# Sexuality, Gender Roles & The Enneagram



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

SEXUALITY, GENDER ROLES, AND THE ENNEAGRAM 


What do you think of this article?


Mmmm controversy.. :angry:


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

I very much disagree with the idea that eights make perfect partners for fours because they inflict the pain fours seek. 

To me, the enneagram is not about feeding our pitfalls and faults-- it's about recognizing them and learning how to manage them. A relationship where an eight indulges his/her ability to hurt someone and a four accepts and uses that pain to indulge his/her own ego is not a "fitting relationship." In fact, it's probably an abuisive one.

Both partners indulge their selfish tendencies without regard for the other (and no, I don't think inflicting pain on a partner shows regard for them). There's no "perfect partner" aspect about that.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

@Marlowe, disregarding the numbers (8, 4, whatever) - I would agree that any partnership that feeds into someone's worst tendencies is a destructive or potentially abusive relationship, whereas a relationship balance that helps each person to grow and find their strength is closer to a 'perfect relationship' (if there is such a thing).


----------



## notmonday (Jun 7, 2013)

I was hoping to read about some of the other types too =/ oh well


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

I found it really interesting here that type four was considered closest to the female gender role. Usually I see four portrayed as a somewhat less-gendered "deep, soulful artist" type that would fit a lot of men, too, with the only feminine thing about four being that it was considered a somewhat emotional type.

Type two is the one I usually see compared to the female gender role, emphasizing the connection between two and eight and the connection between male and female. The official Enneagram test even suggests that women who score high on two investigate their next highest scores as well, because society often pressures women to seem two-ish.

The connection between type two and bisexuality is interesting as well...I'm bisexual and type seven, which I always thought went well together, interesting that two is the primary type associated with bisexuality here.


----------



## meridannight (Nov 23, 2012)

> By "sexuality" I mean the personal experience of arousal and the drive toward orgasm.


lols. this is complete nonsense. sexuality is the direction of arousal, or the gender that produces arousal. that's it. nothing more to it.




> All depends upon the idea of violating strangeness....When the intensity of sexual response depends on the alien-ness that has been invaded, it follows that men will try to intensify the response still further by going further afield in alien-ness. Since their enjoyment of "normal" sex depends on the sense of violating a taboo, it follows that they will try to increase their satisfaction by including as many taboos as possible in the sexual object....All sexual perversions, from mere adultery to necrophily, can be seen as attempts to increase the alien-ness of the act by increasing the number of taboos involved. Sex can never, on any level, be "healthy" or "normal." It always depends on the violating of taboos--or, as Baudelaire would have said, on the sense of sin.


while i do concede that ''taboo'' or ''alien'' (lols) acts of sex can result in a higher degree of arousal, this by no means, means that taboo is the only form which leads to sexual satisfaction. it's fully off base. and the claim that sex can never be healthy or normal, is fucked up. the individual who reaches such a conclusion is fucked up in one way or another. sex is one of the most natural and normal drives there exist in any human being. so, fuck off with your bullshit.

and there is a much simpler explanation for attraction between _seeming_ opposites: that one is used to his own way of being, and is fascinated and pulled by something that he doesn't know well. then again, this never works outside actual physical attraction itself which is beyond a person's control. while i am mostly attracted to more subdued personalities, a subdued personality on its own doesn't guarantee that i am interested. kinda defies the whole rationale for ''opposites attract''. i've only felt attraction when it's clearly physical, and the physical attraction has always been out of my control. it manifests on its own as a reaction to another person whether i want it or not. i've grown to like guys i didn't even like at first sight like this, i've liked guys that have been so not my type, and i've liked guys that have been my 'type'. there is no seeming common denominator to them, other than that presence of explicit physical attraction.

this whole article reeks of classroom cliches that might make sense theoretically, when you establish a certain continuum and rules outside real human life, but have already been proven misguided in practice long ago. someone badly wants to make a point here, but they deviate from basic common sense while doing it. it's misspelled and off all the way.

in all, this article has been written by someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about and is utter nonsense.


