# Gulenko's romance styles



## aconite

The premise is that people's behaviour in romantic relationships depends on the irrational element in Ego block (intuition or sensing, that is). So, what do you think about it?



> Aggressor - Se Ego (ESFp - SEE, ESTp - SLE, ISTj - LSI, ISFj - ESI)
> 
> no doubts about own interest in another person
> not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest
> focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate
> romantic interaction is more about "toughness" than "tenderness"
> needs to feel some sense of "superiority" over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely "keep up"
> this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy
> in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being "bossy"
> little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a "who cares" front simultaneously
> 
> Aggressors tend to perceive other Aggressors as exciting partners worthy of admiration and respect, but ultimately unsatisfactory due to a sense of never-ending competition for an ill-defined "upper hand", which becomes frustrating.
> Aggressors tend to perceive Victims simultaneously as pleasantly able to "keep up" regarding more "intensive" interactions, and also as not annoyingly prone to always wanting "to win". Aggressor women perceive Victim men as totally devoted yet reassuringly "strong".
> Aggressors tend to perceive Caregivers as somewhat boring and patronizing.
> Agressors tend to perceive Infantiles as too goofy and unexciting, ultimately not taking them seriously as partners.





> Victim - Ni Ego (ENTj - LIE, ENFj - EIE, INTp - ILI, INFp - IEI)
> 
> prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person
> not always confident about revealing that interest
> inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
> inclined to question whether or not the other person's interest will remain constant with time
> preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
> appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually "submitting" to them
> this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be "mean" on occasion
> in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a "knight devoted to his princess"
> inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself
> 
> Victims tend to perceive Aggressors as pleasantly reassuring of their interest and prone to take the inititive in that area. They find Aggressor's sexual confidence attractive and reflecting positively on themselves.
> Victims tend to perceive other Victims as puzzling and inconstant, as if they were playing games or "push-pull" behavior, but also as exciting partners if a stage of "certainty" is reached.
> Victims tend to perceive Caregivers as comfortable and up to a point reassuring partners, but also somewhat boring, leading to a sense of stagnation. The Caregiver's inclination to treat them as somewhat helpless is perceived as slightly insulting.
> Victims tend to perceive Infantiles as too goofy and expecting a kind of attention that the Victims find demanding; Victim women are prone to see Infantile men as irritating.





> Caregiver - Si Ego (ESFj - ESE, ESTj - LSE, ISFp - SEI, ISTp - SLI)
> 
> 
> attraction is naturally sparked by the perceived aesthetic attributes of the prospective partner, but cooled off if such attributes are accompanied by a perception of "too aggressive" sexuality
> inclination towards tenderness, "soft" rather than "hard" approach
> prone to adopt maternal approach to the physical comfort and needs of partner
> interest is further maintained if partner welcomes this approach
> prone to assume that partner will need help in practical, daily matters
> neutral as to who ended a relationship, "power" is not seen as important in such matters
> 
> Caregivers tend to perceive Aggressors as a bit over-the-top in their approach to romantic interactions and sexuality and ultimately not pleasant to have stable intimate relationships with.
> Caregivers tend to perceive Victims as puzzling and never contented, sometimes as paranoid and insecure.
> Caregivers tend to perceive other Caregivers as comfortable partners, but ultimately somehow less than satisfactory.
> Caregivers tend to perceive Infantiles as delightful partners with a sense of fun that brings joy to their lives.





> Infantile - Ne Ego (ENFp - IEE, ENTp - ILE, INFj - EII, INTj - LII)
> 
> interest is sparked in partner with positive aesthetic attributes divorced from active, "aggressive" sexuality
> tend to try to attract partner's interest with joking, goofy or even "strange" behavior
> try to help partner see the unexpected and fun side of things
> interest is maintained or cools off according to partner's response to this behavior
> appreciation for partner who actively cares about the individual's comfort and daily needs
> neutral with regard to externally admitting who took the initiative in ending a relationship, "power" is seen as unimportant in such matters
> 
> Infantiles tend to perceive Aggressors as a bit too "rough" and even slightly scary on occasion, or perhaps just as obnoxious
> Infantiles tend to perceive Victims as paranoid and confusing, giving mixed signals.
> Infantiles tend to perceive Caregivers as comforting and pleasant company, with a delightful sense of fun.
> Infantiles tend to perceive other Infantiles as fun to spend time with but also as helpless and demanding in a way that they see as stressful.






Of course, the best matches (potentially) are Aggressor + Victim and Caregiver + Infantile.

I must say I find these quite confusing; I can relate most to the Aggressor style, a bit to both Victim and Infantile, and not at all to Caregiver. Yet I'm quite sure I don't have Se in my Ego block (although I believe it's a valued function to me). I tend to like power games in relationships, and provoking my partner if things get dull. Then again, I prefer partners who are confident, don't back down easily and are able to keep up with me.

