# Intimacy: Part of All the Instincts?



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

I'm sure many Enneagramers have seen this before, but I just came across this today and think it's an absolutely beautiful description of the social instinct.



> Social Instinct
> "Adapting/Bonding"
> 
> The birth of emotion, link between instinct and emotion. Developed roughly 350,000,000 years ago when animals started to care for their young. Colonies and herds form as protection systems for young. Link between parents and children. Birth of social instinct is the parent-child bond - your survival is just as, or more important than mine, your survival is my survival. To care for someone and to receive care. Social instinct is birth of altruism. This is about having a call and answering it.
> ...



As far as intimacy goes, what strikes me is this issue of bonding and of play. My impression has been that people associate this sort of thing with the sexual instinct, but I'd like to consider if it's, in fact, been properly relegated to the social. 

In light of that description, I thought this idea regarding the realization of true intimacy was pretty insightful:



> You have all three instincts, to function all must be balanced and present. However, your last instinct is the one you perpetually talk yourself out of or postpone. It feels like a burden or something you can't make time or energy for. There is unconscious shame around the last instinct. You 'fix' your dominant instinct by focusing on your weakest, not giving the dominant more attention. For example...*
> 
> Sp:* Intimacy and depth without a foundation, trust, stability, growth, having home with each other is impossible.
> 
> ...


I'd quote more, but I think that's the most crucial bits. You can read more scattered throughout this thread here: The Enneagram Institute Discussion Board - The Spiritual Instincts



I'm curious what others would say to this idea.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Interesting.  I type at Sx/Sp. There's never been much debate among perc'ers that I'm an SX dom, though many have suggested Social as my second instinct and now I suppose I see why. I definitely have that playfulness mentioned here, and I don't ask myself 'what is this costing me?' However I see no strong argument for myself as Sp blind? I'm curious what others say.

Sp: Intimacy and depth without a foundation, trust, stability, growth, having home with each other is impossible.
============> I can't have _true_ intimacy without trust & growth, but I can be very drawn to pursue a connection if I sense potential for that growth & trust to build. When trust is broken beyond repair, I am gone, never to look back.

When I am interested in someone, I want to know what they're about in all the deeper ways. If I feel they're not someone I can potentially trust, I lose interest entirely.

Sx: Intimacy and depth without charge, electricity, interest, engagement, passion is impossible.
============> guilty :blushed:
Although, long relationships have periods of passion that wax and wane, and I have absolutely no problem with this and zero issues remaining loyal if I trust the person and we have a real solid foundation, friendship, and so forth. I've never left someone because I was 'bored' but rather because the foundation no longer felt solid or trust was fractured. I don't expect a partner to be a never-ending source of passion, inspiration and entertainment. That being said, I won't fall for someone in the first place without this element to draw me in.

So: Intimacy and depth without bonding, connection, seeing the other where they are, play, warmth, and involvement is impossible.
============> I would have to agree with this too. Without playfulness and connection, and seeing the other where they are, electricity and passion do not build. I have enough passion from my own interests (arts, nature, etc) that I don't need it from someone else; I'd feel drawn to them _only if_ we bonded and I felt we could both see the other for who we are. Passion, charge, and electricity, for me, builds over months or years. I am sometimes immensely drawn to someone right away, but I would not call it 'passion' without an actively building bond. I might find them intriguing, but if connecting with them is a dead end, my interest disappears. 

I don't know what is meant by 'warmth.' I want it real, all sides; the underside, the tears, the rage, the warmth, the shivers, all of it. I don't want someone to 'play nice' with me in order to seduce me.. I'd see right through it. What's most important to me is keeping it real.

(as a side note, I guess it's pretty obvious why I'm usually single. Trust, passion, honesty and friendship? Clearly I ask too much.)


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Nitpicking at semantics I believe in the notion that the dictionary definition of intimacy being predominantly an Sx thing. Bonding is something that is intrinsically human.


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

@*Animal*

if it clears anything up for you. You sound like a Sx/Sp


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

I relate to both So and Sp definitions of intimacy and not at all with the Sx definition. Perfect because that goes with my type. This is cool information.


----------



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

Inguz said:


> Nitpicking at semantics I believe in the notion that the dictionary definition of intimacy being predominantly an Sx thing. Bonding is something that is intrinsically human.


Well, my point is that some people bond more/better than others (because we still all have all the instincts). Actually I would go so far to say that thinking I'm saying bonding is _not _intrinsically human is to miss the point of instinctual subtypes entirely.

But yeah the former is exactly the view I'm trying to gauge the prevalence of.




Animal said:


> Interesting.  I type at Sx/Sp. There's never been much debate among perc'ers that I'm an SX dom, though many have suggested Social as my second instinct and now I suppose I see why. I definitely have that playfulness mentioned here, and I don't ask myself 'what is this costing me?' However I see no strong argument for myself as Sp blind? I'm curious what others say....
> 
> (as a side note, I guess it's pretty obvious why I'm usually single. Trust, passion, honesty and friendship? Clearly I ask too much.)


FWIW, I see you as Sx/Sp as well. Perhaps this is just a conflation of sexual and social instincts.

I'm also wondering if the difference is type dependent. Not sure myself.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

@Dying Acedia @The Wandering

I think that's a good point - each type will be different. For instance any reactive type will likely mention trust issues in a discussion about intimacy. Any withdrawn type will bring up needing to withdraw from a partner regardless of instinct. I agree that I'm correctly typed but I am curious what is the difference between what I wrote and what a So dominant would write? Anyone?


----------



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

**Added the point that we have all instincts (and intimacy as requiring _balance_​) to the OP**


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

@Animal I'm an So dom. I think what jumps out at me is Involvement, Connection, and Seeing the other where they are. I feel like passion isn't Sx only because there is passion in connection. To me it's not really about enjoying the sex for myself but making the partner feel good and at the same time to feel connected. I enjoy what she enjoys. I'm Sp too so I'll need that Trust and Stability to have sex in the first place.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> @_Animal_ I'm an So dom. I think what jumps out at me is Involvement, Connection, and Seeing the other where they are. I feel like passion isn't Sx only because there is passion in connection. *To me it's not really about enjoying the sex for myself but making the partner feel good and at the same time to feel connected*. *I enjoy what she enjoys*. I'm Sp too so I'll need that Trust and Stability to have sex in the first place.


^ I agree with all of this. In fact I get more pleasure out of pleasuring my partner than him pleasuring me. I'm very carnal, so of course there is a physical element to what turns me on, but I simply am not turned on, no matter what happens physically, unless there is connection and my partner is turned on. Nothing makes me shiver, tremble and lust more than my partner's pleasure & arousal. With someone I'm crazy about, all he has to do is kiss me very passionately and... well, I won't write an erotica novel right here.  But it's amazing how sensitive I am physically, and how easy to please, when I have connection & bond with someone. I can be a raw, crazy animal but the way to describe it is, it's so carnal it's spiritual; something deeper is shared between us. It's never just.. 'what makes my body feel good' or 'what he can do for me.' Realistically in a long relationship there are quickies and half-assed moments but there would also be deeper sharing for a portion of the time. My inner animal only comes out when my soul is turned on. You know those kittens who hiss at anyone who tries to lure them out from under the bed, but once they trust you, they'll purr in your lap for hours and sleep on your pillow, and won't scratch you even if you wash them? That's me. If someone can inspire passion and also trust, I'm generous, open-hearted, painfully loyal. That's why I have to close up completely to someone I can't trust. It's too easy for me to give them everything and if they don't have my best interest in mind, I will be burned, sucked dry and destroyed. For better or worse my SP kicks in the _minute_ I encounter dishonesty and I am gone.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Animal said:


> ^ I agree with all of this. In fact I get more pleasure out of pleasuring my partner than him pleasuring me. I'm very carnal, so of course there is a physical element to what turns me on, but I simply am not turned on, no matter what happens physically, unless there is connection and my partner is turned on. Nothing makes me shiver, tremble and lust more than my partner's pleasure & arousal. With someone I'm crazy about, all he has to do is kiss me very passionately and... well, I won't write an erotica novel right here.  But it's amazing how sensitive I am physically, and how easy to please, when I have connection & bond with someone. I can be a raw, crazy animal but the way to describe it is, it's so carnal it's spiritual; something deeper is shared between us. It's never just.. 'what makes my body feel good' or 'what he can do for me.' Realistically in a long relationship there are quickies and half-assed moments but there would also be deeper sharing for a portion of the time. My inner animal only comes out when my soul is turned on. You know those kittens who hiss at anyone who tries to lure them out from under the bed, but once they trust you, they'll purr in your lap for hours and sleep on your pillow, and won't scratch you even if you wash them? That's me. If someone can inspire passion and also trust, I'm generous, open-hearted, painfully loyal. That's why I have to close up completely to someone I can't trust. It's too easy for me to give them everything and if they don't have my best interest in mind, I will be burned, sucked dry and destroyed. For better or worse my SP kicks in the _minute_ I encounter dishonesty and I am gone.


