# LBGT members of PerC: how do your enneatype dynamics affect your sexual expression?



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

I have a bit of a fascination with coming-out stories. I have read dozens, and yet each new one is a little bit different and interesting. Maybe there should be a place on PerC for LGBT enneagrammers to share their stories.


----------



## zinnia (Jul 22, 2013)

I read through the first post and nearly died laughing, because it reminds me of me when I was younger (even with the added detail of being a woman in STEM!). I've since largely gotten over the gender expectation thing for the most part (people seem to hassle me less as I age, it seems), however, what I learned back then is not that easy to unlearn... unfortunately, it has led to trust issues and difficulty with letting my guard down around others. I am absolutely convinced I will die alone.

I identify as... somewhere on the asexual spectrum, I suppose, not technically LGBT. What is it, demisexual, where you rarely feel attraction/desire? One of those. I have gotten over that one too, trying to ignore it and pretend it isn't a problem.

Thing is, I grew up with this idea that women are basically sex toys for men, right? It doesn't matter what *you*, as a woman, want... this is just how relationships are, you have to do it. Not always literally sex, either, but you're the one to bend and change - you need to be the one to give up the career, to be at home, to do the dishes, regardless of your personal feelings. From my mother basically telling me that she feels SO BAD because she has no sex drive but she forces herself to please my dad (sorry, but a 10 year old girl should not be hearing this, but hey!! you needed someone to talk to, right? who cares about the kid and screwing her up for life? she went through about 5 years of gender confusion as a teen and now has problems with intimacy, but you can't possibly expect to keep something like that to yourself! she was a mature 10 year old, too, you know, its legit) I basically formed a complex around sex and relationships. Even in college, I would get hints from my female friends with boyfriends, "ugh, I don't really want to but I gave in."

If being in a relationship means "giving in", screw that. 

Am I really asexual, or am I just defending myself from this idea that I would need to "submit" to a man by ignoring and closing myself off from those feelings? I do tend to do that quite a bit. If I ignore it enough, it will go away. Except it doesn't and I'm left with even more bitterness and hate than I had before when I realize nothing changes.

Edit: lol idk how it connects to my enneatype, I guess I fake things a lot and pretend to be okay when I'm not. people are also convinced I'm absolutely normal and average because that's what I choose to show.


----------



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

@zinnia
Wow, yeah. That's fucked up. I've never identified as asexual myself but it's hard not to get uncomfortable by tropes like that, and how female sexuality is portrayed in general... 

This topic is interesting to me too, but I don't quite know where to start. As for how it relates to my type, I guess the way I can get so affected/upset over these things instead of just rejecting/ignoring them could be telling of something.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

Distortions said:


> @zinnia
> Wow, yeah. That's fucked up. I've never identified as asexual myself but it's hard not to get uncomfortable by tropes like that, and how female sexuality is portrayed in general...


Sometimes I think it would be easier to be homosexual. There would seem to be less risk of mixed signals when you're dealing with someone just like yourself.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

@cir

I wish that I wasn't so fucking ADHD and that I could actually FOCUS and read your in-depth posts!

I feel like they would be really insightful and beneficial to me... but my brain fails me (and you!) T____T

Sorry for the redundant post but I wanted to show some love (and to subscribe)


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@cir
this chart makes draws similarities which are too general to really be useful, especially considering that each of the types is generally quite different than the other two of their respective centers (7s have a hell of a lot more in common with 8s and 2s than they do with 5s and 6s for example). anyway, a couple problems I had with that charm
1) 8w7 is very much a Fire-centric type, but, on the whole, I'd say gut types are more Earth than Fire
2) of the heart types, only 4s seek authenticity. 2s and 3s couldn't care less about it
3) if we are talking masculine/feminine energy. I would say 1s and 8s are the most masculine while 9s and 4s are the most feminine. 2s can either (though they tend to be strongly so either way) and 7s tend to be display erratic combinations of both
4) the "source of inspiration" seemed completely off
5) the "academic studies" correlations were completely ridiculous, I won't even address those :laughing:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@cir 
additionally, I'm going to be a bit nit-picky about what you said about instincts :tongue:


> Regardless of where it is located in your instinct stacking, everyone has a sexual instinct. One-to-one bonding.


1-1 bonding more Social than Sexual (though all instincts play a part in it. the other two instincts shape the relationship dynamic and emotional tone significantly). 



> Regardless of where it is located in your instinct stacking, everyone has a social instinct. Think "gender roles".


not exactly incorrect, but there is also a more innate aspect of gender roles related to self-preservation. as an example 
1) female seductiveness has had a significant presence in across all cultures, races and time periods despite being strongly _discouraged_ socially (via most ancient religions). this is because...poverty sucks. if you can appeal to a powerful man's loneliness, latent protective instincts and (obviously), sexual lust, you are far more likely to able to attend to your needs, stay healthy and stay safe.
2) many men are competitive and seek power for the sake of prestige, but just as many seek power out of fear. when you are powerful, you can attend to your needs and position yourself so that people or natural occurrences have far less power to hurt you or control your actions. historically, men have had more incentive to do this because violence against men has always been more common than violence against women (for sexual rather than social reasons. it's more tempting to beat the shit out of a potential competitor than a potential mate, and this is seen even in animals with next to zero social instincts, such as reptiles.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_cir_
> this chart makes draws similarities which are too general to really be useful, especially considering that each of the types is generally quite different than the other two of their respective centers (7s have a hell of a lot more in common with 8s and 2s than they do with 5s and 6s for example).


 "Quite different" is subjective to me. I think the sevens have a lot in common with all of those listed types, but for different reasons, and I'm not even going to bother to attempt to quantify what "a hell of a lot more" means.



> anyway, a couple problems I had with that charm
> 1) 8w7 is very much a Fire-centric type, but, on the whole, I'd say gut types are more Earth than Fire
> 2) of the heart types, only 4s seek authenticity. 2s and 3s couldn't care less about it
> 3) if we are talking masculine/feminine energy. I would say 1s and 8s are the most masculine while 9s and 4s are the most feminine. 2s can either (though they tend to be strongly so either way) and 7s tend to be display erratic combinations of both
> ...



Bring it up to Susan Rhodes.
Three's virtue is authenticity. Their attention is related to authenticity in some way... if for no other reason, than because the whole "vice: deception" vs "virtues: truthfulness & authenticity" dynamic. This applies to the entire heart center in some way. Fours are just more overtly obvious about it.
A 3w4 friend's been giving me shit about "finding my true self". A 3w2 friend's been talking about "true hard core oddities who try to blend in to survive and usually fool people". I'm pretty sure they're talking about authenticity.
You want to pick a fight with a three? Start talking about how he's overselling his real skills on his resume and on LinkedIn.
Twos care about authenticity because they want to know who their "real friends" are. In my personal life experience, they're the ones who care the most about "real friends" vs "fake friends".
What's "masculine energy" and what's "feminine energy"?
I'm just saying, I do see the systematic logic of nine having androgynous energy, and the right half of the enneagram being one type of polar energy and the other half being the other type of polar energy. I feel like assignment is kind of arbitrary, the point is that it's polar. It's as if the yin-yang never got a chance to develop shades of gray or something.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_cir_
> additionally, I'm going to be a bit nit-picky about what you said about instincts :tongue:
> 
> 1-1 bonding more Social than Sexual (though all instincts play a part in it. the other two instincts shape the relationship dynamic and emotional tone significantly).


 That goes against everything I've ever read. Self preservation is one to self. Sexual is one to one other individual. Social is one to group. One-to-one on an individual level might be a bit too intense for a social dom. But if you harvest a bunch of one-to-one connections, then the accumulation of those connections turn into a social circle.



> not exactly incorrect, but there is also a more innate aspect of gender roles related to self-preservation. as an example


 There is. I just didn't bother explicitly mentioning it. Though I was hoping my focus on my career track would've alluded to it.


> 1) female seductiveness has had a significant presence in across all cultures, races and time periods despite being strongly _discouraged_ socially (via most ancient religions). this is because...poverty sucks. if you can appeal to a powerful man's loneliness, latent protective instincts and (obviously), sexual lust, you are far more likely to able to attend to your needs, stay healthy and stay safe.



