Results 1 to 40 of 122

Thread: if you couldn't have your dual, which intertype would you choose?

Threaded View

  1. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SisOfNight View Post
    This actually reinforces my point of Ethical females preferring less expressive males, and Logical ones more expressive males. Given your dual is EIE, you'd be more inclined to prefer guys to smile, naturally.
    Well originally you brought up both possibilities, it either being type related or not, my example points towards it being at least somewhat type related I don't have statistics tho'. It's probably more complex than just being dependent on gender and type.


    Quote Originally Posted by darya View Post
    There probably is some truth to this in general, but most crushes I had in life were by far on Fi creatives. Just love their enthusiasm. While I find many serious non-expressive guys hot in animalistic sense, I fail to fall in love with them - I need warmth and adorableness to connect to a guy and actually fall in love. For example, I wouldn't fall in love with those Hodgetwins douche bros if they would be the last people on Earth : ) What I usually also don't find attractive is any sort of IxFx guys, too feminine for my taste.

    Actually, what I noticed is that ethicals are regularly attracted to each other, as well as to logicals, but logical types usually prefer ethicals for relationships. It's like a romantic relationship is more natural (romantic) if at least one partner is ethical, which kinda makes sense: ).
    Interesting, you show how it's more complex I find I'm not really into Fi creatives for some reason. I don't mind IxFx though, the femininity isn't a turn off to me at all, IEI-Fe is cool especially.

    I think overall for me there are two main socionics factors in initial attraction for me: 1) weak/low Se, specifically Se HA/DS/PoLR, somehow Se role is not really in this category; 2) some level of expressiveness is needed as well of course. It's not easy to relate the latter factor directly with type because as I said, Fi creatives are more of a turn off than attractive, even e.g. Fe role seems better than that.

    After the initial attraction it doesn't really work out with Se PoLRs though and of course there is a lot of other factors to influence how the relationship works out. Seems more complex than the initial attraction stuff...

    As for F/T overall, I never had any conscious preference before. It seems complex, again. Socionics stuff does seem to matter tho'. Haven't drawn final conclusions yet

    Darya, are you trying to say you have never managed to fall in love with T types after having initial attraction? Only F types?


    Quote Originally Posted by SisOfNight View Post
    Once I described the difference between Logical men and Ethical men when it comes to sexual relations, in a forum where there was a debate on certain male Gamma NTs not being "sexually creative/kinky" enough:

    A Logical type is more concerned with the practicality of the situation, devoid of the emotional aspect. In short, reaching the goal of "getting oneself and the other off", whereas the Ethical one is more concerned with the emotionality of the situation, the emotional exchange and heightened experience of that. All of those "kinky add-ons" (e.g plugs, handcuffs etc.) are not conducive to reaching the main goal, they are better for creating more emotional intimacy. That's likely why most Logical types would find them unnecessary. That's not their main mode of operation, basically.
    That's probably why a Logical type needs an Ethical one in bed (in a relationship), because otherwise the emotional intimacy won't be reached and it's like sex between two humanoid robots (after a while).
    Well, "needs" is a strong word, no one said the logical type must be aware of what they're missing or that they even need this. I've seen many logical types who were like this. I think need for intimacy also depends on attachment style, which is a factor outside socionics.
    Last edited by Myst; 09-24-2015 at 07:31 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •