# Correlation between Thinking/Feeling and Dominance/Submission



## wise (Dec 2, 2016)

I would be interested if there is a connection between cognitive functions and sexual energy. I don't think there's a great correlation, but i guess it's maybe a small one between thinking-feeling preference and sexual dominance/submission.


----------



## StaticPulse (Nov 9, 2016)

Didn't vote. Female/Thinker and I don't see my sexual behavior as being dominant or submissive.


----------



## wise (Dec 2, 2016)

Only 4 votes? :shocked:

Maybe my Question has caused confusion. I do not mean Dominance or Submission in a BDSM context. It's just about whether you like more or which do you prefer.

1) Take the charge through your body language and movement
2) Take the charge of what to do and when you do it
3) Being verbal and directing the sexual action
4) Set the pace of sex and enjoy bringing you partner to orgasm

or

1) Partner takes the charge through his/her body language and movement
2) Partner tells you what to do or directs you with his or her hands
3) Enjoy being able to let go and let your partner guide the experience
4) Partner set the pace of sex and enjoys bringing you to orgasm


I hope it has made something more clear.


----------



## Dasein (Jun 11, 2015)

It depends on a woman's mood. If she takes on a dominant role, I can be submissive, but normally I would be more dominant. (voted)


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

It depends a lot, and I'll get bored playing the same role over and over, but I think at the core I just enjoy turning my partner on and because pretty much all of my partners in the past were submissive I've naturally gravitated towards the dominant role over time.


----------



## StaticPulse (Nov 9, 2016)

wise said:


> Only 4 votes? :shocked:
> 
> Maybe my Question has caused confusion. I do not mean Dominance or Submission in a BDSM context. It's just about whether you like more or which do you prefer.
> 
> ...


My confusion isn't BDSM. It's that your perception is someone has to take charge. You do understand that lots of people, both are active fully engaged participants. I disagree that there's only either dominant or submissive dynamic.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

wise said:


> I would be interested if there is a connection between cognitive functions and sexual energy. I don't think there's a great correlation, but i guess it's maybe a small one between thinking-feeling preference and sexual dominance/submission.


T = Dominant
F = Submissive

Males are more often T than not
Females are more often F than not.

...at least I think so.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

wise said:


> I would be interested if there is a connection between cognitive functions and sexual energy. I don't think there's a great correlation, but i guess it's maybe a small one between thinking-feeling preference and sexual dominance/submission.


Well.. apparently so far, there's a correlation between cognitive functions and who's voting in the poll. 



Tropes said:


> I think at the core I just enjoy turning my partner on


^ same, this makes me lean more towards dominant. 

But I'm more "quietly dominant" lol meaning, I don't have what people would consider a "dominant personality" (well..most of the time), so as far as I can tell, it's not something that's reflected in my day to day life. I do think that's related to introversion for me -- it's more something to be unlocked by others when it's of service. :tongue:


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

ninjahitsawall said:


> ^ same, this makes me lean more towards dominant.


Which is funny, isn't it? If doms are being lead to be doms to fulfill the desires of subs, which one is the dom and which one is the sub?


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Tropes said:


> Which is funny, isn't it? If doms are being lead to be doms to fulfill the desires of subs, which one is the dom and which one is the sub?


Haha yeah, I really think it's more of a perspective thing. Being seduced or pleased isn't that interesting to me. The former feels almost manipulative, like an attempt to weaken my will. The latter just feels too...passive and indulgent. Like would you rather be buying and consuming in-demand baked goods, or making them and experiencing the increase in demand from that side?


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

I think it's quite the opposite:

T=submissive
F being expressive=dominant 

..that is in opposites attract.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Socionics Romance-styles


----------



## Dasein (Jun 11, 2015)

strawberryLola said:


> I think it's quite the opposite:
> 
> T=submissive
> F being expressive=dominant
> ...


That's an interesting perspective. I've heard it described that INTP males often come off as not as dominant as other males. I know for myself, I don't feel my dominant side so much unless emotions have kicked in.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Haha yeah, I really think it's more of a perspective thing. Being seduced or pleased isn't that interesting to me. The former feels almost manipulative, like an attempt to weaken my will. The latter just feels too...passive and indulgent. Like would you rather be buying and consuming in-demand baked goods, or making them and experiencing the increase in demand from that side?


Interesting. I find all 3 appealing for their own reasons.

I don't think I've ever really felt seduced. Maybe it's because I didn't have sex until after high school, but for me it was always all in or none at all. The whole concept of having fuzzy borders imposed of me, "Look but don't touch, touch but not taste, taste but don't swallow"... I would love to experience it.

As far as being pleasured, it's never as fun as when it goes both ways, but I like a partner who wants to do it, the psychology of it. The basic act of doing something that is strictly for me... I've learned what happens in a relationship where that was impossible.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

INTJ and I voted dominant. I prefer to be in control for sure. Sometimes I will take the passive role for a short time to please the other person but it doesn't do anything for me. Could never be satisfied that way, I have to take back the reins at some point.


----------



## wise (Dec 2, 2016)

Dasein said:


> It depends on a woman's mood. If she takes on a dominant role, I can be submissive, but normally I would be more dominant. (voted)


It depend's on a woman's mood? Sounds very dominant. :laughing:



StaticPulse said:


> My confusion isn't BDSM. It's that your perception is someone has to take charge. You do understand that lots of people, both are active fully engaged participants. I disagree that there's only either dominant or submissive dynamic.


It's not my perception. I do not deny that there are people who are real switchs or neither of both. But that's not the question in the poll. Those who do not want to decide can abstain from voting.



Endologic said:


> T = Dominant
> F = Submissive
> 
> Males are more often T than not
> ...


That would mean all thinkers are more dominant? There are many cases that disprove this.



ninjahitsawall said:


> Well.. apparently so far, there's a correlation between cognitive functions and who's voting in the poll.