Thoughts? Do you think these romance styles match your type?


----------



## Boolean11

I be a Doctor arhh, so me give this socionics prescription with grain of salt; deir shyte be unproven to work.


----------



## cyamitide

aconite said:


> The premise is that people's behaviour in romantic relationships depends on the irrational element in Ego block (intuition or sensing, that is). So, what do you think about it?


There is something to these, if they are not taken literally. I also think that enneagram type and instinct play a significant role here. Some enneagram types like 2w3, 3w2, 7w8, and 8w7 I've noticed have little problem approaching others. Other types like 4s and 6s seem more unsure, more given into negative emotions and less likely to aggressively chase after their love interest. 6s may be overly suspicious, even paranoid, and 4s may feel shame for themselves. 2s and 4s may act victim-like. So/sx people often have flirtatious nature and strong social skills that allow them to easily approach and initiate contact with anyone. And so on.

In terms of Jungian functions, Ni-ego types see the world in terms of probabilities, so when it comes to romantic matters they may experience more hesitation and uncertainly, and drift without heading into any particular direction. Aggressor types reinforce their own interest with concrete demonstrations and actions, which raises the probability of a good outcome of a relationships and acts as an encouragement to Ni-egos.

Ne has a quality of child-like novelty and enthusiasm to it and Ne-egos types see the world as promising new possibilities and potentialities, they see it anew, which is quality often associated with childhood. Caregivers help to keep them grounded.



> I must say I find these quite confusing; I can relate most to the Aggressor style, a bit to both Victim and Infantile, and not at all to Caregiver. Yet I'm quite sure I don't have Se in my Ego block (although I believe it's a valued function to me). I tend to like power games in relationships, and provoking my partner if things get dull. Then again, I prefer partners who are confident, don't back down easily and are able to keep up with me.


they are not clear-cut for me either ... I think it depends on what the circumstances are like, do you know the other person well, is your interest light or an all-consuming passion for them, etc. but to be honest I haven't found a good application for these erotic styles


----------



## Promethea

I'd be curious to see how much correctly typed people identify with this, as I think there may be something to it.

Aestrivex for example doesn't seem to think these styles necessarily correlate with socionics type, but I'm not yet convinced.

I doubt I'll see more discussion on it but *bumps thread anyway* ; P


----------



## wohonajax

I strongly identify with the Infantile style. That's definitely how I act. Also, if you're a Ni-valuer as you say in your post, consider these erotic attitudes, also by Gulenko:



> *Psuedo-Aggressors/Employees: LIE (ENTj) ILI (INTp)*
> 
> These are types who exhibit aggressive tendencies in their everyday life, and as a result tend to carry over these notions and temperaments into their romantic life. They typically are not comfortable with connotations of the word "victim" - implying a certain weakness, effeteness, and lack of dignity. In searching for a partner, they are looking for a worthy opponent - someone who is strong enough to withstand their quirks without "breaking" so to speak.


----------



## Mizmar

I'm a mix of Caregiver and Infantile. The Aggressor type sounds like the kind of person I would find pushy and intrusive, and therefore unappealing.

On the 'erotic attitudes' link I am, similarly, a mix of Caregiver and Childlike (probably more Childlike overall).


----------



## Swiftstar

I'm most likely EII and Infantile appears to be the most accurate for me, although I can see myself relating to aspects of the Aggressor and Victim descriptions, but not so much. I cannot relate to Caregiver at all.


----------



## 0+n*1

I relate to some aspects of victim but I assume that's because I am a 6. Aggressive is the one I relate the least but I wouldn't find it repulsive. It would be flattering to be receiving end (to some extent because I don't want to feel submitted). I also relate to caregiver and infantile, specially infantile. I act weird to attract attention, I admit it. 

It's more like 'Look, he looks like he lives in his own world, he's all by himself, he' an enigma and there's a lot of passion hidden inside.. I am ready for a ride'. Yes, that's what I'm trying to make others believe. I don't feel as passionate or mysterious or odd or independent or free from this world.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

The agressor-victim dynamic plays out in my relationship with an SEE and it's great. I remember a gamma SF before saying they feel more like a "caregiver" than an "agressor" and it's probably true if the titles are taken too literally. It's because the ethical side of the gamma SFs might not make them appear like a ruthless aggressor and instead see themselves as sweet and loving, for a lack of a better word. There's an article in The16types where it is mentioned how gamma NTs may not identify with the "victim" label as well. Nevertheless, everything in the agressor and victim descriptions of wikisocion apply in the case of our relationship. And I've also noticed them in other people ocassionally.