You're way too stuck on this seductiveness thing. You use this one word way too often.
That's not even true. I promise you prostitutes in poor countries do not get their needs met, they're not healthy, nor are they safe. And if they're not stationary prostitutes, then they get sex trafficked?
And then they get pregnant, and the father isn't around to take care of them or their child.
If you're going to talk about self-preservation for females, then how about the fact that, in many cultures, they're not valued outside of being sex objects? Like in China, if someone's pregnant with a female fetus, then there's a good chance they will get aborted? Or in Japan and Korea, women who have jobs have to suffer from sexual harassment, and when companies do layoffs, women are the first to get laid off? Or in India, dowry comes from the women's family for marriage? As in, having a daughter is considered "expensive" and that you have to pay someone in order to marry them off. Or in many cultures, if you're not a wealthy woman, then your only viable career choice is to become a prostitute? Perhaps, because, one's parents sold them off while they're still babies?

You think many women around the world have control over their sexuality and how to use it? You think they get to decide that on their own? Don't you think your obsession with female seductiveness might be a part of the problem? 

It is too much to consider that perhaps, female self-preservation should have choices on what to rely upon other than the genitalia she was born with? Perhaps, because, she's ugly and do not meet her society's beauty standards. So "seductiveness" is out of the question. God forbid, some of them might even have brains!


> 2) many men are competitive and seek power for the sake of prestige, but just as many seek power out of fear.


 Why are women excluded from this generalized statement? Regardless of it's done out of fear for their own lives or image concerns, being about to determine one's own path in life is "personal power". For example, perhaps, there are women who want to rely on something that isn't her "seductiveness" for her survival. 



> when you are powerful, you can attend to your needs and position yourself so that people or natural occurrences have far less power to hurt you or control your actions. historically, *men have had more incentive to do this because violence against men has always been more common than violence against women* (*for sexual rather than social reasons*. it's more tempting to beat the shit out of a potential competitor than a potential mate, and this is seen even in animals with next to zero social instincts, such as reptiles.


 Wow, I just don't know how to respond to this. The sheer ignorance in this is blindingly maddening. 

It's more tempting to beat the shit out of someone who is weaker because the strong will win. If you're a man, it's far more tempting to beat the shit out of a potential mate, assuming that potential mate is a woman, because on average, men are physically stronger than women. It's hard for women to fight back on an even level, so they're easy targets. Why do you think, in the US, the stereotype is that men are the domestic abusers ("wife beaters") and men are the rapists? Did you even pay attention to the Muslim migration crisis in Europe, where in many countries, women report sexual assaults by Muslim men?

That's not even to mention, in the context of self-preservation instinct, all of those other male-to-female relationships: like father to daughter or brother to sister. And all of those other general relationships that either don't or should not care about mating, like employer to employee ("glass ceiling") and employee to employee (women in male-dominated industries).


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

cir said:


> "Quite different" is subjective to me. I think the sevens have a lot in common with all of those listed types, but for different reasons, and I'm not even going to bother to attempt to quantify what "a hell of a lot more" means.
> 
> 
> Bring it up to Susan Rhodes.
> ...


I realize you weren't the one who came up with that chart, but it was quite disappointing all the same.



> That goes against everything I've ever read.


then I recommend Beatrice Chestnut and (especially) Mario Sikora (he says a few things which are a bit dumb. like he thinks all Sx doms are Sx/Sp, all Sp doms are Sp/So and all So doms are So/Sx, but other than that, his descriptions of the instincts make WAY more sense than anyone else's)



> Self preservation is one to self. Sexual is one to one other individual. Social is one to group. One-to-one on an individual level might be a bit too intense for a social dom. But if you harvest a bunch of one-to-one connections, then the accumulation of those connections turn into a social circle.


the sexual instinct is about _sexual_ 1-1 energy and _sexual_ intimacy. having a charming cup of tea, a heart to heart with your best friend or a lively business conversation with an associate are social activities, not sexual. 




> There is. I just didn't bother explicitly mentioning it. Though I was hoping my focus on my career track would've alluded to it.


what is your career track? 



> You're way too stuck on this seductiveness thing. You use this one word way too often.
> That's not even true. I promise you prostitutes in poor countries do not get their needs met, they're not healthy, nor are they safe. And if they're not stationary prostitutes, then they get sex trafficked?
> And then they get pregnant, and the father isn't around to take care of them or their child.


ok, first off, you would be mistaken if you think I find the conditions of impoverished prostitutes to be enviable in any capacity. I'm saying that they're doing that so that they avoid _starving_. the list you mentioned is awful, but starving to death is more awful. 



> If you're going to talk about self-preservation for females, then how about the fact that, in many cultures, they're not valued outside of being sex objects? Like in China, if someone's pregnant with a female fetus, then there's a good chance they will get aborted? Or in Japan and Korea, women who have jobs have to suffer from sexual harassment, and when companies do layoffs, women are the first to get laid off? Or in India, dowry comes from the women's family for marriage? As in, having a daughter is considered "expensive" and that you have to pay someone in order to marry them off. Or in many cultures, if you're not a wealthy woman, then your only viable career choice is to become a prostitute? Perhaps, because, one's parents sold them off while they're still babies?
> You think many women around the world have control over their sexuality and how to use it? You think they get to decide that on their own? Don't you think your obsession with female seductiveness might be a part of the problem?
> It is too much to consider that perhaps, female self-preservation should have choices on what to rely upon other than the genitalia she was born with? Perhaps, because, she's ugly and do not meet her society's beauty standards. So "seductiveness" is out of the question. God forbid, some of them might even have brains!
> Why are women excluded from this generalized statement? Regardless of it's done out of fear for their own lives or image concerns, being about to determine one's own path in life is "personal power". For example, perhaps, there are women who want to rely on something that isn't her "seductiveness" for her survival.


you misread my intentions. I have neither any obsession with female seductiveness (male seductiveness on the other hand.....) nor an interest in discussing feminist theory with you. however, I will entertain such discussion briefly to clear up a few misconceptions. 



> Wow, I just don't know how to respond to this. The sheer ignorance in this is blindingly maddening.


how about asking how many men were beaten up or shoved into a locker by other men men when they younger. now ask the same question to women. there is reason why beating up a woman carries a stronger social stigma (in the west especially) than beating up another man



> It's more tempting to beat the shit out of someone who is weaker because the strong will win. If you're a man, it's far more tempting to beat the shit out of a potential mate, assuming that potential mate is a woman, because on average, men are physically stronger than women. It's hard for women to fight back on an even level, so they're easy targets.


1) I'm not denying the severity or occurrence of sexual assault, I'm simply saying it's not as common as bullying or fights between men rather than man to woman. for every gang banger who rapes a woman, you have 4 more beating the shit out of another gang banger
2) it's less tempting to beat up a potential mate _regardless_ of strength/weakness. potential mates inspire feelings of intimacy and a desire to be pleasing and seductive (yes, I used the word seductive. it is, as with the other times I have used it, appropriate in the context of discourse related to human instincts)
3) beating the shit out of someone who is weaker holds value for insecure people (there are plenty of insecure men who beat women, I'm not here to deny that). for people who aren't insecure, those who are weaker do not inspire threatening feelings, preemptive aggression or a desire to prove oneself.



> Why do you think, in the US, the stereotype is that men are the domestic abusers ("wife beaters") and men are the rapists? Did you even pay attention to the Muslim migration crisis in Europe, where in many countries, women report sexual assaults by Muslim men?