All 9 votes comes from Thinkers. It looks as if the survey would deter many Feelers. :laughing:



Dasein said:


> That's an interesting perspective. I've heard it described that INTP males often come off as not as dominant as other males. I know for myself, I don't feel my dominant side so much unless emotions have kicked in.


As an INTP Male i can agree to that 100%. Nevertheless this thesis is nonsense.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

As a thinker myself, only the feeler can dominate me - not because he is even dominate himself; but because he attacks the weakness to relate - he has disarmed the thinker bottom up. Once the thinker male realize his attempt to "dominate" thinker female will not work - they both compromise into an equal sync - or one moves on. 

Thinker male will not work on a thinker female. They are usually stoic; disinterested (&) head-types. A lot of softies with shells; eager to serve the feeler. INTJ/INTP/ENTP/ENTJ males are no threat - intellectually or any other, to a (T)-female, just a play toy for challenge (&) wrestling or bending over once boredom sets in. 

A feeler male is trying to deconstruct from the lower-function(s). He is utilizing feeling-logical based ethic(s) to take down the tower internally. He attacks the (Fi). My tertiary function (F); not aux, the (Te/Ti), which will not give in.

Attack the (Te/Ti), I will think it is fun. Attack the (Fi) - I have no weapons.
Surrender to feeler; challenge the thinker. 

Feeler is a threat - thinker is a challenge.

A thinker male will submit to the feeler female; he doesn't want to feel her wrath - so he just submit(s) in fear of loss. Thinkers are rarely angry. Ever seen an "angry" thinker .. a total loss of emotional control (?) You do not want to - the hammer is dangerous + heavy.

The dominant must serve the submissive to their pleasure; unless all _bets are off_ (&) they can file for assault. 

Attacking the (Fi) first is like a blow to the knees to the thinker. Once a "feeler" male has won; they may very well be submissive (&) desire to be locked in a collar (&) dragged behind the thinker; but they have a dominant serving them at command to do so. 

As a dominant, I have accepted the dominant(s) role is to serve the submissive _dominantly_; without out it; there is a loss of control. All dominants must accept this - dominant(s) that are uncomfortable here, will resort to _abuse_ of the submissive - or enforce _unethical_ means to control them - because they themselves; feel they are being "hijacked".

Their illusion;_ shattered_. A dominant is usually calm, stoic - reserved, cool-headed (&) enforcing the whip firmly as an understanding they must perform to perfection_ to please_. The thinker serves the feeler - the feeler bows down.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> As a thinker myself, only the feeler can dominate me - not because he is even dominate himself; but because he attacks the weakness to relate. Once the thinker male realize his attempt to "dominate" thinker female will not work - they both compromise into an equal sync - or one moves on.
> 
> Thinker male will not work on a thinker female. They are usually stoic; disinterested (&) head-types. A lot of softies with shells; eager to serve the feeler.
> 
> ...



It is like the old question from the early UFCs. What wins, striking or grappling? I say all things considered, grappling does. And feeling beats thinking in a similar way. You suck at grappling? Ok, we are gonna grapple then. lol

I especially agree with the comment, "feeler is a threat, thinker is a challenge." exactly how I see it. thinker women are a challenge.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

wise said:


> I would be interested if there is a connection between cognitive functions and sexual energy. I don't think there's a great correlation, but i guess it's maybe a small one between thinking-feeling preference and sexual dominance/submission.


Sorry. I don't work that way. I'm a thinker and I like to take turns.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It is like the old question from the early UFCs. What wins, striking or grappling? I say all things considered, grappling does. And feeling beats thinking in a similar way. You suck at grappling? Ok, we are gonna grapple then. lol
> 
> I especially agree with the comment, "feeler is a threat, thinker is a challenge." exactly how I see it. thinker women are a challenge.


Two thinker(s) in the ring with (Se)-seeking ::










[HR][/HR]

If this was a feeler; I would've went in covered in pillow(s) first; they are utilizing a different fight style; a new skill - they'll probably kick at the knees (&) take cheap shots.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

It probably pays more for women to be submissive so I'm going to predict that more females will be submissive regardless of personality.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Sorry. I don't work that way. I'm a thinker and I like to take turns.


Good news: Turns is a feeler, and she wants to be taken.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> Two thinker(s) in the ring with (Se)-seeking ::
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's funny cuz Bruce Lee was an NFJ and his favorite moves were kick to the kneecap and the eye gouge. Why? Because they work.

"In primary freedom, one utilizes all ways and is bound by none, and likewise uses any techniques or means which serves one's end. Efficiency is anything that scores."

You are fighting for your life. Act like it.


----------



## Headdesk (Jun 13, 2016)

I like an even balance, both in sexuality and in terms of assertiveness in a relationship. For people to be able to take turns or just have very vanilla sex once in a while. 

It's rather sad and lonely (and unsexy) when one partner solely waits around for sex or time together to be initiated, rather than teasing and turning their partner on or making some time. That said, I don't mind doing more as long as it's not all on my shoulders.

I'm a bit opinionated and I like to playfully fluster people I like, so I attract many submissive men.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That's funny cuz Bruce Lee was an NFJ and his favorite moves were kick to the kneecap and the eye gouge. Why? Because they work.
> 
> "In primary freedom, one utilizes all ways and is bound by none, and likewise uses any techniques or means which serves one's end. Efficiency is anything that scores."
> 
> You are fighting for your life. Act like it.


That seem(s) to be the case - I suspect; the more "rules" there are - the more likely a thinker will partake; like boxing. You will likely find thinker in boxing - or the competitive sport with many referees. Follow the rules; fight fair. Sloppy sport(s) - individual sports like that make way for looser styles; XNTJ is not going to go, indeed. "Break the technique" with a cheap-shot, that is _cheating_.

