# sx-last rants



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

If you're sx-last say *what you don't like about the sexual instinct*.

*OR*

If you're NOT sx-last say *what you don't like about how the sexual instinct is treated*.

Hopefully, we'll get a better understanding of how each side experiences the sexual instinct.

See also: so-last rants, sp-last rants


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

As an sx-first, I especially notice sx-last in an intimate relationship. There just seems a lack of intimacy and closeness. It feels like an attitude of let's keep everything comfortable and pleasant. It feels like my intimate relationship is more of an acquaintance. It feels like the other person really doesn't care about my interests in the least. It feels like if I don't go along on their ride of what interests them then they just don't want to be bothered spending time together. I feel cheated and not reciprocated. If I push it, then I get things like "I'll never be enough for you" or they'll fake it for awhile just to get me off their back. Even though I'm a guy, it feels like the gender stereotypes are reversed (and that in itself could start a whole other series of rants). It finally gets to the point where I realize I have to find someone else to get the connection I want because this person is always going to be holding back and a little distant.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

I don't have a personal problem with being sx-last.

I have, however, found that sx-doms can't seem to understand personal space. As in I have it, and no, it's not yours to invade.

EDIT: upon further thought, perhaps the primary conflict lies in the fact that sp-doms and sx-doms have very different ideas as what constitutes as personal space.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Marlowe said:


> I don't have a personal problem with being sx-last.
> I have, however, found that sx-doms can't seem to understand personal space. As in I have it, and no, it's not yours to invade.


I've noticed this more with So/Sx and Sx/So than Sx/Sp. however....


> EDIT: upon further thought, perhaps the primary conflict lies in the fact that sp-doms and sx-doms have very different ideas as what constitutes as personal space.


^this might have something to do with that :tongue:

even if it's more tempered and focused than an Sx/So's, my energy can be quite loud and project outward with a lot of intensity, so if this qualifies as invading your personal space, then yes, I am guilty (many Sp/So's, especially if they're introverted, seem utterly repulsed by my energy)


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I've noticed this more with So/Sx and Sx/So than Sx/Sp. however....
> 
> ^this might have something to do with that :tongue:
> 
> even if it's more tempered and focused than an Sx/So's, my energy can be quite loud and project outward with a lot of intensity, so if this qualifies as invading your personal space, then yes, I am guilty (many Sp/So's, especially if they're introverted, seem utterly repulsed by my energy)


Perhaps I should have clarified. I'm not necessarily talking about physical personal space. I don't usually have a problem maintaining that.

It's when Sx-doms lock interest on me like some sort of guided missile strike. They then proceed to try and push themselves into every nook and crevice of my existence in order to get to "know me better." 

They decide they aren't satisfied with what they see on the surface and believe they have to go "digging around" in a person to find more.

I find that very invasive.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> perhaps the primary conflict lies in the fact that sp-doms and sx-doms have very different ideas as what constitutes as personal space.


I don't think it's that. I think sp-lasts have that problem. As sx/sp, I can respect personal space and need it to some degree. It's just in an intimate relationship, I expect a level of intimacy that I haven't found sx-lasts able to give. If it's not an intimate relationship then I can just take it for what it has to offer and not worry so much about expecting the sx-fullfillment from the other person.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Marlowe said:


> Perhaps I should have clarified. I'm not necessarily talking about physical personal space. I don't usually have a problem maintaining that.
> It's when Sx-doms lock interest on me like some sort of guided missile strike. They then proceed to try and push themselves into every nook and crevice of my existence in order to get to "know me better."
> They decide they aren't satisfied with what they see on the surface and believe they have to go "digging around" in a person to find more.
> I find that very invasive.


I was right, our definitions of invasive are _quite_ different. according to yours, I'm invasive as fuck lol


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I was right, our definitions of invasive are _quite_ different. according to yours, I'm invasive as fuck lol


Lol. How can you be right if I originally made the claim?


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

enneathusiast said:


> I don't think it's that. I think sp-lasts have that problem. As sx/sp, I can respect personal space and need it to some degree. It's just in an intimate relationship, I expect a level of intimacy that I haven't found sx-lasts able to give. If it's not an intimate relationship then I can just take it for what it has to offer and not worry so much about expecting the sx-fullfillment from the other person.


We're arguing two sides of the same coin.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> It's when Sx-doms lock interest on me like some sort of guided missile strike. They then proceed to try and push themselves into every nook and crevice of my existence in order to get to "know me better."
> 
> They decide they aren't satisfied with what they see on the surface and believe they have to go "digging around" in a person to find more.
> 
> I find that very invasive.


That describes my experience very well. As sx-first, I've had this strong reaction in relationship with sp/so. Ultimately, it's a realization that I can never get my sx met with this relationship. So, I either accept that and take what the relationship has to offer (looking for the sx in other pursuits or relationships) or I find another relationship. I just can't see any other way to do it because I just can't deny that sx forever.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> We're arguing two sides of the same coin.


I'm not really arguing both sides but presenting them (sorry if it's coming across that way). I started the thread so people can explore what it looks like from both sides of the coin. It just happens that I'm sharing my experience from sx-first and you're sharing your experience from sp-first/sx-last.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> I don't think it's that. I think sp-lasts have that problem. As sx/sp, I can respect personal space and need it to some degree. It's just in an intimate relationship, I expect a level of intimacy that I haven't found sx-lasts able to give. If it's not an intimate relationship then I can just take it for what it has to offer and not worry so much about expecting the sx-fullfillment from the other person.


that's basically what I said, but part of the difference also lies in you being a 5. Sx 5s don't emit the same kind of loud, flamboyant energy of an Sx 7 or Sx 2


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

enneathusiast said:


> That describes my experience very well. As sx-first, I've had this strong reaction in relationship with sp/so. Ultimately, it's a realization that I can never get my sx met with this relationship. So, I either accept that and take what the relationship has to offer (looking for the sx in other pursuits or relationships) or I find another relationship. I just can't see any other way to do it because I just can't deny that sx forever.


That makes sense.

Personally, I find the digging around, especially if I've told them NOT to dig, to be very trust-breaking.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> that's basically what I said, but part of the difference also lies in you being a 5. Sx 5s don't emit the same kind of loud, flamboyant energy of an Sx 7 or Sx 2


I'm sure there's some type difference at play. I seem to remember that you identified as sx/sp. I identify with sx/sp as well and I think a big part of my understanding of boundaries comes from being sp second. I was wondering if you could identify with that as well due to your sp second. I have a friend who's sx/sp 7 and she has a very strong understanding of boundaries even though she's sx first.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> Personally, I find the digging around, especially if I've told them NOT to dig, to be very trust-breaking.


Interesting that it comes out as trust-breaking to you. I wonder if that's the type 6 influence playing into it.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

enneathusiast said:


> Interesting that it comes out as trust-breaking to you. I wonder if that's the type 6 influence playing into it.


Maybe.

What it tells me when someone pushes past what I'm showing them is that they don't trust me. They do not trust that I know what is and isn't best to show, and that I have my own timing with things.

The person is trying to assert their desires over what is best for me. They lack consideration for WHY I might be showing what I'm showing.

It's just a big, messy display of a lack of trust on their part.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> What it tells me when someone pushes past what I'm showing them is that they don't trust me. They do not trust that I know what is and isn't best to show, and that I have my own timing with things.
> 
> The person is trying to assert their desires over what is best for me. They lack consideration for WHY I might be showing what I'm showing.


Sounds like you take it as a lack of respect.

On my side of the coin as sx-first, I could see that with someone not intimate - there are circles of closeness that you can allow people into and the outer circles don't get in that close. But in a committed intimate relationship for me, it feels like the person is there for other reasons than simply being with me. In other words, they could be with anyone that provides the resources I provide (home, security, etc.). I don't really matter except in the role I'm playing for them. If they say they love me, I wonder what it is they're loving because they don't share enough to really know me or allow me to know them. It's like a family relationship where you're there for each other not because there's some deep connection but because you're simply family and that's what family does.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

I am with you @_Marlowe_. I don't fully get your trust angle; but I think, overall, our reasoning may be similar.

I am sp/sx (with unusually strong Sx second), and anyone who tries to 'extract' information from me, even when they are completely well-intentioned, past the point of my comfort (and my comfort zone isn't all that narrow, to be sure) will quickly learn it's a poor idea to push their luck. I also don't like random schmucks trying to act like they are owed vulnerability and intimate (emotionally, doesn't have to be risque lol) sharing. That is a fuckin privilege, not a right. Period. You earn the right to such sharing, by demonstrating respect and maturity, over time.

I am not even too guarded of an individual, but I sure as hell have strong personal boundaries. I don't like people attempting to crash them. Since when is it respectful to 'dig around' after you've been expressly told it makes the recipient of such intrusiveness quite uncomfortable? It's a respect issue. It's a boundaries issue, and it strikes me as thoughtless. 