----------



## Elyasis

I'm a bit of a mix of Victim and Aggressor. Usually more Victim like until I have convinced myself that they might like me back.


----------



## Promethea

Elyasis said:


> I'm a bit of a mix of Victim and Aggressor. Usually more Victim like until I have convinced myself that they might like me back.


I'm pretty sure I'm an aggressor, but I rarely do a 'cold approach' myself. I mean I can if I want to, and I've been known to, but unless it seems like theres some mutual chemistry, whats the point. I don't want an aggressor approaching me, is the thing. When people had typed me as iei, and my dual was supposedly the sle who is most certainly aggressor, I just didn't get it. I hate being approached by an sle aggressor, it feels really weird. I like to decide who to approach.


----------



## VinnieBob

I have never been the aggressor but I do know what signs to look for as I do not react to aggression all that well. for the most part the aggressor will back down after I give them a small show of INTJ aggression. as far as guienko's theory is to general, all personality types have perversions to them, no program is going to run 100% efficiently


----------



## Entropic

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> The agressor-victim dynamic plays out in my relationship with an SEE and it's great. I remember a gamma SF before saying they feel more like a "caregiver" than an "agressor" and it's probably true if the titles are taken too literally. It's because the ethical side of the gamma SFs might not make them appear like a ruthless aggressor and instead see themselves as sweet and loving, for a lack of a better word. There's an article in The16types where it is mentioned how gamma NTs may not identify with the "victim" label as well. Nevertheless, everything in the agressor and victim descriptions of wikisocion apply in the case of our relationship. And I've also noticed them in other people ocassionally.


Yep, I was highly skeptical of this portion of Gulenko's theories as he seems to sometimes like to churn them out for the sake of it regardless of their actual quality, but I have to say that it is actually quite accurate now that I understand it better. I really am a victim in a nutshell, and I do need an aggressor to tell me that they like me because I never fucking know what I think about someone and even if I do think I like someone, I have an immense time acting on that because I keep doubting that they will like me back. 

I also tend to judge relationship value based on the reciprocity of actions so say, if you never call me I will interpret this as disinterest from your end because someone who calls is clearly interested as opposed to someone who never calls. I see how that also makes sense with the aggressor style since Se likes to makes things known and be out in the open like that.

EDIT
Another thing I wanted to comment on was the brief comment about male victim with female aggressor and how he'd be a white knight defending his princess and fuck me sideways but it's so dumbly true. 

I think the problem with the theory is that Gulenko didn't necessarily pick the best names for each of the groupings. People interpret them too literally and get offended. What kind of guy likes to see himself as a victim in a relationship normally unless he's a masochist or something? I mean, the victim isn't a literal victim, it's just that they tend to take a somewhat inferior power position in relation to the aggressor who may seem abusive to outsiders hence, victim. Though the power play dynamic seems like it is in the aggressor's favor, the victim lets the aggressor remain in top because it's convenient for them but one might argue that it is actually the victim who has all the power since the victim allows the aggressor to be dominant. 

Whatever. I don't feel inferior in my relationship, not at all.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

ephemereality said:


> I mean, the victim isn't a literal victim, it's just that they tend to take a somewhat inferior power position in relation to the aggressor who may seem abusive to outsiders hence, victim. Though the power play dynamic seems like it is in the aggressor's favor, the victim lets the aggressor remain in top because it's convenient for them but one might argue that it is actually the victim who has all the power since the victim allows the aggressor to be dominant.


That's exactly the same reasoning I've heard regarding bdsm relationships. I'm not sure it necessarily means aggressors and victims are more likely to be into that stuff but it's an interesting comparison.


----------



## Entropic

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> That's exactly the same reasoning I've heard regarding bdsm relationships. I'm not sure it necessarily means aggressors and victims are more likely to be into that stuff but it's an interesting comparison.


Yes, and Stratiyeskaya mentions this as well in her ILI-SEE article where she writes something in the lines of that the ILI lets the SEE appear superior but by doing so he keeps extinguishing the Se energies of the SEE and is thus actually the one who is in control of the relationship:



> What about ILI? *SEE soon grows tired of manipulating the sluggish and apathetic Balzac. ILI extinguishes and suppresses activity of SEE; his suggestive sensing is like a black hole for the exuberant energy of his dual. It is only on the surface that it seems like SEE is manipulating ILI and claiming all the victories. In fact, ILI is constantly provoking the initiative of his dual, making him chase himself, exhausting him in tactical games, cooling down his passions, extinguishing his fierceness, knocking down his ambitions, taking away some of the "harmful", "destructive" energy of his dual. Once ILI manages to "calm down" and "humble" his dual, he builds a relationship with him as an equal. He can take on a generously patronizing tone that, most interestingly, the SEE will hold up and support. Strategically SEE can get caught up in the "lethargic and apathetic" tactics of Balzac, who slowly and good-naturedly lures him into various traps, from which, as a rule, he is unable to get out. ILI "locks in" SEE onto himself, graciously accepting all of SEE's care and allocating his strengths for himself, such that much less is left to be applied to others.* For example, having won over an ILI in a prolonged and difficult struggle with his previous wife, a SEE woman has sent her own son to a boarding school and wholly devoted herself to the care after him and her stepson (who remained at home).