I would not physically fight a (F)-female; she may just take a pencil (&) stab me in the eye; she'll utilize all my weakness against me - (&) rip apart from the core - anything that "works" to take (X)-opponent down; once the mission is set. A rather_ dirty, dirty _fight.

- I am going in with fairness; (&) technique in mind; a (T)-female; if she ever had to fight - (and still had control), would fight with a technique. Unless there is loss of composure; down into the (Fi) - once that takes way; everyone for themselves. Sloppy-style commences; a chair across the back - why .. (?) Because I am utilizing my (*Ni-Fi*) _loop_.

In horror films; there is always (1) that will try to 'out-smart' the killer (working slow / developing a strategy + weapon against), - rather than just running out (&) shooting at him. Horror movie "killers" are almost all (F)-types.


----------



## Dasein (Jun 11, 2015)

A woman who plays the dominant side (teasing, acting in control) and then turns submissive in the heat of the moment can be a real turn on.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> That seem(s) to be the case - I suspect; the more "rules" there are - the more likely a thinker will partake; like boxing. You will likely find thinker in boxing - or the competitive sport with many referees. Follow the rules; fight fair. Sloppy sport(s) - individual sports like that make way for looser styles; XNTJ is not going to go, indeed. "Break the technique" with a cheap-shot, that is _cheating_.
> 
> I would not physically fight a (F)-female; she may just take a pencil (&) stab me in the eye; she'll utilize all my weakness against me - (&) rip apart from the core - anything that "works" to take (X)-opponent down; once the mission is set. A rather_ dirty, dirty _fight.
> 
> - I am going in with fairness; (&) technique in mind; a (T)-female; if she ever had to fight - (and still had control), would fight with a technique. Unless there is loss of composure; down into the (Fi) - once that takes way; everyone for themselves. Sloppy-style commences; a chair across the back - why .. (?) Because I am utilizing my (*Ni-Fi*) _loop_.


This is interesting. I do consider boxing more cerebral than MMA and grappling. It's called a science and it somewhat is. 

Mayweather is like the most technical guy ever. I don't even watch boxing but one of his last knockouts was him blasting a guy while he was talking to the ref. lol. And it won him the fight. That is all that matters. Protect yourself at all times. Fuckin shit cracks me up:


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> This is interesting. I do consider boxing more cerebral than MMA and grappling. It's called a science and it somewhat is.
> 
> Mayweather is like the most technical guy ever. I don't even watch boxing but one of his last knockouts was him blasting a guy while he was talking to the ref. lol. And it won him the fight. That is all that matters. Protect yourself at all times. Fuckin shit cracks me up:


Boxing is _very, very_ technical compared to MMA — they look like they are _calculating _every blow. I heard an individual once — wanting to pin Mayweather up against the most undefeated in MMA — I did, indeed, laugh. A slaughter.

He is too technical for MMA (&) will be destroyed in a few second(s). MMA is for those who do not care; nor need to calculate - look at them. (24 seconds). Pure (Se - and Feeling).


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> Boxing is _very, very_ technical compared to MMA — they look like they are _calculating _every blow. I heard an individual once — wanting to pin Mayweather up against the most undefeated in MMA — I did, indeed, laugh. A slaughter.
> 
> He is too technical for MMA (&) will be destroyed in a few second(s). MMA is for those who do not care; nor need to calculate - look at them. (24 seconds). Pure (Se - and Feeling).


I said the same thing. Mayweather is a once in a lifetime athlete and McGregor is beating bums in a fringe sport. lol


Conor McGregor is pure Se and Fe. 

"Precision beats power and timing beats speed' 

But we should not forget that both these guys are manlets and weigh like 150 pounds. They aren't men. lol

But as far as the power thing. MMA can compete. I'll show you some:












Do you have any idea how hard it is to knock out a Samoan? lol











But ya, Fedor, who is like the best fighter ever said, "This man is trying to take food off my family's table. He must be eliminated." lol and he was like a terminator


----------



## wise (Dec 2, 2016)

Headdesk said:


> I'm a bit opinionated and I like to playfully fluster people I like, so I attract many submissive men.


and are you attracted to those men?



Dasein said:


> A woman who plays the dominant side (teasing, acting in control) and then turns submissive in the heat of the moment can be a real turn on.


A woman who enjoys only the dominant side too.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I said the same thing. Mayweather is a once in a lifetime athlete and McGregor is beating bums in a fringe sport. lol
> 
> 
> Conor McGregor is pure Se and Fe.
> ...


Lol. If one of these (Se-Fe) males told me to _assume the position_ in the bedroom - I may suggest we wrestle around a bit in a playful manner (&) winner takes all. I wouldn't mess with *his bread* - out of challenge; just an opportunity to screw with each other. Feeler male is looking at me as something to challenge + defeat; I am seeing him as a high-functioning threat. (Se)-seeking love threats.

Another thinker asking me _assume the position_ is laughable; I may just want to challenge them the entire time; they are no threat .. Why would I assume the position .. (?) - We keep going until they surrender or give up - they wouldn't get anywhere. If this does not occur; we just level out + compromise on a "equal" barring. But; it can get rather tedious. Unless it does not level - being with a thinker male is being at stoic-mental war; challenge + challenge - that is boring. Challenge + threat is better. Attack something I am not good at.


----------



## Headdesk (Jun 13, 2016)

wise said:


> and are you attracted to those men?


If they put in equal effort (being coy and cute counts), yes. Just because a woman chases doesn't mean she doesn't need the attention and love of an active participant. Some take a completely passive role and things burn out fast.

