Printable View
It seems like there's a bit of difference of opinion when it comes to defining what it is to be a caregiver and infantile. (c: So - if you belong to one of these groups, could you give us an idea of what your romance style means to you - in your own words? Dolphin - try to keep your horns in. :-P
Generally I see a lot more lighthearted playfullness between the two. Very generally.
that's very generalQuote:
Originally Posted by LokiVanguard
uhh ... yeah DOOOOOOOOLPHIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jxrtes
wow this is so hard to explain. i'm not sure the concepts of the erotic attitudes are really all that well worked out and the labels applied to them suck wind. infantile. like who's gonna cop to that?
basically i think that caregivers and infantiles are less extreme versions of aggressors and victims. like, sexually, i think caregivers and infantiles would prefer a slightly less er energetic approach to sex; like they would like it just a little bit slower and kind of more specific touching or something.
like victim-aggressors: they'd do "full on butt fucking" and caregiver-infantiles would kinda let the receiver be in charge of that or something. to use a really graphic example. but hey we're really talking about sex though.
well duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhQuote:
Originally Posted by Jem
I guess I just don't get hung up on the infantile/victim descriptions.
What she said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunshine Lively
Various items that the wise caregiver keeps in stock at all times:
http://www.daverhoades.org/blog/wp-c...un-depends.jpghttp://www.southern-nordic-outpost.c...-Pin-large.jpghttp://www.diamondvues.com/disinfectant.bmphttp://www.spitjack.com/Merchant2/gr...ichlen_mop.jpghttp://www.bebereviews.com/baby%20bo...0i%20stock.JPGhttp://www.liveandlearn.com/baby/buzzebeefull.jpg
^ LOL
Usually it stems from the (frighteningly all too frequent) misconception that somehow :Ne:-types cannot wipe their own asses and that :Si:-types enjoy wiping the asses of other people.Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
:o i thought we banished the ass-wiping bogeyman?!?!
What is "it"? What Dolphin said? (sorry, but I don't see the connection between what you said and what you quoted)Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
It = misconceptions, problems, anger and frustration with infantile/caregiver threads, etc. "It" was used as a vague catch-all word in this context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterpark
Ok, I see now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
...
wow.
I am both a caregiver and an infantile....how do i seperate one from the other and establish such an identity all on its own?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jem
The sexual attitudes infantile/care-giver are no more nor no less accurate than the functions.
Don't make things harder than they are. Infantile LII expects his/her partner to foster a harmonious atmosphere while the care-giver ESE expects appreciation and need for creating a harmonious atmosphere.
It may help to think of functional duality simultaneously with the sexual attitudes. Ti is about order and Fe is about harmony. The TiNe/FeSi pair value the relationship being at ease. For TiNe the partner must make sense, and if the relationship is strong then negative behavior has no place. Arguing and confrontation with a loved one is illogical; how can you love someone you yell at? For FeSi the partner must bahave in a manner that is loving and well meaning. Again, negative and confrontational behavior is unpleasant. The FeSi needs a sense of harmony and cohesion and is very upset when it is disrupted. How the partner behaves is an indication of how the partner feels, so by giving care (i.e. cupcakes) the FeSi is fostering the relationship by providing an atmosphere for lovely behavior.
FeSi gives care in many ways besides making cupcakes though. I like cupcakes so I used it as an example.
omg you kill me hahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by dolphin
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin
Just make sure you clean your bottom before giving yourself a pat.Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin
Carla: No matter how independent you are, you're still an infantile if you are an INTj. You cannot escape it, people can sense this about you even if you try to hide it. Yes, a lot of types are going to view it as a weakness. And that puke was disgusting, an ESFj man will be there to wipe it up shortly. Richard Simmons here he comes.
Also I love Blaze's description of how infantiles/caregivers are just less intense aggressors/victims. I agree with this. I like tender shit too, and babying- but it has to be mixed with dramatic physical forceness.
