# Sx/so vs. Sx/sp in Relationships



## avidity (Mar 26, 2014)

Qu'est-ce que c'est les differences??


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

One is into threesomes and the other one isn't?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Sx/sp is much more singularly focused on the relationship, their survival depends on it in a way it doesn't for sx/so. Sx/sp is much more "I can't live without X" and they will devote all their time energy towards maintaining their intense attachment to X.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Sixty Nein said:


> One is into threesomes and the other one isn't?


Sharing is definitely overrated.


----------



## Doll (Sep 6, 2012)

In relationships... that's pretty hard. I feel as though an SX/SO might put more emphasis on being in the relationship around other people, not necessarily meant to "show off", but just to validate the relationship to themselves. I like knowing and understanding the way my SO and I are perceived by others. It's not my fixation, obviously, but I feel as though SX/SPs would be more self-contained and personal whereas an SX/SO might like to flaunt what they got and see feedback from others.


----------



## avidity (Mar 26, 2014)

Sixty Nein said:


> One is into threesomes and the other one isn't?


Reallly? Is that it? 

Me I'll try anything once.


----------



## avidity (Mar 26, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> Sx/sp is much more singularly focused on the relationship, their survival depends on it in a way it doesn't for sx/so. Sx/sp is much more "I can't live without X" and they will devote all their time energy towards maintaining their intense attachment to X.


This may seem true on the surface. It's more to do with division of energies I think. If an sx/sp feels neglected or unsatisfied in a relationship they are more likely to cut it off entirely and on to the next whereas sx/so seems to place this big emphasis on remaining friends. Cause for confusion.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

avidity said:


> This may seem true on the surface. It's more to do with division of energies I think. If an sx/sp feels neglected or unsatisfied in a relationship they are more likely to cut it off entirely and on to the next whereas sx/so seems to place this big emphasis on remaining friends. Cause for confusion.


I can only speak from experience as I do not understand sx/so well, though I assume an sx/so might remain friends only if they see that the ex-partner serves a larger social utilitarian goal.


----------



## avidity (Mar 26, 2014)

One thing I've noticed: sx/so regardless of gender can definitely feel love and maybe even _be in love_ with more than one person at a time. They also seem more likely to feel trapped in a relationship with one person and to resist exclusivity even if they've been chasing them for months. EXTRA cause for confusion.

I honestly wonder if there is more of a certainty and ruthlessness to sx/sp (as well as of course a creepy overfocus and intensity of emotion i.e. dependency I suppose). Sx/so in the relationship state - their boundaries seem much more permeable.


----------



## lue (May 3, 2014)

avidity said:


> One thing I've noticed: sx/so regardless of gender can definitely feel love and maybe even _be in love_ with more than one person at a time. They also seem more likely to feel trapped in a relationship with one person and to resist exclusivity even if they've been chasing them for months. EXTRA cause for confusion.
> 
> I honestly wonder if there is more of a certainty and ruthlessness to sx/sp (as well as of course a creepy overfocus and intensity of emotion i.e. dependency I suppose).


I think this is that triangulation thing they talk about with sx/sp. From my experience, I agree and disagree. I agree with the triangulation part but it has nothing to do with love. With triangulation I'm not in love nor do I love the other person (the one I'm not in a relationship with), it's more like a crush. Even then, it's not a real crush, it seems to signify how unhappy I am in my relationship. Like my energy has left my relationship and focused on the first thing that sparks my interest.

It would be really hard for me to love two people at the same time, there's a tunnel vision involved when I'm in a relationship. I've also never resisted exclusivity, unless something was off in the relationship.

EDIT: Oh, you said sx/so not sx/sp. Ignore this then (my bad).


----------



## avidity (Mar 26, 2014)

Hm, maybe it's simply the ungroundedness of sx/so that leads them not to really know what they want. It's cute in a way. My best friend and current "s.o." are sx/so - I'm def drawn to their energy. In relationships with other sx/sp's I usually feel smothered and like my life is being drained out and wasted trying to think of responses to endless text messages. Then in person, the interaction is all darkness and barely any light. Sx/so = just the right amount of attention + space. They remain a fun challenge, to say the least.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

Sixty Nein said:


> One is into threesomes and the other one isn't?


This is ridiculous but I am sx/so/sp aaaaand demisexual. So, the answer is no roud:


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Aha said:


> demisexual


So you are a pretentious bisexual?