And I've seen interest in BDSM being correlated to aggressor-victim. I think perhaps there may be a small corn of truth in it though perhaps not so much in the directly correlative sense that the aggressor must always be the dom and the victim the sub for example as I can imagine that a victim type may well enjoy extending Se influence sexually because it's a safe environment for them to practice Se, but that aggressor-victim couples may be more interested in exploring BDSM than other couples. 

There was a thread some time ago about sexual behavior and interest in the cognitive forum and most of the Si types agreed on that they rather spent time cuddling and such, and were less interested in engaging in dynamic power play as much as they desired to up the intensity of physical touch through cuddling, really focus on the sensation of the kiss etc. Just imagining that actually irks me out in itself.

And I'll be open and honest enough to admit that I sexually fall within the BDSM spectrum, however meaningful that information is.


----------



## Haydn

I think Gulenko is fairly accurate with this. I am Ni/Fe and tend towards being both victim and aggressor depending on the circumstances. Cannot identify with caregiver/infantile at all myself but I see it played out a lot and more obviously than the victim/aggressor dynamic.


----------



## Dyidia

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> That's exactly the same reasoning I've heard regarding bdsm relationships. I'm not sure it necessarily means aggressors and victims are more likely to be into that stuff but it's an interesting comparison.


I'm not into bondage or sadomasochism, but I definitely like power play.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Well, if we're on the topic of BDSM, I could imagine someone masochistic being attracted to their superego functions, but I haven't exactly done any studies on this. >_>


----------



## Sixty Nein

I can't say that I'm either one of these. Do not relate to either, would rather just uh...I unno like each other for no reason? I'm not exactly into power dynamics, yet I'd probably be closest to victim. If only because I do not like to initiate on romance. Which is why I'm likely to be forever alone.


----------



## Recede

I haven't actually been in a relationship yet, but I identify most with the victim style. I can't really see myself as a caregiver. The closest would be...supporting the person with knowledge and understanding? I can't see myself doing the kind of Si caregiving my SEI mom does though. I hate dealing with practical daily matters and I'm too lazy to even take care of my own needs like cooking for myself most of the time.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

ephemereality said:


> Yes, and Stratiyeskaya mentions this as well in her ILI-SEE article where she writes something in the lines of that the ILI lets the SEE appear superior but by doing so he keeps extinguishing the Se energies of the SEE and is thus actually the one who is in control of the relationship:
> 
> And I've seen interest in BDSM being correlated to aggressor-victim. I think perhaps there may be a small corn of truth in it though perhaps not so much in the directly correlative sense that the aggressor must always be the dom and the victim the sub for example as I can imagine that a victim type may well enjoy extending Se influence sexually because it's a safe environment for them to practice Se, but that aggressor-victim couples may be more interested in exploring BDSM than other couples.


Yes, in particular because, overtime, in a dual/semi-dual relationship, the two partners balance each other out and the Se-dom becomes "calmer", more focused and introspective, while the Ni-dom becomes familiar with Se, the same way any dual couple will adapt to their dual's IE.



> There was a thread some time ago about sexual behavior and interest in the cognitive forum and most of the Si types agreed on that they rather spent time cuddling and such, and were less interested in engaging in dynamic power play as much as they desired to up the intensity of physical touch through cuddling, really focus on the sensation of the kiss etc. Just imagining that actually irks me out in itself.
> 
> And I'll be open and honest enough to admit that I sexually fall within the BDSM spectrum, however meaningful that information is.


Yes, though I imagine the Si types have their own interesting kinks...


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Yes, though I imagine the Si types have their own interesting kinks...


Tbh, the whole daddy/girl-thing is the first thing that came to my mind (when I saw the caregiver/infantile names), but I always found that kind of icky personally. :tongue: Although there are worse things I can think of too.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Nonsense said:


> Tbh, the whole daddy/girl-thing is the first thing that came to my mind (when I saw the caregiver/infantile names), but I always found that kind of icky personally. :tongue: Although there are worse things I can think of too.


Yeah! Maybe I'm taking it too literally but I though of that too. Also of playing with sensations, and this is something I've seen mentioned, which is something that is done in S/M, I believe.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Yeah! Maybe I'm taking it too literally but I though of that too. Also of playing with sensations, and this is something I've seen mentioned, which is something that is done in S/M, I believe.


