Primary and Secondary Romance Styles...
So I made the test of sociotype.com and in my results appear in Romance Style Primary: Caregiver and Secondary: Victim...
the question is, what does that means?
-Is the secondary role based on the type or in the person?
-Have all the types a primary and secondary role?
I read time ago an article in here were was mentioned that SLIs are Moral Victims and IEEs Moral Aggressors but I can't find it now, is this secondary role related to that, maybe?
I like to play coy, but I also like to touch people. In that order.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I have asked this question before. No one knew the answer.I suppose I could have asked the creator of it but he doesn't seem to post much.
Did you take the one with VI btw?
I took it again, for your thread, to see what I got for secondary, when I couldn't find the results from the last time I took it. Seems my secondary is "caregiver" which I don't see much of in me. I feel I suck at it but I don't really remember what "caregiver" as an erotic style means. I suppose it isn't just about taking care of people? I know I could look it up and maybe I will.
Anyway these are my current results without the VI component.
These are the results from 2015 with VI (I finally found them).http://www.sociotype.com/tests/result/ost/36700
Test Result
Your Sociotype: IEI-1Ni(INFp)
Intuitive Ethical Introvert - The Romantic
Brief Description of the IEI
Using introverted intuition as her base function and extroverted feeling as his creative, the IEI lives in a world of vivid imagery and imagination. Like the SEI, the IEI is a very creative type and is often seen channelling this creativity towards artistic pursuits such as music. However the two types' creativities diverge with the SEI's creativities channeled towards more tangible creations and the IEI's channeled towards more intangible creations--e.g., the creation of imaginary worlds or stories. The IEI is acutely attuned to the effect these creations can have on people's emotional state, and it is not uncommon for these creations to have a strong emotional impact on people. At her best, the IEI provides deep and meaningful insight into events and trends--particularly those involving human interaction. At her worst, the IEI can become lost in her imagination and lackadaisical. Overall, the IEI's depth of imagination and emotion often goes unidentified by those around her, and this is perpetuated by the IEI's disinterest in broadcasting these traits.Learn more about the IEI:
- Full Description of the IEI
- IEI Subtype Descriptions
- IEI Societal Role and Careers
- Famous IEI Persons
Other Possible Types
- EII (INFj): 76% as likely as IEI. Compare the IEI (INFp) and EII (INFj) types here!
- EIE (ENFj): 70% as likely as IEI. Compare the IEI (INFp) and EIE (ENFj) types here!
- IEE (ENFp): 65% as likely as IEI. Compare the IEI (INFp) and IEE (ENFp) types h
So all IEI results are primary victim and secondary caregiver. SLE results are primary aggressor secondary infantile so maybe this is a temperament thing? Only way to know is if all the IP types have those two in their romance styles. I just need to see ILI and SEI results and then figure out what it actually means.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Was just reading through the descriptions again and I bolded the part I think people tend to forget about more. I see people refer to some types as being "victimy" and this can apply to any type that tends to blame others for their problems and feel sorry for themselves but that is not "romance style".
Aggressor: Se in the ego block: LSI, SLE, ESI, SEE
Victim: Ni in the ego block: EIE, IEI, LIE, ILI
Caregiver: Si in the ego block: ESE, SEI, LSE, SLI
Infantile: Ne in the ego block: ILE, LII, EII, IEE
"Romance styles" refer specifically to romantic/sexual interaction -- displaying physical attraction, interest, and desire, flirting, and sexual behavior present in romantic relationships. These styles apply much less to relationships between friends or business partners.
So I did a search and found a thread where the creator of the site explains the idea, and how it is related to subtype?
RSV3
28/05/2008, 06:06 AM
My original post was not to discuss the general theory of erotic attitudes, which has already been well developed within the socionics community. But apparently I need to briefly describe the concept of erotic attitudes. Erotic attitudes describe how types manifest themselves sexually within a relationship. Infantiles match best with caregivers and victims match best with aggressors. Erotic attitude is determined based on the perceiving function of the ego block (i.e., extroverted intuition (Ne), introverted intuition (Ni), extroverted sensing (Se), or introverted sensing (Si)). As is observable from the large circle, a type's dual is directly across the circle.