One of my type 2 exes was an Sx 2w3, and he would try and pry further and further after I had emphatically told him that I had reached the point where I wasn't comfortable discussing something further. There were times when he'd try and push it past that, and I'd always make a point to teach him a damn lesson on the futility of that dumbass approach. It didn't take him long to learn the meaning of "No" or "Enough". 

I am all for, what some would call, an invasive intimacy as long as it's mutual and respectful. One person crashing boundaries and causing unnecessary discomfort to the other is just being an ass, regardless of 'instincts'.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

enneathusiast said:


> Sounds like you take it as a lack of respect.
> 
> On my side of the coin as sx-first, I could see that with someone not intimate - there are circles of closeness that you can allow people into and the outer circles don't get in that close. But in a committed intimate relationship for me, it feels like the person is there for other reasons than simply being with me. In other words, they could be with anyone that provides the resources I provide (home, security, etc.). I don't really matter except in the role I'm playing for them. If they say they love me, I wonder what it is they're loving because they don't share enough to really know me or allow me to know them. It's like a family relationship where you're there for each other not because there's some deep connection but because you're simply family and that's what family does.


I think the perhaps one of the problems is that people begin to feel they deserve a level of closeness that they haven't yet earned. And when the other party doesn't reciprocate, they take it personally and make it about themselves. They don't stop and wonder WHY someone might have levels to begin with.

There are reasons why people have internal walls and comfort zones. 

Ignoring or dismissing them because they don't suit the other party's timing...that seems more selfish than selfless.

That being said, I do agree that there are levels of openness that come with certain types of relationships. You can't be lovers with the attitude of colleagues.

It's more about the pace rather than the end goal. Some are faster to jump into the "see all of me" phase. Others aren't.

And it's my guess sp-doms probably fall more often into the latter category.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Interesting, it's sounding like for sp-first, the sx-first has to earn a level of closeness (and perhaps involving a trust through respectfulness) before pushing for a deeper level of sx intimacy (and it may take some time). I guess the trick is then being able to sense that as it proceeds and what to do, if anything, to keep it progressing.

Now if we could get some so-firsts to give some sx-last rants as well.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> I'm sure there's some type difference at play. I seem to remember that you identified as sx/sp. I identify with sx/sp as well and I think a big part of my understanding of boundaries comes from being sp second. I was wondering if you could identify with that as well due to your sp second. I have a friend who's sx/sp 7 and she has a very strong understanding of boundaries even though she's sx first.


yes, I relate quite a bit to Sp being both Sp second and HSP.


----------



## pepe (May 8, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> I don't have a personal problem with being sx-last.
> 
> I have, however, found that sx-doms can't seem to understand personal space. As in I have it, and no, it's not yours to invade.
> 
> EDIT: upon further thought, perhaps the primary conflict lies in the fact that sp-doms and sx-doms have very different ideas as what constitutes as personal space.


My sx last President :

Can you elaborate on different ideas in terms of intimacy between sp-doms and sx-dom please? Do you think that sp-dom is last to get into sexual or extra marital affairs as compared to sx-dom?


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

I'm SX last. 

I don't always see why people need to have a significant other in their lives in order for it to feel complete. I've got my family and and friends and that's good enough for me. 


I don't have a particularly strong sex drive (I know SX instinct is more than sex but I thought I'd just throw it out there). 

That said I do like intimacy but I'm also rather shy about it and other needs in my life tend to take more priority.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> I'm SX last.
> 
> I don't always see why people need to have a significant other in their lives in order for it to feel complete. I've got my family and and friends and that's good enough for me.


I also identify as 5w6 but my preferences are sx/sp and here's how I experience the sx5. It's as if all that I learn and explore in 5ness is looking for someone to share it with. By myself, it just doesn't have any meaning. In trying to share it with others and groups in general, it seems they don't want to hear it. But with someone who is really interested, it finds significance. It stokes those fires and fills me with purpose and significance and enthusiasm and all these things that replace this flatness of affect about life. Sharing with the other offers feedback on all this and also stokes the fires to make them burn brighter. But, it's extremely rare to find someone interested enough in my inner world. It's not so much a one-way interest either but a reciprocal interest in each others worlds. Basically I just feel alive and connected when I find that. When I don't have it, life is flat, tired, and old. It can't be found in casual friends and family - the energy is just not the same as in a one-on-one connection with someone as into you as you are into them.




Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> I don't have a particularly strong sex drive (I know SX instinct is more than sex but I thought I'd just throw it out there).


I don't have a strong sex drive either. Sexual is a terrible label for it. I prefer intimate or one-to-one but most people only seem to know it or refer to it as sexual.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

@enneathusiast, I know that this is an Sx, not an Sp last thread but I agree with many things you have stated in this thread. I have this friend and I share so much of myself with her: am extremely supportive and open and she can be the total opposite.

Sometimes, after speaking with her; I want to bang my head against the wall because I expect her to act like you would any good friend to behave and sometimes after talking to her; I just feel so goddamned needy and I'm really not. I may take awhile to open up and trust people who I don't know well but once they have my trust; I'm pretty much an open book. I am an So/Sx, btw.

Perhaps @Marlowe has some insight why she acts this way?


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

I'm a bit clueless on instincts. I've read on the subtypes in a book, but that was afterthought compared to core.
Since I'm not as familiar with the insticts, I haven't thought near as much about those in other people and considering my lack of anything beyond superficial relations with others, I'm not sure if I know how instincts play in my difference with others. That's because I am sort of socially awkward and think contrary to some people I know, keeping people at arms length is way nicer to the other person than trying to flatter them with every last move.

Sometimes I wonder if the dynamic of sx is exaggerated a bit in the literature. Some places will describe that and I think enough of that would give the same effect as sun tanning in the summer without any sun protection... it would burn me out.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Myoho Traveller said:


> @enneathusiast, I know that this is an Sx, not an Sp last thread but I agree with many things you have stated in this thread. I have this friend and I share so much of myself with her: am extremely supportive and open and she can be the total opposite.
> 
> Sometimes, after speaking with her; I want to bang my head against the wall because I expect her to act like you would any good friend to behave and sometimes after talking to her; I just feel so goddamned needy and I'm really not. I may take awhile to open up and trust people who I don't know well but once they have my trust; I'm pretty much an open book. I am an So/Sx, btw.
> 
> Perhaps @Marlowe has some insight why she acts this way?


You were a little vague describing her offending actions, so I can't really give you an explanation. 

Can you elaborate more on what kinds of things she does that bother you?


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

enneathusiast said:


> As an sx-first, I especially notice sx-last in an intimate relationship. There just seems a lack of intimacy and closeness. It feels like an attitude of let's keep everything comfortable and pleasant. It feels like my intimate relationship is more of an acquaintance. It feels like the other person really doesn't care about my interests in the least. It feels like if I don't go along on their ride of what interests them then they just don't want to be bothered spending time together. I feel cheated and not reciprocated. If I push it, then I get things like "I'll never be enough for you" or they'll fake it for awhile just to get me off their back. Even though I'm a guy, it feels like the gender stereotypes are reversed (and that in itself could start a whole other series of rants). It finally gets to the point where I realize I have to find someone else to get the connection I want because this person is always going to be holding back and a little distant.


wow this is word for word my experience with the sp/so guy I'm just getting out a relationship with. It was the strangest thing, after 2 years I still feel like a complete stranger to him.
Any conversation that resembled intimacy would make him really aloof, he couldn't wrap his head around what I meant by the words connection or mutual understanding. In his mind, everything was absolutely fine. It still flabbergasts me that people can actually lack depth to that extent.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> wow this is word for word my experience with the sp/so guy I'm just getting out a relationship with. It was the strangest thing, after 2 years I still feel like a complete stranger to him.
> Any conversation that resembled intimacy would make him really aloof, he couldn't wrap his head around what I meant by the words connection or mutual understanding. In his mind, everything was absolutely fine. It still flabbergasts me that people can actually lack depth to that extent.


Yeah, there was absolutely no way through this for me. I think she truly believed we had intimacy and connection. But, for me it was the level of intimacy you would have with family members you had to live with and tolerate. I talked about a we-space vs. you-space or me-space and the concept was completely foreign to her. It was always about either do it her way or my way and everything we did was run through that filter for her. There was no us. I tried for nearly 10 years. Then I met someone else who was sx-first. We both shared the same negative sx experience with partners. Everything I said about it made complete sense to her. There was a night and day difference between the two relationships. It was through that new relationship in contrast to the previous one that I truly began understanding the experiences these instincts were pointing to.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> It feels like if I don't go along on their ride of what interests them then they just don't want to be bothered spending time together. I feel cheated and not reciprocated. If I push it, then I get things like "I'll never be enough for you" or they'll fake it for awhile just to get me off their back.


