Romancing styles - female "aggressors"

[Cuddly McFluffles]

It would surprise me if this hasn't been covered already. If it has, please point me to the thread.

Anyway, Wikisocion says that rather than being bossy, a female Aggressor expects loyalty from her partner. So in general, what's a female Aggressor like, and how does she differ from the male Aggressor? Also, what is the Victim male/Aggressor female dynamic like?

[Ezra]

In terms of female Beta Aggressors, we're a bit lacking in Beta ST females. ESTP never really posts, and Herzy obviously stopped posting a while ago. But I can imagine that with the SLE-IEI duality it's based on a kind of dominance of the female in any sexual encounters, and a sexually appealing yet highly mysterious IEI male. When it comes to LSI-EIE duality, I always imagine a dominatrix. The EIE woos the LSI, who - when they find their way to the bedroom - becomes an animal.

Expat likes to put this image across of the "faithful knight in armour" for a Gamma Victim who essentially is subservient to his Gamma Aggressor "queen". They're not like sex slaves or anything, but rather he'll basically defend the Aggressor without mollycoddling her (because she clearly doesn't need it). It's a bit like some of the knights of old Europe protecting a stereotypical ESI princess or queen. However, this metaphor seems to extend only to LIE-ESI duality, and I'd be rather interested in how the SEE-ILI Aggressor/Victim dynamic works out in a relationship.

[idolatrie]

As a newly minted Beta ST, I'll see what I can contribute.

When it comes to LSI-EIE duality, I always imagine a dominatrix. The EIE woos the LSI, who - when they find their way to the bedroom - becomes an animal.

Hmm...possibly. I see the emotional and sexual elements of a relationship as being different elements. I am not comfortable taking the lead emotionally, but I have no such reservations sexually. In fact, I will pretty much automatically start taking control. But I'm not looking for someone who will just lie back and think of England, or whatever. I want someone to meet that challenge, because that pushes me to further heights and when they do finally yield (which they will, of course), it's all the sweeter (greater the triumph and prize with the harder the battle).

I'm not sure about becoming an 'animal'. I'm possibly being pedantic with your word choice there, and I don't really have a problem with that descriptor. But I also think there's a greater degree of control being exercised. I remember reading in one of the LSI descriptions that we have a great desire to appear completely competant in sexual matters, but there's also an element of detachment. And that is utterly true for me. I have a lot of theoretical knowledge to do with sex, and I find myself consciously accessing that when I'm with someone. I feel like I can't stop myself from observing and processing all the reactions of my partner, to work out what works best, what's going to bring him undone. I know what I'm doing all the time - aware of how I'm positioning my legs, of what affect my hands are having. Of how I can take control of a kiss any moment, whether that is being the one doing everything, or allowing him what degree of access at that point. I can't 'lose' myself in the sensations completely. But then again, I don't really think I can hold my experiences up as any kind of standard as they are rather far from ideal.

But I wouldn't be aggressive in the sense of going up to a guy and saying 'hey, wanna fuck?' That's just...no. I'm not prudish in the sense that I'm comfortable talking about sexual matters (given the right company, though I'm pretty easy about that really). But being what I see as vulgar is another matter entirely.

I'm also aware that others perceive my behaviour differently from the way I do. I constantly find myself going 'I never see it coming'. There's been many occasions when I find myself surprised and thinking 'why are we kissing now?', but once it starts it's like a switch gets flicked and something kicks in that makes me need to take control of the (physical) situation.

Loyalty is important. Loyalty is incredibly important. I think (and I'm only speculating here) I would have a fairly high tolerance for 'games' being played in this regard, but when it comes down to it, I'm pretty possessive. But that's something that should go both ways. Equality is hugely important too.

I don't think I've ever been involved with a victim male, and definitely not with an EIE in particular. My cursory typing of my exes has most of them as SEEs, and a LII. So I'd definitely like to hear that perspective on this topic too.

[Nexus]

It would surprise me if this hasn't been covered already. If it has, please point me to the thread.