The theory of subtype is very simple: that a person will prefer one of its ego functions over the other. For example, an INTj may have either a Ti subtype or an Ne subtype. I am theorizing that subtype is not discrete (but rather continuous) and the strength of subtype preference will vary from person to person.
To answer and comment and some of the recent posts:
(1) While in an aggressor-victim relationship the aggressor is considered "dominant," in an infantile-caregiver relationship the terms "dominant" and "submissive" are less applicable. However I would posit that the infantile partner is the more dominant as indicated by my entire theory (i.e., that a person exhibits a combination of infantile-aggressor behavior or victim-caregiver behavior based on the relative subtype expression).
(2) There is no doubt that infantile-aggressor, victim-caregiver, victim-victim, etc. relationships exist, but these relationships tend to run less smoothly than infantile-caregiver and victim-aggressor relationships do.
(3) Someone with a very strong subtype preference will begin to resemble their neighboring type: for example, an ENFj with a very strong Fe subtype would begin to resemble an ESFj (if the ESFj also had a very strong Fe subtype). The reasoning behind this is that the Fe subtype would partially suppress the other ego function's expression. Alternatively if the ENFj had a very strong Ni subtype, then the ENFj would begin to resemble an ENTj (if the ENTj also had a very strong Ni subtype).
On a completely separate note, I'm happy that after 6+ months, my original post finally received some responses.
Here are some descriptions of the erotic attitudes (don’t remember where I found them.)
Careful
- See other people in a caring but maybe arrogant way as if
they are somekind of "parent figure" and everyone else
needs their attention and help
- Interact as if they they are in control but not in aggressive way. This
type always acts in a caring way and expect the partner to accept
this care without rebellion
- Has an openly "patronizing" subtype and a subtype that applies
"care" indirectly
- Hates signs of aggression in themself
- Has "I know what is best for you" attitude
Aggressor
- Sometimes is openly arrogant and aggressive and expects complete
mental submittal from others
- Sometimes has a very victim like look and uses indirect means to
control the partner. In the "heart" is as aggressive and control
oriented as the openly aggressive version. Can turn openly
aggressive if the "victim" refuses to submit to indirect
control.
- Hates signs of weakness in themself
- Has "I am in control" attitude
Victim
- Can project either a submissive or arrogant view of themselves
- The openly submissive version never questions the partners
control but expects the partner to "show the way" in all aspects
of the relationship or interaction
- The arrogant version looks aggressive and always challenges people
but the true meaning of this behaviour is to find an aggressor who
is stronger than the victim themself. This type can never be "tamed"
but the partner has to "apply force" at all times to keep the
arrogant victim under control
- Hates signs of weakness in others
- Has "I want you to control me (if you can)" attitude
Infantile
- Can be openly childlike/dreamer/detached or more formal looking with an "inner child"
- Has lots of needs and can be selfish (like a child) and expects
the partner to totally adapt to this behaviour
- Can be openly needy for loving and care
- On the other hand can be openly rebellious against care and
need a lot of "right kind of" attention
- Doesn't want the partner to directly control but instead set loose
"boundaries" and safe guards within which it is safe to play and have fun
- Hates signs of aggression or indifferency in others
- Has "I want you to be my friend and guardian angel" attitude
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
@Aylen, thank you very much!
That was really insightful.
So, if I'm getting it right, the secondary just means that if there is an aggressor/victim in the relationship then, I'm more a victim () than aggressor while the IEE is more aggressor than victim.
So in aggressor-victim couples, Victims are more Caregiver while Aggressors are more Infantile.
Actually I think it matches with my experience. IEEs would fit as aggressors indeed (while I cry in silence their abuse).
On the other hand, I think that the victim role sometimes its more than blame others for their problems, but for sure it sometimes can goes towards that side too.
I think the Victim erotic attitude is more along the lines of a deer in the forest, who decides which animal is "worthy" of catching them. If no one notices them, they might have to go over to the wolf pack and kick a few heads to get them to wake up and play "chase".
But ultimately, Victims want to be caught. They (we) need to know that someone wants them (us). If the Aggressor won't indicate an interest, then we move on. but if the wrong Aggressor chases us, we discourage, evade, and/or run away.