I cringed reading this, because I've had that experience as well many, many times.. I've heard things like "I feel like I'm always disappointing you'' and "I'll never be enough for you", and like they always have to try so hard to meet my emotional standards. To be honest, a lot of the time, it was because our expectations of what a relationship should be like didn't match. I always longed for something intense, consuming, for us to always try to reach our highest potential. And they felt more comfortable with comfort, which is.. human. It's just not me, and not for me. Too many people get so bogged down by routine, repetition, that they get desensitized by things that should continuously fascinate them. 

I guess what I'm looking for _is _endless fascination. Someone to challenge, to provoke at times, who'll push me to grow and be pushed by me. Someone who'll overwhelm *me *for a change. Who won't be afraid of experiencing a relationship's highest highs and lowest lows with me. (They don't have to be poetic, or emotional like I am at all, though.)

My experience with Sx-last has been.. feeling like I'm their friend. There's closeness through bonding, there's caring, but nothing *deep*. We would have the best times trolling, laughing, enjoying each others companies - which I think is an essential component to any successful relationship, so this isn't a criticism - but there's a discomfort in going beyond that. It feels dismissive because they don't even see the value in it. They make great friends, but I have found it very difficult to be in a relationship with them, even for someone who enjoys longing for what they don't have.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> I guess what I'm looking for _is _endless fascination. Someone to challenge, to provoke at times, who'll push me to grow and be pushed by me.


I think it comes down to something very simple for me. I want someone to grow with, who's going to enhance my life and I hers. Otherwise, I'd just rather be alone - if there's nothing there that you couldn't get anywhere.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

enneathusiast said:


> Yeah, there was absolutely no way through this for me. I think she truly believed we had intimacy and connection. But, for me it was the level of intimacy you would have with family members you had to live with and tolerate. I talked about a we-space vs. you-space or me-space and the concept was completely foreign to her. It was always about either do it her way or my way and everything we did was run through that filter for her. There was no us. I tried for nearly 10 years. Then I met someone else who was sx-first. We both shared the same negative sx experience with partners. Everything I said about it made complete sense to her. There was a night and day difference between the two relationships. It was through that new relationship in contrast to the previous one that I truly began understanding the experiences these instincts were pointing to.


I'm impressed that you managed to stick with it for 10 years!
I just got to the point where I no longer knew how to be around him, my emotional side was so obliterated from the relationship it didn't even feel like me anymore, just a puppet holding bland, empty conversation to fill the silences.
I find it hard to see people who are that out of touch with themselves as "healthy" though - kinda feels like there's no introspection or growth. Perhaps I'm projecting..


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> I'm impressed that you managed to stick with it for 10 years!
> I just got to the point where I no longer knew how to be around him, my emotional side was so obliterated from the relationship it didn't even feel like me anymore, just a puppet holding bland, empty conversation to fill the silences.
> I find it hard to see people who are that out of touch with themselves as "healthy" though - kinda feels like there's no introspection or growth. Perhaps I'm projecting..


Don't be impressed. I thought that's just the way it was and I was the oddball (I had never experienced a relationship with another sx-first and I didn't even know that's what it was). So, I figured all I could do was make the best of what was there (accept the person for what they have to offer). Problem was, I kept wanting more.

I thought of it as a lack of healthy introspection too at first. I had spent decades on introspection and here was someone who had spent virtually no time on it. It wasn't until I finally got involved with someone sx-first that I was able to accept that she simply had an sp-first, sx-last preference. If I had to do it over again with that knowledge, I simply would never have gotten involved with her because she would never be capable of giving me what I want in a relationship. If I had to make that relationship work, I guess I would've just accepted her for what she did have to offer and looked to other activities or types of relationships to fulfill that sx need.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Marlowe said:


> You were a little vague describing her offending actions, so I can't really give you an explanation.
> 
> Can you elaborate more on what kinds of things she does that bother you?


Well, I was really upset about something that had happened to me about two weeks ago and I wanted her to either give me some emotional support or practical solutions. Her response was that she's sure that I "have lots of other people that I could ask" about it. She also told me that she would talk to me about any topic but that one; except that her response, is pretty much typical of her reaction if I ever tell her that I am upset for any reason and seek her support. I was in such a mess at the time that I kept trying to get some sort of helpful response from her. She got irritated with me as apparently, she had already told me several times that she didn't wish to discuss it. She then happily relayed to me how excited she was to obtain her Ph.D.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> Perhaps I should have clarified. I'm not necessarily talking about physical personal space. I don't usually have a problem maintaining that.
> 
> It's when Sx-doms lock interest on me like some sort of guided missile strike. They then proceed to try and push themselves into every nook and crevice of my existence in order to get to "know me better."
> 
> ...





enneathusiast said:


> I don't think it's that. I think sp-lasts have that problem. As sx/sp, I can respect personal space and need it to some degree. It's just in an intimate relationship, I expect a level of intimacy that I haven't found sx-lasts able to give. If it's not an intimate relationship then I can just take it for what it has to offer and not worry so much about expecting the sx-fullfillment from the other person.


I'm still not sure whether I'm Sx/Sp or Sx/So, but I'm a clear Sx-dom. 

I don't say that lightly either. I've been studying enneagram for years. But there is a strong case for both of my second stack.

I definitely dig into someone's soul. I'm not gonna lie. I want to strip away all the superficial stuff and get right to the core of them, and eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I have no problem with my soul being stripped down to core by a partner or a close friend, either.

That being said, I need tons of personal space if we're talking physical space. I need more time to myself than even your average sp-dom, at least those I have known. If I don't have hours and hours to myself every day, I feel invaded. I need time to work on my creative projects, listen to music and really absorb it in private, sort through my feelings, etc. When I'm with someone, if he's an intimate, I would be happiest being all over him; on his lap, in his arms. I love touching a partner. I don't touch my friends or family much at all, nor do I have any desire to. Some of my friends want me to sit in their lap etc, and it feels weird unless I'm very drunk. (I haven't had a drink since 2006, mind you.) But with boyfriends I'm extremely affectionate. However, I throw fits, get angry, hiss , etc if they want all of my time. I need my own time. Period. I also hate being asked, where are you? When are you coming home? … I take long walks with headphones. I wander. I absorb the music. Plots for novels and ideas for music videos come to me. My legs take me where they will. I cannot be held to a constant schedule or questioning. I don't mind making plans and sticking to them, but I cannot have my every move micro-managed. I will fucking kill anyone who tries to do this. A few repeated attempts at this sort of micro-management have been the cause of sudden break-ups.


The long and short of it is, my boyfriends can have my soul, my heart and my body, but they can't have my mindlife, and they don't own my time. When I'm with them I'm extremely present, focused on them, absolutely bare; but when I'm not with them, I am my own person. And I treat the other person with this sort of respect too. I am not one of these, "He didn't call me for four whole hours!!" type women. Honestly I do freak out about things like this during the pursuit; if I'm not sure whether he likes me or not. I interpret every minute he doesn't call me as a rejection - but I don't let him know. But once we're in a comfortable relationship and I know he's not going to suddenly disappear, I am my own person and he can be his.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

@_Animal_

From your last post, I'd have to say you're sx/sp or sp/sx because your sp is so strong. I'm leaning toward sx/sp because I can relate in this way.

My sp-second space is where my type 5 operates and creates. It sounds like your sp works in similar support of your type 4. 

I read your other post where you made a case for either sp or so being your second instinct, but I didn't really hear a social instinct in what you said - I heard a social gathering. In other words, the social mechanisms weren't in operation like I think you would find if you're trying to be included or a part of a group. 

I still hold out the possibility of being sp/sx because of this:



> But once we're in a comfortable relationship and I know he's not going to suddenly disappear, I am my own person and he can be his.


It almost sounds like once the intimate is established then I can go back to doing my own thing. Kind of like the seeking of the other person was a distraction from what you really wanted.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> @_Animal_
> 
> From your last post, I'd have to say you're sx/sp or sp/sx because your sp is so strong. I'm leaning toward sx/sp because I can relate in this way.
> 
> ...


Yeah makes sense. I've typed at Sx/Sp for a while.

I'd like to type as Sp/Sx, but the neurosis really comes out in SX. I don't really have 'neurosis' where Sp is concerned in that same way. I want my environment to reflect my innards but… I'm always crying or nuts over some SX related issues.

It's not really that once it's established I go back to doing my own thing - I may have worded that badly. What I mean is, I need time to myself. But I'd still go nuts if I don't see him at least.. at night, or often. I have only had one relationship that lasted long enough to overcome my neurotic-ness, a guy I dated for 2 years. I was accusing him of not loving me enough…and me not being good enough for him..all the way into like 9 months of dating. I wasnt ever content that he loved me until we were living together in a small studio apartment. At that point, I was happy if he went away for the weekend because then I had some creative time to myself.

Also my creative work is where I process ffeelings about my past or things bothering me in the relationship. Or feelings I shoudln't be having about other things. :/


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Animal said:


> At that point, I was happy if he went away for the weekend because then I had some creative time to myself.
> 
> Also my creative work is where I process ffeelings about my past or things bothering me in the relationship. Or feelings I shoudln't be having about other things. :/


I'd definitely say sx/sp then because I can completely relate to this. Even the last part. I bring things from the relationship back into my own space to process them and I'm not just talking about the usual relationship issues but also what the relationships sparks for my 5ness, offering feedback or new things to explore and share back into the relationship (for instance, researching things related to my partner's interests so we have more to share when we get together again).


