ROMANTIC STYLES GROUPS

[Kiba]

I don't know if it has been posted before, but I think it can be useful.


////////

Viktor DarkAngelFireWolf69, a clinical psychologist and sociologist, has proposed four groups of romance styles, also referred to as “erotic behavior” groups or “erotic attitudes.”
In essence there are four different attitudes that can describe a person’s selfish (sexual) desires and expectations from their interactions with others. The general trend for these attitudes would seem like the conflict or duality between adult (either patronizing or assertive) and inner-child (either rebellious or resistant).
1. VICTIM

- ENTj - INTp - ENFj - INFp

The Victim types, identified as such by Viktor DarkAngelFireWolf69, are the four types with Ni in their ego. Despite the differences between these types in terms of temperament, base function, and quadra values, it seems that in the area of physical attraction, desire, and flirting, the Ego element Ni, coupled with their expectations of Se style behavior in intimate partners, is the most visible factor in a Victim’s behavior.

This romance style is defined by focus on Ni which is dynamic, irrational, and introverted, with perceptions of inner imagery away from the present physical reality. This means that a Victim sees attraction between two individuals as a dynamic state, which he feels is completely natural. This accounts for a Victim’s inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as to its longer-term perspectives and implications, as well as a certain expectation that the partner will continuously take action to confirm the attraction. Failure on the partner to do so results on the individual assuming that it’s already changing. The individual counts on the partner to forcefully bring the individual “down to earth from his thoughts ” and focus on the immediate physical reality, continuously.

Typical characteristics of the Victim romance style

• prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person
• not always confident about revealing that interest
• inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
• inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time
• preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
• appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them
• this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion
• in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess”
• inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself

Perception of other romance styles

• Victim: Victims tend to perceive other Victims as puzzling and inconstant, as if they were playing games or “push-pull” behavior, but also as exciting partners if a stage of “certainty” is reached.
• Aggressor: Victims tend to perceive Aggressors as pleasantly reassuring of their interest and prone to take the initiative in that area. They find Aggressor’s sexual confidence attractive and reflecting positively on themselves.
• Caregiver: Victims tend to perceive Caregivers as comfortable and up to a point reassuring partners, but also somewhat boring, leading to a sense of stagnation. The Caregiver’s inclination to treat them as somewhat helpless is perceived as slightly insulting.
• Infantile: Victims tend to perceive Childlike types as too goofy and expecting a kind of attention that the Victims find demanding; Victim women are prone to see Childlike men as irritating.

2.CHILDLIKE / INFANTILE

- ENTp - INTj - ENFp - INFj

The Childlike types, identified as such by Viktor DarkAngelFireWolf69, are the four types with Ne in their ego. Despite the differences between these types in terms of temperament, base function, and quadra values, it seems that in the area of physical attraction, desire, and flirting, the ego element Ne, coupled with their expectations of Si style behavior in intimate partners, is the most visible factor in manifestation of “childlike” behavior.

This romance style is defined by focus on Ne which is static, irrational, and extroverted, with perceptions focused on possibilities and alternatives to the static present reality, which the individual perceives as intrinsically boring and stagnant. This means that a person of Childlike type sees attraction between two individuals as a static state, also from the point of view of the other person, which he tries to “get moving” by actively thinking of variations of the present static state. This accounts for the inclination of Childlike types to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as connected to that person’s being exposed to the unexpected, imaginative, fun, even “weird” side of life, reality, and each other, a behavior that can be described as characteristic of young children. This focus comes together with a sense of helplessness regarding his own physical well being as perceived by Si, so he welcomes help from others in that area.

Typical characteristics of the Childlike romance style

• interest is sparked in partner with positive aesthetic attributes divorced from active, “aggressive” sexuality
• tend to try to attract partner’s interest with joking, goofy or even “strange” behavior
• try to help partner see the unexpected and fun side of things
• interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to this behavior
• appreciation for partner who actively cares about the individual’s comfort and daily needs
• neutral with regard to externally admitting who took the initiative in ending a relationship, “power” is seen as unimportant in such matters

Perception of other romance styles

• Victim: Chidlike types tend to perceive Victims as paranoid and confusing, giving mixed signals.
• Aggressor: Chidlike types tend to perceive Aggressors as a bit too “rough” and even slightly scary on occasion, or perhaps just as obnoxious.
• Caregiver: Chidlike types tend to perceive Caregivers as comforting and pleasant company, with a delightful sense of fun.
• Childlike: Chidlike types tend to perceive other Chidlike types as fun to spend time with but also as helpless and demanding in a way that they see as stressful.

