Examples of dual couples

[Eliza Thomason]

Watch Kate Moss at 3:00 minutes into my post. That shy embarrassed withholding like confusion about being a sex symbol that speaks of an infantile woman. I love her. I love all IEE. I love them

I watched it. Wow she is beautiful. As to her type, maybe, but I don't have a strong idea of her type. I would say maybe to the IEE (though its not my first thought, but, as to positive type-ID nothing strong and sure comes to me).

But as the negatives come to me quicker, I can say for SURE not Kate Moss is not SEE, and of course I could list other types she definitely is not...

But anyway, the way I like to type someone is to experience them naturally over time, not trying to analyze them, and sometimes early-on, and other times late-in to "knowing" them or experiencing their person, things will occur to me. This can also just be reading how they write and what they say on 16T. In fact I habitually always accept a person's self-type her on 16t, then I "experience" them as I read what they write and "the person that is" becomes so clear and so specific and unique that it shines through their writing, and then certain clear ideas come to me. And if that person is opposed to what they have self-typed, since I notice "nots" first, whatever their type - that often jumps out. (Like, "This person cannot be "x" type because "x" type does not__".)

Back to Moss. While not being ready to type her (if I ever am), I say yes, she has that child-woman thing that also an IEE has - whether Moss' is the IEE brand of childlike or not, I can pin it. If I analyse my way of being childlike, I don't know, it gets too personal. I would have to think about how to explain it.. Hmm, see, my IEE way is to search for personal examples, and when I do all I get from me is a shocked: "I can't tell[I] that!"[/I] etc. It feels like I am telling my secrets! I dont' explain my way, I just "be" my way, and its nice.

Okay, lets go to "nots". I am comfortable with nots. I woudl say yes a childlike way is Moss' essence and no, she is definitely a SEE as she lacks sultry-sexy, she is not earthy, direct. Childlike way is coquettish and I cannot see describing a SEE that way. Yes, like "kittenish" vs. "here-I-am, come and get it". Yes, I can relate to Moss' "Me? Sexy? How embarrassing to talk about this. I wonder what exactly you mean. I am just - me!" Whereas a SEE is comfortable with her own sexuality, "Yes, I'm sexy" not "Who, me? Now I am embarrassed." Childlike hides passion - its there, waiting for you to uncover then its like a new surprise to her.(when I fell for my husband I could not make the passion go away and I wrote him blaming him, "You did this to me on purpose!" I suppose like a child, not responsible for her own passion). Its intriguing because she is feeling it, and wants to hide it, and the guy sees it, wants to uncover it, hmm, how long can she pretend, "I don't' know what you are talking about"... Sorry for the specific male/female but I can only speak from my own experience. Its a flirting game but all very subtle that an IEE might do, while hidden passions seethe, while a SEE more likely would just get it all out on the table. I think IEE can revel long in the romance heat while a SEE would get down to business....

Yikes. This is either going to make no sense at all, or too much sense and I am going to want to come back and edit it out.

But in the area of romantic attitudes, childlikes are going to be subtle and evasive, and like a child sensitive and very reactionary to subtle touch. While aggressive are confidently surely forward. And assertive. I can't exzplain that so much since I am not that. Really, if I could describe it as I sense it, it would be a good "tell" for the differences between SEE/IEE Lookalikes. Romantic approach between these two look-alikes just does NOT look alike at all!

So I am struggling to explain this, but yes, Maritsa, you are right, that shy withholding confusion about sex would characterize IEE, and NOT the SEE. Now there you go, that's a tell. Good word choice, Maritsa. And Moss probably is a childlike in romance, and certainly not an aggressor. I am not really seeing victim, but, that could be it, too..

So how do you think a victim-type would be about that same question? (Or would it be asked of one?) Maybe a more confident attitude, exuding, "Yes, I know I am sexy, I just can't help it?" "Or, "Yes, I'm sexy - catch me if you can"? Tell me what you think the outward attitude difference is.