There's this one... I love that he sets himself up for sly comments, and then gets flustered when I'm not intimidated and pounce. I love the cute noises he makes when I catch him-off-guard. I love making him feel as good as he makes me feel, and that we can have honest, vulnerable talks that give us ammunition we trust the other to never use.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> Lol. If one of these (Se-Fe) males told me to _assume the position_ in the bedroom - I may suggest we wrestle around a bit in a playful manner (&) winner takes all. I wouldn't mess with *his bread* - out of challenge; just an opportunity to screw with each other. Feeler male is looking at me as something to challenge + defeat; I am seeing him as a high-functioning threat. (Se)-seeking love threats.
> 
> Another thinker asking me _assume the position_ is laughable; I may just want to challenge them the entire time; they are no threat .. Why would I assume the position .. (?) - We keep going until they surrender or give up - they wouldn't get anywhere. If this does not occur; we just level out + compromise on a "equal" barring. But; it can get rather tedious. Unless it does not level - being with a thinker male is being at stoic-mental war; challenge + challenge - that is boring. Challenge + threat is better. Attack something I am not good at.


Westworld is a hot show right now. I'll just copy and paste its description because it would be hard for me to narrow down what this show is actually about. lol

"The story takes place in the fictional Westworld, a technologically advanced, Western-themed amusement park populated completely by synthetic androids dubbed "hosts". Westworld caters to high-paying visitors dubbed "newcomers" (or just "guests"), who can do whatever they wish within the park, without fear of retaliation from the hosts."

Anyway, Ed Harris's character, who you would probably love, says the game aint worth playing if the other side never wins. Harris always plays a bad ass under pressure. lol. Great at it. Like he played the main mission control guy in Apollo 13 who is trying to save these guys. And the movie, The Rock. 






But ya, I like trolling women with my strength. Put em in a position they can't get out of and then let them know that. lol. "What now? What you gonna do?" Whisper shit like that in their ears. Taunt them. lol


----------



## Santa Gloss (Feb 23, 2015)

Dasein said:


> A woman who plays the dominant side (teasing, acting in control) and then turns submissive in the heat of the moment can be a real turn on.


Normally, I like to be on the receiving end, but this is one of my few "temporarily dominant" roleplay ideas. Tease mercilessly, frustrate endlessly, set the "victim" loose and _suffer _the consequences :biggrin: Good to know others want to experience this too. 



ninjahitsawall said:


> But I'm more "quietly dominant" lol meaning, I don't have what people would consider a "dominant personality" (well..most of the time), so as far as I can tell, it's not something that's reflected in my day to day life. I do think that's related to introversion for me -- it's more something to be unlocked by others when it's of service. :tongue:


This could very well be far fetched, but it's worth wondering about. I knew an ISTP 594 with a similar social personality. Very easy going and calm in front of people. In private, different altogether. Is this an ennea 5 thing? Growing towards 8?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Pretty easy to see Te as relating to "dominant." Fe to submissive. 

Can see Fi as dominant or submissive depending on what the person wants. 

Se and Si aren't into BDSM nearly as much as the N's. 

Enneagram and Dom/sub has correlation. 8 and 3 is obviously more likely Dom. 2 more likely sub. 4 sub. 

1 masochist. 5 can be either Dom or sub, but lots of 5's in the kink scene. 7 is more likely into pure sex - maybe more of a swinger vibe?

9 not so much into bdsm, but sub if they are.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Westworld is a hot show right now. I'll just copy and paste its description because it would be hard for me to narrow down what this show is actually about. lol
> 
> "The story takes place in the fictional Westworld, a technologically advanced, Western-themed amusement park populated completely by synthetic androids dubbed "hosts". Westworld caters to high-paying visitors dubbed "newcomers" (or just "guests"), who can do whatever they wish within the park, without fear of retaliation from the hosts."
> 
> Anyway, Ed Harris's character, who you would probably love, says the game aint worth playing if the other side never wins. Harris always plays a bad ass under pressure. lol. Great at it. Like he played the main mission control guy in Apollo 13 who is trying to save these guys. And the movie, The Rock.


I am on episode (8) - I believe; of Westworld. Good show; _indeed_. 

Harris is correct; any game isn't worth playing if you always win. I seek challenge; for exercise - or to win.

I seek threat(s) to survive / sustain. You can be wrong / lose any day. Threats are rampant; you are fighting to survive not to win. Winning is easy; or attainable without any_ threats_. Like dominating a school-girl - that is not a dominant. (F)-male holds the (Fi) on the string; attacking at the knees again, _heh._ Threat.



> But ya, I like trolling women with my strength. Put em in a position they can't get out of and then let them know that. lol. "What now? What you gonna do?" Whisper shit like that in their ears. Taunt them. lol


 A fuckhead.


----------



## Dasein (Jun 11, 2015)

Santa Gloss said:


> Normally, I like to be on the receiving end, but this is one of my few "temporarily dominant" roleplay ideas. Tease mercilessly, frustrate endlessly, set the "victim" loose and _suffer _the consequences :biggrin: Good to know others want to experience this too.


This is why I mentioned, that it depends on a woman's mood. If she wants to make me aggressive, that's a way to do it. :wink:


----------



## wise (Dec 2, 2016)

Headdesk said:


> If they put in equal effort (being coy and cute counts), yes. Just because a woman chases doesn't mean she doesn't need the attention and love of an active participant. Some take a completely passive role and things burn out fast.
> 
> There's this one... I love that he sets himself up for sly comments, and then gets flustered when I'm not intimidated and pounce. I love the cute noises he makes when I catch him-off-guard. I love making him feel as good as he makes me feel, and that we can have honest, vulnerable talks that give us ammunition we trust the other to never use.


Sounds as if you were a gently dominant person. I like your view on sexuality very much.


----------



## wise (Dec 2, 2016)

Dasein said:


> This is why I mentioned, that it depends on a woman's mood. If she wants to make me aggressive, that's a way to do it. :wink:


Yes, but i must feel her submissiveness for that. Activity is not the same as dominance.