Lol, well I'm not sure how else to interpret it, even when taking it (the caregiver-name) metaphorically it does imply someone being taken care of. 

Then again, the more type specific descriptions for Delta brings to mind the whole teacher/student-thing. Although the Delta-NFs are also described as Pseudo-Caregivers, so uh. I guess the Infantile/Childlike thing is more of an Alpha-NT thing, and from what I understand it sounds like they are basically distancing themselves from their sexuality or whatever by intellectualizing it, and it does say something about how Delta-STs might be more similar to that as well, so hmm.

Ah right, sensation play.


----------



## Kintsugi

Yeah. I'm totally an "aggressor".


----------



## RoSoDude

Though all of the names have awful connotations (despite each decently describing the essence of the style), I actually find these to be essentially accurate. It's a fairly simplistic model but I think it's particularly on point to how relationships look from the outside. I know basically all of the Infantile points are accurate to how my relationship with an IEE turned out. On the surface everything seemed great and we had a lot of fun together but there was a lack of substance somehow, and the things we needed were in total conflict and both of us found dealing with each other's crap draining.

The theory also seems generally correct in describing the desires of each style. I know it's true for me and a lot of my friends who have discussed their romantic problems.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Nonsense said:


> Lol, well I'm not sure how else to interpret it, even when taking it (the caregiver-name) metaphorically it does imply someone being taken care of.
> 
> Then again, the more type specific descriptions for Delta brings to mind the whole teacher/student-thing. Although the Delta-NFs are also described as Pseudo-Caregivers, so uh. I guess the Infantile/Childlike thing is more of an Alpha-NT thing, and from what I understand it sounds like they are basically distancing themselves from their sexuality or whatever by intellectualizing it, and it does say something about how Delta-STs might be more similar to that as well, so hmm.
> 
> Ah right, sensation play.


So you don't relate to that distancing from sexuality? My parents are LSE-EII I believe, but I can't really say I know how they work romantically because they are not ones to be romantically expressive, much less sexually. For all I know, mum could be asexual lol.


----------



## Direct

I find Aggressor - Victim as accurate. I identify with victim. 
But ... I am sure I would be dominant in relationship with SEE. Even on physical level. And while having sex, definitely. I like the idea of her initiating everything, but I won't be passive once she does. 
What turns me on the most in a relationship is the playful fighting. When it comes to sex, I become very aggressive and intense. Which is unusual for me, because I am usually very calm and neutral.


----------



## Mizmar

Silveresque said:


> I haven't actually been in a relationship yet, but I identify most with the victim style. I can't really see myself as a caregiver. The closest would be...supporting the person with knowledge and understanding? I can't see myself doing the kind of Si caregiving my SEI mom does though. *I hate dealing with practical daily matters and I'm too lazy to even take care of my own needs like cooking for myself most of the time.*


The bolded is true of me too. The caregiver side of me only comes out (rather unexpectedly) when I'm interacting with people I have a romantic interest in. I'll suddenly find myself giving practical advice which is mostly based on bits of knowledge I've randomly accumulated over the years.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> So you don't relate to that distancing from sexuality?


Hmm, perhaps to some degree. Granted, I have yet to be in a romantic relationship, so I can't entirely say what I'm like when I actually have to deal with that sort of stuff. =P


----------



## Entropic

Mizmar said:


> The bolded is true of me too. The caregiver side of me only comes out (rather unexpectedly) when I'm interacting with people I have a romantic interest in. I'll suddenly find myself giving practical advice which is mostly based on bits of knowledge I've randomly accumulated over the years.


Though to be fair I'm like this too. I know that I'm definitely the one who will be cooking for example. I think caregiving goes beyond that in a sense. It's more about making sure the person is physically comfortable and cooking can be a part of it, but is hardly limited to it and is in my opinion, perhaps even a shallow idea of how Si may truly manifest. It's more about the comfort of Si data that is being manifested or sought I think.


----------



## Nawtease

I don't really know what Romance Type I am based on Gulenko. 
I can't 100% identify with this model. 

I think I have the infantile. 
But also all of the others attributes...
Then infantile/victim? 

I might be boring in bed... :shocked: My sex drive is pretty low. I don't really like cuddling as well.. 

I switch from being into SM, playfighting, Daddy's Girl, being aggressive in bed to slow sex... I don't do it for the sex I do it because it feels new. I can feel intimate with a partner if we do something together that is weird and that I have never done before. E.g this one guy does not want to exchange touches (Ok) I lose interest but then he says I should brush his teeth. I felt pretty happy and satisfied. Even though I am infantile? So yeah prob. infantile


----------



## Nephandus

Assuming I _am_ ILI, supposedly victim... Yeah, no... Not enough bolding or exclamation to properly state how no. I only tolerate "princesses" existing because it's illegal to beat them to death. That enough subtext? I don't tolerate a challenge in dating/romance/eros/whatever.