3. CAREGIVERS

- ESTj - ISTp - ESFj - ISFp

The Caregiver types, identified as such by Viktor DarkAngelFireWolf69, are the four types with Si in their ego. Despite the differences between these types in terms of temperament, base function, and quadra values, it seems that in the area of physical attraction, desire, and flirting, the ego element Si is the most visible factor in determining Caregivers’ behavior.

This romance style is defined by focus on Si which is dynamic, irrational, and introverted, with perceptions of the present reality and physical sensations rather than inner imagery. This means that a Caregiver sees attraction between two individuals as a dynamic state, which he feels is completely natural, as he also sees the physical comfort and well-being of another person as dynamic. This accounts for a Caregiver’s inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as connected to that person’s physical well-being. The individual’s own dynamic and introverted Si perceptions lead to a sense of sleepy drifting in them, which makes him welcome Ne impulses from another person designed to shake him out of it from time to time.

Typical characteristics of the Caregiver romance style

• attraction is naturally sparked by the perceived aesthetic attributes of the prospective partner, but cooled off if such attributes are accompanied by a perception of “too aggressive” sexuality
• inclination towards tenderness, “soft” rather than “hard” approach
• prone to adopt maternal approach to the physical comfort and needs of partner
• interest is further maintained if partner welcomes this approach
• prone to assume that partner will need help in practical, daily matters
• neutral as to who ended a relationship, “power” is not seen as important in such matters

Perception of other romance styles

• Victim: Caregivers tend to perceive Victims as puzzling and never contented, sometimes as paranoid and insecure.
• Aggressor: Caregivers tend to perceive Aggressors as a bit over-the-top in their approach to romantic interactions and sexuality and ultimately not pleasant to have stable intimate relationships with.
• Caregiver: Caregivers tend to perceive other Caregivers as comfortable partners, but ultimately somehow less than satisfactory.
• Infantile: Caregivers tend to perceive Childlike types as delightful partners with a sense of fun that brings joy to their lives.

4. AGGRESSORS

- ESTp - ISTj - ESFp - ISFj

The Aggressor types, identified as such by Viktor DarkAngelFireWolf69, are the four types with Se in their ego. Despite the differences between these types in terms of temperament, base function, and quadra values, it seems that in the area of physical attraction, desire, flirting, and the like, in intimate relationships, the irrational ego element Se, coupled with their expectations of Ni style behavior in intimate partners, is the most visible factor in an Aggressor’s behavior.

This romance style is defined by focus on Se which is static, irrational, and extroverted. This means that an Aggressor sees attraction to another person as a static state, which he feels it is up to him to change in the direction more in agreement to his preference. This accounts for an Aggressor’s inclination to take the initiative in approaching the object of his interest and being “relentless” in his pursuit, as well as, even during an established relationship, continuing to try to “shake things up” or “get things moving”. If his partner is not receptive to such behavior, this discourages the Aggressor, and results in his interest cooling off.

Typical characteristics of the Aggressor romance style

• no doubts about own interest in another person
• not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest
• focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate
• romantic interaction is more about “toughness” than “tenderness”
• needs to feel some sense of “superiority” over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely “keep up”
• this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy
• in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being “bossy”
• little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a “who cares” front simultaneously

Perception of other romance styles

• Victim: Aggressors tend to perceive Victims simultaneously as pleasantly able to “keep up” regarding more “intensive” interactions, and also as not annoyingly prone to always wanting “to win”. Aggressor women perceive Victim men as totally devoted yet reassuringly “strong”.
• Aggressor: Aggressors tend to perceive other Aggressors as exciting partners worthy of admiration and respect, but ultimately unsatisfactory due to a sense of never-ending competition for an ill-defined “upper hand”, which becomes frustrating.
• Caregiver: Aggressors tend to perceive Caregivers as somewhat boring and patronizing.
• Infantile: Aggressors tend to perceive Childlike types as too goofy and unexciting, ultimately not taking them seriously as partners.

(Compatibility Theory between Erotic Attitudes)

High Complementary

• (Caregivers & Infantile): The caregivers types find the infantile most ideal for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the infantile types for the most part enjoy having their selfish “look after me” needs met by the caregivers types.
• (Aggressor & Victim): The aggressor types find the victim types most ideal for accepting their programming and control-attempts whilst the victim types for the most part enjoy having their selfish “see if you can tame me” needs met by the aggressor types.