I wonder if being turned on by the other being turned on is an So thing or not. If you're not So yet that's how you function I'm not sure. Maybe you have all 3 developed? I don't have Sx developed at all. It's all about So for me and slightly about Sp. I read somewhere that whichever two you are then the third is non-existent. Idk if this is true for you because it sounds like you have all 3. Or maybe when it comes to intimacy people develop their weaker form too.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> I wonder if being turned on by the other being turned on is an So thing or not. If you're not So yet that's how you function I'm not sure. Maybe you have all 3 developed? I don't have Sx developed at all. It's all about So for me and slightly about Sp. I read somewhere that whichever two you are then the third is non-existent. Idk if this is true for you because it sounds like you have all 3. Or maybe when it comes to intimacy people develop their weaker form too.


Yeah.. that's strange, isn't it? I've noticed this; I do seem to embody all three instincts, just like I seem to embody lots of traits of all the types in my tritype. *shrug*


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Animal said:


> Yeah.. that's strange, isn't it? I've noticed this; I do seem to embody all three instincts, just like I seem to embody lots of traits of all the types in my tritype. *shrug*


Oh yeah I embody all the traits in my tritype as well. I don't feel like there is a core type but rather they are all equal.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> Oh yeah I embody all the traits in my tritype as well. I don't feel like there is a core type but rather they are all equal.


Interesting~ what made you choose one as a core over the others?


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Animal said:


> Interesting~ what made you choose one as a core over the others?


That's just what the test said. Lol. Maybe there is a slight lead in my 3. Idk. Well a large part of what makes me me is from a trauma I experienced at 3 that gave me extreme guilt for not being able to do the right thing (because I was fucking 3, but the guilt was still there). It makes sense that I'm a 3 when you look at that aspect. So maybe I'm more of a 3w2 than I am a 1w9 and 5w6. But all 3 developed in me intensely during the trauma. I froze, wanted to be the hero (3), used my thoughts to figure out what to do (5w6) and tried to find the perfect way to fix the situation and make peace (1w9). It's weird because they all seem equal yet something about the 3 jumps out at me as being slightly more important. Like 5w6 and 1w9 wouldn't have even developed without first developing the 3w2.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> That's just what the test said. Lol. Maybe there is a slight lead in my 3. Idk. Well a large part of what makes me me is from a trauma I experienced at 3 that gave me extreme guilt for not being able to do the right thing (because I was fucking 3, but the guilt was still there). It makes sense that I'm a 3 when you look at that aspect. So maybe I'm more of a 3w2 than I am a 1w9 and 5w6. But all 3 developed in me intensely during the trauma. I froze, wanted to be the hero (3), used my thoughts to figure out what to do (5w6) and tried to find the perfect way to fix the situation and make peace (1w9). It's weird because they all seem equal yet something about the 3 jumps out at me as being slightly more important. Like 5w6 and 1w9 wouldn't have even developed without first developing the 3w2.


I see. Have you filled out a questionnaire? That's a much better place to start with enneagram typing imo

http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-enneagram-type/111173-enneagram-questionnaire.html


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Animal said:


> I see. Have you filled out a questionnaire? That's a much better place to start with enneagram typing imo
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-enneagram-type/111173-enneagram-questionnaire.html


Okay every question I answer it screams 3. So Yeah I guess my 3 is my core and the others I developed to aide my core. It makes perfect sense. But my 1 and 5 are very much developed too.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

apart from what has already been said, the way I see it
*Self Preservation*: forms bonds with "their own": family, close friends, etc. their bonds have a 1 on 1, "durable" quality to them. Mario Sakura calls the Self Preservation instinct simply "The Preserving Instinct", coming from the line of thinking that an Sp dom's dominant energy is extended to those closest to them 
*Sexual*: forms bonds with those they have spark/charge with (the OP pretty much covered everything)
*Social*: social types have this bizarre ability to form bonds with people they have no direct contact with by virtue of being part of a shared entity  . extended family, patriotism, people who route for the same sports team etc. indeed So doms seem to have a far reaching net of emotional investment (and when you think of the number of Sp dom family men, Sp dom soldiers who fight bravely for their platoon, etc, I'd say there's plenty of evidence to support this)

personally, I simply don't care about someone I haven't formed a bond with. while I can definitely see the benefit of this sort of tendency, you inevitably set yourself up for loss when you connect your consciousness and emotional state so intimately with such a wide net.



