View Poll Results: Which of these do you think the archetype applies to?

Voters
5. You may not vote on this poll
  • Victim/Aggressor

    1 20.00%
  • Caregiver/Infantile

    1 20.00%
  • Neither and/or both

    3 60.00%
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Lolita - an archetype representing the caregiver/infantile dynamic?

  1. #1
    Haikus VenusRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    EII 4w5 Sx/So
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Lolita - an archetype representing the caregiver/infantile dynamic?

    --
    Last edited by VenusRose; 12-14-2018 at 01:47 AM.

  2. #2
    myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I read the book and watched the movie more than 10 years ago, so I have trouble remembering all. I think infantile can be passive but they aren't submissive at all, they value their independence and freedom much more other types. It can be also observed in their romantic attitude. Ne egos also tend to be weird or quirky. I don't think Lolita archetype represents infantile erotic style. Manic pixie dream girl archetype represents infantile style more than lolita archetype in my opinion.

  3. #3
    aster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    683
    Mentioned
    309 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I read this a few years back. I suppose the question for me is whether Humbert is SLI or ILI. I suppose it could maybe work if his character is SLI and she an infantile in the socionics sense. I've mostly seen him typed ILI, I believe, and Lolita as SEE. Which if they were ILI and SEE, which I believe they were, it would be a victim/aggressor relationship. The thing is Humbert is much older than Lolita, she in the beginning was an infantile (not in the socionics sense, but by being young) and she eventually breaks free of him as she gets older and you can see her more aggressor qualities then. Although she always seemed more on the aggressor side to me, if I recall correctly. Maybe her being much younger in the beginning could possibly mimic that dynamic of caregiver/infantile
    Tumblr

    “Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
    ~Karl

  4. #4
    myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Manic pixie dream girl archetype only exists in order to serve the protagonist. Just a note that I don't think infatile style is like that, but this archetype resembles caricatured way of infantile.



    9122a7f80b85cd98b7e8129131f91aa8.jpg

    art-cute-dream-girl-nature-Favim.com-122766.jpg

  5. #5
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    So/Sx Introvert
    Posts
    7,968
    Mentioned
    698 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)

    Default

    I also read the book, and I actually find it possible that Humbert was IEI-Ni, and Lolita SEE-Fi – Semi Duality seems to characterize their dynamic better (but I could also see ILI-Ni for him).

    Either way, the dynamic in the novel itself is ironically Victim-Aggressor, with the Victim trying to get "hold" of the SEE by indirectly trying to make her pursue/like him (he is both passive and sort of proactive in his passivity, which could fit ILI better; however, the way he seems not to really understand her entirely, there is a certain blindspot for him, is a stronger indicator of Semi-Duality), but she continuously slips through his grip. There are moments when Lolita is trying to assert her Se-Fi "dominance" over Humbert by charming him, taunting/teasing him with provocative actions, flirtations, and clothing, thereby making him fall for her even harder, but obviously she is paying for it later down the road. Though she always manages to regain some kind of power, she refuses to fall into the victim role. Humbert never possesses her completely, neither her body nor her heart, which despairs and disillusions him towards the end of it all. Humbert is both the perpetrator and "victim" here, abusing her, but also blaming Lolita for charming him and not being able to ever win her over.

    Having said all that, the BDSM dynamic of "little girl/boy" and "daddy/mommy" seems to be primarily a Delta thing, there the emphasis is truly on a certain parental role distribution.. the "caretaker" and the "infantile", more literally. But, this is quite different from the dynamic in the novel. I should add that Victims have a tendency towards being caregivers, and Aggressors towards being infantile (static/dynamic similarity), so that is how Nabokov's Lolita might be not too far away from this. But for Victims, their caretaker-ness is a mere facade, and this applies to Humbert, who plays the role of being Lolita's confidant and doting step-dad, but really the truth is a different one.