However ... the person who said that infantile men are attracted to older women is just wrong lol. It's a psychological thing not an exact chronological age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carla
I hope he arrives soon, because these things are multiplying as we speak. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carla
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=17656Quote:
Originally Posted by Carla
damn it, I actually relate to the result of most of these even if not the causes =p I'm about 50/50 for younger/older, which seems like it should be exactly right but is a lot higher than most people. Then check check for 2 and 3. #4 is bullshit though. My SEI tennis buddy forgets to bring water so frequently when we play, and I almost always have tons of that shit and have to give him some haha. That was the only example I could think of but whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by jxrtes
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Jem
God, I almost had this girl puke on me tonight. It was a close call, but I saw it coming and started backpedaling so fast hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by everyone
That's a well trained viper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimosa Pudica
Anyway, this thread is hard to answer. I only know about being infantile, so I can't really compare it to relationships as a different type haha. I sort of feel like caretaking mostly applies emotionally for me, but that might be just Si with Fe, not just caretaker/infantile in general. I certainly don't relate to being helplessly unable to take care of myself in any way possible, even though I am a youngest child and ILE (omg double whammy).
Caregivers see others through the Si perspective. For example, I cut my hand rather bad yesterday working in my shop. When I went to see my SEI friend, she freaked out about my injury and immediately ran for the medical kit to heal it. She thought it must be very painful and her first reaction was to stop it. She didn't know I wasn't feeling any pain at all.
So caregivers provide "care" just because they project their sensitivity upon others.
How has baby oil not yet been mentioned?!?!?! :o
Also Mikemex: I absolutely agree with projecting sensing onto others. Even reading your post caused a mental pain reaction as if I had cut my own hand....Not actual physical pain, but all of the emotional response that comes with it...hard to explain, but yes.
I would've responded in the same manner. In situations like this, I find I can be really logical and fast-acting as well, where I'd usually just be completely useless.....any ideas on this?
Yeah, me too. I would think it's because SEIs have strong unconscious Se ... which is probably more apparent in emergency situations where there is not much time for thinking and a need for fast and deliberate action.Quote:
Originally Posted by bee
It's funny, because I'm bothered by the sight of blood, but only when no action is required on my part. Like if I'm having a blood test - I know it's all under control, so I'm free to feel like fainting. lol But if anything serious happens, the blood doesn't bother me, and I do what I have to do with no qualms about it. Then when it's all over, I feel like fainting. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carla
Haha ditto Jem! lol.
Removed at User Request
you are more of a moron than i originally thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin
Or it simply looked worse than it really was... sometimes that happens. And conversely sometimes you can have an ingrown fingernail in the most sensitive of spots that doesn't look like it hurts much at all but it's driving you INSANE because it's all protruding and tangling where you have a bunch of nerves. When I got knocked out with a horseshoe once there wasn't much pain either when I went unconscious. Funny how somethings work.Quote:
For example, I cut my hand rather bad yesterday working in my shop. When I went to see my SEI friend, she freaked out about my injury and immediately ran for the medical kit to heal it.
Sounds like that is actually weak sensing or just kind of not realizing what parts of the hand are sensitive and the like. If you cut your hand 'really bad' but you avoided hitting any weak areas... how would she know anyway? I think we all read too much into things here haha *guilty of this myself*
I agree from a simple, MBTI dichotomy though sensors are much more likely to notice that sort of thing and run immediately to your aid. I know better than to get involved usually; specifically based on what you just told me.
or maybe Kensi's the moron :(Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin
with two infantiles, I think it could feel like a battle of who gets to put their head on whose shoulder. Because both want to be the person putting leaning on someone else, not the "strong" person caring for the other.
I think we're all morons sometimes. I often cringe when I see something going over someone's head, then I have to stop and wonder if things have been going over my head and I've just been completely missing them, and THEN I have to wonder if maybe the response I thought was going completely over that person's head actually went completely over my head, because sometimes I make replies and I have to stop and wonder if most people are going to understand what I mean/get my joke, or if they're just going to think that I'm stupid and it was going over my head, haha. Of course, in this case I just think it might be him being a dick more than anything... I guess that I'm guilty of that on occasion too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ephemeros
ah, yes. Crushing caregivers under my 6'5" 210 pound frame is unquestionably a personal hobby of mine. Maybe I need to start dating WNBA centers in order to be a proper infantile type :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jewels
This is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jem
Removed at User Request
your written word does not match your actual voice, which makes this (and really most of your posts here) all the funnierQuote:
Originally Posted by dolphin
Here's something I thought up a while back:
:Se: snatches power. :Si: seems to wind up with the power, but isn't overt about it. Therefore :Ne: deliberately puts the :Si: in charge. Therefore the static type controls the balance of power in the relationship, whereas the sensing type winds up in charge. From that:
Infantile-infantile: Power struggle (in reverse)
Victim-Victim: No result
Aggressor-Aggressor: Power struggle (the normal kind)
Caregiver-Caregiver: No result
Infantile-Victim: Victim winds up in charge, doesn't like it
Infantile-Aggressor: Aggressor winds up in charge, but there is a battle over how quickly
Infantile-Caregiver: Infantile puts Caregiver in charge
Victim-Aggressor: Aggressor takes charge
Victim-Caregiver: No result
Aggressor-Caregiver: Aggressor winds up in charge, caregiver doesn't like it
Combining that with other things I've read, the four dichotomy sides that give power in a relationship are Static, Sensing, Feeling and Extraversion. Only the SEE has all four of these qualities, and therefore has all the power in a dual relationship.