> Social Blindspot/SO-Last - how do I be with others? Finding ourselves outside participation in life. New connections are a pain in the ass, visit or phone call not a possibility but a drain "what will this cost me?" Interaction seen in terms of exchange, like money. People and connections as burden. There is unconscious shame - defective, broken, emotionally retarded, don't know how to love.


guil-fucking-ty 
the last sentence would explain why Sx/Sp often comes off as 4-ish and Sp/Sx comes off as 3w4-ish


----------



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

This is interesting. I don't think a lot about intimacy though, so I don't know which I relate to more.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

If anything, the blind spot for the SX laster, I don't think necessarily means lacking but a complicated or neurotic relationship with it(different than the neurotic behaviour of the dominant instinct). I still crave closeness with 1 other person, something of an exchange of our souls kinda thing however that doesn't mean to say there is a constant craving of it, it comes out sporadically, unpredictable. It's kinda like a leaking facet sometimes that needs tightening up which may be done through partial avoidance of the blindspot but the leaking tap needs to be tended to, feeling overwhelmed in excess of it, some unstable interaction with it rather than absence of it's own accord, that is not possible for we experience and must attend to all 3 instincts to become more balanced as humans. That really applies to all blindspots, an inconsistent push/pull to it which may alternate becomes an immature version of that instinct.


----------



## meridannight (Nov 23, 2012)

> Sp: Intimacy and depth without a foundation, trust, stability, growth, having home with each other is impossible.
> 
> Sx: Intimacy and depth without charge, electricity, interest, engagement, passion is impossible.
> 
> So: Intimacy and depth without bonding, connection, seeing the other where they are, play, warmth, and involvement is impossible.



i can relate to all of these. but if i'd have to pick one i couldn't absolutely do without, it would be the sx version. i can do without sp easily, and i could even do without the so, but i can't remove the sx from the equation and still call it intimacy.


----------



## MissyMaroon (Feb 24, 2010)

Stelliferous said:


> I wonder if being turned on by the other being turned on is an So thing or not. If you're not So yet that's how you function I'm not sure. Maybe you have all 3 developed? I don't have Sx developed at all. It's all about So for me and slightly about Sp. I read somewhere that whichever two you are then the third is non-existent. Idk if this is true for you because it sounds like you have all 3. Or maybe when it comes to intimacy people develop their weaker form too.


I don't think how one is during sex has much to do with their instincts. It just has to do with caring and selflessness and the trait that makes one turned on by someone else's pleasure. An Sx/Sp, Sx/Sp, Sp/So, whatever can all share that. It's not exclusive to enneagram instincts.

Sex is usually electric, intense, charged, etc. by itself. It's why the sexual instinct is called what it is. An So/Sp can be very passionate and intense in bed. It doesn't have to extend to other parts of their personality.

As far as bonding with other people go, I think it's about tolerance level to certain situations. I think many people, whatever instinct dominates them, have only a few people they really trust and connect to. However, an So-laster is going to see interaction with people they're not close to or have a charge with as more taxing and draining than another type; An So-dom will be able to handle spontaneous interaction with someone they hardly know far better.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

MissyMaroon said:


> I don't think how one is during sex has much to do with their instincts. It just has to do with caring and selflessness and the trait that makes one turned on by someone else's pleasure. An Sx/Sp, Sx/Sp, Sp/So, whatever can all share that. It's not exclusive to enneagram instincts.
> 
> Sex is usually electric, intense, charged, etc. by itself. It's why the sexual instinct is called what it is. An So/Sp can be very passionate and intense in bed. It doesn't have to extend to other parts of their personality.
> 
> As far as bonding with other people go, I think it's about tolerance level to certain situations. I think many people, whatever instinct dominates them, have only a few people they really trust and connect to. However, an So-laster is going to see interaction with people they're not close to or have a charge with as more taxing and draining than another type; An So-dom will be able to handle spontaneous interaction with someone they hardly know far better.


I just don't see sex as electric, intense, or charged... That's not what I'm thinking about. I'm thinking about pleasing her and connecting. I'm not thinking about how awesome it feels. It matches my So/Sp and lack of Sx with the definitions.


----------



## MissyMaroon (Feb 24, 2010)

Stelliferous said:


> I just don't see sex as electric, intense, or charged... That's not what I'm thinking about. I'm thinking about pleasing her and connecting. I'm not thinking about how awesome it feels. It matches my So/Sp and lack of Sx with the definitions.