1) for the same reason that there are stereotypes about black men being "thugs", Asian men having small dicks, latinas being "spicy" and Irish people being hopeless alcoholics. 
2) because people are naturally more protective of women than they are men. men beating each other up is seen as normal. a man fighting a woman is seen as an oppressor



> That's not even to mention, in the context of self-preservation instinct, all of those other male-to-female relationships: like father to daughter or brother to sister. And all of those other general relationships that either don't or should not care about mating, like employer to employee ("glass ceiling") and employee to employee (women in male-dominated industries).


some of this is indeed related to social norms (notice I never disagreed with that), but much of it is also related to neoteny


anyway, feel free to tie up any loose ends, but if you do, I'd appreciate it if you took a breather from the moralistic projection, because it caused you to miss about 70% of my point and could potentially drag this convo into an off-topic shit storm.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Are you guys really gonna do the "my side is more abused than yours!" argument? Both men and women suffer structural injustices and they do so on very different terms. It's as bad regardless of who is the victim. With that said, society is also by and large, favoring men. That doesn't mean that men are not rendered impervious to injustice, but it does mean that a) violence against men is more likely to go unnoticed and b) men's violence in general is often excused.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Are you guys really gonna do the "my side is more abused than yours!" argument? Both men and women suffer structural injustices and they do so on very different terms. It's as bad regardless of who is the victim. *With that said, society is also by and large, favoring men.* That doesn't mean that men are not rendered impervious to injustice, but it does mean that a) violence against men is more likely to go unnoticed and b) men's violence in general is often excused.


I don't agree with this (frankly, I think the problems both face are too dissimilar to compare), but as for the rest, yes, exactly. my main contention in these sorts of discussions is not about any of the individual groups, but the tendency to think that the vantage point of a single group can sufficient explain or solve a problem or that oppression is this simple, uni-directional thing in which there is an oppressed party with insurmountable problems vs an oppressive party with zero problems. people need to remember the story of the blind people and the elephant

to use a different example (this is actually starting to come around back to the original topic), most people would argue that it's a hell of a lot easier to be a straight man than a gay man; however, there are certain stigmas that straight men face which I (a gay man) don't have to worry as much about. in particular, tons of polite, well-meaning straight men get preemptively labeled as creepy for something as innocuous as "I enjoyed talking to you, would you like to have dinner?" or even starting up a completely non-sexual conversation. it's hardly an example of "oppression", but it is a stupid stigma which gets in the way of normal conversation and makes the dating world a lot more awkward, dramatic and difficult to navigate than it already is (it's worth noting that gay men need to worry about this too, just not as much).


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> to use a different example (this is actually starting to come around back to the original topic), most people would argue that it's a hell of a lot easier to be a straight man than a gay man; however, there are certain stigmas that straight men face which I (a gay man) don't have to worry as much about. in particular, tons of polite, well-meaning straight men get preemptively labeled as creepy for something as innocuous as "I enjoyed talking to you, would you like to have dinner?" or even starting up a completely non-sexual conversation. it's hardly an example of "oppression", but it is a stupid stigma which gets in the way of normal conversation and makes the dating world a lot more awkward, dramatic and difficult to navigate than it already is (it's worth noting that gay men need to worry about this too, just not as much).


I can see potential advantages to being gay. Once you get past the uncomfortable growing up part, you get to be a member of an exclusive counterculture of people that understand your pain and are eager to date you. Your relationships are taboo, which is hot. You don't have expectations. You can date people that understand you, because they are just like you. Anyway...

What type do you think would completely miss their sexual orientation until they're 31 and married?
While Writing for 'Orange Is the New Black,' I Realized I Am Gay - Mic


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I don't agree with this (frankly, I think the problems both face are too dissimilar to compare), but as for the rest, yes, exactly. my main contention in these sorts of discussions is not about any of the individual groups, but the tendency to think that the vantage point of a single group can sufficient explain or solve a problem or that oppression is this simple, uni-directional thing in which there is an oppressed party with insurmountable problems vs an oppressive party with zero problems. people need to remember the story of the blind people and the elephant
> 
> to use a different example (this is actually starting to come around back to the original topic), most people would argue that it's a hell of a lot easier to be a straight man than a gay man; however, there are certain stigmas that straight men face which I (a gay man) don't have to worry as much about. in particular, tons of polite, well-meaning straight men get preemptively labeled as creepy for something as innocuous as "I enjoyed talking to you, would you like to have dinner?" or even starting up a completely non-sexual conversation. it's hardly an example of "oppression", but it is a stupid stigma which gets in the way of normal conversation and makes the dating world a lot more awkward, dramatic and difficult to navigate than it already is (it's worth noting that gay men need to worry about this too, just not as much).


I think you'd be hardpressed to argue patriarchy is not a thing and that there is an intrinsic bias where men are more valued than women are, by and large. The problem with your example is that you are comparing subcategories within a group without doing the same to the other group; how more or less difficult is it to be a gay man vs a lesbian? Now, that is actually far more relevant than to say that gay men have it more difficult than women as a whole. The latter comparison is not fair because you add a structural category to one group but not the other. If you are going to compare structures, you need to compare them exactly the same or you'll run into bias. Of course it's more difficult to be gay but the truth is that being gay is not more difficult by virtue of being a man, but being gay is more difficult by virtue of being gay because it is own category for the same reason that it's asinine to argue that transmen gain more rights by virtue of being read as men; yes, but then you also ignore the fact that they are trans which by comparison will also mean that they will always have less rights than cismen and so on.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

nburns said:


> I can see potential advantages to being gay. Once you get past the uncomfortable growing up part, you get to be a member of an exclusive counterculture of people that understand your pain and are eager to date you. Your relationships are taboo, which is hot. You don't have expectations. You can date people that understand you, because they are just like you. Anyway...
> What type do you think would completely miss their sexual orientation until they're 31 and married?
> While Writing for 'Orange Is the New Black,' I Realized I Am Gay - Mic


if I could snap my fingers and turn straight, I would do so in a heartbeat, but yes, there absolutely advantages to being gay. as a side note though, it's a bit silly to say that we don't "have expectations", but I think I get what you were trying to say


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Entropic said:


> I think you'd be hardpressed to argue patriarchy is not a thing and that there is an intrinsic bias where men are more valued than women are, by and large.


I could certainly argue that, I just have no intention of doing so here, as I mentioned in my response to @cir 



> The problem with your example is that you are comparing subcategories within a group without doing the same to the other group; how more or less difficult is it to be a gay man vs a lesbian? Now, that is actually far more relevant than to say that gay men have it more difficult than women as a whole. The latter comparison is not fair because you add a structural category to one group but not the other. If you are going to compare structures, you need to compare them exactly the same or you'll run into bias. Of course it's more difficult to be gay but the truth is that being gay is not more difficult by virtue of being a man, but being gay is more difficult by virtue of being gay because it is own category for the same reason that it's asinine to argue that transmen gain more rights by virtue of being read as men; yes, but then you also ignore the fact that they are trans which by comparison will also mean that they will always have less rights than cismen and so on.


I see your point, but 
1) comparing all 4 possibilities (straight men, straight women, gay men, lesbians) is not necessary to make my point. 
2) I know less about lesbian culture and lesbian-specific issues than I do gay male issues, so I would feel presumptuous trying to talk about them outside of my limited knowledge


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I could certainly argue that, I just have no intention of doing so here, as I mentioned in my response to @cir
> 
> 
> I see your point, but
> ...


Yes, I understand 2), but lesbians do get a lot of shit, especially if they are butch. The point is that if you are going to add a category of "unfairness" to one group, it becomes weird to not do the same to the other group. Of course any gay person will have less rights and struggle more in society compared to someone who is straight, if ignoring all other factors, but the same can be said about being poor, being black, being religious and so on.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> if I could snap my fingers and turn straight, I would do so in a heartbeat,


But you can't really know how it would turn out... you might not like it and end up wanting to switch back.

I can't point to a heckuva lot of good that being straight has done me. =)


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Yes, I understand 2), but lesbians do get a lot of shit, especially if they are butch. The point is that if you are going to add a category of "unfairness" to one group, it becomes weird to not do the same to the other group. Of course any gay person will have less rights and struggle more in society compared to someone who is straight, if ignoring all other factors, but the same can be said about being poor, being black, being religious and so on.


absolutely. I'm aware this is generally true, but again, making a more specific comparison between straight women vs lesbians requires an understanding of that latter that I don't have.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

nburns said:


> But you can't really know how it would turn out... you might not like it and end up wanting to switch back.
> I can't point to a heckuva lot of good that being straight has done me. =)


I really don't like to talk about this much, but I can think of several ways it probably helped you :tongue:
1) not having to hide for fear of survival (or at least personal well being)
2) not risking losing friends or family members
3) having a potential dating pool of ~48% of the population (straight and bisexual women) vs ~5% (gay and bisexual men)
4) not having to deal with religious persecution (if you are religious or come from a heavily religious family)


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> cir said:
> 
> 
> > Swordsman of Mana said:
> ...