Average Complementary

• (Caregivers & Victim): The aggressor types find the victim types least ideal for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the victim types for the most part shun their attempts to nurture them since they don’t appear aggressive enough.
• (Aggressor& Infantile): The aggressor types find the infantile types least ideal for accepting their programming and control-attempts whilst the infantile types for the most part shun their attempts to dominate them since they don’t appear companionable enough.

Poor Complementary

• (Caregivers & Aggressor):The caregivers types find the aggressor types most unsatisfying for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the aggressor types for the most part get frustrated by there attempts to nurture them since it makes them feel like “victim” types.
• (Infantile & Victim): The infantile types find the victim types most unsatisfying for having their “look after me” needs met whilst the victim types for the most part get disappointed by their attempts to act companionable since they don’t appear to dominate enough.

Any identical types would likely find the other interesting at first as someone they can automatically appreciate although for the most part will lead to unmet expectations since each partner doesn’t fufill the other’s needs although they can still enjoy each other’s company.




CAREFUL

The Patronizing Types

ESTj "Director"	ISTp "Craftsman"
ESFj "Enthusiast"	ISFp "Mediator"

• Views other people in a caring and sometimes arrogant way resembling a kind of "parent figure" where everyone else needs their attention and should listen to their advice.
• Interacts like a non-aggressive control-freak, usually in a caring way expecting others to accept their care without rebellion.
• Doesn't like showing signs of aggression in themselves especially when others reject their care, thus producing frustration.
• Usually takes a "patronizing" tone with others thus readily seen to have an "I know what's best for you (like your parent)…" attitude.

INFANTILE

The Rebellious Types

ENTp "Searcher"	INTj "Analyst"
ENFp "Psychologist"	INFj "Humanist"

• Has lots of needs and can seem selfish (like a child) expecting others to totally adapt to this behaviour.
• Can seem openly needy for loving and care though appear openly rebellious against care preferring the "right" kind of attention instead.
• Doesn't want the partner to directly control them though would rather have loose "boundaries" to act within.
• Hates signs of aggression or indifferency in others thus usually comes across as having an "I want your friendship (if you expect my attention)…" attitude.

AGGRESSOR

The Assertive Types

ESTp "Marshal"	ISTj "Inspector"
ESFp "Ambassador"	ISFj "Guardian"

• Views others in an openly arrogant and aggressive way expecting complete mental submission.
• Can have a very victim-like look using indirect methods to control others and turning aggressive when they refuse to submit.
• Hates signs of weakness in themself thus interacts like a bossy control-freak.
• Usually takes an insistent tone towards others thus presenting with an "I am in control (like your supervisor)…" attitude.

VICTIM

The Resistant Types

ENTj "Pioneer"	INTp "Critic"
ENFj "Actor"	INFp "Romantic"

• Can project either a submissive or arrogant view of themselves.
• The submissive version never questions the partner's control though expects them to "show the way" with the relationship.
• The arrogant version looks aggressive and always challenges people in order to find someone who acts stronger than them self.
• Hates signs of weakness in others thus presents with an "I want you to control me (if you can)…" attitude.

Compatibilities between these Erotic Attitudes:

High Complementary…

• The CAREFUL types find the INFANTILE types most ideal for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the INFANTILE types for the most part enjoy having their selfish "look after me" needs met by the CAREFUL types.
• The AGGRESSOR types find the VICTIM types most ideal for accepting their programming and control-attempts whilst the VICTIM types for the most part enjoy having their selfish "see if you can tame me" needs met by the AGGRESSOR types.

Average Complementary…

• The CAREFUL types find the VICTIM types least ideal for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the VICTIM types for the most part shun their attempts to nurture them since they don't appear aggressive enough.
• The AGGRESSOR types find the INFANTILE types least ideal for accepting their programming and control-attempts whilst the INFANTILE types for the most part shun their attempts to dominate them since they don't appear companionable enough.

Poor Complementary…

• The CAREFUL types find the AGGRESSOR types most unsatisfying for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the AGGRESSOR types for the most part get frustrated by there attempts to nurture them since it makes them feel like "victim" types.
• The INFANTILE types find the VICTIM types most unsatisfying for having their "look after me" needs met whilst the VICTIM types for the most part get disappointed by their attempts to act companionable since they don't appear to dominate enough.