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

Sixty Nein said:


> So you are a pretentious bisexual?


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Aha said:


>


Yes. A "demisexual" is just a bisexual (though usually the person is actually straight), who is likely to only have sex until they have some sort of brain marriage or some shit like that.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

Sixty Nein said:


> Yes. A "demisexual" is just a bisexual (though usually the person is actually straight), who is likely to only have sex until they have some sort of brain marriage or some shit like that.


Yeah, sure, why not.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Aha said:


> This is ridiculous but I am sx/so/sp aaaaand demisexual. So, the answer is no roud:


Demisexuals can still experience sexual desire, yo. If you're in an open relationship and you're demi threesome is very possible or whatever now happened to float your sexual boat. Demi doesn't make you monogamous by default and you're not asexual. I'm panromantic demisexual and sx/sp. Try again.



Sixty Nein said:


> Yes. A "demisexual" is just a bisexual (though usually the person is actually straight), who is likely to only have sex until they have some sort of brain marriage or some shit like that.


Nah. Demisexuals can be of any romantic orientation e.g. bi, ****, hetero, pan. It's just that you don't experience primary sexual attraction so just looking at a naked body of your choice doesn't mean you get turned on by default or experience some kind of sexual attraction to them. You need to get to know them first and establish an emotional relationship (can be one-sided by the way).

For example, I'm panromantic demisexual meaning I can essentially be with anyone regardless of their gender orientation as long as I have an emotional connection in the right way with them, though I prefer men.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> Demisexuals can still experience sexual desire, yo. You're not asexual. I'm panromantic demisexual and sx/sp. Try again.


Try again what? I know that demisexual can experience sexual desire. I am one. But I don't experience it toward any person with whom I do not have an emotional connect (love)



ephemereality said:


> Nah. Demisexuals can be of any romantic orientation e.g. bi, ****, hetero, pan. It's just that you don't experience primary sexual attraction so just looking at a naked body of your choice doesn't mean you get turned on by default or experience some kind of sexual attraction to them. You need to get to know them first and establish an emotional relationship (can be one-sided by the way).


He knows that. He just tries to troll in his own way. He finds it amusing  I find it amusing that he finds it amusing


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Aha said:


> Try again what? I know that demisexual can experience sexual desire. I am one. But I don't experience it toward any person with whom I do not have an emotional connect (love)


See my edited post.


> He knows that. He just tries to troll in his own way. He finds it amusing  I find it amusing that he finds it amusing


I know that but I still wanted to respond the way I did because the info's incorrect, really. That's type 4 reactivity for you.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> See my edited post.


I see. But this way you must have two emotional connections? To both of them. 
Yes, of course being demisexual does not immediately imply monogamy. It is just very unlikely. 
In my case, I can invest only in one person. 
Of course, if there was a bottleneck after effect of apocalypse and I was the only surviving male I would help humanity. 
Otherwise...



ephemereality said:


> I know that but I still wanted to respond the way I did because the info's incorrect, really. That's type 4 reactivity for you.


My first internal reaction was an image of me pushing a bottle down his throat while saying how retarded he is (an 8 reactivity for you). It is a stupid reaction, of course, that I learned to repress. I prefer jokes and light touch

Btw, have you voted here? http://personalitycafe.com/member-polls/185098-demisexuality-mbti.html


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Aha said:


> I see. But this way you must have two emotional connections?


You could still be into threesomes as an idea and find that attractive as long as you experience sexual attraction to one partner, in my opinion.



> To both of them.
> Yes, of course being demisexual does not immediately imply monogamy. It is just very unlikely.


I honestly don't think so. Depends on the type of demisexual in question. Some may prefer open relationships, some may not. I was in a situation once where I could get into an open relationship with two other individuals. That didn't happen but I liked one enough to consider it anyway. 



> My first internal reaction was an image of me pushing a bottle down his throat while saying how retarded he is (an 8 reactivity for you). It is a stupid reaction, of course, that I learned to repress. I prefer jokes and light touch


See my post in your type me thread. This comes across as 1) 2 because of your focus on jokes and light touch over actually choosing to express your reactivity that would be true for any reactive triader and 2) 1 influence because of your attempt to actually repress anger expression. Could be 2w1, I don't know. 