StMiller100 said:


> Pretty easy to see Te as relating to "dominant." Fe to submissive.
> 
> Can see Fi as dominant or submissive depending on what the person wants.
> 
> ...


There are many submissive 8's or dominant 4's. I don't think it has much to do with Enneagram.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Santa Gloss said:


> This could very well be far fetched, but it's worth wondering about. I knew an ISTP 594 with a similar social personality. Very easy going and calm in front of people. In private, different altogether. Is this an ennea 5 thing? Growing towards 8?


Could be. I usually need "reasons" (external situation to respond to) to act on something, and I tend to feel more like I can influence a person one-on-one, and the closer I am to them even more so. In a broader social sense I come off apathetic sometimes because I view it as out of the realm of my control/expertise, too much information and too many people's motives to realistically think about or act on. Whereas if I'm clearly "of use" to someone, I'm not going to hesitate on it to ask if it's "worth" acting on.

So, yeah I suppose that part is 5-related. I also compartmentalize a lot so the whole "don't shit where you eat" thing comes in to play as far as what is the best way to act in different situations. :tongue: 

But to fully answer that, esp. regarding integration, I'd have to think more about the motives for why I act the way I do, if they are related to the fears/desires, "need to be competent", and such. I suspect a lot of it is...but haven't self-reflected so much as thinking it makes sense on an intellectual level. 

What I do know and what's ironic, is that my disinterest in trying to control social situations has a lot to do with my own dislike of other people trying to control my behavior/generally violating personal boundaries 
* *




how to get my Fi dark side from 0 to 100 in 300ms lmao


, thus I just assume that's like, a basic human rights violation. lol. That isn't characteristic of a "submissive" (social) personality.  Sometimes it baffles me how readily people let others underhandedly direct their actions and emotions, all the while they seem blind to it...


----------



## Tsubaki (Apr 14, 2015)

From what I heard in general and also from the poll, I believe that feeler generally tend to be more submissive, as well as women. I know more thinker females that I would define as dominant, even though there are by far not as many as dominant thinker males. The correlation should be sort of like this: most dominant to least dominant: thinker males > feeler males > thinker females > feeler females

Personally, I am a sexually submissive thinker female. However, what's interesting is that I need particularly dominant male partners as I tend to almost subconsciously pick on insecurities and am a socially very dominant person. 
This might also be a thing to consider: Thinker females are often socially dominant and very direct people who take charge. In the bedroom, that can manifest in two different ways - either they want to be dominated and give away their obligations, or they want to use it as an outlet for their need for control that they deal with in their daily lives.

Just one more thing about myself - even though I am a masochist and very submissive, I've been a huge sadist from very early on in life which, however, shines through surprisingly little in the bedroom.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Right now this is too small of a sample, but if the voters keep coming in and the number of dominant feelers from either gender remains zero or close to it... That's a pretty impressive correlation there.


----------



## wise (Dec 2, 2016)

Tsubaki the Reindeer said:


> From what I heard in general and also from the poll, I believe that feeler generally tend to be more submissive, as well as women. I know more thinker females that I would define as dominant, even though there are by far not as many as dominant thinker males. The correlation should be sort of like this: most dominant to least dominant: thinker males > feeler males > thinker females > feeler females


I agree to a large extend. The only thing i'm not sure about is if there are really much more dominant feeler males than thinker females.



Tsubaki the Reindeer said:


> This might also be a thing to consider: Thinker females are often socially dominant and very direct people who take charge. In the bedroom, that can manifest in two different ways - either they want to be dominated and give away their obligations, or they want to use it as an outlet for their need for control that they deal with in their daily lives.


I think that's too much of a generalization. I've noticed that many sexually dominant people are not socially dominant. This applies in particular for women. I would say social dominance is a good indicator that a women is sexually submissive. Not basically but mostly. The only sexually dominant females that i know (2 ex girlfriends) were somewhat reserved laid back persons in social life, but also not submissive.



Tropes said:


> Right now this is too small of a sample, but if the voters keep coming in and the number of dominant feelers from either gender remains zero or close to it... That's a pretty impressive correlation there.


As you say the sample is too small. I don't think the correlation is really that strong, hopefully we will figure it out if more people vote.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

wise said:


> I think that's too much of a generalization. I've noticed that many sexually dominant people are not socially dominant. This applies in particular for women. I would say social dominance is a good indicator that a women is sexually submissive. Not basically but mostly. The only sexually dominant females that i know (2 ex girlfriends) were somewhat reserved laid back persons in social life, but also not submissive.


I've noticed the same. When I think about correlations between social and sexual dominance the only women I think of have insecurities, poor self-esteem and mental health issues... so may not actually be submissive, but they become passive in interacting with others (like not standing up for themselves and instead, feeling victimized by other people, taking things personally, etc) due to poor self-esteem. So that ends up applying sexually as well, since..well, they can't open up about what they want even to themselves, and tend to attract partners who like being in a caregiver/provider/pleasing role.

With men I don't know if it's the same or not?... apparently I know more about women's sex lives even if I'm not involved with it. lol


----------



## Falling Foxes (Oct 19, 2016)

I wasn't expecting to be the only feeler voting dominant... Huh.

I can't say I'm dominant all the time because that would be boring... plus it easier to receive pleasure when I'm relaxed and letting someone else call the shots but then my end goal during sex isn't always to orgasm but to get the other to do so...

I have to say I'm more dominant with women though than I am with men. Not always true... I'll adapt to the other's style but I get the most out of sex when I'm in control. There are just less men willing to let me as though it's emasculating to them.