Any IDENTICAL types would likely find the other interesting at first as someone they can automatically appreciate although for the most part will lead to unmet expectations since each partner doesn't fufill the other's needs although they can still enjoy each other's company.

/////


Psuedo-Aggressors/Employees: INTp, ENTj

These are types who exhibit aggressive tendencies in their everyday life, and as a result tend to carry over these notions and temperaments into their romantic life. They typically are not comfortable with connotations of the word "victim" - implying a certain weakness, effeteness, and lack of dignity. In searching for a partner, they are looking for a worthy opponent - someone who is strong enough to withstand their quirks without "breaking" so to speak.

Aggressors/Employers: ESFp, ISFj

These types, like the conquerors, express their sexuality openly. In daily life they may tend to be rather submissive and as a result may tend to carry over these tendencies into their romantic life. They are won over by indirect acts of submission, and are thrilled when their love interest (in the case of the "psuedo-aggressor" type) acts unlike himself. In a partner, they are looking for their equal - someone whose solid facade they can break down piece by piece.

Conquerors: ESTp, ISTj

These are assertive types who do not flinch at their own sexuality. They will express their own desire without reservation. They are won over by direct shows of submission (only after feeling that they have earned it). He will be insulted if his romantic interest gives him his title without question, and bored if the fight is too easily won. He, like the Pseudo-Aggressor and the Challenger, is questing to find his equal. Someone he can play his almost sadistic games with without "breaking."

Challengers/Trophies: INFp, ENFj

These are the types who unconsciously throw a "gauntlet" down for their opponents. They know on an almost subliminal level exactly who they are looking for, and anyone who does not fit the bill will be subjected to a rather flakey, hot-cold game of courting tag. As a result, they may appear (both to others and to themselves) rather amorphous and can take on qualities of the other romantic attitudes, depending on the situation and who they are "challenging."
They may, for example, give the victim half his aggressor, the psuedo-aggressor a little victim, the caregiver a bit of his child, etc. They react best, however, to those who do not "break" as a result of their games, but grant them a level of autonomy. Healthy examples of this type will have a sense of self-esteem, and may think of themselves as the "prize" that will be given only to the rightful owner.

Pseudo-Caregivers/Students: ENFp, INFj

These are types who exhibit paternal/maternal tendencies towards others in their everyday lives and may thus carry over these notions and temperaments into their romantic life. These types habitually attempt to give their partner what he/she "needs" (or what they believe they need). As a result, they may become drained by lack of attendence to their own needs and desires. In a partner, they are searching for a combination of strength and gentleness.

Teachers: ESTj, ISTp

If I were to describe this type's approach to love, it would be "serious." He approaches his love interest almost with the intention to "teach." This can quite possibly rub the object of his affection in the wrong way, possibly interpreted as condescension. Like the childlike type, he may tend to live "outside sexuality" and may have to intellectualize it in order to be comfortable. He is looking for a worthy pupil.

Childlike Types: ENTp, INTj

These types seem to exist outside their own sexuality. Sex is to be metabolized psychologically for them in an almost roundabout way - as an emotional entity, or possibly even an intellectual exercise. In a partner, they are looking for someone who will deal with (and protect) their quirks and understand their sexuality on the same intellectual/emotional level.

Caregivers: ESFj, ISFp

These are those types who openly express their need to "protect" and care for their romantic interest. In conversation may often lend a sympathetic ear (which, depending on the person, may be interpreted as insincerity, but it's exactly what the Child-like type is looking for). They are looking for someone who will not only accept their paternal/maternal tendencies, but welcome and thrive on it.





Source: http://definitive-socionics.wikidot.com/small-groups:erotic-attitudes

[Jerdle]

I think the system ignores unvalued bold functions.
For example, an IxE is a very different kind of Infantile than an xII. IxEs have some traits of an Aggressor (role Se). xIIs, on the other hand, aren't far off Victims (demonstrative Ni).

[The Exception]

I'm definitely an infantile type in this system.

[Kiba]

I think the system ignores unvalued bold functions.
For example, an IxE is a very different kind of Infantile than an xII. IxEs have some traits of an Aggressor (role Se). xIIs, on the other hand, aren't far off Victims (demonstrative Ni).