 On her own website. Beatrice Chestnut The Enneagram


> Each of the nine types comes in three versions according to which of three basic animal instincts is dominant, the self-preservation instinct, the Social instinct (for getting along with others in the social group), or the *One-to-One (or Sexual)* *instinct (oriented to bonding with one other person).*


And mathematically speaking, a group is made up of many people, so if you direct the sx energy into befriending as many of them as possible, then all of those connections together turn into the social group.
[HR][/HR]


> and (especially) Mario Sikora (he says a few things which are a bit dumb. like he thinks all Sx doms are Sx/Sp, all Sp doms are Sp/So and all So doms are So/Sx, but other than that, his descriptions of the instincts make WAY more sense than anyone else's)


 Well, I can sort of see where he's coming from, because I subscribe to Susan Rhode's theory that there are six subtype profiles that are independent of type: self-preservation, sexual, social, self-preservation/sexual, self-preservation/social, and sexual/social. Under this paradigm, I would be self-preservation/sexual.


> *Self-preservation/Sexual Subtype.* When both these arenas are influential, we have an individual who combines the practicality of the self-preservation subtype with the intensity and creative impulses of the sexual subtype. This can make for a creative person with the "push" to get their projects done, projects that tend to be autobiographical or intimately tied to personal concerns. An SP-SX individual tends to be passionate about the positions she takes and is willing to stand up for her principles. She likes to work alone or with one special partner rather than a group. She's also a self-starter who tends to do things her own way. Although she likes the intensity of an intimate relationship, she never completely gives herself away for the sake of intimacy. But once she finds someone to love, she'll try to make the relationship work. She also likes to just hang out, but with a single friend or two, not a crowd. She likes to take care of business (pay bills, etc) but also doesn't like to be distracted from more interesting, creative pursuits, so she's apt to try to get the responsible stuff over with quickly so she can get back to the interesting and creative activities that she really enjoys.


Anyway, back to Sikora. Instincts and Subtypes – Looking Through a Modern Lens – Mario Sikora | Nine Points Magazine


> Readers of my blog (www.enneagramlearning.com) or other articles will know that I use terminology for the instincts that is different from the typical Freudian-based terms “self-preservation,” “social,” and *“sexual” or “one-to-one.”* I hope it will become clear through the course of these articles why I have chosen “preserving,” “navigating” and *“transmitting,”* respectively, as alternatives and I will switch back and forth between traditional terms and my terms as necessary.


 Leadership, the Enneagram, and the Instincts by Mario Sikora | Nine Points Magazine


> *Transmitting Leaders:*
> 
> The Transmitting domain of instincts is related to displaying the reproductive fitness of the individual and his or her ideas or creations. These instincts help us attract the attention of others, seduce them into seeing our desirability or the desirability of our creations. Transmitters know how to stand out and draw attention, to charm and cajole, to create an intense connection that induces the other to be open to what we have to offer. Transmitters tend to be charismatic and intuitively know how to lure others into their orbit. They are typically ambitious and apparently self-confident, and they can be willing to take risk get what they want.
> 
> Transmitting leaders are often charismatic and bold. They are often good at articulating a goal or vision and moving others toward it, seducing some and driving others as necessary. They often intuitively understand the mind of the market and the customer and are persuasive sellers of the product, company, or dream. They can be competitive and are often the alpha males and females of the group. Transmitting leaders tend to be good in the start-up phase of a business when the organization needs an inspiring vision to rally around. On the downside, the transmitting instincts can cause these leaders to focus too much on themselves, their accomplishments and their desirable qualities.


In Sikora's own words, acknowledgment that the sexual instinct is sometimes also referred to as "one-to-one".


> Here again, alternative language is called for because the traditional language can be off-putting. The biggest obstacle most corporate environments is the use of the term “sexual subtype”—it is simply considered to be inappropriate (again, particularly in the US). *The substitution of “one-to-one” for “sexual” causes an additional problem, from my perspective—it doesn’t capture the breadth of what is happening in this domain of instincts.* I believe this same problem applies to the other traditional terms—“self-preservation” and “social”—as well. My use of different terminology is not driven purely by political correctness; accuracy and usefulness is a more relevant factor.


[HR][/HR]


> the sexual instinct is about _sexual_ 1-1 energy and _sexual_ intimacy. having a charming cup of tea, a heart to heart with your best friend or a lively business conversation with an associate are social activities, not sexual.


 According to the brief copy and paste I found attributed to Mario Sikora, it sounds like whether it is or not depends on which teaching you subscribe to. So you're telling me there's "one" "correct" way to look at these instincts? Excuse me if I subscribe to the "traditional" or "common" way of looking at the sexual instinct as "one-to-one".

I will raise you Susan Rhodes, The Positive Enneagram, page 92. You can disagree with what she wrote, and that's not my problem.


> *Sexual Subtype.* I suppose we would call this the "exciting" subtype, in that SX persons tend to be sexy, charismatic, creative, mystical, sacrificial, and seductive (although not all of these qualities are usually present in a single individual!). When we talk about sexuality in the context of hte subtypes, the discussion includes not only intimacy and sexual activity but mysticism and creativity. THe individual of this subtype tends to be intense, charismatic, and high-energy. She attracts attention wherever she goes. *She has the ability to inspire others and elicit their help, especially in a one-to-one situation.* She's imaginative and entertaining, and she often has a great sense of humor. She can often charm her way out of dicey situations, which obviously makes it tempting to overuse this talent. This subtype is extremely dynamic, and the same dynamism that makes SX subtypes charismatic also makes it hard for them to stick with anything long enough to get something accomplished. Likewise, intimate relationships can be intensely involving in the short-term, but hard to sustain (because SX subtypes often prefer the process of falling in love to the work of building a long-term relationship). To be balanced, an SX subtype typically needs to develop the kind of good habits, self-control, and discipline that will give her the balance she needs to create a life that has a solid foundation.


[HR][/HR]


> you misread my intentions.


 I read the words you wrote, not your intentions.



> anyway, feel free to tie up any loose ends, but if you do, I'd appreciate it if you took a breather from the moralistic projection, because it caused you to miss about 70% of my point and could potentially drag this convo into an off-topic shit storm.


 Well, thankfully, as the OP of this thread, I have explicitly said broad answers aren't a problem. I've also mentioned my point of view that there are areas where feminism and LGBT rights align. Yes, Entropic mentioned that there are areas where they don't, but I'm focused on where they overlap.

Some people prefer cutting off loose ends. If you're going to morally project on my own thread about what is considered "on-topic", then I didn't bother replying to the rest of your points because I felt like _those_ are off-topic, and Entropic pretty much succinctly summed up my reasons for it. You can carry on that discussion with him if you'd like. Good day to you.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@cir
glad we cleared that up. back to your other points



> On her own website. Beatrice Chestnut The Enneagram
> Each of the nine types comes in three versions according to which of three basic animal instincts is dominant, the self-preservation instinct, the Social instinct (for getting along with others in the social group), or the One-to-One (or Sexual) instinct (oriented to bonding with one other person).


at the risk of becoming a bit semantic, I have always believed that the sexual instinct is 1-1, where we disagree is _how_ they are 1-1 (ie, I think it implies a sexual dynamic and you don't). in Beatrice's book, she goes on to clarify
_"Sometimes referred to as the "One-to-One instinct, it generally directs energy toward the achievement and maintenance of sexual connections , interpersonal attraction and bonding."_
obviously, sex isn't the whole picture (sexual energy can be diffused or channeled differently), but it's a crucial part, and one I find missing from many people who type as Sx doms simply because they are MBTI Intuitives who enjoy deep conversations. Mario and I agree on this, but both of us also agree that most descriptions of Sx have a strongly NF bias. 

