quiet for sure. And actions speak louder than words to me when it comes to this. Except PDAs. No PDAs please.
quiet for sure. And actions speak louder than words to me when it comes to this. Except PDAs. No PDAs please.
Last edited by Suz; 10-06-2011 at 01:10 PM.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
It's a private matter, so I'd handle this as quiet as possible.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Kinda loud, but only a little.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
My understanding is that this is a Fe versus Fi question. Fe types supposedly want to see more visible, outward demonstrations of love. However, I don't have any good examples that I could look at to explain what exactly this means.
I know that I myself will physically touch a boyfriend when we are in public places, hugging, leaning on each other, etc. For me love is something that I feel if I look in someone's eyes and feel a connection with them, and it is quiet. I am almost physically incapable of calling people an affectionate nickname - I've tried before, and it's extremely unnatural for me. So that particular type of expression is probably Fe, because I just really, really can't do it. I don't know.
In fact when I am attracted to a guy, I choke up if I even have to say his name out loud at all. I'll just call him 'you' all the time. In other languages there is a formal 'You' and an informal 'you.' I'm not sure whether I would be using the informal you, or whether I would get stuck using the formal You for a really long time, and avoid using the informal you. I think I do start using whatever English equivalent of the informal you that we have - it's a tone of voice when you say it. I talk quietly in a different tone of voice directed at the person.
too loud feels like it's for show. too quiet feels like theres shame in it.
theres more romance in quiet though. like you're so sure it doesn't need to be confirmed. the nice thing about loud is feeling like someone is proud of having your regard.
choosing one though, I'd go with quiet.
.Originally Posted by kassie
Well gee, wouldn't you guys like it both ways? Save one for parties and roller coasters and reserve the other for the bed, unless you like to mix the two
My boyfriend says "I love you" to me at least 5 to 10 times a day; he's LSE. Even sometimes, when he's in bed with me, he'll turn around, half asleep and kiss me and tell me he loves me. He's very very affectionate with me, hugs and kisses; he'll cook for us and take out the garbage and do the laundry; he'll review next day plans with me and calls me SWEETIE. I call him HONEY.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 10-24-2011 at 02:03 AM.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
HI CILI WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?!@#Steamy.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
One of my dance teachers is IEE and she finds it weird to hear people in supermarkets call their SOs "honey" and "darling" when she calls her husband "boofhead"...
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Why do EII's have so much trouble figuring this out.
Act from the soul and not for the effect.
hahahah
The two McDonald's women who I have typed as ESE, one at my store and one I know from another store, both use terms of endearment very liberally. They will say dear, sweetie, honey, hun, darling, and love, to large numbers of random people going through the drive-thru. This is the exact opposite of what I do, like, so far from me it's in an alternate universe. They even call ME 'dear,' and I always get a little bit surprised when this happens, like, who on earth would call me dear, and, do I have to call YOU 'dear' in return??? And these two women are people who I don't actually feel very close to, either. So they feel very confident about calling people loving nicknames even if they don't know them very well, even people who are total strangers buying food at McDonald's. So I associate this with Fe and it's something that I myself am very uncomfortable doing. I've done it under conditions of extreme stress - I told a story elsewhere in the forum where I mentioned that my ex-boyfriend's daughter got sick and I was temporarily calling her 'sweetie' while I was helping her, but any other time, I don't.
I talk to dogs and cats much more confidently than I do to people.
I love you in the silence, and in the darkness, and in the depth of your soul.
She is wiseWhy I love LSEs:
beyond words
beautiful within
her soul
brighter than
the sun
lovelier than
love
dreams larger
than life
and does not
understand the
meaning of no.
Because everything
through her, and in her, is
"Yes, it will be done."
A couple years ago I was put in charge of decorating the college for Valentine's Day. I made some gorgeous, fancy decorations from construction paper, glue, scissors, and imagination. Then I covered a couple cabinets with them. But my favorite was the diagram of a human heart I put up. So romantic!
That's too easy, too stereotypical. For example, Fe quadras comprise of many types that lack both feeling and intuition. Are they going to be love-showy?
Furthermore, an introverted function can sometimes accumulate pent-up energy (that is written in many descriptions of IJ types) and ultimately lead to bigger show-offs than extraverted functions, which release their energy more evenly.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Reply With Quote