I don't do roleplaying either. Generally speaking any kinks I do have would require realitywarping to bring about, especially this quarter century or beyond and in the life trajectory I'm stuck in or any possible future window allowed by it. Pretending that something's happening as opposed to it actually happening is something well beyond a turn-off. I'd prefer my sex to be sex actually occurring, not some farcical un-sex composed of bullshit, posturing, and gestures. *cough*


----------



## Forgery Zaytsev

Nephandus said:


> Assuming I _am_ ILI, supposedly victim... Yeah, no... Not enough bolding or exclamation to properly state how no. I only tolerate "princesses" existing because it's illegal to beat them to death. That enough subtext? I don't tolerate a challenge in dating/romance/eros/whatever.
> 
> I don't do roleplaying either. Generally speaking any kinks I do have would require realitywarping to bring about, especially this quarter century or beyond and in the life trajectory I'm stuck in or any possible future window allowed by it. Pretending that something's happening as opposed to it actually happening is something well beyond a turn-off. I'd prefer my sex to be sex actually occurring, not some farcical un-sex composed of bullshit, posturing, and gestures. *cough*



You sound like an aggressive, 100%. ESTJ, yeah?

I am def the right one for me. Interesting.


----------



## 0+n*1

This is how I picture Ni victim in grief


----------



## L P

Damn infantile is like everything I post in "How do INFPs flirt, How do you know INFPs like you" threads. Damn. fits me pretty good. I remember when I dated an ISFP and she liked the whole rough play rough sex thing and it freaked me out so much because I was like, "Girl's like this?" and I was like why am I not ok with this, why am I not an aggressor? And I dated an INTJ, and she wanted to make me mad on purpose, like she wanted to experience me being mad, made no sense to me. Reading articles about dating on the internet don't help either, they all say men have to be aggressors and women have to be caregivers. So imagine an INFP male posturing as some pick up artist aggressor trying to pick up chicks, and getting super jealous of natural ESTP aggressors. What you get is years of no play and kept virginity. Oh God, I wish I knew this in highschool.


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> Damn infantile is like everything I post in "How do INFPs flirt, How do you know INFPs like you" threads. Damn. fits me pretty good. I remember when I dated an ISFP and she liked the whole rough play rough sex thing and it freaked me out so much because I was like, "Girl's like this?" and I was like why am I not ok with this, why am I not an aggressor? And I dated an INTJ, and she wanted to make me mad on purpose, like she wanted to experience me being mad, made no sense to me. Reading articles about dating on the internet don't help either, they all say men have to be aggressors and women have to be caregivers. So imagine an INFP male posturing as some pick up artist aggressor trying to pick up chicks, and getting super jealous of natural ESTP aggressors. What you get is years of no play and kept virginity. Oh God, I wish I knew this in highschool.


There’s so much wrong with this.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> There’s so much wrong with this.


Like what? Is this all not typed related or something?


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> Like what? Is this all not typed related or something?


Those people all seem super weird. Doesn’t matter how, or what type they are.

To have a healthy relationship, you have to have a healthy balance between all the relationship styles. And if someone seems like “this person is definitely THIS relationship style,” then that’s someone you should probably steer clear of, and take a better look at what you’re actually doing that’s causing you to be around and influenced by imbalanced people.

Typology is about what type of individuation you have. It’s about what type of individual you are. A healthy dose of conformity can be a good thing. It’s what gives you common ground well enough to connect with others. Don’t get so focused on how other people are so far out on a limb just because the limb seems great, that you lose sight of the fact that they’re out on a limb, or you may wind up out on a limb on your own.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> Those people all seem super weird. Doesn’t matter how, or what type they are.
> 
> To have a healthy relationship, you have to have a healthy balance between all the relationship styles. And if someone seems like “this person is definitely THIS relationship style,” then that’s someone you should probably steer clear of, and take a better look at what you’re actually doing that’s causing you to be around and influenced by imbalanced people.
> 
> Typology is about what type of individuation you have. It’s about what type of individual you are. A healthy dose of conformity can be a good thing. It’s what gives you common ground well enough to connect with others. Don’t get so focused on how other people are so far out on a limb just because the limb seems great, that you lose sight of the fact that they’re out on a limb, or you may wind up out on a limb on your own.


OK, reading my comment on the internet at face value, yea "those people" that you do not know at all, seem weird.

They weren't, they were regular fine healthy people, this thread just helped explain some perspective to things they liked that I personally did not relate to.

