LOL! That's hilarious. Love it.Originally Posted by meatburger
Somewhat true too.
LOL! That's hilarious. Love it.Originally Posted by meatburger
Somewhat true too.
INTp
sx/sp
that sex and socionics are related. I don't especially know how and I don't think any one person here does either but it is worthwhile to think about because it's important to know what's in our control and what isn't. Why is it that with one person I feel comfortably talking about pretty much anything whereas with another trying to talk about the same things make me blush and get embarrassed and nervous? Maybe I'm too young and lack the wisdom to answer these questions but what I do know is that I've seen the consequences of not dealing with this shit before it's too late. Families torn apart when the children needed their parent's love the most. People afraid to leave dead end relationships because they believe it's all they have and there's no one that can truly love them. I find that lots of people are obsessed with controlling stupid little every day matters that they let their futures escape them. Maybe it's presumptuous of me to believe I'm any different, "C'est la vie", but if we believed that we wouldn't be here.Originally Posted by FDG
INFp-Ni
That's it. I quit.Originally Posted by misutii
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
misutii i agree that sex and socionics are related and no one has found a way to comprehensively articulate that relatedness. i am one of those who don't like the labels they've used and find the descriptions too limited or something.
but i find the whole topic of the meaning of sex for relationships very facinating and the interpretation and understanding that socionics might provide is potentially a growth area for socionics.
sex is hard for people to talk about though....easy to joke about, easy to become embarrassed about, easy to express other kinds of defensiveness about, and most especially hard to think about putting one's thoughts into words and posting them on line.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Originally Posted by meatburger
aggressor: "you will submit to my will or i will destroy you."
victim: "try. i will live to see your end, your very nasty end, if God is willing."
careful: "no that's too much skin. i will show you the bottom of my ankle. this was hot in the olden days you know?"
infantile: "no. *yawn*. tickle me."
I'm not implying that this whole erotic attitude thing should be adhered to. For Gulenko to claim that relations between all aggressors and infantile are bad is quite the generalization for example, i think that certain types characterized as "aggressor" might do well with certain types characterized as "infantile" etc. If inter-type relations decrees that relationships between certain types are "better" or at least "easier" then I think it's immature to completely separate sex from the equation... after all it's not often that you hear people say "wow my relationship is amazing in every area!!! except the sex... but that doesn't matter!!"Originally Posted by Kim
I think it would be fun if some russian continued where Aushra left off and examined patterns in sexual relations between types. lol, talk about risque, how the hell does one even go about beginning to exact such a study?!
and diamond8 i agree. I think my curiousity sometimes leads me to petulance and I apologize for offending anyone's sensibilities on the matter, my intent on the whole matter was merely to gain knowledge and find patterns on a topic where such does not come so easy.
INFp-Ni
From this I would say I most often behave like infantile I can also be aggressor or victim depending on my mood. I don't relate much to the careful description. I'm not sure if this has any relevance to my type hunt though since the descriptions may be misleadingOriginally Posted by meatburger
Edit:
You could say that I adapt to the situation somewhat. If I'm with aggressor I become the victim. If I'm with victim I become the aggressor. If I'm with careful I become the infantile. I rarely become the careful though.
Chameleon!Originally Posted by XoX
INTp
sx/sp
i agree with this. i'm the same way.Originally Posted by XoX
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
These descriptions are just jokes, which is good because the careful description is extremely misleading and incorrect. It paints Si types as extremely sexually conservative... bullshit.Originally Posted by XoX
caretaker: Likes to focus attention on partner
infantile: Likes attention to be focused on them
But life is more complex than any of these short descriptions allow. Also, I think partners sometimes switch back and forth in the roles a bit. And I think it's more romantic behavior in general than specifically sexual behavior, although there is an obvious relationship between the two.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
.
This is the best however! The interpretation of erotic attitudes presented in the first post was later in the thread approved by Dmitri Lytov so it must be good.Originally Posted by Diana
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2586
I don't think the victim/aggressor dichotomy is as much about control as it is made to sound in those descriptions, but I would like to point out that dmitri called them "love types" (as opposed to "sex types" ). "Power" may be a better word than "control", but I don't think one side is more powerful than the other. They just play different parts. The victim is the one who sets the standards though, imo.
that thread is so embarrassing... I had no idea wtf I was talking about lol
<- MehOriginally Posted by Mea
Yeah i know what you mean about the Chameleon thing, im sure most can do it to some extent. Without going into too much detail, i would say my natural attitude towards sex is romantic. Taking a long time to reach erogenous zones, massage, foreplay, light kissing, saying sexual stuff etc. Especially at the start of a relationship.Originally Posted by XoX
Once i was walking through the park with my girlfriend and i pushed her up against a tree and um fucked her right there. I think thats more of an agressive thing. This very same girlfriend(ESFp) would occasionally go nuts at me in the bedroom. She would snap and turn into devil girl and i told her such. I cant say i didn't enjoy it but not sure if it would be my favourite?
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
you go! sounds fun, for sure.Originally Posted by meatburger
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Yeah even though from my post it seems like I believe erotic attitudes match actual sexual attitudes im in two minds. I agree the lines seem very blurry to me
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
If you are Ethical subtype then the infantile-aggressor is blurred.Originally Posted by meatburger
Even if, it actually seems to me that ISTp-Te would tend to be more "aggressors" than ISTp-Si.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
It may be aggressive behavior but I don't think it is a sign of being an aggressor. It is more a Ne-thing. It just suddenly pops into your head that you want to fuck her right there. An introverted Ne-type probably wouldn't actually do it but an extroverted Ne type would/might go for it (and refuse to take a no for an answer). A careful/caring type would be more than happy to satisfy this sudden urge of yours.Originally Posted by meatburger
Now a clear aggressor thing would be to say to your girlfriend in the morning "Today I'm going to fuck you in the park" and then actually go and do that later in the day. A good victim would consider that kind of prolonged "mental dominance" foreplay sexually very arousing.