I don't think that I can relate to the chasing part, tbh. Actually I HATE being chased romantically talking.Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Its mutual agreement or there will be something ugly.
Being caregiver-victim I think its more like supporting the childlike almost unconditionally.
I can relate to that. When I first met my SLI-Te ex at an Astronomy meeting, I had zero designs on her. I really didn't think she was my "type", but I knew she was smart so I asked her if she'd have dinner with me once a month or so, so I could have a good meal and an intelligent conversation. I never thought of what I was doing as a date.
This might have disoriented her (halfway through, I realized she DID think it was a date while I did not - can't two intelligent adults just have a meal together?), but it might also have attracted her to me, because I was giving off zero pressure. Like, she wasn't my type. She was just smart and reasonable (unlike some of the women I have known).
We were doing stuff together for about six months; going to meetings, going to open houses, having picnics, etc., but without anything physical going on. The one time I showed aggressor behavior and had some wine at her apartment and kind of went for her, she physically threw me out, and I said to myself, "Big mistake, I won't do that again."
We only started sleeping together because everyone thought we already were. I mean, why not? Again, zero pressure, we just kind of drifted closer.
After about nine months, it suddenly occurred to me that I might marry her. I broached that subject to her, and she said No. She just wanted to stay in her apt, me in my house, and we'd see each other a few times a week. Lol. Talk about e5 SLI-Te needing their space.
@Adam Strange then, how or why she accepted marrying you afterwards?
I've noticed that is a 'bad sign' when SLIs say 'no' at first or don't seem very enthusiastic in advances with people. Like it means that we are not very sure so we are kind of 'trying out' and therefore prone to move back.
Lol. I was not her first BF. I think she spent some time "trying out" before me, and just got tired of guys who would not commit to her. Tired of guys for whom she was "Plan B", not "Plan A".
I told her that living apart and just seeing each other was not acceptable to me; we would either grow closer or grow apart. She thought about this, and agreed to marry me.
We had many good years together. She has since told me that she loves me and she's glad she married me, she just doesn't want to live with me.
Now, you could say that my problem is that I'm not IEE, but she has a younger IEE sister, and she thinks her sister is too scattered to put up with for long.
I found her a nice male IEE schoolteacher, and she likes him, but she thinks he's too scattered to spend much time with.
Personally, I think she just needs a lot of alone time.
She still calls me and comes over a couple times a month to throw her food compost in my compost containers. I guess she doesn't have those containers herself. Plus, I think she gets lonely.
I feel really bad for her, and I tried and tried to get her back, but eventually I just gave up. She prefers to live alone. I realize there's nothing I can do about that. She's not going to change, and I refuse to live like that.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 08-15-2017 at 02:36 AM.
@Sailor Mars
xSTx types have Sensory or Logical Subtypes.
The number determines the strength or influence of your subtype...talking about SLE, there are basically 2 subtypes: SLE- Ti and SLE-Se.
The number indicates if you have a light, moderated or strong influence of your subtype SLE-1Se, SLE-2Se, SLE-3Se; SLE-1Ti, SLE-2Ti, SLE-3Ti...
In your case, SLE-3Se means that you are strongly influenced by your subtype (you manifests strongly the characteristics of Extroverted Sensing and the Sensory subtype). Also it means that you have a weaker preference for Ti over Se.
On my case for example, SLI 1Te, which means that I manifest slightly more characteristics of the Logical Subtype than the Sensory one.
This page has the description of subtypes, so I bet you'll find it helpful: http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...ESTp/subtypes/
Talking about your romance style, you are Primary aggressor and Secondary infantile (or childlike), so your dual would be IEI, and you'll have better compatibility in romance with Victims ( IEI, EIE, ILE, ILI), than with Childlikes or Caregivers.
Thanks, I tossed all tests out along with SLE once and for all (the lightness!) but I appreciate it
Victim and Caretaker, as well as Aggressor and Childlike are each on the same axis, being both either Dynamic or Static types.
In other words, every Victim can have a secondary Caretaker side (or vice versa), and every Aggressor can have a Childlike side (or vice versa).
Subtype amplifies or weaknesses that secondary Romance Style.