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> offering feedback or new things to explore and share back into the relationship (for instance, researching things related to my partner's interests so we have more to share when we get together again).


^ awww.. would it annoy a 5 if I said that was romantic?? =,)


I do that too in my own way - although I'm more self-absorbed. ;( I express myself creatively so I have a beautiful song or outfit or photo or video that I can use to express my love for my partner. I can also use that to express mixed feelings, sadness, anger or whatever, but I'm emotionally aware so I am not saying that in a mean way - if I do that, it's the type of thing that would make him say "oh, you" and giggle.

I have expressed dark sentiments and mean sentiments, but usually I'd reserve those for much later (if ever) rather than show it to my partner immediately.


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

Maybe it isn't solely because I'm sx-last, but I have this impression that I can't be in an intimate relationship with someone else. I also don't understand the idea of completion through others and the only reason why I want a relationship is because I want to experience it, not because I have a genuine desire to connect. I want to feel the sensation but mostly because I don't know how it is and I crave it and I think this is a sign of sx-last. There's shame surrounding sx things. For example, I feel bland or boring, that I lack passion and I wish I could feel excitement at every moment. I secretly want drama and losing myself into someone else, but I find it uncomfortable when it happens. I long for intensity, but not because I am frustrated and I cannot find something that satisfies me but because I'm insecure of my ability to offer it back and keep up with it.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Animal said:


> ^ awww.. would it annoy a 5 if I said that was romantic?? =,)


Not at all. I considered myself a hopeless romantic when I was a teenager. It was all on the inside though with nothing revealed on the outside.



Animal said:


> I do that too in my own way - although I'm more self-absorbed. ;( I express myself creatively so I have a beautiful song or outfit or photo or video that I can use to express my love for my partner.


That's what I'm saying. I think we try to bring what our type has to offer into our dominant instinctual space. That's what we seek to do - that's the pull.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Mr.Rbtoo said:


> Maybe it isn't solely because I'm sx-last, but I have this impression that I can't be in an intimate relationship with someone else. I also don't understand the idea of completion through others and the only reason why I want a relationship is because I want to experience it, not because I have a genuine desire to connect. I want to feel the sensation but mostly because I don't know how it is and I crave it and I think this is a sign of sx-last. There's shame surrounding sx things. For example, I feel bland or boring, that I lack passion and I wish I could feel excitement at every moment. I secretly want drama and losing myself into someone else, but I find it uncomfortable when it happens. I long for intensity, but not because I am frustrated and I cannot find something that satisfies me but because I'm insecure of my ability to offer it back and keep up with it.


I don't know that it's necessarily sx-last. As an sx5 in my teens and 20's, I couldn't connect with anyone. I longed for it but I was trapped in the isolation of type 5. Even when the opportunity would arise for me to make that connection, I would freeze and nothing of myself would come out. It was quite extreme. I wasn't good at it. I was afraid of it. But, I wanted it more than anything else. It made me feel hopeless and dead inside.

It wasn't that I was good at sx that made me sx-first, it was that it was something I wanted so deeply. Since I couldn't fulfill that sx with another person, I poured it into my pursuits of things that interested me. When I finally found the courage to let it out with other people, they would usually run from it. I could see this immediate turn-off from me and then future avoidance.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

@Animal

Strip away the superficial? Dig into the soul?


Eugh. Count me out.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> @_Animal_
> 
> Strip away the superficial? Dig into the soul?
> 
> ...


Don't worry. I am only hungry for those who come willingly. If I force someone to succumb, I feel quite insignificant in their eyes, and that is a sour feast for a 4. ;P


----------



## WardRhiannon (Feb 1, 2012)

It annoys me when I'm described as not being passionate enough because I'm not always willing to discuss the same subject all of the time. I just like to discuss a subject with someone who I'm actually close to, which I guess is when the passion comes out.


----------



## Random Person (Apr 30, 2013)

Marlowe said:


> @_Animal_
> 
> Strip away the superficial? Dig into the soul?
> 
> ...


Oh, you don't have to worry about that. When it comes to dealing with @Animal, you'll only realize that all the soul digging has happened post factum. Which is actually very odd, considering how bluntly straight-forward she is about it. By the time a week has passed after we first met, she got deeper into my life than most people could do in their entire lifetime. So, watch out. Odds are, the process has already started. :wink:


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Random Person said:


> By the time a week has passed after we first met, *she got deeper into my life than most people could do in their entire lifetime.*


I'm willing to bet most SX dominants hear that a LOT, particularly NFs. Best feeling _ever_. 

Chances are, we'll replay this sort of comment in our minds a thousand times.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Random Person said:


> Oh, you don't have to worry about that. When it comes to dealing with @_Animal_, you'll only realize that all the soul digging has happened post factum. Which is actually very odd, considering how bluntly straight-forward she is about it. By the time a week has passed after we first met, she got deeper into my life than most people could do in their entire lifetime. So, watch out. Odds are, the process has already started. :wink:


=)

This made me smile. 

But to be fair, I don't get deep into everyone all the time because I don't care enough.

On the one hand, undercurrents between people are impossible to miss. Some people see "the rug is brown" - I see "the person is genuine" or "the person is lonely" or "the person has a crush on x." It's dead obvious to me who someone is "deep down" and how they feel, even if I don't put it into clear words in my head. The essence of someone is not something I look for; it's just something I can't help but see.

When I want to know someone better, I listen without any expectations or judgements, but I don't cut corners. I get right down to it, since the first thing I see is the essence anyway.. so it would be "bullshit" to pretend otherwise. I trust my heart to lead me to the people who are worth getting to know, such as you. :happy: And when I'm open to someone because I have decided to be so, you're right.. I don't put up walls and bullshit. If I feel that bullshit is necessary to survive a conversation with someone, that person will lose my interest fast, if they ever had it in the first place. 

I think part of the reason some people open up to me, is that I don't impose who I think they "should be" or who I want them to be, I just listen. But this comes with the clause that I am very careful about who I spend time with, who I talk to, who I let in. I don't do things halfway, so I don't have half-friends. I can be cordial to acquaintances, and I have a base level of respect for all people, but if I'm going to talk to someone extensively on skype, on phone, socially, on PM, etc… it is someone who I am willing to bare myself to, and who I am willing to listen to if I am given the honor of them baring themselves to me. They accept me as I am, and I accept them as they are. If I don't feel this acceptance and openness, I am unlikely to spend more time than 'cordial' with this person. Life is too short and it takes more effort for me to be fake than to just be real and open.

So I guess what I'm saying is, you're not wrong, but the other half of this equation is you. I really like talking to you .  You don't expect me to be anything other than I am. You may push me to think about things in a new way or speak up about ways I might hold myself back, as friends often do, but I don't feel 'judged' or forced to pretend to be something I'm not, or pretend to be happy when I'm not - nor would I expect some 'show' of happiness or flawlessness out of you. This mutual acceptance is crucial, and since I speak very openly and candidly about who I am, it tends to lead to openness from people who are honest, and it tends to fizzle out or crash QUICK if the person has something to hide or simply isn't comfortable with this kind of dynamic.

People are not some code to crack or some puzzle to solve. I have no intention of learning people's deepest secrets, cracking them, owning them, seeing their insides. If that ends up happening, it's a result of being unable NOT to see it, being an open person myself, being allergic to bullshit and small talk, and thus clicking with specific people who can roll with that.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Animal said:


> Don't worry. I am only hungry for those who come willingly. If I force someone to succumb, I feel quite insignificant in their eyes, and that is a sour feast for a 4. ;P


oh, please, me.



...=( this past week i've been feeling completely lost to myself. not my most common feeling, and i hate it.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> oh, please, me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...=( this past week i've been feeling completely lost to myself. not my most common feeling, and i hate it.


Lost to yourself why?  sorry to hear


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Found this thread very interesting and it helped me understand other people's perspective on sx-last, so I'm going to necro it.

My experience with being sp/so is that my way of connecting to people happens through impersonal matters (mutual interests, exchange of ideas, etc.), and there is little actual, raw emotion involved. I get uncomfortable when people try to emotionally connect with me in some way because I feel like I can't give them enough feedback, and it's too intense. The more personal a connection gets, the more I feel this impulse to back away, even if I do want to have some closeness with that person. I can fight against it, but it reaches a point where it's too uncomfortable. I realize that this can be frustrating to others, but they usually can respect my "boundaries", the ones that can't I avoid immediately.