----------



## meridannight (Nov 23, 2012)

Lotan said:


> I found it really interesting here that type four was considered closest to the female gender role. Usually I see four portrayed as a somewhat less-gendered "deep, soulful artist" type that would fit a lot of men, too, with the only feminine thing about four being that it was considered a somewhat emotional type.
> 
> Type two is the one I usually see compared to the female gender role, emphasizing the connection between two and eight and the connection between male and female. The official Enneagram test even suggests that women who score high on two investigate their next highest scores as well, because society often pressures women to seem two-ish.
> 
> The connection between type two and bisexuality is interesting as well...I'm bisexual and type seven, which I always thought went well together, interesting that two is the primary type associated with bisexuality here.



this article is off base and detached from real human life. that's why it reaches odd conclusions.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Well I'm a 3 so of course I would be interested as to what the piece had to say about threes. Threes go to the polar extremes to be perfect (8 and 4; masculine and feminine) which I have to agree with. I want the intercourse to be perfect: giver and receiver. As to wearing the mask and being able to switch between the giver and the receiver... I'm working on it. I think I can do it if I were to be with somebody whom I trust but it's very hard for me to be the receiver. Which is why, though I'm demisexual, attracted more to female people - people meant to be the receiver. Sex to me, and possibly every 3, is to be simplified to the connection of polar opposites.


----------



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

I think it's an interesting article, though I agree with Meridannight that "opposites attract" isn't always true. Conflict can be attractive in a way, but personally, I think I would also need to relate for there to be a real attraction (lol that sounds kind of narcissistic).



notmonday said:


> I was hoping to read about some of the other types too =/ oh well


I also agree with this. I'm sure there are ways you could explore gender roles and stereotypes through the other Enneagram types as well. 

I'm not sure I thought of 4 as necessarily feminine either, but I guess I can see why someone would see it that way as it's "the masochistic type" (although guys can definitely be masochistic as well). Type 2 descriptions usually are the ones that sound most stereotypically feminine.

(Actually, now I'm curious what genders different people associate with the various Enneatypes (if any), even though I always liked how the Enneagram focuses on the individual though the lens of fixations that can manifest for anyone, no matter what their gender.)


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

Lotan said:


> I found it really interesting here that type four was considered closest to the female gender role. Usually I see four portrayed as a somewhat less-gendered "deep, soulful artist" type that would fit a lot of men, too, with the only feminine thing about four being that it was considered a somewhat emotional type.
> 
> Type two is the one I usually see compared to the female gender role, emphasizing the connection between two and eight and the connection between male and female. The official Enneagram test even suggests that women who score high on two investigate their next highest scores as well, because society often pressures women to seem two-ish.
> 
> The connection between type two and bisexuality is interesting as well...I'm bisexual and type seven, which I always thought went well together, interesting that two is the primary type associated with bisexuality here.



As someone who is dating a type 4 male I was not surprised by the correlation between type 4 and femininity.

While, type 9, my type, I consider to be more 'gender nuetral' or 'able to conform to the gender roles it finds itself in'


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Lotan said:


> I found it really interesting here that type four was considered closest to the female gender role. Usually I see four portrayed as a somewhat less-gendered "deep, soulful artist" type that would fit a lot of men, too, with the only feminine thing about four being that it was considered a somewhat emotional type.


I actually view men as the more emotional gender, women simply display theirs more. 



> Type two is the one I usually see compared to the female gender role, emphasizing the connection between two and eight and the connection between male and female. The official Enneagram test even suggests that women who score high on two investigate their next highest scores as well, because society often pressures women to seem two-ish.


imo, type 2 is the most sexually dichotomous of the Enneagram types and the most likely to adjust themselves to a societal standard of masculinity/femininity. male 2s typically come off as much more masculine than one would perceive simply by reading descriptions 



> The connection between type two and bisexuality is interesting as well...I'm bisexual and type seven, which I always thought went well together, interesting that two is the primary type associated with bisexuality here.