I've written more about it before in a deleted blog post:
Besides all that, add the fact that Gammas and Deltas have additionally "pseudo-attitudes". Gamma NTs being "Pseudo Aggressors" (mainly LIEs), and to a lesser extent Gamma SFs being "Pseudo Victims" (mainly ESIs); Delta NFs being "pseudo Caretakers" (mainly EII), and to a lesser extent Delta STs being "pseudo childlike" (mainly LSE). So technically, Gammas and Deltas can have a mix of 3 Romance Styles going on... quite confusing indeed.
It just shows that romantic attitudes are very complex... You could add masculine and feminine gender roles to the mix, and everything would get obscured even further. Feminine women being expected to act either Victim or Caretaker, and masculine men being expected to act Aggressor; and this does have an impact on how people express their romance style in real life. Based on their natural inclinations and how much they identify with their gender role, women and men will try to either act more Victim or Caretaker; or act more Aggressor, in order to meet expectations and have an easier time in the "dating world".
So that means that a male LIE concerned with being or appearing masculine is going to "play up" his (pseudo) Aggressor side, and a female ESI concerned with being or appearing feminine is going to "play up" her (pseudo) Victim side, etc. Their subtypes will determine how successful they are at doing so. An LIE-Ni is not going to be too convincing as an Aggressor, just as an ESI-Se is not going to be too convincing as a Victim; however LIE-Te and ESI-Fi may be able to fool people.
@Sailor Mars IEE?
Hm... So, LII-Ne would be technically one of the two most "childlike" in romance/sexuality according to this? With being primary childlike and not having any pseudo-ness in that link with also adding Ne subtype-ness boosting it?
I can relate to "intellectual exercise" part of that description tbh. And hm... Any aggression I show is often in a playful manner with people I am close to, in a "let's butt our heads on this small thing as a challenge without actually being overly serious and I can't help but smile or grin" kind of way. Ie for a few years with my mother we had flicking noses after hugging each other thingy and it was always so obvious with both of us when we were thinking of it since there would be that gleam in our eyes and we would be barely holding back a grin so before long we would both just be thinking about it at the same time and realize other was thinking it too so who out-speed other would 'win'. And by some point we just started to laugh before we could even do it when one would call other out on thinking it.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.
That's only thing coming up to my mind by "childishly aggressive/aggressively childish"ness as an experience tbh (even if they are not really romantic or sexual). I also still have problem with chosen names of those styles but that's another topic.
Edit: Just checked ISTj description on that link as well.
As my mother isn't really looking for a relationship atm and likely is a sp/so (I haven't seen any sx-ness from her my entire life really) she shows her "aggressiveness" most while interacting with friends, actually. She always seems to befriend an ESTj person (at least, last two friends she talked on daily basis were) and but heads with them constantly as she seems to fascinate them by not being wielding at all since it is pretty much expected by females around here, as well as being a Ti base with creative Se (They haven't seen much ISTj females apparently.) She never backs up when she knows she is right if they try to come up as the right one and has no problem with dropping them off if she finds that they actually were considering her as a partner, she also often calls them off on their bullshit pretty often. It is an amusing thing to watch, especially since she says that it is fun to make them flare up as well as not so covertly insulting them. Though it is much less of actual attack but more of playful thing, which could fit with Childlike and Aggressor going in hand?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."
Yup
Yup
I love hugs and I'm greedy for love, so I'll keep this one even if that chance of me being ILE turns out to be true
You look more IEE. Anyway ILEs are my semi duals.I love hugs and I'm greedy for love, so I'll keep this one even if that chance of me being ILE turns out to be true
@Medusa
That seems right. Fits with my personal experience with dual and what I've seen in others. Our roles doesn't seem fixed, I mean like we can act or move in these three roles in daily basis.
Do you think that LSE/SLIs are pseudo-caregivers, I mean, kinda fake caregivers and that's why we can fit in almost all styles?
Also I've noticed that Aggressor/Victims styles moves and are motivated by fear/security feelings, while Caregiver/Infantiles are focused in happiness/unhappiness or meaning/meaningless as life approach.
Last edited by Hope; 08-24-2017 at 06:37 AM.
I relate quite strongly to the descriptions of the EIE/IEI romance style which have been posted on the forum.