if you read her descriptions of the 9 Sexual subtypes, most of them have strong emphasis on either lust, sexual desirability, sexual relationships, sex-related competitiveness and/or libido. Naranjo also mentions somewhere that Sx 6s tend to become reactive, angry and psychologically disintegrated when they go for long periods without sex. I think it was somewhere in Character and Neuroses, but I don't have the exact quote handy. for the Chestnut subtypes, I can provide more specific quotes if you like

as for this Susan Rhodes lady....I can't say I'm a fan so far, but this description was a mixed bag


> Sexual Subtype. I suppose we would call this the "exciting" subtype, in that SX persons tend to be sexy, charismatic, creative, mystical, sacrificial, and seductive (although not all of these qualities are usually present in a single individual!). When we talk about sexuality in the context of hte subtypes, the discussion includes not only intimacy and sexual activity but mysticism and creativity.


this last part is precisely the source of a lot of Sx snobbery online (peeps be talkin' about all this "spiritual transcendence" related to Sx and how "deep" it is, but don't do so for the other instances). whether we're talking Social, Self-Preservation or Sexual, instinctual drives are raw, base and, as their name entails, _instinctual_ (ie, people tend to over-complicate them and project cerebral/intellectual qualities onto them which don't exist)



> THe individual of this subtype tends to be intense, charismatic, and high-energy. She attracts attention wherever she goes. She has the ability to inspire others and elicit their help, especially in a one-to-one situation.


this part tends to be true



> She's imaginative and entertaining, and she often has a great sense of humor.


depends on subtype and MBTI. MBTI SPs who are Sx dom tend to be far more physical than they are imaginative 



> She can often charm her way out of dicey situations, which obviously makes it tempting to overuse this talent.


not instinct related



> this subtype is extremely dynamic, and the same dynamism that makes SX subtypes charismatic also makes it hard for them to stick with anything long enough to get something accomplished Likewise, intimate relationships can be intensely involving in the short-term, but hard to sustain (because SX subtypes often prefer the process of falling in love to the work of building a long-term relationship).


these are both excellent points which need to be brought up more. I'll take it even further and say that Sx doms are typically less intellectual than their Sp and So brethren of the same core (context is key of course. a Sexual 5 is still probably going to be a lot more intellectual than your average Self Preservation 2)



> To be balanced, an SX subtype typically needs to develop the kind of good habits, self-control, and discipline that will give her the balance she needs to create a life that has a solid foundation.


same with this one


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I really don't like to talk about this much, but I can think of several ways it probably helped you :tongue:
> 1) not having to hide for fear of survival (or at least personal well being)
> 2) not risking losing friends or family members
> 3) having a potential dating pool of ~48% of the population (straight and bisexual women) vs ~5% (gay and bisexual men)
> 4) not having to deal with religious persecution (if you are religious or come from a heavily religious family)


I don't really want to talk about all the ways my life has sucked, because it's a grim subject. Suffice to say, there are lots of other bad things that can happen to a person besides being gay.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

nburns said:


> I don't really want to talk about all the ways my life has sucked, because it's a grim subject. Suffice to say, there are lots of other bad things that can happen to a person besides being gay.


that's irrelevant. we are talking about the single variable of being gay vs straight. even if I wanted to compare myself to you, I neither know you nor know your life history (I know plenty of straight people in really shitty situations. my point is that it would be even shittier if they were gay)


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> that's irrelevant. we are talking about the single variable of being gay vs straight. even if I wanted to compare myself to you, I neither know you nor know your life history (I know plenty of straight people in really shitty situations. my point is that it would be even shittier if they were gay)


I can't remember what my point was anymore. I don't want to get dragged into an emotionally-charged argument. I don't really have a dog in this fight.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

@_Swordsman of Mana_ I'm not really interested continuing this semantical discussion. It is possible that there co-exists multiple valid and correct views on something. Sexual/gender identities, orientations, and politics surrounding them can be seen and dealt with from the lenses of any combination of instincts or any combination of enneagram points, regardless of it affects you or someone you know. The most that any single individual can see and experience is a fragment of it. This thread is like one of those "free response" type of writing prompts. I purposely intended this thread to be broad because it's not a topic that has been discussed much, if at all, so I'm not terribly picky on what kinds of answer I get. Back to that "blind men and the elephant" thing, I'm looking for quantity or as many blind men's viewpoints as possible.

That being said, from this point on, I do really consider this to be derailing the thread from my original intent of a very broad topic, to an incredibly narrow, semantical focus about what the sexual instinct is about or not. Agreements and disagreements happen, that's par for the course, but I'm asking for open, fluid, personal testimonies and how one experiences these effects rather than a black/white "is this correct?" or "does this type of oppression exist?" type of discussions.

Why don't you start a separate thread detailing your understanding, including your analysis and synthesizing the various sources you came across and why you agree or disagree with their viewpoints? I think what you offer would have greater value there.

@_nburns_ Good article! See, here's what I'm thinking. I've sort of gone through life taking this for granted. Like, I've always had friends who didn't fit into the gender norms. My high school had a LBGT club, which spawned a "Christian Student Association". But the thing is, a lot of the people in those two clubs are friends with each other. We do mock aspects of the other club (LBGT had activities on "National Coming Out Day", and the CSA passed out stickers that said "On your knees"...), but hey that was high school. I went to an urban college, and I've always been surrounded by people who didn't fit into the gender norms.

Like, I'm pretty sure I'm bisexual, but I'm not sure if the reason I'm not 100% sure is due to how I don't really meet other women. If I've been sexually assaulted by another bisexual woman, is that a sign? Oh yeah, I had a high school friend who was a lesbian, who came out as bisexual a while ago, so it seems anything is possible.

At the same time, if it's easier to pass off as straight, then why wouldn't I? I mean, I wouldn't even have to do or say anything, it's already assumed, along with a lot of other things that would lead to unfair discrimination. In terms of career prospects, it doesn't even matter if I'm straight/lesbian/bisexual. I can't pass off as male, I don't have a unisex name (and I'm so jelly of those who do... Alex, Charlie, Sam, Casey, Taylor...), and it's already assumed that I'm a liability because I'm of marriageable age and they think I plan on having children. But I don't plan on having children. If people ask why I'm not married or having kids yet, I can chalk it up to any legitimate excuses, like "I can't have children because I have ovarian problems". Nah, just kidding. It's my personality. No one can really stand to be with me for that long... ._.

I just don't see me taking a life path where I would think my own gender/sex matters, and yet, I'm still punished by social standards. I mean, there's that connection to five in me that goes "if the economy was so much better, I could consider having a child... if it weren't for that connection to seven that fears being in pain and death by childbirth... if it weren't for that connection to one where I'm afraid I'd get resentful of the perceived freedom I'd lose by parenthood, and if I lose too much sleep, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do my best job at anything, and I can totally see me just going to point four and breaking down and cry over the lack of sleep from a crying baby..." It sounds miserable to me. Anyway, all signs point to "I'm not having biological kids". I mean, after that, does it really matter what sexual orientation I am? 

When there's someone occupying my sx instinct's attention, there's always this pull between "I will pay a lot of attention to you, figure out your needs, and try to help you better your life" thing at two and "You're so demanding of my time, attention, and energy. Is there any way you could just leave me alone for a bit and not take offense at it by thinking I'm trying to hurt you by ignoring you? I'm just drained, my needs aren't getting met, and I put in more in this relationship than you are" thing at five. And then there's the eight who's just getting pissed with the Pygmalion projects.

The eligible guys that I'd come across would have the same problems I'd have: "career or personal relationships?" Not even dating, just friends in general, and they have shitty social skills that I'd be too bored or embarrassed to spend too much time with them. You spend all your time doing work-related things, and your personal life suffers. You spend too much time on your personal life, then work suffers from constant distractions especially if your personal life is filled with needy people, and you don't have enough time for yourself.