I would have associated type 7 with bisexuality as well, given our preference for experimentation, variety and voracious sexual appetites (of course, there is little correlation with _actual_ bisexuality as much as having a personality that would be more willing to accept and/or investigate bisexuality)


----------



## Praying Mantis (Nov 14, 2012)

1996? That's not a very reliable source. It isn't up-to-date at all, or anywhere near it.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Praying Mantis said:


> 1996? That's not a very reliable source. It isn't up-to-date at all, or anywhere near it.


Forget Socrates! That guy died years ago!


----------



## jbking (Jun 4, 2010)

notmonday said:


> I was hoping to read about some of the other types too =/ oh well


That was my hope as well. Also, it is worth noting that a 5 can have a 4-wing and integrate to an 8 which is another way to link those types but does this get covered? Noooo...... _sigh_


----------



## Praying Mantis (Nov 14, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> Forget Socrates! That guy died years ago!


I may or may not have walked right into that.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Animal said:


> SEXUALITY, GENDER ROLES, AND THE ENNEAGRAM
> 
> 
> What do you think of this article?
> ...





too much time on their hands said:


> Of all points on the Enneagram, Twos have the most potential for *"polymorphous perversity"--*swinging both ways. If a reliable tool for assessing sexual orientation in relation to the Enneagram were ever developed, I suspect it would show that a large proportion of bi-sexuals (of both sexes) are Twos.


I think this was my favourite part.

:laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

I find the commentary on 2s and gender roles in this thread interesting. I actually imagine my 2-fix as having both a very masculine and a very feminine side to it. I picture it as a princess who is also a knight (think a sort of warlord), switching between a very girly, feminine and demanding affect, and an amoral protective warrior vibe--not literally male, but traditionally masculine. I'm also very interested in lady/knight dynamics in fiction, which I think comes from a dynamic that happens in my brain. My 2 is a lady _and_ a knight. So I actually do understand the idea of "polymorphous" in relation to 2s and gender, though of course the idea that that could be in any way linked to bisexuality is dumb.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Bisexuals are twos.

M'kay.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

spiderfrommars said:


> I find the commentary on 2s and gender roles in this thread interesting. I actually imagine my 2-fix as having both a very masculine and a very feminine side to it. I picture it as a princess who is also a knight (think a sort of warlord), switching between a very girly, feminine and demanding affect, and an amoral protective warrior vibe--not literally male, but traditionally masculine. I'm also very interested in lady/knight dynamics in fiction, which I think comes from a dynamic that happens in my brain. My 2 is a lady _and_ a knight. So I actually do understand the idea of "polymorphous" in relation to 2s and gender, though of course the idea that that could be in any way linked to bisexuality is dumb.


you captured the gender dichotomy of E2 quite nicely.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I think that it's a misnomer that 4s have a need to suffer; what they do have a need for is to be RESPONSIBLE for their suffering; big difference.

I'm extremely shocked that the author of this article didn't proclaim the well-known truth: Contortionists are often enneagram 9s . . .


* *




Okay, I made that up but it makes about as much sense as any of the other bizarre stereotypes in this article.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I think I stick with Viktor Gulenko's romantic styles. At least they make somewhat sense in context. Also, I personally find the macho culture of Hispanic culture to be more on the CP6 side than 8, but maybe that's just me. It just reeks of insecurity and a need to prove one's worth within the social context which to me, is strikingly 6, not 8.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> I think I stick with Viktor Gulenko's romantic styles. At least they make somewhat sense in context. *Also, I personally find the macho culture of Hispanic culture to be more on the CP6 side than 8*, but maybe that's just me. It just reeks of insecurity and a need to prove one's worth within the social context which to me, is strikingly 6, not 8.