Am I supposed to ignore that these people did something things that is literally written out in the description? Am I supposed to just be like "Oh wow, what a coincedence their behaviour seems to correlate with descriptions of their type and romance style."

Everybody is an individual yea yea we all know that, so much so it goes without saying on this forum at this point.


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> OK, reading my comment on the internet at face value, yea "those people" that you do not know at all, seem weird.
> 
> They weren't, they were regular fine healthy people, this thread just helped explain some perspective to things they liked that I personally did not relate to.
> 
> Am I supposed to ignore that these people did something things that is literally written out in the description? Am I supposed to just be like "Oh wow, what a coincedence their behaviour seems to correlate with descriptions of their type and romance style."
> 
> Everybody is an individual yea yea we all know that, so much so it goes without saying on this forum at this point.


If it is literally written out in the description, then it is an individual with pronounced effects of their type, not healthy level effects.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> If it is literally written out in the description, then it is an individual with pronounced effects of their type, not healthy level effects.


I think you are jumping to the conclusion that if someone shows a sign of their type that's written it a description that means they are unhealthy, then everybody on this site is unhealthy because they came to the conclusion of their type because their traits, habits, point of view was literally written out in a description. Not word for word but pretty close enough to be sure that they are that type. 

Also you are calling people unhealthy you do not even know, even when I told you they were normal regular people. Proof of type isn't unhealthy.

I have an ISTP friend who keeps telling me he wants some strong warrior type of woman, sounds pretty "worthy opponent" to me like the aggressor romance style, and I do not relate to that what so ever and I keep telling him "wtf is wrong with you!", nothing is wrong with him, he is an aggressor romance style and that makes more sense. Is he unhealthy? I think not.

Many of the infantile traits apply to me like the being goofy, joking, and strange behaviour to attract people comments. Am I unhealthy I think not.

I'm not implying these people were exaggerated versions of their type, just that their behavior is explained in these descriptions.


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> I think you are jumping to the conclusion that if someone shows a sign of their type that's written it a description that means they are unhealthy, then everybody on this site is unhealthy because they came to the conclusion of their type because their traits, habits, point of view was literally written out in a description. Not word for word but pretty close enough to be sure that they are that type.
> 
> Also you are calling people unhealthy you do not even know, even when I told you they were normal regular people. Proof of type isn't unhealthy.
> 
> I have an ISTP friend who keeps telling me he wants some strong warrior type of woman, sounds pretty "worthy opponent" to me like the aggressor romance style, and I do not relate to that what so ever and I keep telling him "wtf is wrong with you!", nothing is wrong with him, he is an aggressor romance style and that makes more sense. Is he unhealthy? I think not.
> 
> Many of the infantile traits apply to me like the being goofy, joking, and strange behaviour to attract people comments. Am I unhealthy I think not.
> 
> I'm not implying these people were exaggerated versions of their type, just that their behavior is explained in these descriptions.


Well, you’re off on your Socionics typings, anyways.


----------



## Bastard

Lord Pixel said:


> I think you are jumping to the conclusion that if someone shows a sign of their type that's written it a description that means they are unhealthy, then everybody on this site is unhealthy because they came to the conclusion of their type because their traits, habits, point of view was literally written out in a description. Not word for word but pretty close enough to be sure that they are that type.


Type descriptions have to be caricatures in order to distinguish them from each other. Healthy people are rarely caricatures. 



Lord Pixel said:


> Many of the infantile traits apply to me like the being goofy, joking, and strange behaviour to attract people comments. Am I unhealthy I think not.


Honestly, the romance style traits apply to me. All of them. Victim is the only one I don't see much of in myself.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> Well, you’re off on your Socionics typings, anyways.


You might be talking about the whole j/p difference in socionics. And I'm of the camp that MBTI and socionics fit together. Meaning INFj=INFP. I know alot of people don't think that but it seems pretty obvious to me with the valued functions of socionics and the 4 functions of MBTI and all. 





Bastard said:


> Type descriptions have to be caricatures in order to distinguish them from each other. Healthy people are rarely caricatures.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, the romance style traits apply to me. All of them. Victim is the only one I don't see much of in myself.


Again you guys are thinking I'm saying these people were some exaggerated caricature of their type, when I'm just seeing examples where they showed some traits of a romance style that fits there type, I don't get the big deal honestly. I saw behaviour in them that I did not understand, and this thread helped explain their behaviour to me. Like many people who like more rougher aggressive sex, I cannot relate whatsoever and thought something was wrong with me. But looking at this I can see no some people are more wired to like a more aggressive forceful style and I'm clearly not one of those people, not to say no infantile or caregiver types are into it, and not to say no aggressor victim types are all into some BDSM shit, but I am not, and I know some people that are and I wouldn't be surprised if they were the type to like that stuff.


