer1an]

cool.

[Sumer1an]

As far as the erotic attitudes go... I don't relate with any of them. I could see Victim sort of fitting but I like the ones that Ashton posted more. I really dont like the whole concept of them in the first place but that doesnt necessarily make them false.

[anndelise]

I definitely fit more into the infantile more than any other. While I can take care of myself, my needs, etc, it's just really nice to be able to relax and let someone else take care of some of it, sometimes. Or to be able to delegate certain responsibilities to someone who doesn't mind taking care of those. This leaves me with more physical and mental energy to use elsewhere.

And it works for my caregiving partner, as well. If I'm wasting energy stessing out over little shit, then I have less energy and less interest in sex. While if I'm not having to worry about that crap, but I know it's still being taken care of, then that freed energy is more likely to be expressed as more interest and energy for sex.

Win-win.

The aggressor-victim relationship is too exhausting. I refuse to play the victim, nor to test the "worthiness" of my mate, nor to assert or convince of my own worth. I have more important things (to me) to think about and deal with. Being in a relationship of this kind is stressful to me...which translates to less interest in sex.

[Jonathan]

Just a reminder:

Written by S. Stern or Spencer Stern.

Lol, I'm aware. Despite him being a bozo, I thought these descriptions were decent.

How he managed that, I don't know. I suppose even a tcaud can accidentally produce a gem once in awhile.

His Slide consulting site isn't bad, actually. Maybe he's improved. People can learn over time. His type descriptions and characterizations seem reasonable...maybe one may disagree with them, but then again everyone disagrees anyway.

His youtube videos that I saw awhile ago I remember were pretty bad.

But since he's a corporate business person trying to make a buck off of Socionics, it's likely that he has people working for him, and that what he's putting out is actually by committee, not really by one person. He may be the person leading meetings, spending most of his time working on bringing business in the door, so a lot of what comes out may be ghost-written by employees.

That might explain the differences in quality.

[Park]

@Loki: ESE-SLI relationships are quite common because a balance of mutual attractiveness and relatedness is easily formed. However, the more serious ones are harder to uphold and usually doomed to fail in the long run.

[nanashi]

What he said (Ashton):http://www.slideconsulting.com/Eroti...groupings.html


restatement of theory, in which nanashi attempts to cut away the shit and retain the essence or "prettifying and healing of the theory":


Newborn eroticism: characterized by basking in erotic encounters and coming at them from a 'new' perspective, which makes for 'creative inventor' impression (make sexual whistle noises here)
Caretaker eroticism: characterized by an application of subjective knowledge or subjective ability in erotic encounters, which makes for a "I'm 'onna take care o' THIS" impression (make sexual whistle noises here)
Resistor eroticism: characterized by an 'about-the-box'* insight and by an accompanying iron-will, which makes for a 'seer-like: otherworldly and adamantine' impression (make sexual whistle noises here)
Dynamic eroticism: characterized by a preternatural awareness of the forces of the physical-world and by action, which makes for a 'force-of-nature' impression (make sexual whistle noises here)


*to use Lenore's wording. http://greenlightwik...erted_Intuition

all based on my perception the theory...some of which I found here http://www.wikisocio...=Romance_styles
, and some of which was a Russian translation on the web somewhere...which...I can't be sure was legally posted.

From nanashi's blog:

In your case, [ILI member], that may be because, as a Gamma Ni, you are not supposed to identify with some (incorrect) characteristics often heralded as Resistor type characteristics. Gamma NTs are said to be very (Te) directy in their day-to-day life and Gamma SFs very...conciliatory (?), so that influences their eroticism. This helped me because I could identify with a resistor type role...like one where I can <b>withstand and am activated by<b> a great deal of Se activity and energy and dynamicism, but I am also very go-gettery/pursuery, which is antithetical to being a 'victim' erotically in everyday language. Shit, i'm not a sexual assault victim in my erotic role (!); I'm an energy addict. Get it right.(Tosses head melodramatically.) Pshah!

[Clumsy]

I feel as though mine fits very well, and in observations of others around me, I'd say their attitudes fit completely with their type. I would say at times, the LSI's I know of can take on a victim attitude, but this is usually only when they are stressed (and I think this is more related to the way SJ's respond when feeling under appreciated more than anything related to erotic attitudes).

I don't think of the attitudes just in an erotic, intimate relationship sense (and I think this was brought up by someone else in a similar thread discussing the attitudes), but as something visible in that person in all relationships, revealed by the way the person acts in/responds to situations and the way they sees themselves and others on a daily basis.

[Beautiful sky]

I think Caregiver is the closest fit, but I can relate a bit with Victim and Infantile.

• preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
• appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually "submitting" to them

In the attraction phase I'd say "strong" people are quite attractive to me. I find traits that are suggestive of someone with substance and backbone really encouraging.

I'm still a Caregiver though, at the end of the day the things I like most are someone who gives off "Feed me and help me not be a hermit" vibes.

Feed me and get me out of the house and out from behind the computer.

[Blaze]

infantile with an aggressor wing. or something.

best sex: with victims, for sure.

[Nowisthetime]

The erotic attitudes made me realize one thing: I don't expect anything from a woman. She doesn't have to do anything special for me sexually. (I hadn't thought of it before). I remember an ILE friend of mine once talking about wanting a blow job and how great it would be. Even though I like sex, I couldn't really relate. Expecting someone to give it to you sounds weird to me.

Another thing: to be in bed with another Si ego is weird. It's like we're similar, but she is not responsive enough. I need someone who expects a caregiving mentality. Someone who expects sensuality from me.

But spontaneously I don't think of myself as a "caregiver". It's only after I look more closely at my own sexual behaviour that I can relate to it.

[MisterNi]

The erotic attitudes are stupid but I switch between the aggressor and infantile attitudes.

[Creepy-pokeball]

*shines*