----------



## Krayfish (Nov 3, 2015)

Idk, I go back and forth on how I actually feel about being sx blind. I'm mostly negative about it since I'm probably leaning towards the extreme side of sx blindness (though not as badly as I used to). I get annoyed with myself because I fit with the sx stereotypes of being fairly dispassionate and intimacy adverse, and I've definitely been questioned by people if I actually liked them or not because I'm incredibly private, even with close friends. Look, I desire deeper relationships with people and would love to have that person that knows me at a deep level and who I can talk to about just about everything, it's just anything but a priority/need. I'm also fairly risk adverse, though I can be weirdly attracted to new experiences and foods and such as long as they don't threaten my safety (cough cough, it's the 7 wing). All in all, I don't have many impulses or strong needs, which I typically associate with sx.

Idk, sx doms sometimes strike me as too impulse driven, probably because sx is associated with the id. Idk, perhaps I just can't understand living a life driven by what I desire rather than what I "must" do for myself and others. Also, some high sx types (specifically sp blinds) can be super open in a way that makes me nervous to reciprocate. I have an so/sx roommate (ESFP) and an so/sx friend (INFP) and I basically know _everything_ about them (hyperbole, yes, but also not really). Specifically the INFP has told me most of his life story and it's always shocking because I could never do that. It seems so vulnerable to give yourself away like that, and it makes me uncomfortable because I fear I can't reciprocate. That might be specifically an so/sx thing though, I was really close with an sx/so ESTP and that didn't happen.


----------



## BlueRaspberry (Dec 19, 2017)

I don't mind being sx-last. It's not like sx is the only instinct that can be invested in one-on-one relationships, have hobbies, or be passionate about things. I do all those things because I'm a person; I just don't get the whole thing about "vibing" with people or "'picking up someone's energy" that sx-doms seem to do. It sounds fake to me. The downside of being sx-last is that I can be pretty self-conscious and nervous in social situations; the combination of so and sp makes me worried about losing social standing because I use social networks for security. Still, I make connections to people through so, and sp keeps me alive, so it's not a bad deal imo.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Getting close. Going deep. Getting warm. Tumbling about. Enjoying the refreshed minds. The connection happened.

* *





sex is the closest you'll ever get to me and the deepest I'll be into you


----------



## piscesfish (Nov 30, 2013)

My permanent lack of love life is my #1 insecurity right now. I don't get it. I'm an attractive person, smart, funny, ya'll I'm a catch, but put me in a one-on-one situation and I freeze up. My body just goes tense. Not to mention I can't read interpersonal signals to save my life. I feel like I've spent my entire life repressing my sx-last instinct and avoiding intimate situations, and now that I finally want to venture into that domain, I'm utterly useless at it. I feel like I blew my shot. I don't know how to activate that part of myself, and it's crushing my self-esteem.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

piscesfish said:


> I'm an attractive person,


Lemme judge?


----------



## BlueRaspberry (Dec 19, 2017)

pwowq said:


> Lemme judge?


Aw, c'mon, nothing wrong with her having good self esteem :kitteh:


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

BlueRaspberry said:


> Aw, c'mon, nothing wrong with her having good self esteem :kitteh:


Exactly.


----------



## Vive (Nov 11, 2013)

The funny thing is that even though I'm not SX-first in a million years I still find their mindset to be incredibly relatable. I'm very disconnected from what I want and desire and have a natural tendency to just push myself into doing things I think should be done. Yet, even I desire that connection I have heard so much about in SX threads. Building on an ideal image of something, focusing on that specifically. The essential difference is that I however follow and chase after inner standards of what I think people should be like even if it is strangely not what I want and SX-dominants _know_ exactly what they want. I spend so much time chasing convoluted ideals for myself that I really just forgot to stop and check about whether I actually want all of these things or not.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Vive said:


> I spend so much time chasing convoluted ideals for myself that I really just forgot to stop and check about whether I actually want all of these things or not.


I do that. I've realized maybe it's _"the chase of something I want"_ I need. When I have nothing to chase, my life feels meaningless.


----------



## ilovewordsthatstartswithp (Jan 29, 2018)

Online dating is so stupid. People should stop imagining things. It's actually okay to imagine things but please guys make it dumb fucking realistic. 

Stop watching romcoms, and bullshit because it is not fucking real unless one of you are enneagram type 7. 

But if you're not, your love story will be like a boring fucking hell full of drama


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

I'm Sx last.

And I suck at relationships.

I lack fire, the burning interest to know about others. 

I am slightly too formal.

I don't see the point of romances.

Doing what _I_ want to without regard for potential benefits is definitely not how I do things. 

I follow what will benefit me most, rather than inner passion. 

I don't know the line between being "real" and going for "passion". 

I misunderstand people's intentions.

I blow things up over minor details. 

I jump to conclusions.

I feel like being contra-flow and Sx last (So/Sp) just really freaking hurts.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

When interest rates goes up, the stock exchange goes down, bubbles pops, housing prices crashes, bond-values slowly diminishes... the SX-lasts thinks: Yup, I hear people crying over lost assets... time to buy.


----------



## moonrising (Apr 5, 2018)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this but the aggression that I've experienced in SX first types is the main thing that keeps me the hell away from them. I guess it's a way to maintain the intensity they crave but it's very unattractive to me. 

SX types are usually not aware of the effect they have on others, they often come across as vain, abrasive and inconsiderate. 

In term of my sx last issues- I do find it hard to maintain intensity and passion in relationships even though I crave it. I've noticed that I can be open about myself and share more of myself with another sp dom than other types. It takes a lot longer to trust other types enough to be fully myself.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

moonrising said:


> I'm surprised no one has mentioned this but the aggression that I've experienced in SX first types is the main thing that keeps me the hell away from them. I guess it's a way to maintain the intensity they crave but it's very unattractive to me.
> 
> SX types are usually not aware of the effect they have on others, they often come across as vain, abrasive and inconsiderate.
> 
> In term of my sx last issues- I do find it hard to maintain intensity and passion in relationships even though I crave it. I've noticed that I can be open about myself and share more of myself with another sp dom than other types. It takes a lot longer to trust other types enough to be fully myself.



How did you determine they were SX in the first place? For me it's difficult to determine what I am, SX/SP or SP/SX... the instincts are rather hard for me to recognise.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

This thread has certainly been an interesting read for me. A lot of the time when I read SX-dom posts, I find it hard to figure out whether they're describing things that I do experience at least to some degree, although I either don't talk about it much or wouldn't normally describe it in those terms, or if what they're describing is something I rarely if ever experience. Part of the difficulty for me is that generally I only ever come across people who talk like this online; I don't know anyone IRL who ever talks about wanting to eat somebody's soul for breakfast or anything like that. Is that because people exaggerate on the internet, or talk more freely, or am I not the kind of person who invites such confidences? I've no idea.

I don't know what a lot of it means and it sometimes feels like I'm in a different conceptual universe. When you say things like you want someone in a relationship who will meet your intensity, what exactly do you want them to do or to be? I find it odd that people talk of comfort in a relationship as routine and boring, because I find that being genuinely, completely comfortable with someone is very rare and quite special, and if I'm going to do anything that looks like merging I have to be comfortable first. 

I wonder if what SX-doms want is something like... for their partner to trust them enough to tell them all the things they don't want to be teased about? That doesn't sound quite right, but it's the closest thing I can think of. If I'm going to tell people things that feel vulnerable, I need to trust that the person isn't going to use the information against me. And if it's something I'm really sensitive about, then even bringing it up later and commenting on it in the wrong way can feel like that's what they're doing. So most of the time I don't talk about those sensitive issues, because I don't want people to feel like they have to walk on eggshells around me all the time. For one thing, not all spaces/contexts are suited to dealing with sensitive issues, and it can be good to have spaces where people aren't going to be too sensitive about things. In a debate, for instance, I'll only bring up things where I'm ok with people poking holes, and generally expect that others will do the same. I even quite enjoy intellectual sparring, I'm not phased by topics that some might find dark or disturbing and I'm generally willing to entertain views a lot of people find uncomfortable. My sensitive issues are much more personal.

So I guess there's a kind of intellectual intensity I enjoy, and artistic/aesthetic intensity too, I think. I respect people who can change my mind, or get me to think about things from a different perspective... is that part of what it means to want someone who can help you grow? If it's more about wanting someone who will inspire you to be a better person morally, I find that different people bring out different sides of me. Some people wind me up and bring out all my defensiveness. Other people manage to bring out the best in me, at least as I see it, and it's the latter kind that I'd rather be around.

Regarding closeness, I enjoy physical affection but only with people I'm already close to. Being randomly touched (not necessarily in a sexual way) or having my personal space invaded by a stranger really annoys me, because it feels like they're claiming a level of intimacy they have no right to. I think I'd ideally want quite a lot of closeness (not just physical) in a relationship, although still with enough space for each of us to do our own thing, but it's hard to say because I haven't had a relationship for such a long time. My lack of relationship experience is partly due to circumstances, partly because I haven't put effort into finding one. When I was 16 I wanted to find love. My friends at school told me I wouldn't find a boyfriend because my standards were too high. My attitude now, at 27, is that it would be nice, with the right person, but I don't need it to happen, so I'm open to it but I'm not actively seeking. I'd rather remain single than be with the wrong person, so if my standards are still too high, and I don't find a relationship because of that, then so be it.