I'm starting to suspect that whether one is attracted to the same/opposite/both sex may not necessarily be important for everyone, but regardless, they're still affected by societal standards because society considers this issue important.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

cir said:


> @_Swordsman of Mana_ I'm not really interested continuing this semantical discussion. It is possible that there co-exists multiple valid and correct views on something. Sexual/gender identities, orientations, and politics surrounding them can be seen and dealt with from the lenses of any combination of instincts or any combination of enneagram points, regardless of it affects you or someone you know. The most that any single individual can see and experience is a fragment of it. This thread is like one of those "free response" type of writing prompts. I purposely intended this thread to be broad because it's not a topic that has been discussed much, if at all, so I'm not terribly picky on what kinds of answer I get. Back to that "blind men and the elephant" thing, I'm looking for quantity or as many blind men's viewpoints as possible.
> 
> That being said, from this point on, I do really consider this to be derailing the thread from my original intent of a very broad topic, to an incredibly narrow, semantical focus about what the sexual instinct is about or not. Agreements and disagreements happen, that's par for the course, but I'm asking for open, fluid, personal testimonies and how one experiences these effects rather than a black/white "is this correct?" or "does this type of oppression exist?" type of discussions.
> 
> Why don't you start a separate thread detailing your understanding, including your analysis and synthesizing the various sources you came across and why you agree or disagree with their viewpoints? I think what you offer would have greater value there.


that's fair enough, but either way, if you want to avoid the thread being derailed, you might want to ask some more pointed questions. they don't have to be hyper-specific, just enough to...give people somewhere to begin? as it is, this thread feels kind of like a test at business school in which the professor just handed you an essay booklet with nothing but "write down everything you know about finance" on the first page.

for example, you might want to try something like 
1) what is your age/gender?
2) what is your sexual orientation?
3) what is your MBTI/Enneagram/Stacking?
4) have you felt significant pressure to act in ways which felt unnatural for your given type due to social pressure, gender roles, familial pressure?
5) what do the terms "masculine" and "feminine" mean to you? 
6) do you consider yourself more "masculine" or "feminine"? do you feel you were always like this or that society has affected you in some way?

you can make up any questions you want, but I suggest something a little more structured if your desire is any kind of coherent conversational flow


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> that's fair enough, but either way, if you want to avoid the thread being derailed, you might want to ask some more pointed questions. they don't have to be hyper-specific, just enough to...give people somewhere to begin? as it is, this thread feels kind of like a test at business school in which the professor just handed you an essay booklet with nothing but "write down everything you know about finance" on the first page.


 But I love those!


> for example, you might want to try something like
> 1) what is your age/gender?
> 2) what is your sexual orientation?
> 3) what is your MBTI/Enneagram/Stacking?
> ...


 Thank you! And for the rest of this thread, if anyone asks, I'm just going to link back to this post.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

You have kind of a strange thought process.



cir said:


> @_nburns_ Good article!


Thanks. For some reason, reading that shit entertains me.



> See, here's what I'm thinking. I've sort of gone through life taking this for granted. Like, I've always had friends who didn't fit into the gender norms. My high school had a LBGT club, which spawned a "Christian Student Association". But the thing is, a lot of the people in those two clubs are friends with each other. We do mock aspects of the other club (LBGT had activities on "National Coming Out Day", and the CSA passed out stickers that said "On your knees"...), but hey that was high school. I went to an urban college, and I've always been surrounded by people who didn't fit into the gender norms.
> 
> Like, I'm pretty sure I'm bisexual, but I'm not sure if the reason I'm not 100% sure is due to how I don't really meet other women. If I've been sexually assaulted by another bisexual woman, is that a sign? Oh yeah, I had a high school friend who was a lesbian, who came out as bisexual a while ago, so it seems anything is possible.


I'm going to try to sort this stuff out for you.

Okay. Problem #1: "Do I like girls?"



> At the same time, if it's easier to pass off as straight, then why wouldn't I? I mean, I wouldn't even have to do or say anything, it's already assumed, along with a lot of other things that would lead to unfair discrimination. In terms of career prospects, it doesn't even matter if I'm straight/lesbian/bisexual. I can't pass off as male, I don't have a unisex name (and I'm so jelly of those who do... Alex, Charlie, Sam, Casey, Taylor...), and it's already assumed that I'm a liability because I'm of marriageable age and they think I plan on having children. But I don't plan on having children. If people ask why I'm not married or having kids yet, I can chalk it up to any legitimate excuses, like "I can't have children because I have ovarian problems". Nah, just kidding. It's my personality. No one can really stand to be with me for that long... ._.


Problem #2: Your boss might be thinking you're planning to have children, and you might suffer discrimination as a result.

Problem #3: People might think you're weird for not having children or not being married.



> I just don't see me taking a life path where I would think my own gender/sex matters, and yet, I'm still punished by social standards. I mean, there's that connection to five in me that goes "if the economy was so much better, I could consider having a child... if it weren't for that connection to seven that fears being in pain and death by childbirth... if it weren't for that connection to one where I'm afraid I'd get resentful of the perceived freedom I'd lose by parenthood, and if I lose too much sleep, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do my best job at anything, and I can totally see me just going to point four and breaking down and cry over the lack of sleep from a crying baby..." It sounds miserable to me. Anyway, all signs point to "I'm not having biological kids". I mean, after that, does it really matter what sexual orientation I am?
> 
> When there's someone occupying my sx instinct's attention, there's always this pull between "I will pay a lot of attention to you, figure out your needs, and try to help you better your life" thing at two and "You're so demanding of my time, attention, and energy. Is there any way you could just leave me alone for a bit and not take offense at it by thinking I'm trying to hurt you by ignoring you? I'm just drained, my needs aren't getting met, and I put in more in this relationship than you are" thing at five. And then there's the eight who's just getting pissed with the Pygmalion projects.


Problem #4: You have difficulty with relationships.



> The eligible guys that I'd come across would have the same problems I'd have: "career or personal relationships?" Not even dating, just friends in general, and they have shitty social skills that I'd be too bored or embarrassed to spend too much time with them. You spend all your time doing work-related things, and your personal life suffers. You spend too much time on your personal life, then work suffers from constant distractions especially if your personal life is filled with needy people, and you don't have enough time for yourself.


Problem #5: If you met a guy, you might not like him.

Problem #6: You don't have enough time for both your job and a personal life.



> I'm starting to suspect that whether one is attracted to the same/opposite/both sex may not necessarily be important for everyone, but regardless, they're still affected by societal standards because society considers this issue important.


Problem #7: If you turn out not to be straight, society might judge you negatively.

I don't really see how you could have all those problems at once. Are you going through some sort of breakdown that's causing you to think irrationally?


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

nburns said:


> You have kind of a strange thought process.


 Yup.



> Thanks. For some reason, reading that shit entertains me.
> 
> I'm going to try to sort this stuff out for you.


 Thanks!



> Okay. Problem #1: "Do I like girls?"


 Yes? Why wouldn't I? Who doesn't? I feel like they're likeable even if one isn't sexually attracted to them. I'd sleep with them.



> Problem #2: Your boss might be thinking you're planning to have children, and you might suffer discrimination as a result.


 It's not really my boss, but also upper management, and the industry in general. It's one of those "behind the curtain" talks that they should never say out loud if they're afraid of getting sued. Not that I would, because I don't want to get blacklisted from my industry. Once you specialize too much, the industry becomes waaay too small and everyone knows each other, regardless of how far apart nationally the companies are located.



> Problem #3: People might think you're weird for not having children or not being married.


 I don't know why though. I feel like the economic instability is a sufficient enough deterrent.



> Problem #4: You have difficulty with relationships.


 Who doesn't?

Regardless of gender, I can love someone without wanting to sleep with them. And I could sleep with someone without wanting to date them. Love and lust are not 100% the same thing to me. 

I like helping people, and guys tend to misinterpret my "willing to listen to them" disposition as romantic interest. I can straight up say that I'm just trying to be a good friend, but they ignore what I say and perceive me wanting more, which leads to a struggle regarding expectations and my personal boundaries. And it's so much worse if these guys are from work. We need to be cooperative on a professional basis, and I refuse to date or sleep with people from work.