His joke wasn't aggressive or threatening so I fail to see why an 8 would feel the need to push a bottle down his throat just because it came across as retarded. That first post was such an obvious troll.



> Btw, have you voted here? http://personalitycafe.com/member-polls/185098-demisexuality-mbti.html


No, pretty sure I have voted on a similar poll in the past elsewhere.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> See my post in your type me thread. This comes across as 1) 2 because of your focus on jokes and light touch over actually choosing to express your reactivity that would be true for any reactive triader and 2) 1 influence because of your attempt to actually repress anger expression. Could be 2w1, I don't know.
> 
> His joke wasn't aggressive or threatening so I fail to see why an 8 would feel the need to push a bottle down his throat just because it came across as retarded. That first post was such an obvious troll.


Because I see how retarded I will seem if I respond in an aggressive way or even try to explain him what demisexual means. It is a flip from 8 to 4 to 7
I did consider 2w1 as my third in tritype. 4w3 is much more like me. Or even 3w4. 
6, 2 and 1 are last in every test


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Aha said:


> Because I see how retarded I will seem if I respond in an aggressive way or even try to explain him what demisexual means. It is a flip from 8 to 4 to 7
> I did consider 2w1 as my third in tritype. 4w3 is much more like me. Or even 3w4.
> 6, 2 and 1 are last in every test


Why trust test results? They can't tell you who they are. Only you can tell who you are.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> Why trust test results? They can't tell you who they are. Only you can tell who you are.


They narrow down possible variants. I use them as an introduction to a new system. 
After this I am either satisfied or go into hermit mode and read absolutely everything on the subject. I did use the test result and was not so much interested in the enneagram as much as in Jung. After I was satisfied with my understanding of the later, I felt that something is amiss about my enneagram results and decided to read "the theory" and all the threads concerning types I identify most with. I did read about all of them, actually.


----------



## avidity (Mar 26, 2014)

Erm. Maybe there aren't any differences.. k thx guys


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

avidity said:


> Erm. Maybe there aren't any differences.. k thx guys


I agree. There are no differences


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

I dont think that sx/sp is necessarily more needy than sx/so, it may appear that way from a purely social viewpoint, though. For sx/sos they are comfy enjoying the social realm, so they likely appear less invested in any one person. But, although the s.o. might be the sx/sps only social connection at a time, they may be invested in all kinds of passions or goals. I think that sx/sps can also feel trapped if their sp oriented passions are limited by their relationship.


----------



## inabox (Oct 3, 2015)

Father of Dragons said:


> I dont think that sx/sp is necessarily more needy than sx/so, it may appear that way from a purely social viewpoint, though. For sx/sos they are comfy enjoying the social realm, so they likely appear less invested in any one person. But, although the s.o. might be the sx/sps only social connection at a time, they may be invested in all kinds of passions or goals. I think that sx/sps can also feel trapped if their sp oriented passions are limited by their relationship.


Very, very true. I think people don't know or focus much on the fact that sx/sps feel that if they cannot take care of themselves/have security in a relevant way/are generally not doing well in sp related matters then they will not want to be in a relationship. They may either leave it or avoid it.


----------



## karmachameleon (Nov 1, 2015)

inabox said:


> Very, very true. I think people don't know or focus much on the fact that sx/sps feel that if they cannot take care of themselves/have security in a relevant way/are generally not doing well in sp related matters then they will not want to be in a relationship. They will either leave it or avoid it.


Thats more sp/sx, where sp comes first


----------



## inabox (Oct 3, 2015)

karmachameleon said:


> Thats more sp/sx, where sp comes first


Eh, I think they still might be in a relationship when their sp issues are going badly but I have trouble believing they'd be truly happy in that relationship. The second instinct is our currency, how we deal with the world (as it has been said by many others) so when that part of our lives suffer, we do too.


----------



## karmachameleon (Nov 1, 2015)

inabox said:


> Eh, I think they still might be in a relationship when their sp issues are going badly but I have trouble believing they'd be truly happy in that relationship. The second instinct is our currency, how we deal with the world (as it has been said by many others) so when that part of our lives suffer, we do too.


so youre saying sx/sp will leave a relationship to save their finances, but an sp/sx wont?