Yes indeed! I've noticed different "styles" on each group, that's why there are duals, but this is the general explanation of the 4 groups in erotic/romancing styles, there are a thread on this forum about the differences in styles, I didnt post it again because its already there, but I'm going to add it on this thread because its part of the same theory actually, it's not a different system.

[Volcana]

My response to this on another forum:

Aggressor - I have this lyric in my song that screams "Why do I need to win?" I have always referred to winning his affections as "the power shift" in my diary.
I couldn't possibly be more aggressor.

My only hesitation is:
not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest

Fuck no. I will reveal it like fuck once I'm with him, but in the pursuit, I am terrified of rejection - I HAVE TO WIN. I am prone to pushing at him to see what he'll do, how far I can go. I don't want him to know he rejected me, so I'd rather push, but not say anything straight forward until I know he will want me back. I'll push as hard as I can but stop before the point of "revealing" something in words. That way, he has no excuse to tell anyone he rejected me. It's ambiguous. It's up to me to reject him or not - period. I do not like making myself vulnerable. In fact, that's a lie- I CRAVE to do so, but it's nearly impossible.
___
"Can have a very victim-like look using indirect methods to control others and turning aggressive when they refuse to submit."

Just saw this listed under aggressor. BAM, exactly.

_____
Although I don't always turn aggressive if they refuse to submit. Depends on the situation - but if the possibility of rejecting me is at stake, I withdraw and reject first, or lure him back to me through strategic means. I suppose that is aggressive.

________________________________________________

To provide a real life example, my husband @Samson and I seduced each other on a public forum.

When I decided I would have him, I commented on a "type me by my photo" thread where he had posted photos - offering a type only as an excuse to post some of my photos in the same post. But, strategically, I also quoted another guy's photos - a gay friend of mine - to comment on his too. I didn't want to look too eager and wanted to see what my victim would do.

He didn't respond the first time, because apparently too many comments had already been posted. I figured he was shy - since I noticed him posting underneath my posts but not thanking them. So I tried again. Next time he was responsive.

I started an additional thread, asking people to post a famous person who embodies their physical ideal. He posted aggressive looking women with curly dark hair who weren't super skinny, so I figured I was in.

Then I wrote on his wall, found an excuse to move him to PM quickly, and after he opened his heart to me and sent a picture of cats hugging or something.. my next email said: stop teasing me and cross the ocean. Let's go on vacation. I posted a hot clip with a love scene where the two characters run away out the window. (Characters similar to us.) And I also told him to get his ass on Skype. When he said he didn't have a skype, I told him to upload it and sent this:



He arrived here a month and a half later, once he got his papers together. I ravaged him the first night, and within the first week, informed him that he's staying in my country and marrying me. At first he said that normally he would be scared by such a request so fast, but he's not. I smiled, thinking "Right.. you're mine. " By the second week he was asking, "Are you sure you want to do this??"

And here we are today, two years later, side by side on our laptops.. him watching youtube clips and me biting his neck, grabbing his hair, squeezing him and jumping on him while he smiles, giggles or hisses... then going back to focus on long workloads.

[Samson]

Holy fucknig shit that OP is perfection

OH how my secrets have been exposed! I lay bare and naked before thee.

You can look but you can't touch. "Soft," but make the wrong move and I will not hesitate to sting. The venom shall run through your veins. Can you take it? @Volcano could, and can.

[silke]

Compatibilities between these Erotic Attitudes:
Average Complementary…

• The CAREFUL types find the VICTIM types least ideal for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the VICTIM types for the most part shun their attempts to nurture them since they don't appear aggressive enough.
• The AGGRESSOR types find the INFANTILE types least ideal for accepting their programming and control-attempts whilst the INFANTILE types for the most part shun their attempts to dominate them since they don't appear companionable enough.

Poor Complementary…

• The CAREFUL types find the AGGRESSOR types most unsatisfying for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the AGGRESSOR types for the most part get frustrated by there attempts to nurture them since it makes them feel like "victim" types.
• The INFANTILE types find the VICTIM types most unsatisfying for having their "look after me" needs met whilst the VICTIM types for the most part get disappointed by their attempts to act companionable since they don't appear to dominate enough.

Any IDENTICAL types would likely find the other interesting at first as someone they can automatically appreciate although for the most part will lead to unmet expectations since each partner doesn't fufill the other's needs although they can still enjoy each other's company.

I feel like these two should be switched around. "Childlike"-"Victim" is way easier and more compatible than "Childlike"-"Aggressor".