----------



## wise (Dec 2, 2016)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I've noticed the same. When I think about correlations between social and sexual dominance the only women I think of have insecurities, poor self-esteem and mental health issues... so may not actually be submissive, but they become passive in interacting with others (like not standing up for themselves and instead, feeling victimized by other people, taking things personally, etc) due to poor self-esteem. So that ends up applying sexually as well, since..well, they can't open up about what they want even to themselves, and tend to attract partners who like being in a caregiver/provider/pleasing role.
> 
> With men I don't know if it's the same or not?... apparently I know more about women's sex lives even if I'm not involved with it. lol


Yes, thats it. i didn't want to generalize this, but it seems that many socially dominant women feel that they're very submissive at the core, what makes them insecure, which results in don't be able to let go. Women who don't have this submissive core are more likely to be themselves in the public.

I don't think it's the same with men. Not that i have (or want) any expierience with them, but from what i've noticed, they're more likely to be overall-dominating. Maybe it's because of a high Testosterone-Level.


----------



## JennyJukes (Jun 29, 2012)

female feeler and neither dominate nor submissive. depends on my partner. sorry for boring answer but is it always one or the other?

if someone is trying to take "charge" and control of sex it's a total turn off for me lmao


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

wise said:


> Yes, thats it. i didn't want to generalize this, but it seems that many socially dominant women feel that they're very submissive at the core, what makes them insecure, which results in don't be able to let go. Women who don't have this submissive core are more likely to be themselves in the public.


Well, I think that isn't exactly social dominance. That is more putting on a front (and usually looks more like domineering) because of insecurities about being "submissive". Which makes me think they're really not as much as they fear they are, because people who are submissive in whichever context, tend to be comfortable with that level of submission and not equate it with personal weakness. You see the same thing in men but it usually takes the form of hyper-masculinizing themselves. 

That is, if by "social dominance" we're referring to a person who's naturally achievement-driven, Type A, has leadership qualities, sets a positive example for others, or others tend to automatically follow this person, etc.


----------



## StableSun35 (Oct 14, 2013)

Dominance/submission paradigm is an archaic one that I hope dies soon. It’s right up there with the bullshitty ‘pecking order’. j/s


----------



## wise (Dec 2, 2016)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Well, I think that isn't exactly social dominance. That is more putting on a front (and usually looks more like domineering) because of insecurities about being "submissive". Which makes me think they're really not as much as they fear they are, because people who are submissive in whichever context, tend to be comfortable with that level of submission and not equate it with personal weakness.


it's an unconscious sublimation process to compensate weaknesses. you're talking about people who are generally submissive. Of course there are such people but it's not the majority.




ninjahitsawall said:


> That is, if by "social dominance" we're referring to a person who's naturally achievement-driven, Type A, has leadership qualities, sets a positive example for others, or others tend to automatically follow this person, etc.


I know. The reason why I said this is that women who describe themselves as socially dominant often do not mean the same as you. People who are dominant in an authentic way are often not perceived as such.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

wise said:


> it's an unconscious sublimation process to compensate weaknesses. you're talking about people who are generally submissive. Of course there are such people but it's not the majority.
> 
> 
> I know. The reason why I said this is that women who describe themselves as socially dominant often do not mean the same as you. People who are dominant in an authentic way are often not perceived as such.


Gotcha. Yeah I think we're on the same page then. lol sorry. I misunderstood when you said "socially dominant women" I thought you meant actual, not women who describe themselves that way.

People can construct narratives for their social personalities and maybe even change themselves based on that, but sexuality seems more independent of mental narrative. So people can be forced to rethink things if the narratives don't align with their sexuality. 

As far as your original question about thinking/feeling, I don't know if this is relevant. Though it does parallel the "showing emotion/vulnerability is weakness" thing that a lot of people get fixated on (including Feelers).


----------



## wise (Dec 2, 2016)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Gotcha. Yeah I think we're on the same page then. lol sorry. I misunderstood when you said "socially dominant women" I thought you meant actual, not women who describe themselves that way.


My fault.



ninjahitsawall said:


> People can construct narratives for their social personalities and maybe even change themselves based on that, but sexuality seems more independent of mental narrative. So people can be forced to rethink things if the narratives don't align with their sexuality.


Absolutely. Maybe that is also one of the reasons why many people find each other the actually not fit.



ninjahitsawall said:


> As far as your original question about thinking/feeling, I don't know if this is relevant. Though it does parallel the "showing emotion/vulnerability is weakness" thing that a lot of people get fixated on (including Feelers).


More men are thinkers and at the same time more men are dominant. That could speak for a connection between t and dominance and is the reason why i started the survey. Gender seems to be the larger factor but however i suspect a (weak?) correlation.


----------



## Tsubaki (Apr 14, 2015)

wise said:


> I agree to a large extend. The only thing i'm not sure about is if there are really much more dominant feeler males than thinker females.


I had the same doubts and initially even had them put in the same spot, but I then went through a list of people I know and realized that most of the feeler males that I know in real life actually are pretty dominant or at least don't have a preference. Online, there really seem to be a lot of submissive feeler males, but the statistics of people online and statistics of average young adults can't really be compared, since you will encounter a very specific group of people online who might have different viewpoints. (It's just like voting. The statistics of people who chose postal voting show very different statistics than the total votes. That's because it's a very specific group of people - mostly middle and upper middle class - who choose that form of voting)



> I think that's too much of a generalization. I've noticed that many sexually dominant people are not socially dominant. This applies in particular for women. I would say social dominance is a good indicator that a women is sexually submissive. Not basically but mostly. The only sexually dominant females that i know (2 ex girlfriends) were somewhat reserved laid back persons in social life, but also not submissive.


I'm a little confused where you see too much of a generalization here. I didn't actually make a statement about people(especially girls) who are sexually dominant, but not socially, because my sample size is simply too small. (As a straight girl, it's kind of hard to find out whether the shy girl in your class is a domina in bed or not)
I would have to disagree on the second part. With other more dominant women, I talk a lot about those things very openly and you really find everything on the spectrum of dominance and submission within that group of people.