I think it's 2. the machismo/bravado is more Social 2; the smooth/seductive Don Juan type is more Sexual 2


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I think I stick with Viktor Gulenko's romantic styles. At least they make somewhat sense in context. Also, I personally find the* macho culture of Hispanic culture to be more on the CP6 side than 8*, but maybe that's just me. It just *reeks of insecurity and a need to prove one's worth within the social context* which to me, is strikingly 6, not 8.


I live in a latino country, and this makes sense to me. The machos are deep down a bunch of insecure guys that don't want to be treated as wimpy/effeminate/insert other offensive and sexist remarks by their peers, so they treat women like crap for proving their own worth, thing that make me cringe, specially as this damned society promotes that behaviour, which is related to double standard BS that I see here and I've noticed as well in other Hispanic countries.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I think it's 2. the machismo/bravado is more Social 2; the smooth/seductive Don Juan type is more Sexual 2


Explain how it's 2?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Explain how it's 2?


2s are, even more than 3s, all about social prestige and model society's standard for what is manly/feminine (think jocks and cheerleaders). female 2s are dramatic, "done up" and play damsel in distress while they are actually wrapping you around their finger; male 2s are all about bravado, glory seeking, proving their worth as a man etc.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 2s are, even more than 3s, all about social prestige and model society's standard for what is manly/feminine (think jocks and cheerleaders). female 2s are dramatic, "done up" and play damsel in distress while they are actually wrapping you around their finger; male 2s are all about bravado, glory seeking, proving their worth as a man etc.


Yeah ok, but how does that make sense in relation to the enneagram motivation and such? Couldn't a 6 equally be a jock done as an act to prevent insecurity?


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Hm... 
I have a pretty open mind when it comes to that kind of stuff. Maybe it's from what I've been experienced to, or maybe I'm not a Three after all. (Only taken the Enneagram test like once or twice).


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Yeah ok, but how does that make sense in relation to the enneagram motivation and such? Couldn't a 6 equally be a jock done as an act to prevent insecurity?


yes, they could, but the general culture of machismo is not counterphobic, but _proud_ like a 2.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Would a SP 2 be like a TJ type or something?

It'll be like a pretty masculine but in a more bearish way. I guess.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> yes, they could, but the general culture of machismo is not counterphobic, but _proud_ like a 2.


Could it not be both?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Could it not be both?


there's no reason it couldn't be, but I feel like the predominant insecurity here is heart center/shame/self worth related rather than anxiety related. (obviously, you will have machismo-ish people of all types)


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Blue Flare said:


> I live in a latino country, and this makes sense to me. The machos are deep down a bunch of insecure guys that don't want to be treated as wimpy/effeminate/insert other offensive and sexist remarks by their peers, so they treat women like crap for proving their own worth, thing that make me cringe, specially as this damned society promotes that behaviour, which is related to double standard BS that I see here and I've noticed as well in other Hispanic countries.


don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those "never hit a woman under any circumstances" people, but why would someone hit their spouse? I've been insecure before, but no amount of insecurity could prompt me to hit the person I cared about most (hell, I can't even bring myself to spar/wrestle with friends without holding myself back. I just don't have it in me to hurt someone I love)


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those "never hit a woman under any circumstances" people, but why would someone hit their spouse? I've been insecure before, but no amount of insecurity could prompt me to hit the person I cared about most (hell, I can't even bring myself to spar/wrestle with friends without holding myself back. I just don't have it in me to hurt someone I love)


Maybe the type 2 pride could be more related with that specific physical violence problem, though you also have other issues like psychological violence, and that one could be either fueled by pride or some fear that went out of control. I also suspect that the anxiety could force to project expected behaviours in others, one clear example happens with my mom, who I think that's a 6w7, no clear idea if she's more cp or phobic, and she projects many of her issues into me, to the point that she fears that I will be treated badly later if I'm not girly enough.