I'm not sure if I've said everything I wanted to say, but it'll do for now. Would love to hear any comments from Sx-doms on any of it.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Octavarium said:


> This thread has certainly been an interesting read for me. A lot of the time when I read SX-dom posts, I find it hard to figure out whether they're describing things that I do experience at least to some degree, although I either don't talk about it much or wouldn't normally describe it in those terms, or if what they're describing is something I rarely if ever experience. Part of the difficulty for me is that generally I only ever come across people who talk like this online; I don't know anyone IRL who ever talks about wanting to eat somebody's soul for breakfast or anything like that. Is that because people exaggerate on the internet, or talk more freely, or am I not the kind of person who invites such confidences? I've no idea.


This is so off-putting and I really think it's 'people exaggerate on the Internet' + a little bit of 'people talk more freely', plus people really need to prove they're sx-dom so they phrase things in exclusive terminology and then argue on the basis of hyperbole and there's this dumb 'no you can't be sx-dom, you said you wanted to be in a relationship, not that you wanted to swim in their bloodstream'...luckily that's died down a bit but I think comparing it to real life is helpful, where people don't talk like that in normal situations



> I don't know what a lot of it means and it sometimes feels like I'm in a different conceptual universe. When you say things like you want someone in a relationship who will meet your intensity, what exactly do you want them to do or to be? I find it odd that people talk of comfort in a relationship as routine and boring, because I find that being genuinely, completely comfortable with someone is very rare and quite special, and if I'm going to do anything that looks like merging I have to be comfortable first.
> 
> *I wonder if what SX-doms want is something like... for their partner to trust them enough to tell them all the things they don't want to be teased about?* That doesn't sound quite right, but it's the closest thing I can think of. If I'm going to tell people things that feel vulnerable, I need to trust that the person isn't going to use the information against me. And if it's something I'm really sensitive about, then even bringing it up later and commenting on it in the wrong way can feel like that's what they're doing. So most of the time I don't talk about those sensitive issues, because I don't want people to feel like they have to walk on eggshells around me all the time. For one thing, not all spaces/contexts are suited to dealing with sensitive issues, and it can be good to have spaces where people aren't going to be too sensitive about things. In a debate, for instance, I'll only bring up things where I'm ok with people poking holes, and generally expect that others will do the same. I even quite enjoy intellectual sparring, I'm not phased by topics that some might find dark or disturbing and I'm generally willing to entertain views a lot of people find uncomfortable. My sensitive issues are much more personal.


I see a little sp in this, but I think there are differences in how people deal with sensitivity that are maybe core-type related, I usually prefer to air everything out so it doesn't feel like a big deal, it's about saving face...

I consider myself a sx-dom and I wouldn't necessarily think of saying I 'want people to match my intensity', think that's an example of a phrase that becomes common on forums, in line with what you were saying or as I'd interpret these words, I'd say:

-I want absolute trust and honesty, I want to see a person exactly as who they are, I don't want secrets between us, I guess that includes things they'd be uncomfortable being teased about but for me it's not about that kind of vulnerability, think that's sp + head type it's about not wanting layers between us
-I want the other person to be as committed or as daring as I am, I don't want to be the only one trying to fan the flame
-I want...energy exchange, I want to fight, side by side or against each other, or create together, or live together, I want an ascending or a descending line

But I don't think comfort in a relationship is routine and boring, it's necessary. I want to dive completely into someone, that can't be done if the waters are always changing, there are different kinds of closeness, comfortable intimacy is still intimacy, but it requires patience and a kind of vulnerability and it isn't a 'high', I think some sx-doms are really just looking for their next 'fix' and this is where this comes from.

I think the main thing is that I judge situations on how this affects the chemistry, not how it affects me particularly, except as far as I am dependent on the chemistry, that's where my mind goes

I am a 2 core and this highly colors my answers though, intensity and trust is going to mean different things for different core types regardless of instinct and other types aren't going to be as 'dependent' but I think the focus being on the chemistry is sx sign...not just in romantic relationships, in general I think focusing on chemistry, mutual energy, happens with sx



> So I guess there's a kind of intellectual intensity I enjoy, and artistic/aesthetic intensity too, I think. I respect people who can change my mind, or get me to think about things from a different perspective... is that part of what it means to want someone who can help you grow? If it's more about wanting someone who will inspire you to be a better person morally, I find that different people bring out different sides of me. Some people wind me up and bring out all my defensiveness. Other people manage to bring out the best in me, at least as I see it, and it's the latter kind that I'd rather be around.


This I think is very sp perspective, I missed where people were talking about people who would help them grow, is that supposed to be a sx thing? I think it's just a human thing, sign of healthy relationship is helping each other grow



> Regarding closeness, I enjoy physical affection but only with people I'm already close to. Being randomly touched (not necessarily in a sexual way) or having my personal space invaded by a stranger really annoys me, because it feels like they're claiming a level of intimacy they have no right to. I think I'd ideally want quite a lot of closeness (not just physical) in a relationship, although still with enough space for each of us to do our own thing, but it's hard to say because I haven't had a relationship for such a long time. My lack of relationship experience is partly due to circumstances, partly because I haven't put effort into finding one. When I was 16 I wanted to find love. My friends at school told me I wouldn't find a boyfriend because my standards were too high. My attitude now, at 27, is that it would be nice, with the right person, but I don't need it to happen, so I'm open to it but I'm not actively seeking. I'd rather remain single than be with the wrong person, so if my standards are still too high, and I don't find a relationship because of that, then so be it.


(I don't like being randomly touched either, think it's a personal/cultural kind of thing vs being related to any instinct, for example I can't stand the idea of massage, for me only someone I'm in a romantic relationship with should touch me like that and it's just a gut 'hm...no' reaction)

You sound potentially sx-last to me but I could also think sp/sx with quite strong sp (are you a head type?)


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Nissa Nissa said:


> You sound potentially sx-last to me but I could also think sp/sx with quite strong sp (are you a head type?)


Thanks for your comments. To answer your question, Yes, I’m probably a head type (I could be either 5 or 6, depending on whose version of the Enneagram your using). I’ve also typed at 1 before, but although I’d still put it in the top 3 I’d consider it less likely. I could be SP-dom, but again, it depends which version of the instincts you’re using. I relate to SP descriptions that conceive of it as being about introversion and strong boundaries, even territory, but a lot of descriptions say that SP-doms are focused on things like health and finances, which I’m mostly not. 

TBH I’ve kind of given up on typing myself. I’m fine with people trying to type me, and it’s interesting to hear what people think, so I’m quite happy for you or anyone else to continue making comments about what my type might be, but I don’t expect to come to a definite conclusion.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

Nissa Nissa said:


> I think the main thing is that I judge situations on how this affects the chemistry, *not how it affects me particularly*, except as far as I am dependent on the chemistry, that's where my mind goes


I think the most confusing thing to me is, what is that 'me'? Especially for different core types? 
Like ok Sx thinks about how chemistry is affected and is dependent on chemistry, So thinks about social something and is dependent on that, think that is correct, but what is SP dependant on? I always feel like SP is basically not-Sx and not-So or sorta-Sx and sorta-So but :laughing:


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

sweet morphine said:


> I think the most confusing thing to me is, what is that 'me'? Especially for different core types?
> Like ok Sx thinks about how chemistry is affected and is dependent on chemistry, So thinks about social something and is dependent on that, think that is correct, but what is SP dependant on? I always feel like SP is basically not-Sx and not-So or sorta-Sx and sorta-So but :laughing:


This is similar to why the instincts annoy me, sx is me+something, so is me+something, sp is me(not + something), sx and so are communicative and sp isn't, feels like either sx+so should be the opposite of sp or sx should be the opposite of so and sp should be the opposite of something else, it's unbalanced


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Nissa Nissa said:


> ...feels like either sx+so should be the opposite of sp or sx should be the opposite of so and sp should be the opposite of something else, it's unbalanced


Enneagram is triadic (how the three contrast each other).
Opposite is dyadic (how the two contrast each other) like MBTI, Jungian stuff.

While there are only two contrasts in dyadic (e.g., I vs E), there are six in triadic.
sp vs. sx
sp vs. so
sx vs. sp
sx vs. so
so vs. sp
so vs. sx

That's how it makes sense for me at least. Looking at it sp vs. sx and so at the same time is more difficult than sp vs. sx separate from sp vs. so, can easily became a confused mental tangle.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

enneathusiast said:


> Enneagram is triadic (how the three contrast each other).
> Opposite is dyadic (how the two contrast each other) like MBTI, Jungian stuff.
> 
> While there are only two contrasts in dyadic (e.g., I vs E), there are six in triadic.
> ...


do you have an example of how that works?