    Anyway to answer your question more directly:

    I'd say that Lolita and its derivatives is an example of a older/more mature dynamic person + younger/more immature static person.
    So this can apply to both victim+aggressor and caretaker+infantile (or even victim+infantile and caretaker+aggressor) in their own ways,
    though on the surface, the caretaker+infantile seems to fit the best.
    Last edited by Olimpia; 11-27-2018 at 09:27 PM.
    New Youtube [x] Get Typed! [x]
    Celebs [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x]

    *********** 21-04-19:
    "Looks like a mystic that just arrived to battle and staring out at the battle, ready to unleash"



  6. #6
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,273
    Mentioned
    90 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's a story about a pedophile.
    I never realized how many idiots there were until I logged on to the Internet. -- Edsger Dijkstra, Dutch Computer Scientist and pioneer in network communication (possibly apocryphal)

  7. #7
    IQ over 150 vesstheastralsilky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    INxJ Hybrid
    Posts
    1,486
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Venus Rose View Post
    I understand that this will be a controversial topic, so I wanted to make it clear that I am referring to that archetype of attraction between an innocent, naive and submissive person, and a caring, dominating person. I do not mean anything other than that, I don't mean to glorify what the book is about.

    That being said, I am curious - if you are aware of the Lolita archetype, be it from the book, the movies, or just in general - do you see any of the socionics erotic styles reflected in it? Could either of the two main dynamics apply here?

    This is a very interesting topic, and I hope I am not saying anything offensive or going against the rules. If I am, mod(s), please let me know.
    Sounds like an Alpha experience based on this post. Not always for Alphas though and Idk about the other quadras.
    Last edited by vesstheastralsilky; 11-26-2018 at 01:40 AM.
    ~* astralsilky

    4w5 that morphed into a 3w2 sx/sp
    Cancer Sun, Cancer/Leo Moon, Libra Ascendant, Pluto conjunct Ascendant, Sun conjunct Moon, Saturn conjunct Mercury conjunct MC in 10th, Jupiter handle of bucket pattern squares Nodes, Uranus biquintile Jupiter, Neptune sextile Ascendant, Lilith trine Ascendant, Venus in Gemini/Cancer in 9th house conjunct MC, Venus trine Uranus, Uranus conjunct Spica, Ascendant conjunct SuperGalactic Center, Sun inconjunct Galactic Center.

    Each essence is a separate glass,
    Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
    Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
    A thousand colors, but the Light is One.

    Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet

  8. #8
    lemontrees's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    / / /
    Posts
    1,314
    Mentioned
    121 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I read the first half many years ago and I don't remember Lolita being submissive. I thought it was more disconcerting b/c of the way in which she was portrayed as seductive, through the lens of the unreliable narrator. I thought it was more of a victim aggressor archetype, since doesn't the power play supposedly go both ways for them?

  9. #9
    myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am sure that I am naive in some ways like everyone else, but I wouldn't like if someone was attracted to me because of that. I don't like to be loved for my naivete, but I can like someone for their naivete, maybe it is T-F thing. I think my behaviors could put off someone that wants submission. Manic pixie dream girl is superficial and infantile/caregiver is much more than that. However, I don't think lolita archetype has little relevance to it in my point of view. Maybe it is about delta/alpha difference, maybe we have different definitions. What is the meaning of innocence and naivete for you?

  10. #10
    Pano Lou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    A mystery
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, I don't find that appealing. Caregiving isn't about taking care of an actual child like person. Ne egos are child like, but they're not naive by any means. My idea of caregiving, at least for Delta STs, would be that the caregiver takes care of physical needs, since we are strong in Si. I can easily take care of other people in that sense. I can even help with Te goals and stuff like that.

    I think BDSM can be fun, but I find it artificial and not a natural caregiver dynamic. I don't go in thinking "I'm going to dominate my partner and have them submit to me" that doesn't seem very caregiver-y. It's more like, "Oh here's a person who can't Si all that well. Hey, I'm cool, I got this." Doing Si things is the extent of my caregiving. Anything beyond that and it's unnatural for me.

    I can't think most adults would be "innocent and naive" anyway? Life experiences tend to mature people. I would hate being with someone who can't figure out the absolute basics of life... It doesn't sound like a relationship with them would be rewarding emotionally.
    "My love for Linton is like the foliage in the woods: time will change it, I'm well aware, as winter changes the trees. My love for Heathcliff resembles the eternal rocks beneath: a source of little visible delight, but necessary. Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind"



    "Catherine Earnshaw, may you not rest as long as I am living; you said I killed you—haunt me, then!... Be with me always—take any form—drive me mad! only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you!"




