Childlike/Caring Romancing Style: What's your take?

[mikemex]

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.

[Wittmont]

today a maintenance man told me "you're a hard worker little girl". and I got wolf whistled by kindergarteners. you try being 5'2. it fucking sucks.

You are golden, Dolphin!

[Blaze]

Here's something I thought up a while back:
snatches power. seems to wind up with the power, but isn't overt about it. Therefore deliberately puts the 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.

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.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[redbaron]

what does "no result" mean?

[Brilliand]

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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!)

this looks interesting, imo it could be true. wouldn't you make an article on wikisocionics, or here in the "articles" section? for example i don't have the time to think about this right now, it would be a pity to have it lost at the bottom of the threads.

OK, I'll stick it in my userspace on wikisocion.

what does "no result" mean?

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.

[Ritella]

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.

[Brilliand]

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. Like everything is very adult and stereotypically lust-driven. They tend to like dirty talk 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. They are doing this more for the novelty of the experience (a sort of "i'm interested in trying everything" attitude), rather than because they are "horny."

Can you list Victims' and Caregivers' attitudes toward sex as well, in the same vein?

[Ritella]

Can you list Victims' and Caregivers' attitudes toward sex as well, in the same vein?

Sure, unfortunately I have less personal experience dealing with either of those two types.

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?"

[Ritella]

Does any of what I wrote resonate with anyone else?

[redbaron]

Sure, unfortunately I have less personal experience dealing with either of those two types.

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?"

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 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. hahaha

[redbaron]

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

[Ritella]

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 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. hahaha

thanks! yeah, it makes me LOL, too actually. With Victims I'm usually like "umm, do you want something from me?" So awkward....
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?"

[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

ah, that's really helpful and totally makes sense.

[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.

HA I could see that.

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?"

oooh, I would like not getting a say in things. hahaha Okay that last comment is like but I won't ask.

[Ritella]

oooh, I would like not getting a say in things. hahaha Okay that last comment is like but I won't ask.

ahaha. I'll PM you.

[redbaron]

ahaha. I'll PM you.

K.

[Brilliand]

Sure, unfortunately I have less personal experience dealing with either of those two types.

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?"

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.

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.

[Ritella]

but the Caregivers and Aggressors expect to wind up "on top," while the Infantiles and Victims do not.

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."

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).

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.

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.

I don't know what this means. explain?

[Brilliand]

I don't know what this means. explain?

Static types "push" in Irrational acts because of their conscious and . In the same way, shouldn't Dynamic types "push" in Rational acts because of their conscious and ?

I'm thinking of making an analogy between Rational and Irrational in the following way:
->
->
->
->

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).

[Ritella]

Static types "push" in Irrational acts because of their conscious and . In the same way, shouldn't Dynamic types "push" in Rational acts because of their conscious and ?

I'm thinking of making an analogy between Rational and Irrational in the following way:
->
->
->
->

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?

[Ritella]

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.

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.
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?

[Brilliand]

What is the difference between a rational and irrational endeavor?

Rational: Doing your homework/managing your business/making friends
Irrational: Having sex/fighting/avoiding danger

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.
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?

The usual explanation of 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 is intuition only, is sensing only, is intuition plus choice, and is sensing plus choice. In dynamic types, the will is in the rational element. (Still speculating)

[Elro]

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.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[redbaron]

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.
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?

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.

[Ritella]

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.

ah, not pathetic! just interesting.
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...

[Ms. Kensington]

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.

[Warlord]

Also, I don't quite understand Victims.

No shit

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.

[Ritella]

No shit

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...

[Warlord]

Ummm ESTJs and ISTPs aren't aggressors.

That's what I'm saying.

Also, a large part of my aggressor description was based off of ESFPs and Victim off of INTPs, so...

...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.