So then what? It becomes your word verses mine? I relate to Infantile, you relate to all of them so what is the whole system real or BS?

It's simply just a guide line for me, and I seen some of the traits in other people and the descriptions fit.


Honestly I can see some of the romance style concepts in PUA culture too, especially aggressor, infantile and victim.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> Well, you’re off on your Socionics typings, anyways.


You might be talking about the whole j/p difference in socionics. And I'm of the camp that MBTI and socionics fit together. Meaning INFj=INFP. I know alot of people don't think that but it seems pretty obvious to me with the valued functions of socionics and the 4 functions of MBTI and all. 





Bastard said:


> Type descriptions have to be caricatures in order to distinguish them from each other. Healthy people are rarely caricatures.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, the romance style traits apply to me. All of them. Victim is the only one I don't see much of in myself.


Again you guys are thinking I'm saying these people were some exaggerated caricature of their type, when I'm just seeing examples where they showed some traits of a romance style that fits there type, I don't get the big deal honestly. 

I saw behaviour in the people that I did not understand, and this thread helped explain their behaviour to me. Like many people who like more rougher aggressive sex, I cannot relate whatsoever and thought something was wrong with me. But looking at this I can see no some people are more wired to like a more aggressive forceful style and I'm clearly not one of those people, not to say no infantile or caregiver types are not into it, and not to say no aggressor victim types are all into some BDSM shit, but I am not, and I know some people that are and I wouldn't be surprised if there type told you why.

So then what? It becomes your word verses mine? I relate to Infantile, you relate to all of them so what is the whole system real or BS?

It's simply just a guide line for me, and I seen some of the traits in other people and the descriptions fit.


Honestly I can see some of the romance style concepts in PUA culture too, especially aggressor, infantile and victim.


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> You might be talking about the whole j/p difference in socionics. And I'm of the camp that MBTI and socionics fit together. Meaning INFj=INFP. I know alot of people don't think that but it seems pretty obvious to me with the valued functions of socionics and the 4 functions of MBTI and all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you guys are thinking I'm saying these people were some exaggerated caricature of their type, when I'm just seeing examples where they showed some traits of a romance style that fits there type, I don't get the big deal honestly.
> 
> I saw behaviour in the people that I did not understand, and this thread helped explain their behaviour to me. Like many people who like more rougher aggressive sex, I cannot relate whatsoever and thought something was wrong with me. But looking at this I can see no some people are more wired to like a more aggressive forceful style and I'm clearly not one of those people, not to say no infantile or caregiver types are not into it, and not to say no aggressor victim types are all into some BDSM shit, but I am not, and I know some people that are and I wouldn't be surprised if there type told you why.
> 
> So then what? It becomes your word verses mine? I relate to Infantile, you relate to all of them so what is the whole system real or BS?
> 
> It's simply just a guide line for me, and I seen some of the traits in other people and the descriptions fit.
> 
> 
> Honestly I can see some of the romance style concepts in PUA culture too, especially aggressor, infantile and victim.


MBTI type has nothing to do with functions. MBTI type has nothing to do with Socionics type.

Your original post was referencing LII and SEE conflict, not EII and ESTP conflict.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> MBTI type has nothing to do with functions. MBTI type has nothing to do with Socionics type.
> 
> Your original post was referencing LII and SEE conflict, not EII and ESTP conflict.


If you mean misunderstanding when you say conflict that would be more accurate. And it was ILI and ESI that I was talking about.

I do not want to get into an argument about whether MBTI and Socionics type match, to me they do and I honesty do not understand how they don't. I do not care for the big debate on the topic.

But yea, I was saying I dated an ESI who liked a more aggressive physical style of sex, and an ILI who wanted to see me mad which lines up with victim types expecting their partner to be mean, and the ESI lines up with the aggressor traits.


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> If you mean misunderstanding when you say conflict that would be more accurate. And it was ILI and ESI that I was talking about.
> 
> I do not want to get into an argument about whether MBTI and Socionics type match, to me they do and I honesty do not understand how they don't. I do not care for the big debate on the topic.
> 
> But yea, I was saying I dated an ESI who liked a more aggressive physical style of sex, and an ILI who wanted to see me mad which lines up with victim types expecting their partner to be mean, and the ESI lines up with the aggressor traits.


You were describing the differences between how EII is with relationships and how SLE is with relationships, but what you were actually describing was LII and SEE


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> You were describing the differences between how EII is with relationships and how SLE is with relationships, but what you were actually describing was LII and SEE


How and where was I describing that?


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> How and where was I describing that?


Your entire first post. That is an LII talking about not being an SEE.


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> How and where was I describing that?


Your entire first post was LII talking about LII and SEE differences with women.


----------