  11. #11
    Pano Lou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    A mystery
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Venus Rose View Post
    Some are. You are right that most people wouldn't be like that, but due to unique combination of temperament and life experiences (or lack thereof), some people are like that. At least the ones that are genuinely like that, and not contrived. Many also have difficulty assimilating information about the badness of human beings and what they are capable of. It's not a willful ignorance, it just takes an enormous energy toll on them to try to understand that, since their psyche doesn't work that way.
    I think i understand what you mean. I missed the "contrived" part of your posts. I see @myresearch already brought up manic pixie dream girl already. I'm not attracted to that archetype. I can see why a guy taking care of a girl like that can be classified under the cargiver/infantile dynamic. But I don't think it's realistic, at least for delta STs to always enjoy something like that. Me personally, I am attracted to the Disney princess archetype, like Ariel and Anna, characters like that. They're innocent/naive but with strong personalities outside of just being innocent and naive. The male equivalent I can think of is the shounen anime protagonist guy who kinda falls under that. Naive, innocent, but strong and tough. That's a lot more attractive, I think.

    I don't think all infantile/caregiver dynamics are the same. I think alpha NTs are more infantile than Delta NFs. I think Delta NFs function as pseudo caregivers. A lolita dynamic like the one in the video is not something that I would be attracted to. (I know the example is a bit extreme.) The core idea of MPDG is that she doesn't undergo any character development and keeps the male character in an infantile state as well.

    From Wikipedia:

    Manic Pixie Dream Girl (MPDG) is a stock character type in films. Film critic Nathan Rabin, who coined the term after observing Kirsten Dunst's character in Elizabethtown (2005), said that the MPDG "exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures."[1] MPDGs are said to help their men without pursuing their own happiness, and such characters never grow up; thus, their men never grow up.[2]
    I don't really know much of the Lolita archetype, or if anything I have covered matches with your idea of it. What do you think?

    As for BDSM, if it doesn't come naturally, that means you are simply not into it...
    Some people are; some aren't. There's nothing wrong with either scenario.
    I'm not not into BDSM. I just don't think its a natural caregiver thing. I don't necessarily need to be in a caregiver role to love someone or to have a sexual life. Like I said, BDSM can be fun, and a lot of people enjoy it. I'm not judging.
    Last edited by Pano Lou; 11-28-2018 at 05:14 AM.
    "My love for Linton is like the foliage in the woods: time will change it, I'm well aware, as winter changes the trees. My love for Heathcliff resembles the eternal rocks beneath: a source of little visible delight, but necessary. Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind"



    "Catherine Earnshaw, may you not rest as long as I am living; you said I killed you—haunt me, then!... Be with me always—take any form—drive me mad! only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you!"




  12. #12
    Pano Lou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    A mystery
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Venus Rose View Post
    I am not trying to be rude, or anything like that. It's your type, so it's up to you to decide, but have you considered Se-ego/creative for yourself? Or Ni, if that doesn't fit. I have been having a hard time seeing you as Te-base, and a caregiver (Si) type. I could be completely wrong, of course, and I have only seen so much of your writing on here. In the end, it's up to you, but I was just curious.
    I'm typed correctly.

    Yeah, that's not what I meant, which is why I hesitated from referring to DDlg. I like the idea behind it, I just don't like what I see made from that core idea. For the most part, the SX is muted over with other things, most likely SP, which takes away some of the power of this dynamic. Also, it's a beautiful dynamic, just like any other D/s dynamic, but the right kind of creative and intelligent individuals haven't yet come along who are capable of presenting it as it actually is, at least in my eyes. My taste in aesthetics is also the complete opposite of theirs, it seems (you can look at my Pinterest, if you would like to).



    Oh, I don't think they are the same, at all. I was just trying to bring to light my personal vision of it, which I have yet to see truly embodied anywhere. There are always variations on it.
    If it's your personal version of it, then you should not be surprised that most people don't get it. I have been in a DDLG relationship before, as I was experimenting with BDSM. I know the ins and outs of it. It isn't my cup of tea personally. I'm not infantile or victim, so being in that position just brought me a ton of stress. Unless you're willing to discuss the more sensory aspects of what you mean by it, I don't think I can help.

    The dynamic in the video is most definitely not a lolita dynamic. Lolita dynamic is darker, more sexual, more mature than that. I hope that makes sense. It is a strange, seemingly paradoxical mix of maturity and childlikeness.
    I have some ideas myself of what you mean by this I don't want to talk on a public thread tho, I am willing to PM you if you want to know more about it.