So if they text me too much after work, I just ignore their texts or text back the next morning or a few days later. I have better things to do than to live by my phone, so the ignoring is not always intentional. And I'm sorry, but outside of work, I just don't care about their personal problems. My free time is about me me me me me. Some of them are just so needy! I'm not their mother, I'm not their girlfriend, and I don't want to take care of them. They're adults. Why can't they get their shit together? Most of them eventually get the message that I'm not interested in socializing with them after work.

Well, regardless, for some people, work interactions are enough that they'd develop an infatuation for me anyway. From these interactions, there's mild sexual harassment from them trying to subtly express interest, due to an underlying perception that I could be "the perfect girlfriend" (the bar is seriously set as low as "being female in a male-dominated industry who is willing to listen to them complain about their life problems", with bonus points because I'm Asian female, which leads to "I don't have an Asian fetish" or "let's go eat at this Asian restaurant"), and I really, _really_, *really* hate and resent those expectations. It's so shallow and objectifying, and in these kinds of interactions, it's always about them and what they want. They don't give a shit about me, what I want, or my comfort level. But I still need to cooperate with them, so I deliberately make sure that I will never be alone in the same room as them, because if they're trying to be subtle about it, then I can at least feign ignorance. Then paranoia about retaliation on my professional work sets in.



> Problem #5: If you met a guy, you might not like him.


 Well, the thing is, it isn't hard for me to dislike everybody. Everyone is flawed, but I like him enough as a human being.

He's one of those people I met from work, but he has since moved on to much greener pastures (a much higher paying job somewhere else). I don't like him enough to date him, but I care about him enough to want to help him. But the relationship is seriously asymmetrical, where it's mostly me listening to his troubles and trying to help him, but if I have any personal issues, then he doesn't respond to them. Thankfully I have other friends to talk to. Shit at work happened, I complained and vented to some other people about it of varying friendship distances, and this guy was the absolute last to get back to me, days later. "When you face a crisis, you know who your real friends are", so I'm a real friend to him, but he's not a real friend to me. I liked working with him, and I'm trying to not burn my bridges because even if some relationships are not personally fulfilling, they might be professional fulfilling. But he's also needy as shit, so I've trying to put some boundaries and distance between us to reclaim my free time and attention back, and I don't think he's been taking it too well. 



> Problem #6: You don't have enough time for both your job and a personal life.


 I love my free time, and I'm sad that when I have a job, the free time goes away. It's not just the 8-9 hours of work, but there's getting ready for work and commuting. And after work, I just want time to myself to decompress.



> Problem #7: If you turn out not to be straight, society might judge you negatively.


 It's stupid!



> I don't really see how you could have all those problems at once. Are you going through some sort of breakdown that's causing you to think irrationally?


 It's more likely that they've been repressed or just not thought about, and with enough feedback, it gets my brain running. I'm thinking about those things that are either too uncomfortable or I have no reasons to think about on a day-to-day basis. On one hand, you say I'm thinking irrationally (I prefer to think of it as "being lead by my emotions"), and on the other hand, when I'm too rational in my relationships, people say I'm too cold-hearted. I really can't win. *sigh*

You know how people describe the sx instinct as that "merging" feeling? To me, it seems like the emotional intensity of point four mixed with the merging-and-boundary-loss thing of nine. Recently, I learned to develop a healthy fear of it, since I've realized when I enter into an intimate relationship with that losing-a-sense-of-myself thing, I develop a pool of anger and resentment because I have to disproportionately sacrifice a lot of myself/time/energy in order to keep the relationship running as smoothly as possible, and I don't have enough time to do my own things. I mean, I already feel that way with a career that implicitly requires me to spend my own personal time on skills upkeep.

I've had some quiet and peaceful time to myself, where I'm not fighting the sx instinct in some way. I realized I really, _really, *really*_ value my personal sense of self. When that gets compromised for a miserable and unfulfilling relationship, I will eventually feel horribly pained and so terribly empty. I've gotten so much better at seeing when that gets triggered and maintaining my boundaries, but when the other person does not get what they want...

See, I believe in "interdependence is a higher goal than independence", and now, I refuse to get into a committed relationship with someone unless they understand what that means and share belief in that value. However, most people I come across either think independence is the highest goal or they can't tell the difference between interdependence and codependence. And then, gender roles within an intimate relationship, where they try to turn me into something I'm not or expect something from me that we've never discussed. I'd rather die alone than to be in a miserable relationship, but I'm wondering whether my willingness to give anyone a chance if they do believe in that is a result of my questionable sexuality or whether my standards are so high that I shouldn't be picky. I've never really thought that my sense of self has anything to do with my gender or sexuality, but I am frustrated that society assumes otherwise, so I'm trying to entertain that idea.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

cir said:


> I've never really thought that my sense of self has anything to do with my gender or sexuality, but I am frustrated that society assumes otherwise, so I'm trying to entertain that idea.


So you think society is trying to convince you that you're gay?

Maybe I'm being naive, but this seems like it would solve your sexuality question: Go to a gay bar and kiss a lesbian, and see if you like it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

*1) what is your age/gender?*
28/Male.

*2) what is your sexual orientation?*
Uh, idk. I used to think I was straight, then I went to thinking I was gay, then I went to thinking I don't fucking know anymore and I still don't. I like people and I don't think I care much about neither their body nor their junk, as much as they got nice personalities, pretty much. With that said, women are nicer to fuck. 

*3) what is your MBTI/Enneagram/Stacking?*
INTJ/8w9/sx/so.

*4) have you felt significant pressure to act in ways which felt unnatural for your given type due to social pressure, gender roles, familial pressure?*
Can't say I have, by and large. I have been mostly left to my own devices in this regard. 

*5) what do the terms "masculine" and "feminine" mean to you? *
I believe masculinity and femininity are concepts of experience, whether you experience yourself to be masculine or feminine. There are social stereotypes, but they don't always correlate with people's self-perceptions. Masculinity often comes with being male and a man, but these also don't always follow, vice versa for femininity. Mostly, I would say they are probably virtues of being, to at some level, embody maleness or femaleness, and this is regardless of your junk, btw. That's not what determines whether one is male or female, imo. Idk, at some level I want to say this is all fucking complicated and I am not entirely sure I think I know what actually constitute any of these things. 

*6) do you consider yourself more "masculine" or "feminine"? do you feel you were always like this or that society has affected you in some way?*

I've always felt more masculine over feminine and on that dumb test from the 70s or what it is, I always scored highly on masculinity. If anything, I think early on, I was trying to be feminine but I gave up at some point, realizing this wasn't me at all. It just always made me uncomfortable.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

nburns said:


> So you think society is trying to convince you that you're gay?
> 
> Maybe I'm being naive, but this seems like it would solve your sexuality question: Go to a gay bar and kiss a lesbian, and see if you like it.


 I'm not the type to kiss strangers, but I have been kissed by other women before. How's a kiss from a lesbian/bisexual different from a kiss from anyone else, really? Unlike particular genitalia, everyone has a mouth, as far as I know. If a mouth has smoked a cigarette recently, I'm not going to want to kiss it or be kissed by it regardless of gender. And someone's willingness to use the tongue seems dependent on how much alcohol they've drank. On separate occasions, a man and a woman have gone down on me before, and both times have been good. I seriously can't tell the difference between them.

Maybe I'm just dumb. In selecting a mate, common values are so much more important to me than someone's gender.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

cir said:


> I'm not the type to kiss strangers, but I have been kissed by other women before. How's a kiss from a lesbian/bisexual different from a kiss from anyone else, really?


I suggested a lesbian, because you could give her a sexy kiss and she wouldn't be weirded out. You could try giving a straight girl a hot kiss and she might not mind, YMMV.



> Unlike particular genitalia, everyone has a mouth, as far as I know. If a mouth has smoked a cigarette recently, I'm not going to want to kiss it or be kissed by it regardless of gender. And someone's willingness to use the tongue seems dependent on how much alcohol they've drank. On separate occasions, a man and a woman have gone down on me before, and both times have been good. I seriously can't tell the difference between them.


That's hot.



> Maybe I'm just dumb. In selecting a mate, common values are so much more important to me than someone's gender.