----------



## StaticPulse (Nov 9, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It is like the old question from the early UFCs. What wins, striking or grappling? I say all things considered, grappling does. And feeling beats thinking in a similar way. You suck at grappling? Ok, we are gonna grapple then. lol
> 
> I especially agree with the comment, "feeler is a threat, thinker is a challenge." exactly how I see it. thinker women are a challenge.


I think part of my issue with the dominant/submissive dynamic is that I don't like submissive. I lose interest in a guy who just takes it. I'm not about to submit but I don't want to be bored either. What I'm trying to say is, my experience has been dominant/dominant or I've gotten turned off and backed out because this submissive stuff doesn't work for me. 

I'm less concerned with the feeler/thinker aspect of it all.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

StaticPulse said:


> I think part of my issue with the dominant/submissive dynamic is that I don't like submissive. I lose interest in a guy who just takes it. I'm not about to submit but I don't want to be bored either. What I'm trying to say is, my experience has been dominant/dominant or I've gotten turned off and backed out because this submissive stuff doesn't work for me.
> 
> I'm less concerned with the feeler/thinker aspect of it all.


Yeah some feelers are much tougher than some thinkers. 

Like I said, it ain't fun if I always win. God operates on the same principle. He secretly wants to be disobeyed. He wants to see in people something besides his own reflection. Something that is not his will. That's why he created the devil and made him a formidable opponent and let him win for a while. Then we will do it again. And again. etc


----------



## StaticPulse (Nov 9, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yeah some feelers are much tougher than some thinkers.
> 
> Like I said, it ain't fun if I always win. God operates on the same principle. He secretly wants to be disobeyed. He wants to see in people something besides his own reflection. Something that is not his will. That's why he created the devil and made him a formidable opponent and let him win for a while. Then we will do it again. And again. etc


I haven't ascribed to the feeler=soft think=tough. In some ways I'm tougher than my feeler brother, in some ways he's tougher than me. And that's just a matter of perception and what individuals value as being tough. 

I don't have an opinion on the god stuff but I'd say games where you always win aren't games. They're role play/make believe/pretending. There are times when I want to role play and there are times when I'm looking for a game/competition. I tend to save role play for things like when I'm on stage. I don't want to play at being someone else during sex. That's the time when I most enjoy being me.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

StaticPulse said:


> I haven't ascribed to the feeler=soft think=tough. In some ways I'm tougher than my feeler brother, in some ways he's tougher than me. And that's just a matter of perception and what individuals value as being tough.
> 
> I don't have an opinion on the god stuff but I'd say games where you always win aren't games. They're role play/make believe/pretending. There are times when I want to role play and there are times when I'm looking for a game/competition. I tend to save role play for things like when I'm on stage. I don't want to play at being someone else during sex. That's the time when I most enjoy being me.


Yeah, Myers and Keirsey both referred to thinkers as "tough minded". Whereas William James, who wrote on this before Jung and influenced Jung, said that it was introverts who are "tender hearted". That is at least somewhat true in that introverts are somewhat less hard on the world. More inward focused. Actually all these people ripped off James now that I think about it. lol

 "Second, Jung probably borrowed the notion of tough-minded and tender-minded from William James when James discussed the mental aspects of the objective and subjective attitudes, while Jung visited with James in America. "


----------



## StaticPulse (Nov 9, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yeah, Myers and Keirsey both referred to thinkers as "tough minded". Whereas William James, who wrote on this before Jung and influenced Jung, said that it was introverts who are "tender hearted". That is at least somewhat true in that introverts are somewhat less hard on the world. More inward focused. Actually all these people ripped off James now that I think about it. lol
> 
> "Second, Jung probably borrowed the notion of tough-minded and tender-minded from William James when James discussed the mental aspects of the objective and subjective attitudes, while Jung visited with James in America. "


I don't know what makes one person tough minded and another softer. It looks random to me and I'd need tough-minded and tender-minded defined first to try to judge it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

StaticPulse said:


> I don't know what makes one person tough minded and another softer. It looks random to me and I'd need tough-minded and tender-minded defined first to try to judge it.


James said you can learn the most from the most extreme cases. So I will just show you two extreme cases. lol

Extreme tender mind:






Extreme tough mind:


----------



## StaticPulse (Nov 9, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> James said you can learn the most from the most extreme cases. So I will just show you two extreme cases. lol
> 
> Extreme tender mind:
> 
> ...


What are they like when they're not putting on a show. Both of them have an audience here. He's trying to impose an aggressive spirit and she's trying to promote non-violence. 

Of note, she isn't worried about how weak she appears and he isn't worried by how violent he appears to be. There's a toughness in both of them, just that it's different. Tough-minded vs Tender-minded, based on these two examples seems it has more to do with individuals values than how tenacious they are.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Tropes said:


> Which is funny, isn't it? If doms are being lead to be doms to fulfill the desires of subs, which one is the dom and which one is the sub?


Doms are not being led. They are being the power player as in the one catered to. That does not mean that subs do not have their own variety of manipulative control. Usually the understood final rules are in the sub's favor or a way out. But since neither party wants to break character the idea is that this gets used infrequently. 

When I was younger I used to really get into lists of rules for my girlfriends and they just loved it. It was similar to slavery but that is only something that had sexual context for me. Outside of that, in normal life, the slavery thing was only continued to build the sexual tension again. Very quickly people get an on and off time agreement. If you do it 'on' all the time it kills interest. 

I find the male thinker role (typical) is plagued these days by female shit tests. They were always there but these days it's just gotten epic. It's so tedious to me. I tend to try to overwhelm the testing and deliver a too strong front at first. That cuts down the audience to women happy and desirous of being subs. But this can backfire. I also like occasional switching roles and some subs that respond to the overpower appraoch then do not respect you or react well if you break character and show vulnerability. I think this really is an immaturity flaw and sets up a codependent pattern. So I prefer women who can occasionally take on a competent dom role. You be surprised how rare it is to find someone who is good at both.