You better derive your opinions from real world observations and not from theory. I know many SEE-ILI couples and from what I've seen, the ILI is almost always in charge. They are good decision makers and SEEs respect that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brilliand
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin
You are golden, Dolphin! :D
this is thought provoking. define "in charge" though. and in charge of what? usually partners will have areas they cover or take the lead on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brilliand
Removed at User Request
what does "no result" mean?
That does seem to throw a wrench in my theory. But what happened to the aggressor-victim relationship? Perhaps you are focusing on a Thinking side of the relationship? (I was looking more in regards to as the relationship begins to get moving - when Feeling and romance styles make the biggest difference.)Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemex
In charge, in the sense that the Aggressor is in charge in the Aggressor-Victim relationship, whatever that is. Perhaps physically in control - specifically the Sensing domain of control, which is more obvious than that of Intuition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze
With regard to my last paragraph, that's more with regard to the early stages of romance - Extravert to make the initial connection, Feeling to produce the emotions, Sensing to decide immediate actions, and Static to set the tempo. The other side of each dichotomy doesn't play its part until the groundwork is laid. (Just going by what I've read - I don't have any experience to back this up!)
OK, I'll stick it in my userspace on wikisocion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephemeros
The question of who will be in charge is never dealt with. For instance, in the caregiver-victim relationship, both would rather the caregiver be in charge, but neither is willing to make that happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
My experience is that Caregivers-Infantiles are more random, light-hearted and playful than Aggressors-Victims. Aggressors tend to like a "serious" attitude toward sex. Everything is very adult and lust-driven; stereotypical FHM or Maxim magazine. They tend to like dirty talk, tying people up, and having someone play dead while they "fuck" them. They also make very clear and sharp sexual advances- they make it almost impossible to reject them and they get really annoyed when you want some control in when/how/whatever to have sex.
Infantiles can sometimes be perceived to be "sexual." For example, I know a few infantiles who do things like have sex in public restrooms or meet people from the "casual encounters" section of craigslist. IMO, they do this more for the novelty of the experience (a sort of "i'm interested in trying everything" attitude), rather than because they are "horny." They like to experiment with different things and do things that "feel good" and are "fun." They think that people who expect sex to be super "dramatic" are a bit ridiculous.
Can you list Victims' and Caregivers' attitudes toward sex as well, in the same vein?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritella
Sure, unfortunately I have less personal experience dealing with either of those two types.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brilliand
Caregivers seem maternal/paternal. They aren't "serious" in an "I'm a sexual predator" way. They take the more dominant role in sex, but in a more low key and caring way. Unlike aggressors, they like when I show initiative and make suggestions. They respond really well to my childlike randomness and diversions. They usually laugh and seem content when I make jokes or do something else to lighten the atmosphere. Also, they seem to really like my little "antics." This is sort of hard to explain: Caregivers-Infantiles like doing "naughty" things, but in an entirely different way than Aggressor-Victims do.
Victims, to me, seem sort of creepy? This is mainly because they expect me to dominate them and they have a very hesitant, ambivalent sort of style which weirds me out.
Sometimes victims can seem "predatory" in an aggressor way, particularly if male. Instead of giving clear signals and orders, they sort of just follow you around and latch onto you in a very insipid way, as if waiting for you to make a move. During hookups they tend to seem simultaneously very "eager" and passive. Their movements seem sort of "uncertain" and not clearly defined. To me, it seems "sloppy?"
Does any of what I wrote resonate with anyone else?