I can't relate to that at all. I've been in intimate situations with guys before and I did not like it.


----------



## Syvelocin (Apr 4, 2014)

1) what is your age/gender? 
20/female
2) what is your sexual orientation? 
I'm so done with this question. I've been identifying queer lately because I'm just tired of trying to figure it out. My sexuality is a freaking carousel ride and I'm about to vomit. 
3) what is your MBTI/Enneagram/Stacking? 
INFP 4w5 5w4 9w1 sp/sx or sx/sp. I've been relating a lot more to sp lately than I usually do but prior to this I put sx/sp
4) have you felt significant pressure to act in ways which felt unnatural for your given type due to social pressure, gender roles, familial pressure? 
Yep. I've felt this pressure in a multiple of different ways. Pressure from society to be feminine, pressure from femme lesbians to be butch, pressure from butch lesbians to be femme. You'd think the LGBT community would be the least ostracizing but lately I've been experiencing the worst of it from gay women. Probably mad that a man has taken me off the market *wink and smile* please no I'm joking
5) what do the terms "masculine" and "feminine" mean to you? 
Without going too much into my spirituality, I look at masculinity and femininity as two energies and two sides of the same coin. Everyone has a dynamic mix of these energies, and no specific sex or object or activity or whatever has a set level of either energy.
6) do you consider yourself more "masculine" or "feminine"? do you feel you were always like this or that society has affected you in some way?
I definitely think I have more of that feminine, yin energy but many things about me people associate with masculinity so I get written off as more masculine than I am. I carry myself and appear in a pretty androgynous manner often times. I don't like the term anymore, but I was a tomboy as a kid. I felt an immense pressure to be stereotypically feminine as a teen and that made me rather depressed. So I chopped all my hair off at 18 and started doing what I wanted and I felt a lot happier.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

*1) what is your age/gender?*
28/Non-binary? Assigned female at birth

*2) what is your sexual orientation?*
Pansexual. Gray-asexual. Possibly Demisexual.
http://www.asexualityarchive.com/under-the-ace-umbrella/ 

*3) what is your MBTI/Enneagram/Stacking?*
INFP 4w5 SP/SX

*4) have you felt significant pressure to act in ways which felt unnatural for your given type due to social pressure, gender roles, familial pressure?*
Well, yes. And I resent it, and pull away from those who expect this of me.

*5) what do the terms "masculine" and "feminine" mean to you? *
I think a lot of it is objectively bullshit. That said I like to explore both of those things. Just because it's a construct doesn't mean it isn't relevant. It's complicated. 

*6) do you consider yourself more "masculine" or "feminine"? do you feel you were always like this or that society has affected you in some way?*

I have very early memories of looking around my classroom and seeing all the girls, thinking they seemed amazing and light and to have a whole 'nother (socialized, I now realize) dimension to them. The boys seemed drab, they seemed the default (also socialized), but I felt more close to their side.

I was not feminine while growing up. Refused to wear makeup for a long time, didn't get into very girly things. I felt weird at Girl Scouts. Arbitrary gender roles always pissed me off, just like any arbitrary role does. I became feminist very young, before I even knew what that word was. Later in life I became a casual misandrist, which is primarily satirical since misandry doesn't exist the way misogyny does. Still, I have no problem discussing my distaste for male culture and calling out male entitlement and privilege. Then I feel gross for considering transitioning to male. 

But I've been through phases where I've gotten very feminine, mostly due to receiving validation for my blossoming appearance at a certain age. Validation on appearance is not something I'd ever had before. I felt validated as a sexually desirable person, but a lot of that stemmed from people assuming I was cis female.

Eventually I got over that, though I still have severe body dysmorphia. I hate my breasts, my curves. But I like when people think I'm pretty. What was the question again? Oh. Well, I like to wear more androgynous clothes, masculine clothes, I feel uncomfortable a lot in clothes that show my body shape. every now and then I get into this mood to dress up and enjoy feeling girly, but never to me does that imply submissiveness or weakness or the need to be rescued based on inherent gender differences. I think women are amazing, all women, trans or cis, and I envy it - which is a weird position to be in, considering a lot of people assume I'm female. I identify with more female characters than male characters, though more in a longing sort of way. On a more core level, I tend to relate to male characters. I adore and adopt a lot of more cutesey or feminine things but it doesn't change my gender identity. I hate hearing "she", but "he" would feel bizarre. It's frustrating.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

Beyond that, I don't think I fully understand your question.

It's very hard for me, being queer, bisexual, and trans (non-binary), this "late" in life (28). Much of my sexual and romantic experience has been with cis men. It would seem my relationships were heterosexual but a lot of the time I felt secretly they were gay. Or, when I have dated women, it's felt secretly straight. Even if my gender stuff isn't really a secret, it's hard for cis people to understand it. I try to insist on "they" pronouns. I'm still very careful. It seems a lot of cis men are okay with my non-binary identity and my pronouns, as long as I have a vagina and don't transition on hormones. This to me implies they secretly see me as a woman because they equate genitals with gender.

I don't think I plan to transition on hormones or have surgery but sometimes I want to wear my chest binders or dress in male clothes and express that part of me and I don't think they'd be down with that. So to hell with them. Yeah, if it were that easy.

It's all just yet another area in which I feel misunderstood and ashamed of myself, making it harder to navigate life, navigate relationships in particular, which I feel are critical to my happiness. So I'm not happy. That's about all I can say in terms of how enneagram might relate.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

And as some sort of gray-asexual, I have a weird relationship to sex in general. I like pleasing other people, mostly. I do feel attraction to others, sometimes my drive is very strong, but it does fluctuate. But I can be having really good sex and it can feel really good but I'd still kinda rather be doing something else, or otherwise I'm basically only doing it for my partner. 

And I think a lot of my sexual intimacy is all about that. And since people see me as a cis female most of the time, I account for that dynamic. I get pleasure from being seen as a woman during sex, because that's what makes them happy, and it's what I know. But outside of it I don't necessarily want to be seen as a woman. Or even during - it seems like a charade.


I don't really like porn for a number of reasons - mainstream porn is a terrible industry that really harms women (the actors), and I think it gives harmful ideas about sex. I think it can help normalize a lot of violent, non-consensual things. Then on a personal preference level, it just seems commercialized and plastic and I couldn't care less because sexual pleasure for me comes largely from the emotional connection, being vulnerable and expressive. In any case, there is amateur porn that is better and I have less moral issue with it - but it's still not that enjoyable. 

A lot of the time, at least in cishet it still seems like all the focus is on how hot the woman is and how much prowess the male has. Focuses on her body, her movements, her degree of being impressed by his d*ck. Meanwhile he just sits there kinda smiling, too contained, quiet, as if totally in control of himself. It's ironic because he's letting his d*ck be like a sex toy, an object, but the woman is the one being objectified since her body and her reactions are supposed to cater to male desires. ??? Okay the point here is, that's fine if some people are into it -- truly it is, but it doesn't do anything for me. Because I like sex when I can elicit a much more noticeable reaction in someone, make them give up some of their control (even if they're being dominant, they're still being carnal and unbridled). I like them to be present in the moment with me, for them to give indicators of their pleasure along the way so I know what I'm doing right or not. If they're just there to please me, or to get off on a body (like if they see me as an objectified body only), then I'm not into it. And that's just a personal preference.

So yeah, no clue how this relates to enneagram. Though I guess it falls in line with your chart of water/feelings/creativity in the heart center.


----------



## periwinklepromise (Jan 26, 2015)

cir said:


> Maybe I'm just dumb. In selecting a mate, common values are so much more important to me than someone's gender.


fwiw, I say basically that exact same sentence when I explain my sexuality to someone. Maybe you're not dumb; maybe you're just bi roud:


----------



## taqwoman (Feb 5, 2016)

More like unexpression. I don't talk about sex. It's embarrassing. I hate the word "biSEXual". I say "i like girls a lot but other genders are fine too".

Wanted to hide it when i was younger. But now i feel 4ish in that it makes me speshul and unique and therefore awesome. (obvs i'm not e4 in any way, i'm just shitposting)


----------