----------



## inabox (Oct 3, 2015)

karmachameleon said:


> so youre saying sx/sp will leave a relationship to save their finances, but an sp/sx wont?


well, as the websites have said, sp/sx and sx/sps are usually geared for long term unions; if sp/sx does leave a relationship, it will be slowly (for mostly practical purposes) whereas sx/sps will only their relationship if it is the last resort or if they found someone else who complemented them better  . I have sp/sxes and even certain sp/sos stay in sh**ty relationships out of duty or loyalty, sadly, even at the risk of financial loss. Annnnd, yeah, sx/sps can have sudden breaking points and I don't see why finance can't play a part in it.


----------



## karmachameleon (Nov 1, 2015)

inabox said:


> well, as the websites have said, sp/sx and sx/sps are usually geared for long term unions; if sp/sx does leave a relationship, it will be slowly (for mostly practical purposes) whereas sx/sps will only their relationship if it is the last resort or if they found someone else who complemented them better  . I have sp/sxes and even certain sp/sos stay in sh**ty relationships out of duty or loyalty, sadly, even at the risk of financial loss. Annnnd, yeah, sx/sps can have sudden breaking points and I don't see why finance can't play a part in it.


i agree with what youre saying, but i dont think i would leave a relationship to make me secure financially. if there's a will, there is a way.  and i'd rather go down that road rather than leaving someone i love. money doesnt worry me half as much as love does


----------



## inabox (Oct 3, 2015)

karmachameleon said:


> i agree with what youre saying, but i dont think i would leave a relationship to make me secure financially. if there's a will, there is a way.  and i'd rather go down that road rather than leaving someone i love. money doesnt worry me half as much as love does


I used to be like, that, lol. Still am to an extent; I'd like to think I have self interest, now.


----------



## inabox (Oct 3, 2015)

karmachameleon said:


> i agree with what youre saying, but i dont think i would leave a relationship to make me secure financially. if there's a will, there is a way.  and i'd rather go down that road rather than leaving someone i love. money doesnt worry me half as much as love does


I used to be like, that, lol. Still am to an extent; I'd like to think I have more self interest, now; people leave ...


----------



## avidity (Mar 26, 2014)

Would an sx/so dating a loner be the equivalent of sx/sp going out with someone financially unstable? I've dated two additional sx/so's since starting this thread and am beginning to think my lack of a social circle is something of a dealbreaker, even for social-seconds...


----------



## avidity (Mar 26, 2014)

Doll said:


> In relationships... that's pretty hard. I feel as though an SX/SO might put more emphasis on being in the relationship around other people, not necessarily meant to "show off", but just to validate the relationship to themselves. I like knowing and understanding the way my SO and I are perceived by others. It's not my fixation, obviously, but I feel as though SX/SPs would be more self-contained and personal whereas an SX/SO might like to flaunt what they got and see feedback from others.


I find this true, but depressing.


----------



## Elwinz (Jan 30, 2018)

avidity said:


> Would an sx/so dating a loner be the equivalent of sx/sp going out with someone financially unstable? I've dated two additional sx/so's since starting this thread and am beginning to think my lack of a social circle is something of a dealbreaker, even for social-seconds...


It sounds more like So/Sx to me. I might be a bit of an oddball for SO second, because i have barely any social circles though. Wouldn't mind partner not having any cricles either. However i do not feel misunderstood or alienated. My problem is lack of SX, so interest and ability of forming deeper bonds with people. On superficial level making acquaintances not much of a problem, though not really interested in it.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

I'm Social last myself, and have never been very invested in having a social circle. As such, I didn't have one when I met my wife. She is Sx/So and she has a lot of 'social gravitas' if you will; always able to pull people towards when she feels like it. Thing is, she does not care much if others bring people or not.. because Social for her is her comfort zone; easy to do, not much stress around it. So I join her from time to time in her social involvement, and mostly I don't because I experience the Social element as doing very little for me. It isn't a deal-breaker for her at all. It's fun when I'm involved, it's fun when I'm not, because between the two of us, Sx has priority over anything-Social-whatsoever.


----------



## ZiLi (Mar 26, 2019)

Avidity.

So. If you had a sxso on this thread right about now, and he was willing to offer you a ride into the Q&A of the sxso world, what is it specifically you would like to know that would make your day brighten?

Not saying I'm on a mood for philanthropy here, but you kinda have this fascination about sxso' and I'd really like that to bring you in some fruits too. Any positive passion should be always rewarded. With the maximum.

So let me know if I can be useful.


----------