It just feels like sp is a different kind of thing than sx or so


----------



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

Coburn said:


> Maybe.
> 
> What it tells me when someone pushes past what I'm showing them is that they don't trust me. They do not trust that I know what is and isn't best to show, and that I have my own timing with things.
> 
> ...


afaik, 6's are the ones who have trust issues, right? is this a projection? 

perhaps its not that they dont trust you, its that they are trying to figure out the 'why'?


----------



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

Strelnikov said:


> How did you determine they were SX in the first place? For me it's difficult to determine what I am, SX/SP or SP/SX... the instincts are rather hard for me to recognise.


who do you sacrifice for, yourself or your mate/kids/pets? who gets to survive if presented with a choice?


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Nissa Nissa said:


> It just feels like sp is a different kind of thing than sx or so


They're all a different kind of thing. My point is to try and understand sp by considering how sx and so are different requires you to find something the same in sx and so that is not found in sp.

My suggestion, to make it simpler and less confusing, was not to do that but to only consider how sp is different than sx then consider how sp is different than so, not to consider how sp is different from both sx and so at the same time in the same way. Doing the latter is an attempt to reduce the triadic nature of the instincts to one that's dyadic (which the instincts are not).

In other words, don't do this.



Nissa Nissa said:


> sx is me+something, so is me+something, sp is me(not + something), sx and so are communicative and sp isn't


Do something like this:
sp is myself on my own while sx is my relationship with an intimate other or interest
sp is myself on my own while so is my participation in a culture or group


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

nablur said:


> who do you sacrifice for, yourself or your mate/kids/pets? who gets to survive if presented with a choice?


That's a moral choice, not an instinctual choice
@enneathusiast but what I'm saying is that it seems dyadic anyways


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Nissa Nissa said:


> @*enneathusiast* but what I'm saying is that it seems dyadic anyways


You're making it dyadic by seeing the similarity between sx and so but contrasting the difference with sp (in effect combining sx and so and comparing sxso vs sp).

If you want to continue with your logic of me +something then put a label to the something and find the +something for sp. For example:

sp = me + my surroundings/environment
sx = me + my intimate object of interest
so = me + my connection/place within the group/culture

If you say sx and so are communicative but sp isn't then you need to expand on what communicative means in order to get into the details of how sx and so are different (otherwise they seem the same at a very generalized level). Communication is often in service of what's of interest or being sought and communication for each instinct is different because of that.


----------



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

Nissa Nissa said:


> That's a moral choice, not an instinctual choice
> @enneathusiast but what I'm saying is that it seems dyadic anyways


for you, a type 2, which is super ego, maybe. 

for me, type 8, which is instinct based, there is something else which dictates... aside from morally right or wrong based on how you feel or society feels, its the sense of your own individual purpose.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

nablur said:


> who do you sacrifice for, yourself or your mate/kids/pets? who gets to survive if presented with a choice?


Ummm... tough questions. Maybe sacrifice is a big word, but I do have a clear tendency of supporting friends/family/etc before I support myself. In general, I don't care that much about myself and am only motivated in helping those close to me. For example, if I have to choose who to give money to, I'd rather starve myself than have my friends/close ones suffer. As for the second question, I think I'd choose to sacrifice myself, but I'm not so sure, since I've never been in the situation.

If this is the SX instinct... why is it called that? Because let's just say that overall, the subject of "love life" is one that doesn't interest me that much. So... where's the "sexual" dimension? Or is it just a case of confusing naming?


----------



## Crowbo (Jul 9, 2017)

I just realized lately one of the reasons why my sx is last and it's really given me great insight and put things into perspective about my inner thoughts and partly why I've had the thoughts that I've had during the last several months. Past two years actually as a matter of fact. Ever since I graduated high school the old friends that I've had from HS and before have mostly moved away and have gone on to do their own thing so during my entire tenure at community college, I've wanted to form a new group of friends and forge some deep and meaningful connections. The thing is however is that I've been to worried and shy about approaching new people at my school still so far. I'm quite friendly and am good with forming a large circle of friends and playing an active role in whatever group I choose to partake in but not many of my friends are particular close. I've wanted to form close bonds with others for quite some time, however things like my academic success, financial success, and physical and mental well-being takes priority over those close relationships first. I just hope that I can soon reach a point where I can find the proper balance and become more comfortable with forming those close bonds and allowing more new people to be deeply involved in my life. Have any other Sx blinds had these thoughts, incecurites, and struggles? I'd like to know.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Strelnikov said:


> Ummm... tough questions. Maybe sacrifice is a big word, but I do have a clear tendency of supporting friends/family/etc before I support myself. In general, I don't care that much about myself and am only motivated in helping those close to me. For example, if I have to choose who to give money to, I'd rather starve myself than have my friends/close ones suffer. As for the second question, I think I'd choose to sacrifice myself, but I'm not so sure, since I've never been in the situation.
> 
> If this is the SX instinct... why is it called that? Because let's just say that overall, the subject of "love life" is one that doesn't interest me that much. So... where's the "sexual" dimension? Or is it just a case of confusing naming?


Sx is concerned with intensity, chemistry more than sacrifice. If sacrifice is deemed necessary in order to forge/maintain a deep connection that is still satisfying, then self-sacrifice / compromise can be prioritized, but the chemistry between the self and the other needs to be and remain present. For me as Sx-dominant, it's never really been about sex. Sexual feelings can happen as an outcome of a feeling of merging with the other, but in some cases you can merge with the other without having any sexual feelings at all. 

The less I am connected to someone else, the more difficult it is for me to sacrifice. In fact, I'm much more likely to be completely indifferent to the needs of others if I am not merged with them in some way. Once I have the primary/perfect connection with someone (the ultimate bond so to speak), then my own personal needs get more and more deprioritized and I just want to bask in the intensity of the merging itself. It's quite exhilarating and enthralling.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

I think it might be easier to think of the Sx function as _heightened _Sensuality rather than Sexuality. Sx doms tend to be more adrenaline and dopamine driven. I could be wrong in the analogy, but at least with sensuality you don't have the confusion with sexuality that this title creates.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Jawz said:


> Sx is concerned with intensity, chemistry more than sacrifice. If sacrifice is deemed necessary in order to forge/maintain a deep connection that is still satisfying, then self-sacrifice / compromise can be prioritized, but the chemistry between the self and the other needs to be and remain present. For me as Sx-dominant, it's never really been about sex. Sexual feelings can happen as an outcome of a feeling of merging with the other, but in some cases you can merge with the other without having any sexual feelings at all.
> 
> The less I am connected to someone else, the more difficult it is for me to sacrifice. In fact, I'm much more likely to be completely indifferent to the needs of others if I am not merged with them in some way. Once I have the primary/perfect connection with someone (the ultimate bond so to speak), then my own personal needs get more and more deprioritized and I just want to bask in the intensity of the merging itself. It's quite exhilarating and enthralling.


Ok, intensity... chemistry... what do these mean precisely? I mean can you give me some examples?


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Strelnikov said:


> Ok, intensity... chemistry... what do these mean precisely? I mean can you give me some examples?


Intensity:
It's one of those "you just know". Like a sense that something or someone gives you a greater experience or has more potential. It's just always "more than". 

A normal cup of coffee in the morning will be a normal cup of coffee. But sometimes you just wake up and you have this experience with the coffee that's slightly different. A more elevated mood. A heighened experience. But it can't always be replicated even if all the conditions are the same. 

Sometimes you have a conversation with someone and it makes you feel supercharged... Longing for more. Or if they've satisfied this desire, you want it again and while you're having these conversations you start merging with them. The closer you get, it almost seems like you're one with them. It's literally what the word means. 

Chemistry:
This one is slightly harder to explain but you just feel this intense desire to talk to or be with someone in particular and get closer to them. Or find ways to draw them to you. I've noticed that I attract other Sx Doms and am attracted to them in particular. I think it's just a difference in energy. You can talk to them, share experiences and just feed off of each other's interest and passion in each other as well as just different things they're also very passionate about. Non Sx can have passion too, but Sxs just have this different vibe to them that you can just sense. Chemistry is literal chemical reaction to the other. maybe (now I'm just theorizing), it's a chemical response and Sx Doms have specific hormonal shifts and pheromones that they give off that can be sensed and they cause a chemical reaction that helps me recognize them. Who knows. 

Maybe just sensing the potential for a more intense experience through them is what chemistry is. It's hard to put into words when it's purely instinctive. Perhaps it's my own lack of ability to find the right words. :Shrug:

I'm assuming someone else can do a better job.


----------



## Asd456 (Jul 25, 2017)

Octavarium said:


> Would love to hear any comments from Sx-doms on any of it.


I may come back to your post later when I have time, but if you're still unsure of your instincts, I find that a simple way to pick up on the instincts is to notice the language that's being used in conversation. I've noticed that so/sx and sx/so use pronouns like "we" in place of "I". It's like they naturally see themselves as part of a group. Sp/so and sp/sx use "I". In contrast, I (sx/sp) don't use "we" in place of "I" and in general, I don't normally see myself as part of a group or "we"; in fact, I don't think I can even see groups because I see everyone as individuals.