Well, okay. Your lack of Sx would make sense there. I'm just saying there are Sx-lasters out there who have intense sex lives. Also, your wanting to please her isn't exclusive to type. I understand what you're saying now and that does fit your stacking more. It doesn't apply in every case, though. Now I'm curious how people are in bed, types and everything. XD


----------



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

MissyMaroon said:


> It doesn't apply in every case, though. Now I'm curious how people are in bed, types and everything. XD


There are ways to find that out, I suppose.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> There are ways to find that out, I suppose.


I would be more than happy to be a volunteer for a very scientific study.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> I just don't see sex as electric, intense, or charged... That's not what I'm thinking about. I'm thinking about pleasing her and connecting. I'm not thinking about how awesome it feels. It matches my So/Sp and lack of Sx with the definitions.


How can you connect and not think about how awesome it feels? What makes you think she doesn't want to please you?
Just for fun next time, make it known how awesome it feels and see how she responds.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

MissyMaroon said:


> Now I'm curious how people are in bed, types and everything. XD


Sx: attraction - resonance - transgression - self-loss - fusion/ sovereignty


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

mimesis said:


> How can you connect and not think about how awesome it feels? What makes you think she doesn't want to please you?
> Just for fun next time, make it known how awesome it feels and see how she responds.


That won't be easy lol. It feels wrong. >.<


----------



## MissyMaroon (Feb 24, 2010)

Stelliferous said:


> That won't be easy lol. It feels wrong. >.<


Why does it feel wrong?

I don't think it's so much an instinctual variant thing anymore. I'm sure it does contribute, but mutual pleasure is generally an ideal goal during sex within a relationship no matter the type.

Think about it this way: It would please her to know she is pleasing you as much as you are pleasing her.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

MissyMaroon said:


> Why does it feel wrong?
> 
> I don't think it's so much an instinctual variant thing anymore. I'm sure it does contribute, but mutual pleasure is generally an ideal goal during sex within a relationship no matter the type.
> 
> Think about it this way: It would please her to know she is pleasing you as much as you are pleasing her.


It feels wrong because if I focus on myself then I'm not focusing on her. But you saying it would please her to please myself makes sense theoretically but it still doesn't feel right despite me pleasing her that way. I would feel selfish if I didn't think about her. It's so natural for me to think about others.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> It feels wrong because if I focus on myself then I'm not focusing on her. But you saying it would please her to please myself makes sense theoretically but it still doesn't feel right despite me pleasing her that way. I would feel selfish if I didn't think about her. It's so natural for me to think about others.


Yes it sounds very heroic and wonderfully self-sacrificing, but I don't think you are listening well if you call it 'theoretical'. Again, what if she enjoys giving you pleasure? Have you ever asked? In a way you are trumping your own mental gratification over hers, which sounds a bit like masturbation in its self-righteousness. 

Mind you I'm INFP too, so I know where you are coming from. Just being thought provoking.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

mimesis said:


> Yes it sounds very heroic and wonderfully self-sacrificing, but I don't think you are listening well if you call it 'theoretical'. Again, what if she enjoys giving you pleasure? Have you ever asked? In a way you are trumping your own mental gratification over hers, which sounds a bit like masturbation in its self-righteousness.
> 
> Mind you I'm an INFP too, so I know where you are coming from. Just being thought provoking.


If she wants to give me pleasure that is understandable but I just... don't want to accept it. I'm sorry if that makes me less than ideal but that's not how I want to engage in sex. I'll just have to find somebody who is okay with that. So far no one complains. I don't think it's an issue for her.
edit: They react weird when I say I don't want a bj.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> If she wants to give me pleasure that is understandable but I just... don't want to accept it. I'm sorry if that makes me less than ideal but that's not how I want to engage in sex. I'll just have to find somebody who is okay with that. So far no one complains. I don't think it's an issue for her.
> edit: They react weird when I say I don't want a bj.


It's not a matter of one way or the other but both, a climactic spiral of reciprocity, stimulus-response and mutual gratitude. Just as much as it is gratifying for you to please her, it is gratifying for the other to please you. If you don't want a bj, that's like refusing to accept a gift or (return)favor. You feel good about yourself not needing it, but she can't feel good about herself the same way , because you don't accept her offer to give you pleasure. As a 3 I'd have expected you to at least understand that need to feel competent and worthy through performance. Although, it strikes me more as 2 pride, to be honest.


----------