    I don't personally have very much to say on MPDG, since I don't know very much about it.

    Hmm, maybe I should find a better way to explain it, haha. Will do, if something better comes to mind, than the explanation I have already given. I do think there are hints of it in my Pinterest, though.
    I will check it out.
    "My love for Linton is like the foliage in the woods: time will change it, I'm well aware, as winter changes the trees. My love for Heathcliff resembles the eternal rocks beneath: a source of little visible delight, but necessary. Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind"



    "Catherine Earnshaw, may you not rest as long as I am living; you said I killed you—haunt me, then!... Be with me always—take any form—drive me mad! only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you!"




  13. #13
    Formerly Chuck's Sneeds Feed and Seed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    The way I always pictured it was the caregiver type finding the infantile type cute and charmingly strange. More like something whimsical and bizarre that they feel the need to sort of become an anchor/rock to. Infantile type sees the caregiver type as really confident and cool and just accommodating of all their eccentricies and quirks. I think.

    I don't think it's about domination or control in a ddlg way (unless they're both into that, but I doubt that's specific to any given type), and definitely not in a paedophilic way cause that's unhealthy (and again, not bound by type) lol.

    I AM THE KING OF ALABAMA


  14. #14
    Haikus VenusRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    EII 4w5 Sx/So
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    BDSM or D/s is not inherently unhealthy, but I don't want to go into that right now. I understand most people see it that way, but they may not speak the language, so it's hard for them to understand it. There's nothing wrong with that, but I didn't intend for this thread to go into that direction. It's play. Master/slave, for instance, doesn't equal actual slavery. Similarly, that applies to everything else within BDSM as well.

    I also didn't mean that ALL caregiver/infantile dynamics are of the kind I am trying to describe. Of course, they are not. I just found the descriptions for C/I lacking, because in my eyes, it was neglecting the powerful core of such attractions - it may differ from person to person - but I just wanted to go in deeper, on that. When I look at C/I description, I feel that it is describing me, but barely scratching the surface.

    Anyways, if you are put off by the topic, it is up to you whether or not you want to contribute further. I would just like to avoid going in that direction. This is also something dear to me, and I sharing a piece of myself, which is why I would request for others to be kind to me, in regards to what I am sharing. If you don't want to be, that's fine, but I will shut down this thread for protective reasons.

    In regards to D/s, it is something that comes naturally to people. So no, they don't really feel forced into it, nor is it superficial. If it feels superficial to you - that specific thing is probably not your cup of tea. I feel like people realize their inclinations very early on, during adolescence, before they even understand anything about the world of BDSM. This is an integral part of who they are, and to rip that away would be like ripping away half of their body. I say this to emphasize how these inclinations are literally part of their psychology, and they are not them without it. It might be different for some, they might take it lightly. But for me, perhaps with the Sexual instinct predominating, it is part of me. So no, this isn't simply "fun" for me, this is a meaningful and real part of me. I can't and I wouldn't have it any other way. This thread was partly to delve into myself, and who I am, and perhaps come across others who may understand some of what I am trying to say. I may not find that here, I don't know, but it was worth the risk.

    Anyways, that's all I have to say for now.

  15. #15
    Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,461
    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Venus Rose View Post
    I understand that this will be a controversial topic, so I wanted to make it clear that I am referring to that archetype of attraction between an innocent, naive and submissive person, and a caring, dominating person. I do not mean anything other than that, I don't mean to glorify what the book is about.

    That being said, I am curious - if you are aware of the Lolita archetype, be it from the book, the movies, or just in general - do you see any of the socionics erotic styles reflected in it? Could either of the two main dynamics apply here?

    This is a very interesting topic, and I hope I am not saying anything offensive or going against the rules. If I am, mod(s), please let me know.
    Do you identify with Lolita? I'm asking because your line of inquiry seems like it might have come out of a self-reflection of sorts?

    I guess it is hard for people to properly address what you are trying to get at if they only have read a book or seen a movie version.

    I have only seen the movie - well, one version of it at least - and frankly it wasn't very psychological at all. It was more so bordering on pornography if i may. I say this because maybe you are trying to get at something deeper here but maybe the versions of the lit. you are referring to that are flowing around might not be that deep.
    "Inasmuch as it is nothing but pure communicability, every face, even the most noble and beautiful, is always suspended on the edge of an abyss"

Posting Permissions

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