The attraction generally works along Static-Dynamic dichotomy and relationships become a degree more discomforting when there are two statics or two dynamics together, such as "Caring"-"Victim" and "Childlike"-"Aggressor". In the first case there is lack of stability and opinions change like a whirlwind frustrating everyone involved, and in the later case there can be rigid clashes of personal opinions, since both have either Ti or Fi as strong functions of the Ego block.

[Rebelondeck]

I think romantic style and sexual preferences are learned behaviours; psychopaths can become very good at faking them. Natural communication, during romantic interludes, is type related. However, this dissertation seems to be an attempt to fit square pegs into round holes; they may go in but something is not quite right. Barring physical attractions, I found that hook-ups seemed easiest among those sharing either Ij, Ej, Ip, or Ep; second between the pairs Ij with Ep, and Ip with Ej; and third among the pairs Ij with Ej, and Ip with Ep. However, any pairings might work when libidos are in sync......

a.k.a. I/O

edit: By sexual preferences, I was referring to the non-biologically driven aspects such as role playing, dominance/submissiveness, etc.

[rafagth]

Great!

[Eliza Thomason]

I feel like these two should be switched around. "Childlike"-"Victim" is way easier and more compatible than "Childlike"-"Aggressor".
...

I don't agree. Thinking back to college years when I dated a lot, I was drawn a lot to, and dated, Aggressor types. I think because I considered myself shy, or reticent, and the Aggressors had no problem making it clear they liked you. And as stated above, there is the "inclination of Childlike types to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person" I was also drawn to confidence in a guy, and Aggressors project that.

In contrast, which is why I agree with what the author stated on Aggressors being more compatible with Childlike than Victims, I don't think I dated a Victim type ever - and that's probably because, as it states above, the Victim type is "prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person... [and] not always confident about revealing that interest." So also since my way was to wait for a clear declaration of interest, so I could respond to that, I likely would have had to wait a long time for a Victim to do that, and meanwhile there were plenty of fish in the sea...

I dated one childlike type but it was really about friendship on my part, and when this guy friend and I did go on a couple of what looked like dates, I found them very frustrating [explained below]*

I did experience the passion of Aggressor to be a bit scary, so i agree with what is explained above about this being the Childlike's experience with Aggressor. So that would cut the dating short. However I had two longer term SLE boyfriends, and one did scare me a couple of times. They both likely were SLE-Se, so, I wonder if this type is more romantically compatible with IEE-Ne than SLE-Ti? [Also, editing to add: both these long term SLE relations took on the appearance of Activity relations, even though I am quite sure they were not LSE. I wonder why that is? (Perhaps its simply because they were active guys, and I followed their lead.)]

I was married to an ESFj before, and true to Caregiver/Childlike, we did not have problems in that area... except that as a typical Narcissist his interest dimmed immediately. But what we had was okay really, just emotionally difficult because I felt an increasing and never-satisfied need to feel genuinely loved, and you won't ever get that from a Narcissist. I felt loved when he was winning me because he was very, very romantic in that effort. He was also very romantic in winning the ESI he was with before our divorce [I know because I read their correspondence]. He is still with her, so they seem to have found a way to be happy together in spite of the said un-compatibility of those (though there is much practical interest in staying together)... At any rate, with my SLI-Si husband I cannot imagine being more perfectly happy and comfortable than I am now, and I cannot imagine being more perfect in anyone else's arms. And he makes me feel truly and genuinely loved. And that completely without being what you would call a romantic person.

___
*[.. to be more explicit, we both took his classic sports car* to practice and figure out how to drive stick shift on (neither of us had experience) and that was probably tough on the car, because later we took it on a longish trip where it broke down on the highway, and I had no experience taking charge of such a situation, and expected my date to be the man and take care of things, but he looked at me like, "Help me, I don't know what to do" and I had to figure out how to solve our situation myself. Childlike wants someone to take care of her, and this was pretty much the end of dating this guy ... and I soon found a competent admirable Aggressor type to date...]

[Eliza Thomason]

*
What are all those pedals and dials for??...

[Eliza Thomason]

@Volcano, I love your story! I love the happy ending. Its like a "how-to" for an Aggressor woman to get her guy - who is very happy to be gotten!