I think these are really good descriptions! I'm laughing so hard because I can see someone thinking that was creepy--"follow you around and latch onto you in a very insipid way, as if waiting for you to make a move" totally true though. totally. But actually I have to say that I enjoy the caregiver approach to sex. Even though I'm sure I'd enjoy the aggressor also :o I like to make jokes (even tho I'm a vicitim). I probably would enjoy the naughtiness of an aggressor more than the naughtiness of a caregiver. I'm laughing just thinking of how this might manifest itself. I have to stop thinking about it. hahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Ritella
also, I wanted to add that I'm guessing I might find an infantile too un-focused for my liking. I want someone who knows what they want and goes after it. I've never been attracted to flighty men, even when they're hilariously funny. I know an IEE and he's a great guy, so fun to talk to, but I couldn't be attracted to him because of his jumping around from thing to thing, I don't want to imagine how he is in bed. omg. annoying!! I'd have to be like "FOCUS." lol
thanks! yeah, it makes me LOL, too actually. With Victims I'm usually like "umm, do you want something from me?" So awkward....Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
IME, 2 Infantiles hooking up is fun, but sort of out of control. It's basically like 2 kids in a candy store with no adult supervision who end up getting out of control blood sugar and puking from too much candy; there is basically like no moderation.
I like aggressor's approach to sex, too. I don't feel like it's "violent" or anything like that. (Though, I've always been too scared to hook up with LSIs.) I just get frustrated because they won't really let me have a say in things and I like being more active than "playing dead." Also, I won't write because it's too graphic, but they tend to do things that take me aback a bit- basically sexual acts that are associated with them sort of "marking their territory." My reaction to those things is usually like "<shrug> was that really necessary?"
ah, that's really helpful and totally makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
HA I could see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritella
oooh, I would like not getting a say in things. hahaha Okay that last comment is like :confused: but I won't ask. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ritella
ahaha. I'll PM you.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
K.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritella
OK, that's in keeping with my theory - as much as can be expected, given my loose definitions. It does seem that Victims and Caregivers are much gentler about what they want than are Infantiles and Agressors - but the Caregivers and Aggressors expect to wind up "on top," while the Infantiles and Victims do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritella
My claim that Sensors wind up in charge isn't all that radical, considering that I'm focusing on Sensing things. The unique part of my theory is that Static types will "propel" the irrational business of sex, even when they are intuitives doing a Sensing thing (and therefore not dominant). To maintain the pattern, perhaps Dynamic types will do the same with Thinking and Feeling?
To generalize, in any complementary pair of elements, the extratim element is the "propulsion" even when the intratim element is doing the real work.
Yeah, I definitely think that Caregivers and Aggressors prefer to take the more dominant position, while Infantiles and Victims prefer to be subordinated. This is mainly my reasoning for thinking that opposite (i.e. Victim-Caregiver) pairings are more favourable than semi-opposite (i.e. Aggressor-Caregiver) ones. Also, I think that if you have a heterosexual pair, it's most natural for the male to be in the more dominant position than the female, so Socionic pairings in which the male is Victim/Infantile and female is Caregiver/Aggressor will see less pronounced manifestations of the theory and will need more "work arounds."Quote:
Originally Posted by Brilliand
Yes, I agree with this. Basically, Infantiles and Aggressors are the ones to set the tone and make demands. Victims and Caregivers _respond_ to them. The way in which S vs. N gets differentiated is basically that Infantiles (being N) like to propose things (like ideas), but they want their partner to do the physical work (i.e. implement their suggestions), whereas Aggressors (being S types) will do both.Quote:
My claim that Sensors wind up in charge isn't all that radical, considering that I'm focusing on Sensing things. The unique part of my theory is that Static types will "propel" the irrational business of sex, even when they are intuitives doing a Sensing thing (and therefore not dominant).
I don't know what this means. explain?Quote:
To maintain the pattern, perhaps Dynamic types will do the same with Thinking and Feeling?
To generalize, in any complementary pair of elements, the extratim element is the "propulsion" even when the intratim element is doing the real work.