According to Gulenko, we are 'Challengers' or 'Trophies' - and thus our ideal partner is one who will jump into a pretty wild romance with us, weather all our theatricality, and then throw it back at us. We love emotional intensity, but strongly dislike weakness - and we assume a lack of passion means a lack of interest. As such, our partner needs to be very direct and keep ramping things up, sealing the deal and pushing us like we push them. A successful courtship will progress rapidly and involves crude sexual humour; brash, dramatic overtures and raw, primal sex acts.
Because men are expected to lead in courtship, I feel like this dynamic can be a bit confusing if the Aggressor is female and an introvert (as in LSI). Reaching physical intimacy early on probably helps.
For the record, here is my test result from Sociotype: http://www.sociotype.com/tests/result/est/238894
Well, no kidding.
No, I don't think so. Delta NFs are Pseudo-Caregivers. Delta STs aren't. But Delta STs can be fake/pseudo Childlikes (mostly LSE-Te and maybe the odd SLI-Te, because then the Si is "weakened", and Si is the Caregiving IM).
Hm interesting thought. Maybe. Though this fear/security thing could too easily be misconstrued, and lead to all 6s being mistyped as Se/Ni valuing. Just being insecure about romantic relations doesn't make someone Se/Ni valuing.
Afaik, this is mostly a stereotypically male thing – wanting to sexually progress as quickly as possible.
For the record, women do not really feel that way, especially Victim women. For a woman, the success of a courtship is not being measured by how rapidly and quickly it progressed, for the most part. (Though there might be the exception for some Aggressor or IEE SX women.)
Neither do all Victim women like "crude sexual humour" either, especially not in the beginning stages of a courtship. I know of Victim women who wouldn't be into that. Part of it is probably simply socialization, another part of it is instinctual stacking.
Sp/Sx Aggressors with an 8 fix seem to be the most "crude" early on, in my experience. SX first Aggressors with an 8 fix can be rather crude too, but they tend to let that out later on, and mostly once the sex act is very close, and not in the early stages of courtship. I'd say it's because Sx/Sp is synflow and tries to withhold their Sx in some way and be more acceptable, and Sx/So is more aware of social dynamics and customs and hence tends to be more outwardly "civilized", at least initially, though there can be some outliers.
Anyhow, I'd say that SX blindspot and SO first Victim women, and perhaps some very socialized SX first ones, won't be into "crude sexual humour" (early on). Having said all that, it also depends on what or who the humour is directed at. If the guy happens to make sexual jokes in a more general manner, it could be fine. (I'm thinking of comedians like Louis CK or Dane Cook here, who are both Sx first – Sx/So and Sx/Sp respectively – and make sexual jokes in that way.) It becomes tricky once those jokes are directed at her, and especially once they cease to be actual jokes and are just obnoxious ways to hit on her.
Beta NFs tend to expect a courtship to be somewhat "regal" in a sense, being aristocratic Victims. EIE men are like troubadours; I am rather certain that the overwhelming majority of troubadours back in the day were EIE men.
Beta descriptions mention 19th century courtship to be characteristic of Beta (NF) romance, but I find Courtly Love from the 11th/12th century to be a much more fitting analogy.The texts of troubadour songs deal mainly with themes of chivalry and courtly love. Most were metaphysical, intellectual, and formulaic.
Courtly Love was about "winning over" a woman with chivalrous behavior, songs, and poetry. I tend to find this kind of attitude residing in most (if not all) Beta NF men naturally; as well as in some Gamma NT (Ni subtype), and in some Gamma SF (Fi subtype), and even in some ESE and IEE men, though for the latter it is mostly a "role" they play and not who they really are, whereas Beta NF men (and some Gamma men) just "are" that way.Courtly love (or fin'amor in Occitan) was a medieval European literary conception of love that emphasized nobility and chivalry. . . .
In the high Middle Ages, a "game of love" developed around these ideas as a set of social practices. "Loving nobly" was considered to be an enriching and improving practice. . . .
In essence, courtly love was an experience between erotic desire and spiritual attainment, "a love at once illicit and morally elevating, passionate and disciplined, humiliating and exalting, human and transcendent".