I have an Aggressor (SEE) in my life, who is dear to me, and I wish she would hold out for a Victim, but alas, she is dating a very nice LSI guy and they are committed, and children are involved. Non-dual relations can work, though. Her difficult-parent relation is with a LSI parent, though, and in my experience, I have often seen people date/marry a person who is a same or similar type to the parent they have an unresolved relation with. In this SEE's case, she has always fruitlessly pursued this one parent to get validation from her. Its not going to happen. But she is very happy with this LSI, a good man, who is also a much, much better guy than all the others she's dated, so its hopeful.

[Sanguine Miasma]

*
What are all those pedals and dials for??...

Clutch to push when you change your gear according to revolution dial.
I think it is kind of stupid not to use automatic (mainly in Europe) but you know prejudices.

[Simo]

Psuedo-Aggressors/Employees: INTp, ENTj

... They typically are not comfortable with connotations of the word "victim" - implying a certain weakness, effeteness, and lack of dignity.

who would be comfortable?!
I demand a new name

[Kiba]

who would be comfortable?!
I demand a new name

...there are some weirdos who are comfortable with that.

[Number 9 large]

...there are some weirdos who are comfortable with that.

The spider that lures it's prey unto its web. Maybe that's better?

[silke]

I don't agree. Thinking back to college years when I dated a lot, I was drawn a lot to, and dated, Aggressor types. I think because I considered myself shy, or reticent, and the Aggressors had no problem making it clear they liked you. And as stated above, there is the "inclination of Childlike types to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person" I was also drawn to confidence in a guy, and Aggressors project that.

In contrast, which is why I agree with what the author stated on Aggressors being more compatible with Childlike than Victims, I don't think I dated a Victim type ever - and that's probably because, as it states above, the Victim type is "prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person... [and] not always confident about revealing that interest." So also since my way was to wait for a clear declaration of interest, so I could respond to that, I likely would have had to wait a long time for a Victim to do that, and meanwhile there were plenty of fish in the sea...

I dated one childlike type but it was really about friendship on my part, and when this guy friend and I did go on a couple of what looked like dates, I found them very frustrating [explained below]*

I did experience the passion of Aggressor to be a bit scary, so i agree with what is explained above about this being the Childlike's experience with Aggressor. So that would cut the dating short. However I had two longer term SLE boyfriends, and one did scare me a couple of times. They both likely were SLE-Se, so, I wonder if this type is more romantically compatible with IEE-Ne than SLE-Ti? [Also, editing to add: both these long term SLE relations took on the appearance of Activity relations, even though I am quite sure they were not LSE. I wonder why that is? (Perhaps its simply because they were active guys, and I followed their lead.)]

I was married to an ESFj before, and true to Caregiver/Childlike, we did not have problems in that area... except that as a typical Narcissist his interest dimmed immediately. But what we had was okay really, just emotionally difficult because I felt an increasing and never-satisfied need to feel genuinely loved, and you won't ever get that from a Narcissist. I felt loved when he was winning me because he was very, very romantic in that effort. He was also very romantic in winning the ESI he was with before our divorce [I know because I read their correspondence]. He is still with her, so they seem to have found a way to be happy together in spite of the said un-compatibility of those (though there is much practical interest in staying together)... At any rate, with my SLI-Si husband I cannot imagine being more perfectly happy and comfortable than I am now, and I cannot imagine being more perfect in anyone else's arms. And he makes me feel truly and genuinely loved. And that completely without being what you would call a romantic person.

___
*[.. to be more explicit, we both took his classic sports car* to practice and figure out how to drive stick shift on (neither of us had experience) and that was probably tough on the car, because later we took it on a longish trip where it broke down on the highway, and I had no experience taking charge of such a situation, and expected my date to be the man and take care of things, but he looked at me like, "Help me, I don't know what to do" and I had to figure out how to solve our situation myself. Childlike wants someone to take care of her, and this was pretty much the end of dating this guy ... and I soon found a competent admirable Aggressor type to date...]

It might be easier in the beginning, but "Aggressor"-"Childlike" is very hard to sustain beyond the initial displays of interest. Consider that every "Aggressor" type has a strong function that lands directly on painful and role functions of the "Childlike" types, and vice versa which introduces light irritation into their interaction; and that 3 of 4 intertype relationships between Se & Ne ego types are are relations of superego, supervision, and conflict - some of the most awkward and difficult relations to maintain. The Victim-Childlike intertypes by contrast entrail relations with higher degree of comfort - semi-duality, mirage, and benefit - and not every Ne person is painfully shy about their interests.

[idontgiveaf]

This is what i like about socionics