Results 1 to 40 of 132

Thread: Stackings and Misconceptions

Threaded View

  1. #10
    Haikus VenusRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    EII 4w5 Sx/So
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok, I still don't want to be attacked or anything or something called "nonsense" since I am sharing...this, and it makes me feel somewhat vulnerable but, I thought I would add what I meant. I may not want to "argue" though, but just providing my thoughts on this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Samson View Post
    Being up-to-date-with-the-trends may be Social, but needing to be attractive is directly related to sexuality and partnership. It is about seducing and being seduced, and looking hot and sexy is a must.
    Yeah, I understand what you mean. But I think for several this is somewhat unconscious that they do this (seducing/being seduced, and "looking hot and sexy) <-- referring again to my post on Si/Ne types may metabolize sexuality, and for several of them it is intellectually.

    Which is to say they may engage in those behaviors, but may tend to "romanticize" it when talking about it, or "intellectualize" it perhaps. But if you observe them, the sexuality is clearly obvious. As you mentioned the same down here somewhere as well...

    There is a reason it is called 'sexual' after all. And yes, it is a very basic need for our species, it is an instinct. I don't understand this notion that it shouldn't be about sex. Sex is vital to our existence, just as much as preserving ourselves and the group is - if not moreso depending how you look at it.
    Yeah I understand what you mean here. But I was trying to point out that you may be misunderstanding the comment that "it's not about sex." That comment doesn't mean what you are saying here isn't correct. All instincts, including sexual are "vital to our species." But as I mentioned earlier, some people (honestly, it doesn't even have to be Si/Ne types - and some Si/Ne types may not relate to what I am saying, but just to mention that there are definitely people out there who are like this) very much embody everything you have talked about, but may shy away from writing about it in more blatant terms. Though this one is not that blatant.

    Hence they may use the words "intimacy," "connection," and such.
    Also, just the SX collage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Katherine Fauvre
    For purposes of this study, I sent out questionnaires to the Enneagram community, and this article represents my initial findings on the patterns that emerged from the contributions received from the participants.
    She has gathered data by asking those who identify as SX firsts, what it means to them. Which is why I think it is relevant and important.

    This is um, where I meant that I am making myself vulnerable and I don't like being made to look like someone I am not.

    Denying the importance of sex in our base make-up as human beings is exactly what 'blindspot' means. VenusRose's idea that somehow the Delta quadra downplays sex even when they are Sx dominant is nonsense. Have you ever met an IEE Sx/So 6? I have. The sex is dripping out of their eyes. Of course I can say what I want, you don't have to believe me on this one.
    Another example would be Helena Bonham Carter. Not-Sx-blindspot Delta person. Looking at her, yeah.. she cares about sex.
    I was hurt and scared at being made to look like someone I am not. Scared not because of you necessarily, but because I don't feel like I can defend myself and thought I would be run-over. And that if I made myself vulnerable it would be intentionally and/or unintentionally exploited in order to suit someone's agenda.
    . . .

    Anyways, that is what I was afraid of.

    But yeah, they do have "sex leaking from their eyes," though I have also observed this sometimes in SX seconds. Which I guess isn't surprising because they can be more "playful" with SX since they don't have as much neurosis or fear tied to it as SX firsts.

    Anyway, I didn't realize this was a typing thread, so I do apologize for my tone in this post. I assure you I have nothing against you or your typing or w/e. My frustration lies with the denial of something so potentially beautiful, by so many people across forums and IRL, including teachers and writers, and it pains me that sex, desire, eros,... is looked at as dirty or fake and that it needs to be cleansed from its 'sin' as it were. And similarly the beauty of the social arena gets erased for much of the same 'sin:' that of superficiality. It pains me to see that the depths of these mechanisms are denied.
    Oh, I absolutely do not think that, nor did I mean it. Perhaps you didn't mean me, but just clearing it up.

    So..yeah. That's it.
    Last edited by VenusRose; 01-18-2019 at 05:17 AM.

Posting Permissions

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