Really I just prefer primal style. It's just more natural and tends to let the man lead due to physical energy. It solves in rough cut all the issues that tend to interrupt dom/sub relationships.


----------



## wise (Dec 2, 2016)

So, it looks like I was right about the connection between T/F and D/S.

The D/S ratio is 13-5 among T-men and 4-5 among F-men. 4-8 among T-women and 2-11 among F-women.

I have to say that I would not have expected it so clearly.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

wise said:


> So, it looks like I was right about the connection between T/F and D/S.
> 
> The D/S ratio is 13-5 among T-men and 4-5 among F-men. 4-8 among T-women and 2-11 among F-women.
> 
> I have to say that I would not have expected it so clearly.


Among T-females it's reversed though - more submissives than dominants.
And F-males are basically 50-50 divided between dominance and submission.


----------



## Epic Love (Dec 30, 2016)

Female. Feeler. And submissive.


----------



## Falling Foxes (Oct 19, 2016)

Cast said:


> Among T-females it's reversed though - more submissives than dominants.
> And F-males are basically 50-50 divided between dominance and submission.


But that's probably down to a gender bias. Females are more likely to be submissive and so are feelers. So when you have a Thinking female the ratio is still more bias towards submission but much less so than when you add two submissive qualities together of feeling and female. This still proves that there is a correlation that thinkers are more likely to be dominant but thinking is not dominant enough to out way female submission. The same logic can be applied to males. Thinkers and males are dominant and so feeling males are less likely to be dominant, however feeling is not enough to out way male dominance.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Falling Foxes said:


> But that's probably down to a gender bias. Females are more likely to be submissive and so are feelers. So when you have a Thinking female the ratio is still more bias towards submission but much less so than when you add two submissive qualities together of feeling and female. This still proves that there is a correlation that thinkers are more likely to be dominant but thinking is not dominant enough to out way female submission. The same logic can be applied to males. Thinkers and males are dominant and so feeling males are less likely to be dominant, however feeling is not enough to out way male dominance.


I agree. I find interesting that thinking seems to have a weaker influence over female submissiveness, while feeling seems to influence more men toward submissiveness.
A woman is more likely to be submissive regardless of F/T (45% of women are feeler submissives, 31% thinker submissive). A dominant woman though is more likely to be a thinker (17% of women are thinker dominants, 7% feeler dominants).
On the other hand, a man is more likely to be dominant only when he's a thinker (48% of men are thinker dominants). If he's a feeler, he's slightly more likely/equally likely to be submissive (18.5% of men are feeler submissives, 15% feeler dominants). A submissive man is equally likely to be a thinker or a feeler.
(sorry for the rough math, I skipped decimals)
Too bad the sample size is too small to draw conclusions. I hope more people will answer


----------



## wise (Dec 2, 2016)

Cast said:


> A submissive man is equally likely to be a thinker or a feeler.(sorry for the rough math, I skipped decimals)


Right, because there are twice as many thinkers as feeler-males. (28% of thinker-males and 56% of feeler-males are more submissive)

Btw: the probability to be dominant is 2 or 3 times higher for a woman, if she is a thinker.


I also hope for more votes.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

Male, feeler, and you know I'm
















I have to disagree with the idea that MBTI influenced these matters; instead, it depends on each person's unconscious anima/animus figure.


----------



## Mmmm (Jul 6, 2012)

I love this clip from Mad Men, scene with Rachel & Don. 
The "yes, please" is a perfect example of submission: 
[video]https://youtu.be/VEEWRxqhIKg?t=3m20s[/video]


----------



## wise (Dec 2, 2016)

I have to say that I would not have expected that so many women are sexually dominant.

Are there men who think the same, based on their experience?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

INFJ and I've been called a "sexual engineer". Analyze that. XD


----------



## Mmmm (Jul 6, 2012)

Mmmm said:


> I'm a female Thinker, & I voted submissive because it's a 60/40 for me. Submissive 60% of the time & dominant 40%. I have no problem directing or telling my partner what I like, what feels good & what doesn't. I also like giving him pleasure & watching as he reaches orgasm. It's a give & take, generous & selfish at the same time. It's all about the moment.


After taking a test it turns out my numbers were closer than I thought: 

50% Switch 
45% Submissive 
41% Dominant


----------



## Kore (Aug 10, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But ya, I like trolling women with my strength. Put em in a position they can't get out of and then let them know that. lol. "What now? What you gonna do?" Whisper shit like that in their ears. Taunt them. lol


This! More men need to do this. I've always loved wrestling and I have a knack for slow movements to escape a hold so it adds this tension because his hand can only squeeze so tight but he feels me slipping from his grasp, forcing him to go harder or risk losing.

But if a guy can beat me mentally to the point that I beg for it sometimes too...well that's gotta be me dreaming again.

EDIT

Oh and he's gotta make me say I lost too before he lets me get up. *dazzling adoring eyes*


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> As a thinker myself, only the feeler can dominate me - not because he is even dominate himself; but because he attacks the weakness to relate - he has disarmed the thinker bottom up. Once the thinker male realize his attempt to "dominate" thinker female will not work - they both compromise into an equal sync - or one moves on.
> 
> Thinker male will not work on a thinker female. They are usually stoic; disinterested (&) head-types. A lot of softies with shells; eager to serve the feeler. INTJ/INTP/ENTP/ENTJ males are no threat - intellectually or any other, to a (T)-female, just a play toy for challenge (&) wrestling or bending over once boredom sets in.
> 
> ...


Could you do a voice track to this (Wipes away drool)?


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

series0 said:


> Could you do a voice track to this (Wipes away drool)?


A lot of (Fi); here. Let me get tipsy first.


----------