So I think that different aspects of machismo could be explained by different enneagram types, but I agree that 2 and cp6 are rather easy to detect there.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> I also suspect that the anxiety could force to project expected behaviours in others, one clear example happens with my mom, who I think that's a 6w7, no clear idea if she's more cp or phobic, and she projects many of her issues into me, to the point that she fears that I will be treated badly later if I'm not girly enough.


Sounds a bit like my dad (6w5, some kind of T dom). ''Don't do X because Y will happen'' x100 is a typical conversation with him. Often includes ''expected'' societal behaviors as well. 

Interestingly, most of the things he warns about happened to him so it's like he feels very compelled to warn me about random basic stuff every time I see him. So I guess that could be seen as a form of projection.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Blissful Melancholy said:


> Sounds a bit like my dad (6w5, some kind of T dom). ''Don't do X because Y will happen'' x100 is a typical conversation with him. Often includes ''expected'' societal behaviors as well.
> 
> Interestingly, most of the things he warns about happened to him so it's like he feels very compelled to warn me about random basic stuff every time I see him. So I guess that could be seen as a form of projection.


My mom is INFP, and she projects many of her own experiences as well. Indeed the girly thing probably happened because some colleagues treat her like she was a guy, specially as she can be brutally honest in some circumstances and that isn't expected from a woman, at least in this backwater society, but that issue grates her a lot as she wants to be treated as a woman. However, I don't care about that 'problem', so for me is really annoying to listen to her while she's rambling about expected societal behaviors, and the worst part is when she's on her Te tyranny mode.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> I think I stick with Viktor Gulenko's romantic styles. At least they make somewhat sense in context. Also, I personally find the macho culture of Hispanic culture to be more on the CP6 side than 8, but maybe that's just me. It just reeks of *insecurity* and a need to prove one's worth within the social context which to me, is strikingly 6, not 8.


lol, you're talking about security within one's self--which, believe it or not, doesn't have as much to do with the enneagram as you seem to think. 

these are fixations/mechanisms; security within oneself on the other hand, has more to do with how--and how well--we deal _with_ the mechanism. 


some of the biggest blowhards/_"tough-guys"_ i've ever met were 8's. the process of an 8 is to mask feelings of (very general) insecurity--it doesn't completely eradicate them, they still are, and will be present to a degree. and this degree--or success of the process itself--is dependent upon the individual, and _not the process_. 


we're talking about "how's" and what could occur, and if so, why? not on a static "what is". 

i'm a CP 6 and for the most part i just ignore people... because my security lies in promoting myself through life, holding onto my autonomy, freedom--and not in the eye's of random people (especially if they see walking away from some idiot as "weak" or "unmanly", with a child-like, playground-attitude... i mean really: "make this person swallow a few teeth... i go to jail..." doesn't seem like an even trade to me, and in most situations in life it just isn't _practical_/facilitate a functional life).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Donovan said:


> lol, you're talking about security within one's self--which, believe it or not, doesn't have as much to do with the enneagram as you seem to think.
> 
> these are fixations/mechanisms; security within oneself on the other hand, has more to do with how--and how well--we deal _with_ the mechanism.
> 
> ...


I don't see a contradiction since as you claim, security with oneself can be expressed in more than one way in lieu with various enneagram fixations. My point here was more that insecurity as is expressed in seeking security within a social group dynamic seems more on the 6 side, because there is clearly something in relation to image that needs to be reinforced that fits the logic of the attachment triad.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Lotan said:


> I found it really interesting here that type four was considered closest to the female gender role. Usually I see four portrayed as a somewhat less-gendered "deep, soulful artist" type that would fit a lot of men, too, with the only feminine thing about four being that it was considered a somewhat emotional type.
> 
> Type two is the one I usually see compared to the female gender role, emphasizing the connection between two and eight and the connection between male and female. The official Enneagram test even suggests that women who score high on two investigate their next highest scores as well, because society often pressures women to seem two-ish.
> 
> The connection between type two and bisexuality is interesting as well...I'm bisexual and type seven, which I always thought went well together, interesting that two is the primary type associated with bisexuality here.