Static types "push" in Irrational acts because of their conscious :Ne: and :Se:. In the same way, shouldn't Dynamic types "push" in Rational acts because of their conscious :Fe: and :Te:?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritella
I'm thinking of making an analogy between Rational and Irrational in the following way:
:Te:->:Se:
:Fe:->:Ne:
:Ti:->:Si:
:Fi:->:Ni:
Does that seem to fit, with the Rational function acting in Rational endeavors and the Irrational function acting in Irrational endeavors? I put Thinking as dominant as opposed to Feeling because Feelers have a tendency to give in for others' benefit. Thinkers can do that to, but I think it's basically Feeling behavior (i.e. using a weak Feeling element).
What is the difference between a rational and irrational endeavor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brilliand
If this makes sense to people, can someone please tell me what Victims "do." Surely their Ni must do something other than just let them take orders. Maybe they set the "pace" or something. I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Me!
Also, I don't quite understand Victims. Aren't there things you prefer or want? Or do you not have an opinion at all? How do you differentiate between good and bad sex- just how much control the other person shows?
Rational: Doing your homework/managing your business/making friendsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ritella
Irrational: Having sex/fighting/avoiding danger
The usual explanation of :Ni: is that it looks forward, to the consequences. I think that while sensing handles the obvious stuff such as having sex, intuition looks at the big picture/sees where things are going/plans the next move in light of what will happen next. So :Ni: is intuition only, :Si: is sensing only, :Ne: is intuition plus choice, and :Se: is sensing plus choice. In dynamic types, the will is in the rational element. (Still speculating)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritella
Not having read the rest of the thread I'll have a go:
Infantiles throw slews of ideas at the Caregivers, many of which hadn't occurred to the Caregivers and gives them something new to think about, play around with, or otherwise occupy their time.
Caregivers make sure the Infantiles don't completely neglect their health as they pursue their interests, as sometimes they get so lost in what they're doing that they often forget about basic things like eating and sleeping.
This is based on my observations of ILEs and SEIs... It might apply less to other Infantile/Caregiver duos. But I'd guess it's not far off.
Removed at User Request
ha, good question. my ESE is sometimes like "so tell me what you want and I'll do it" and I hate that. HA I mean, he's so attentive and great but... yeah I guess I don't really know what I want. I want to be accepting of what the OTHER person wants. I guess I'm able to appreciate, to give the nod to, the other person's desires. Accommodation I guess? (I know that sounds pathetic) Yes there are things I like, things that feel better than other things, ways I like things done of course, it's just my overall attitude is one of "show me you want me and how" or something. I don't know what the heck my Ni is doing. Sometimes I feel like Ni is rather useless in the real, physical world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritella
ah, not pathetic! just interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
the bolded part makes complete sense to me. All these SLE guys I know have this obsession with like "taking" a girl- not like rape, it's consensual, but i think you get the idea...
i think i agree with some of this, but i dont think aggressors are necessarily the ones to "take" over their partner. It's tricky sometimes to separate sexual behaviors from general ones. but its more fun to talk about. My own experiences are also a bit different with victims.. i think I've experienced the following around from gamma Ni but not beta victims. however i know there are some ENFj that i react very poorly to. I believe that one's HA does have something of an affect on how the individual will act in the presence of an infantile, victim, etc.
The literature says that in an identical pair, one of the two usually takes the dual's role. My experience with beta victim.. and maybe influenced by subtype, the fact that they are male, etc.. do seem to mimic aggressive behaviors. sort of more mature ones.. and more INFp than ENFj... aren't as aggressive .. or aggressive in provoking that behavior out of you.
I think the answer about an erotic attitude is not in behaviors.. in fact.. this is a little embarrasing.. but i do think that the type... the attitude.. rather than sexual behaviors.. is most apparent in watching couples make out. Of course I also tend to pay attention to "vibe" generally.. even if i dont "type" that way for individuals.
No shit ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritella
You probably also combined things related more being from aristocratic quadra to aggressors, so some of what you said about aggressors probably applies better to ESTj's and ISTp's than gamma aggressors. So you are partly dead wrong when it comes to gamma aggressors/victims.
Ummm ESTJs and ISTPs aren't aggressors. Also, a large part of my aggressor description was based off of ESFPs and Victim off of INTPs, so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord
That's what I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritella
...you are doing something wrong. I don't know how you came up with your conclusions, so I can't tell what it is. Maybe we are talking about different part.Quote:
Also, a large part of my aggressor description was based off of ESFPs and Victim off of INTPs, so...