It's going to be quite rare to meet a Beta NF who will be openly and directly sexually crude, especially in the beginning of a courtship. Victims, especially the Beta ones, tend to have a specific shyness or cautiousness when it comes to the progression of a romantic relationship. They need to be continually "convinced" that it is worth it and has future potential and that the other person is truly interested in them, and they are truly interested in them themselves. Some Victims (especially the Gammas) need to be directly told that they like you in order to "go for it"! A direct, provocative "I know you like me!" can bring an ILI out of their stupor. There are some very shy Victim-Ni subtype men out there who need that same kind of direct person to show them that there is actually "something going on".
In that context, I know of a failed courtship between an EIE man and EII woman. The EIE man invited her to his home as a first date (they'd met online). You'd think this is definitely going to lead somewhere sexual... She arrives, they mostly have a good time. They cook and do some chit-chat. The EIE is unsure about his degree of attraction towards her, the EII senses that (with her strong Fi). She even gives him a kiss in the kitchen, and he does or says nothing! Continues doing what he's done before, as if nothing had happened! Later, the EIE offers her to sleep at his place (!) because it's already gotten late and traveling back home takes a couple of hours for the EII. So the EII agrees, and they sleep in the same bed (!), but all he does is cuddle with her. The next day, she travels back home. Their budding romance had died off rather quickly. Now, you could say that she must have looked terrible in real life, and that's why he rejected her. I don't think she looked that different in real life, very slightly worse at most; it is not like she tried to hide what she looked like, she did even make some videos that showed her rather well. I'd say that she wasn't bad looking, but she was probably not as good-looking as he had imagined in his romantic mind. Being a Victim, that put him into a great conundrum, being unsure about his degree of attraction towards her, whether it is enough for a relationship or not. Apparently, the EII tried to help him out with that, but it didn't really hit the mark. Every other man who'd at least want to get laid would have seized the opportunity at the very last once she was willing to sleep over in his bed! But no, he did not! I'd say that he probably did like her a lot in a platonic sense, but he couldn't see a future with her (for various reasons), and that's why he kept their interaction platonic and non-sexual. Who knows, maybe he would have had sex right then and there if she had been an LSI or ESI, but even that I doubt. He was (an older) SX first and looking for a long-term romantic relationship; and being a Victim, he wouldn't go for something that didn't have a future. This kind of attitude is quite common for SX Victims. Other men would have thrown all caution to the wind, especially Aggressor ones, and just ended up sleeping with her for the momentary pleasure in the present. Getting to know someone, and based on that knowledge knowing whether there'll be a future together, takes some time...
As a bonus, here's a classic example of male Beta NF (here: IEI) courtship behaviour. Debra Berndt-Maldonado, author of the book "Let Love In", received the following poem from her now-husband on their second date. (They are both IEI.)
All my work, all my study now seems like dust and ashes
since you offered me your delicate hands across the table.
A woman like you, earthy but ethereal, is a jewel of existence.
Ordinary men cannot perceive—
but I, a wandering pilgrim
wounded in a thousand battles of the soul,
can feel the depths of your subtle spirit,
the secret chamber of your mystic heart.
I can vouch for the truth of the parts of this for which I have direct experience. I'm an sx-first Victim, and I simply refuse to advance on a woman with whom I can't see a future.
(Now, if I tell a woman that I don't see a future with her, and she still wants sex, then that is a different matter, assuming the attraction is there. But otherwise, no.)
I can also vouch for the fact that Fi-doms seem to be very quick to sense interest. This morning, I saw a stewardess on a plane who, I think, was a dual ESI (no sub-type), was intelligent, fairly thin, tall with red hair, and she walked by me four times while I watched her, and I think she picked up on my interest (which was serious, not transient) with just a few seconds of observations. I was in an aisle seat, and she found a reason to spend some time reaching into the overhead bin just above my head. And no others.
I wrote my name and phone number on a card, but then thought, how well would our lives intersect?, and in the end, I didn't give her the card. I'm kicking myself, but it just seemed too unlikely we could mesh.
With someone like that, I want long term or nothing.
Yeah, well LSE and SLI are mentioned as Teachers more than caregivers, thats why I was asking about. I think there are differences in alpha and delta styles of caregiving.
Secondary aggressor, I love showing mah SLI's who's in charge
heretical nonsense
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