My thoughts exactly. Though I do understand twos having a dominant side. There is no way this correlates to bisexuality. Not even close.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> I don't see a contradiction since as you claim, security with oneself can be expressed in more than one way in lieu with various enneagram fixations. My point here was more that insecurity as is expressed in seeking security within a social group dynamic seems more on the 6 side, because there is clearly something in relation to image that needs to be reinforced that fits the logic of the attachment triad.


i don't think there is a contradiction--at least not in the "this is clearly wrong/can never happen"-way--but more in the way of painting an inaccurate picture if we were to take what you wrote and apply it (because it's occurring at a point that's no longer dependent on the fixation, but instead is detailing how a particular person happens to deal with their fixation in one moment [without going into detail about how it relates *universally* back towards the fixation itself]... and if that--the mentioned behavior--is then taken as a "base foundation" and key component of the type, there's just crap upon crap after a while [for both that specific ennea-type as well as others, if the same process of correlating behavior to type without a clear line of connection is taken as the norm... which it kind of is). 

the bit about needing image-reinforcement for attachment triaders is interesting... but even that can manifest in almost any way imaginable (might even cause one to pull away from attaching to anything that would render their image significant to themselves--in any way--as a way of preserving what they can't control in a sea of what they don't agree with). but in any case, the point is to see that any and all behavior is possible through the conduit of a fixation, and so it's more in the "why" behind an action and not in what the action was that is definitive of a type... although, i guess there is some benefit in trying to correlate it all--but the first part has to be done if the correlation is going to be worth anything. 

(2 cents is all)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Donovan said:


> i don't think there is a contradiction--at least not in the "this is clearly wrong/can never happen"-way--but more in the way of painting an inaccurate picture if we were to take what you wrote and apply it (because it's occurring at a point that's no longer dependent on the fixation, but instead is detailing how a particular person happens to deal with their fixation in one moment [without going into detail about how it relates *universally* back towards the fixation itself]... and if that--the mentioned behavior--is then taken as a "base foundation" and key component of the type, there's just crap upon crap after a while [for both that specific ennea-type as well as others, if the same process of correlating behavior to type without a clear line of connection is taken as the norm... which it kind of is).
> 
> the bit about needing image-reinforcement for attachment triaders is interesting... but even that can manifest in almost any way imaginable (might even cause one to pull away from attaching to anything that would render their image significant to themselves--in any way--as a way of preserving what they can't control in a sea of what they don't agree with). but in any case, the point is to see that any and all behavior is possible through the conduit of a fixation, and so it's more in the "why" behind an action and not in what the action was that is definitive of a type... although, i guess there is some benefit in trying to correlate it all--but the first part has to be done if the correlation is going to be worth anything.
> 
> (2 cents is all)


Sure though ironically I feel like you are complexifying my original post into something more than what I intended. I think it's clear on what I'm trying to say. The keyword wasn't so much insecurity as where and how it's expressed where I gave one example that it could be macho culture based on my overall impression running into these kinds of people. They usually tend to strike me suffering from some kind of image anxiety that must be proven which to me is quite quintessentially cp6 at some level, especially in unhealthier ranges.


----------



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

Donovan said:


> the bit about needing image-reinforcement for attachment triaders is interesting... but even that can manifest in almost any way imaginable (*might even cause one to pull away from attaching to anything that would render their image significant to themselves--in any way--as a way of preserving what they can't control in a sea of what they don't agree with).*


Just wanted to say that I believe there is a high degree of truth in this statement. It's something I feel I relate to. But out of curiosity, care to elaborate on the bolded part more? What would be an example of how someone may do this?


----------

