Quote Originally Posted by misutii
omg i think just thought of a very good way to interpret the whole Erotic Attitude thing...... I want you guys to test it out, it only takes a second and it's fun

a) think about sex
b) now think about people you've had sex with
c) now think about the sexual encounters that you've found comparably dissatisfying

ok it's a simple fact that a person usually blames the other person involved when the sex just isn't that great (maybe we don't do it out loud, but we do it in our heads) so now channel these criticisms into Gulenko's erotic attitudes.

So to address the fact that i've noticed that people whose types are in the "Infantile" category react in the most defensive manner to these attitudes, I find that reaction to be infantile, lol, of course you wouldn't define your own behaviour as infantile! duh, but i bet someone that didn't enjoy having sex with you would (i.e. me)

I find that it's difficult to actually talk about sex in social situations. This because the people that bring the subject up don't actually want to talk about it, they just want attention. Thus the conversation never actually penetrates deeper than the surface because if it did people would get uncomfortable as they'd be forced to accept the reality of their situation (that their sex life is lacking).

Anyways i'm interested to hear if this little method works for others....
Okay...

1.) My experiences have not shown this theory to be accurate.

2.) Whether or not the sex is good, or how good it is, is about a lot of other types of compatibility than just socionics.

3.) How someone reacts if his/her partner did not enjoy his or herself is a far more individual thing than socionics types or erotic attitudes. Also, being someone who tells another person that the sex "could have been better" or something like that shows a lot of immaturity. You cannot tell someone that you didn't enjoy the sex and then call them childish for not taking it very well. I do not think this type of immaturity can be blamed on erotic attitudes.

4.) The "erotic attitudes" are, imo, about romantic relationships, not sex itself. Si/Ne types can be into SMBD, for example. And the erotic attitudes apply just as much to romantic relationships when the partners have not had sex as they do to those who have. If you try to translate the erotic attitudes into sex and try to apply them to sexual acts, you're going to have an inaccurate picture of what Aggressor/Victim and Infatile/Caregiver relationships are about. (Not that I'm saying that you're saying that if someone likes to be tied up it automatically makes them Ni or something.)