Stackings and Misconceptions

[DirectorAbbie]

So an sx-first person would struggle with intimate relationships. This can include romantic relationships and/or close friendship. But it's an active struggle - something they focus on, not a passive "I'm just not good at that."
An sx-last might be a very sexual person or have very close bonds with others, but it comes so easily that maintaining these relationships is basically effortless.

I agree with the first part, but not that sx-last would be a very sexual person/have close bonds, and I also wouldn't say it comes all that easy to them either. I've never known a sx-last to be the way you describe them. They're often the complete opposite of that.

Yes. Again, squark already corrected me on that. I figured it wasn't necessary to edit the first post for something that's been said right below it.

An sp-first person could be neurotic about personal safety or well-being because it doesn't come naturally to them so they have to pay attention to get it right, whereas an sp-last may be naturally good at that sort of thing and can essentially ignore such things and still be fine.

Again, yes, we're neurotic in the first instinct, but I also think the "neuroticism" is more a manifestation of that hyper-awareness of it. A sp-first person will still have a greater awareness and innate knowledge (They're instincts, right?) of sp related concerns and be neurotic about it than a sp-last person. A sp-last person has to work on sp because it doesn't come naturally to them. They ignore it, not because they're naturally good at it, but because they just don't care about it, and if you don't care about it, how can you be neurotic in it? The way you formulate how the instinct appears in the last position seems counter-intuitive to me.

How does instinct imply knowledge? If anything, it suggests acting without knowledge. Gut rather than mind.
Hm. I wonder whether the stackings could relate to heart-head-gut.

Fi is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing. Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.

So are you saying that the main misconception is in associating sx with Fi and so with Fe? I used to do the latter.

A common misconception is that sx equates to sex. I'm saying that even if that is the case to a degree, not only is it possible for an asexual to be sx-first, it may be more likely than for one to be sx-last.

Can you say more about this and how it appears? I don't think it equates to sex either, but it can certainly be a part of it, even in a metaphorical sense, if one is asexual or abstinent, for instance. In other words, "sexual" union with another, viewing things in "sexual" terms, not to be confused with a dirty mind here, either.

I'm saying that not thinking in terms of sexuality doesn't exempt one from being sx. That part of sx just wouldn't be part of their sx.