Anyway, Wikisocion says that rather than being bossy, a female Aggressor expects loyalty from her partner. So in general, what's a female Aggressor like, and how does she differ from the male Aggressor? Also, what is the Victim male/Aggressor female dynamic like?

The female aggressor likes to chain her victim to a hut, drug them, and then sexually molest them using tazers, whips, and other instruments of torture. I know from personal experience.

[Gilly]

Alright, here's my take on Male Victim/Female Aggressor from the point of a male.

I am a great conversationalist, flirt, teaser, etc etc, but when it comes to actually expressing overt interest and taking an interaction beyond flirtation and such, I tend to feel a bit out of my league. I think I need a girl who is not shy about expressing her actual interest in me in order to begin a relationship, or even have a one night stand. I'm great at picking up signals as to whether or not someone is attracted to me, but unless there is an overt display of interest by the girl, it always feels like there's this "bubble" in the ongoing interaction that I am typically hesitant to break. I love eye fucking, teasing, making suggestive comments, etc, but I just have a strange block about making my intentions known until I am sure that my interest is fully reciprocated.

As for sex, I love taking turns between being dominant and submissive. I like the feeling of having a degree of power over a girl in sex, but I don't usually have the energy to always play that role without some kind of impetus. It makes it more fun for me if the girl tries to get in control; it gives me motivation to stay engaged; I'm not going to space out during sex, but my level of interest definitely goes down if it's just fucking with no action involved, and yeah, my mind will wander if the girl is not exciting to me. Half of sexual pleasure for me is mental, totally attached to whether or not I am fully engaged in the situation. If a girl just lays there, or is openly submissive to me, it's boring and pointless; if she tries to take control, then it adds another level of intensity to the experience; it becomes more than "just sex."

[Ezra]

If a girl just lays there, or is openly submissive to me, it's boring and pointless; if she tries to take control, then it adds another level of intensity to the experience; it becomes more than "just sex."

Betabetabetabetabeta

I've had a few (I wouldn't say embarassing, because they weren't) situations where I just wasn't turned on enough to fuck. The reason being, these girls were entirely passive, instead of active. Mental stimulation is incredibly important in any kind sexual encounters, and if they're turned on, that turns you on, and so if there is some intensity; some passion; that is a great precursor for sex. The impulse needs to be there, or the body will not follow. It's the way of nature .

[Gilly]

Indeed. If Carmen Elektra was a dead fish, I probably couldn't get off in her.

[idolatrie]

Aargh, lost this post once already, so this is getting rewritten in brief, sans anecdotes.


I think the difference between Beta and Gamma sexuality is that for the STs, it's something like 'I will have sex with you now', and for the SFs, it's more 'I will make you want to have sex with me now'.

I think Beta is far more concerned with mindgames, whereas Gamma focuses on the physicality. So for me, my biggest disappointment has been the lack of mental engagement that has allowed me to detach from the situation and start thinking too much. I think what I need would be being kept on my toes constantly, so I'm always having to react and respond to something unexpected. Fighting for control would be one way of ensuring that, I think.

Ezra, you wrote about not being turned on enough to fuck. It is either better/worse for girls, because you really don't need to be turned on in order to 'respond'. And yes, I've faked my way out of situations just to get it over with (since I had no idea what he thought he was doing, and I don't think he knew either). The right response to dirty talk is not a compliment. Seriously.

I think with the SFs, the aggressor/victim dynamic is rooted in physical desirability. With my SEE exes, I think for them their aggressor 'triumph' was getting me to physically want them - once they had achieved that, letting me take control of what we did was fine with them. This was a problem for me since the lack of ongoing, well, mindgames and battle for control meant I lost interest and got bored very quickly.

I've seen a SEE friend of mine in action. She definitely focuses on her physical allure. She wants to seduce as many men as she can in order to prove her desirability. She doesn't need to actually sleep with them to prove that - just make them want her and demonstrate that they do.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

The female aggressor likes to chain her victim to a hut, drug them, and then sexually molest them using tazers, whips, and other instruments of torture. I know from personal experience.

O.O There was no molestation involved! I think somebody imbibed too much Delta juice.