[Beautiful sky]

I watched it. Wow she is beautiful. As to her type, maybe, but I don't have a strong idea of her type. I would say maybe to the IEE (though its not my first thought, but, as to positive type-ID nothing strong and sure comes to me).

But as the negatives come to me quicker, I can say for SURE not Kate Moss is not SEE, and of course I could list other types she definitely is not...

But anyway, the way I like to type someone is to experience them naturally over time, not trying to analyze them, and sometimes early-on, and other times late-in to "knowing" them or experiencing their person, things will occur to me. This can also just be reading how they write and what they say on 16T. In fact I habitually always accept a person's self-type her on 16t, then I "experience" them as I read what they write and "the person that is" becomes so clear and so specific and unique that it shines through their writing, and then certain clear ideas come to me. And if that person is opposed to what they have self-typed, since I notice "nots" first, whatever their type - that often jumps out. (Like, "This person cannot be "x" type because "x" type does not__".)

Back to Moss. While not being ready to type her (if I ever am), I say yes, she has that child-woman thing that also an IEE has - whether Moss' is the IEE brand of childlike or not, I can pin it. If I analyse my way of being childlike, I don't know, it gets too personal. I would have to think about how to explain it.. Hmm, see, my IEE way is to search for personal examples, and when I do all I get from me is a shocked: "I can't tell[I] that!"[/I] etc. It feels like I am telling my secrets! I dont' explain my way, I just "be" my way, and its nice.

Okay, lets go to "nots". I am comfortable with nots. I woudl say yes a childlike way is Moss' essence and no, she is definitely a SEE as she lacks sultry-sexy, she is not earthy, direct. Childlike way is coquettish and I cannot see describing a SEE that way. Yes, like "kittenish" vs. "here-I-am, come and get it". Yes, I can relate to Moss' "Me? Sexy? How embarrassing to talk about this. I wonder what exactly you mean. I am just - me!" Whereas a SEE is comfortable with her own sexuality, "Yes, I'm sexy" not "Who, me? Now I am embarrassed." Childlike hides passion - its there, waiting for you to uncover then its like a new surprise to her.(when I fell for my husband I could not make the passion go away and I wrote him blaming him, "You did this to me on purpose!" I suppose like a child, not responsible for her own passion). Its intriguing because she is feeling it, and wants to hide it, and the guy sees it, wants to uncover it, hmm, how long can she pretend, "I don't' know what you are talking about"... Sorry for the specific male/female but I can only speak from my own experience. Its a flirting game but all very subtle that an IEE might do, while hidden passions seethe, while a SEE more likely would just get it all out on the table. I think IEE can revel long in the romance heat while a SEE would get down to business....

Yikes. This is either going to make no sense at all, or too much sense and I am going to want to come back and edit it out.

But in the area of romantic attitudes, childlikes are going to be subtle and evasive, and like a child sensitive and very reactionary to subtle touch. While aggressive are confidently surely forward. And assertive. I can't exzplain that so much since I am not that. Really, if I could describe it as I sense it, it would be a good "tell" for the differences between SEE/IEE Lookalikes. Romantic approach between these two look-alikes just does NOT look alike at all!

So I am struggling to explain this, but yes, Maritsa, you are right, that shy withholding confusion about sex would characterize IEE, and NOT the SEE. Now there you go, that's a tell. Good word choice, Maritsa. And Moss probably is a childlike in romance, and certainly not an aggressor. I am not really seeing victim, but, that could be it, too..

So how do you think a victim-type would be about that same question? (Or would it be asked of one?) Maybe a more confident attitude, exuding, "Yes, I know I am sexy, I just can't help it?" "Or, "Yes, I'm sexy - catch me if you can"? Tell me what you think the outward attitude difference is.

lol you are a negativist
this is how the above went went

maybe
watch more... she's not this or that or that
What is left is IEE
Oh wow she could be IEE lol

I'll have to find a victim type with similar type of topic