Jawz said:


> I've noticed that I attract other Sx Doms and am attracted to them in particular. I think it's just a difference in energy. You can talk to them, share experiences and just feed off of each other's interest and passion in each other as well as just different things they're also very passionate about. Non Sx can have passion too, but Sxs just have this different vibe to them that you can just sense.


Yeah, I've noticed that too.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

@Jawz

Ok, I think I get what you're meaning. I do have this need to be as one with certain people, like spend all my time with them, talk about everything with them, share everything with them, like becoming one single entity with my best friend. It may sound weird, but that's how I would describe it. Anything less than this and I'll tend to be indifferent regarding the relationship. The most important relationships are the ones where everything clicks in my mind.


----------



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

Strelnikov said:


> Ummm... tough questions. Maybe sacrifice is a big word, but I do have a clear tendency of supporting friends/family/etc before I support myself. In general, I don't care that much about myself and am only motivated in helping those close to me. For example, if I have to choose who to give money to, I'd rather starve myself than have my friends/close ones suffer. As for the second question, I think I'd choose to sacrifice myself, but I'm not so sure, since I've never been in the situation.
> 
> If this is the SX instinct... why is it called that? Because let's just say that overall, the subject of "love life" is one that doesn't interest me that much. So... where's the "sexual" dimension? Or is it just a case of confusing naming?


yeah i dunno, some places call it '1-to-1' which i think makes more sense.


----------



## banane_wane (May 13, 2017)

You fuckers don't want sx
My boyfriend has become my life fuel.
Over the last 2 days I wasn't able to talk to him. I got physical aches and pains and extreme exhaustion. I also felt depressed and cried a couple times.
2 days.
It's not like I don't have a healthy social life.
Honestly I'm just ranting here. I need to rant.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Jawz said:


> Intensity:
> It's one of those "you just know". Like a sense that something or someone gives you a greater experience or has more potential. It's just always "more than".
> 
> A normal cup of coffee in the morning will be a normal cup of coffee. But sometimes you just wake up and you have this experience with the coffee that's slightly different. A more elevated mood. A heighened experience. But it can't always be replicated even if all the conditions are the same.
> ...


I don't think it's chemistry. I think it's a learned behaviour based on comfortable preferences. We all have those comfort-things. Some really need them, some can enjoy them but doesn't need them, some can disgard all of them but still enjoy them.

I've observed the same. Some people tend to enjoy the little meaningless things tad too much. They manage to tap into the mood effortless. 

I can tap into this "enjoying the things very much" but it's not mesmerizing, it doesn't take me away from the world. Like it does for some people.

SX-doms tend to romantisize a lot?


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

pwowq said:


> SX-doms tend to romantisize a lot?


That may be how it appears to others when we describe our experience but it doesn't make our perception of our experience any less real or invalid if you know what I mean. 

Objectively I agree that two people should walk away with at least similar experiences of the same thing but that's where the subjectivity of experience comes in. Probably better to assume that simply we don't percieve or experience reality the same way as So and Sp doms :thinking:


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

banane_wane said:


> You fuckers don't want sx
> My boyfriend has become my life fuel.
> Over the last 2 days I wasn't able to talk to him. I got physical aches and pains and extreme exhaustion. I also felt depressed and cried a couple times.
> 2 days.
> ...


I mean, that just sounds pretty normal.



pwowq said:


> I don't think it's chemistry. I think it's a learned behaviour based on comfortable preferences.


Why? It makes sense for there to be an instinct attuned to chemistry.


----------



## banane_wane (May 13, 2017)

Remnants said:


> I mean, that just sounds pretty normal.[/QUOTE=Remnants;43436895]
> 
> Are we all dysfunctional crybabies then? Haha​


----------



## Janna (Aug 31, 2018)

I'm not very comfortable with the whole instinctual variants theory, although I do find it interesting and want to understand it better. What makes it a bit confusing for me is that so many of the things that instinctual variants are trying to explain seem to go hand in hand with either specific enneatypes (I've been a clear cut Five all my life, and as such to be anything else than an SP dominant would feel very strange to me - aren't we all about personal space and having the resources to be as independent as possible?) and/or simply a matter of being an introvert or an extrovert.

If I take an instinctual variant test, it'll most likely give me a result of sp/sx/so, because I only have a few close friends and I'm not trying to make any more of them. But my having only a few close friends is not because I seek intimacy or want my relationships to be very intense - it's because I'm an introvert and I don't have the energy to handle a bunch of different people. 

Perhaps my introversion has caused some of my relationships to develop into very intense ones - I've been best friends with my closest female friend for 27 years, and in that time the relationship does go very deep. But I'm not in the market for deepening any of the other friendships that I have. I enjoy effortless social structures where I belong not because the connection with the individuals is so profound, but because there is a context that I fit in. Workplace is usually the most important one, but I've also belonged to other context based social groups that I never intended to make into anything deeper, like mommy groups when I had small children. I like it that those groups are not tight, and that I can leave whenever I want to without it being a big deal to anybody.

I also compartmentalize very much when it comes to social relationships. For instance, I have friends that, in my mind, I only travel with, and I'm a bit creeped out if I'm invited to their house for whatever. Why would I want to do that? We have a trip planned in four months, isn't having a drink before that overdoing it a bit?

I really feel like a sp/so/sx, but that's not what the tests tell me.


----------



## Asd456 (Jul 25, 2017)

Janna said:


> I enjoy effortless social structures where I belong not because the connection with the individuals is so profound, but because there is a context that I fit in. Workplace is usually the most important one, but I've also belonged to other context based social groups that I never intended to make into anything deeper, like mommy groups when I had small children. I like it that those groups are not tight, and that I can leave whenever I want to without it being a big deal to anybody.
> 
> I also compartmentalize very much when it comes to social relationships. For instance, I have friends that, in my mind, I only travel with, and I'm a bit creeped out if I'm invited to their house for whatever. Why would I want to do that? We have a trip planned in four months, isn't having a drink before that overdoing it a bit?


That makes sense. It sounds like the "context based social group" is tied to the roles that people play in a group. It's interesting because I'm SO-last and I don't relate to that. 

This brings me to a question I have for SO-firsts or seconds:

"Authentic human interactions become impossible when you lose yourself in a role." - Eckhart Tolle

Found this quote on my newsfeed. Do you agree or disagree? How would you interpret that?


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Asd456 said:


> Do you agree or disagree? How would you interpret that?


I don't disagree with it. The way I am wont to conceptualize this, to _lose_ one's self in a role is to work and succeed at taking on a role that requires failure of self-awareness and neglect of personal psychological boundaries for you to fully or comfortably inhabit. Not all roles that require some superficial modification of behavior/habits to fill jeopardize "authenticity" or self-awareness in such an encompassing way, though. 

Agreeing to play a role =/= loss of self. The hope (socially) is to find roles that are good enough fits that they don't require much papering over of what you really think, your ease of self-expression, your independence etc. even if they require a bit of flexibility. Personally, if I can't find roles that are good enough fits in that way, I pull back socially. This is something I'm usually hyper-conscious of and selective about.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Asd456 said:


> This brings me to a question I have for SO-firsts or seconds:
> 
> "Authentic human interactions become impossible when you lose yourself in a role." - Eckhart Tolle
> 
> Found this quote on my newsfeed. Do you agree or disagree? How would you interpret that?


I get the spirit of it but I disagree. Sure someone can "lose themself" in a role - as in fusing into it - but they then change that role to be more like themself as well. The person is never really totally lost and the interaction is never any less _authentic_ in terms of being real, genuine, etc. But you might get an interaction that is much more about whatever that role is, or that is dominated by the reasons they're trying to be whatever that role represents. But that's true of any human at any time. You're always going to get a little extra of whatever's occupying their mind/body/heart at the moment. 

This is presuming, of course, the person's not deliberately _just_ playing a role and trying to interact in a way that completely eschews their self. In that case it's just a bizarre amalgamation of the role and what they think the role is and what they are like when they are trying to hide themself. I still think you'll always get a little of the person's soul, though. That's just something you can't hide.



Janna said:


> I really feel like a sp/so/sx, but that's not what the tests tell me.


Perhaps your so and sx are both significantly lower than your sp and you're essentially sp >>>>> so > sx. FWIW my dad's an INTP 5w6 sp/sx and your description doesn't really sound like the way he is. I don't think I've ever really heard him reference social context. He is pretty introverted too but connects with people over his strongest couple of interests. Cross-contextualization doesn't seem to bother him either... either he shares an interest with them or he doesn't and that moves across contexts.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

nablur said:


> afaik, 6's are the ones who have trust issues, right? is this a projection?
> 
> perhaps its not that they dont trust you, its that they are trying to figure out the 'why'?


I can't answer if it's projection...my post is roughly 4-5 years old and doesn't contain enough context for me to remember what I was referring to.


----------

