# Ideal Mates, the Inferior, & Our Anima/Animus...?



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

About a year ago I was toying with the idea of recognizing someone’s type through their inferior, and getting stumped by what I see as a lack of some sort of standard (or a lack of knowledge) that would edge out alternative explanations.

Then I began thinking about how the anima/us in kept deep within our own psyches’, jumbled in with our inferiors’/shadows’ into some kind of psychological primordial-soup… and began to wonder if attempting to type another—or ourselves—through an identification of our anima/us could possibly cut through, or narrow down those “alternative explanations”.

I wondered if upon asking a person to describe their ideal mate—hopefully excluding anything that would hinge on or be related to social/cultural “values”/lack of (like having a favorable facebook status or a nice shiny car, having the perfect religion or political orientation, etc)—that a person might start listing traits that would come from some sort of archetypical portrait that would be their opposite not only in ways that surpass the realm of their type—as in the mate being meek/assertive—but in ways that might hint towards an opposing attitude of their own orientation (Pi->Pe), or embody some sort of primitive projection of sensing if they’re an intuitive.

For example: a person who’s an introverted perceiver may list characteristics of another that paints a picture of beauty in chaos; of a person who’s power and natural element _is_ the natural world, where it’s not something to secretly fear and downplay but to thrive upon and to surpass. Or, if they were to describe a being who is in some way akin to the earth itself, an extension of its natural hues, the elemental embodiment of sensation personified; a person who has a synergistic relationship to the environment, one of immediate reaction, almost like a node that energy runs through instead of a contemplation and ever-securing attempt upon that energy (may be a stretch to recognize it that way).

The basic idea is to have someone attempt to distance themselves from an ideal that’s more related to society, and instead to apply that focus inwardly, to identify aspects of _themselves_ that would normally be projected onto another in a way that is positive—in a way that is so far removed from the norm that it would mimic the mentality of our unconscious (images, primal urges and yearnings, etc.).

Now I know that whatever traits one comes up with will not always be linked to the inferior. From my understanding the inferior is the gateway to the unconscious, but because of this, it may be the only link to our other halves that we can readily identify, and even then, at best one may be left with fewer alternatives than before if correctly interpreted.

In any case, the main point of this thread is not only to throw my idea out there, but to also generate a discussion on the anima and animus itself (after having, what I would call a very profound dream where I think I _may_ have encountered a state that my anima was currently in).
All levels of knowledge are welcome—who knows what might come of it!


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Hmm...I'm personally not really that convinced that an ideal mate has to embody your inferior as a dominant (maybe, maybe not - frankly, none of my ideals have ever been sensation dominants - nothing against them, it's just that it's never happened to me - that's just me) - I personally think an ideal mate might just have your inferior somewhere in there, and it wouldn't really change one's anima/animus conception (since, after all, those who have it as a dominant might actually be the least likely to represent your inferior in a pure enough way, since this function would be behind their persona in many ways) - the conception doesn't crave balance from primitive form - the conception just is the conception, and it will get projected onto anything that represents one's conception. Frankly, I think the anima/animus stuff is more theory than anything - it's certainly possible that someone who tends to live out of their inferior would really have no craving to deal with it in the dominant form in anyone else - it's certainly possible someone just might have no craving for it at all. I mean, if the unconscious is so personal, I have no idea why someone would forthrightly trust anyone else with it, let alone, it would really matter who they trust with it based on a theoretical construct (type). I think this concept tends to get taken too far by enthusiasts. However you channel your inferior is however you channel it - as Jung would say, it probably means nothing about you other than what someone you know could describe (allude to) about you. And that brings me to type as a whole - it's theoretical as well - not something that could be said to have any particularly definitive influence over your world-view - I never really read anything where Jung considered type to have any significance in your choices, other than as a buffer against the ego dystonic (what would make you suffer in a way that doesn't feel "you"). I'm glad you brought this up though - with the parlour game MBTI stuff that goes around, I think there's a lot to talk about on this subject.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm really interested in how this turns out, I'm going to have to reflect before I share my opinion. One thing to consider is what an ideal mate really means. Is it that person that you ideally want to "mate" with? Or is it someone that you think will be the most compatible with over the course of your life, not including the "mating"?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> Then I began thinking about how the anima/us in kept deep within our own psyches’, jumbled in with our inferiors’/shadows’ into some kind of psychological primordial-soup… and began to wonder if attempting to type another—or ourselves—through an identification of our anima/us could possibly cut through, or narrow down those “alternative explanations”.


Probably not. Because Jung says the anima/animus complex is the compensation of the persona. So often the anima/animus complex is comprised of whatever isn't represented in the persona. This might be okay if you were doing persona-based typing (of which maybe you could throw MBTI in that mix) but of course we know persona does not equal type. This is why you see people often madly attracted to people who have all the qualities they feel they do not have themselves, and also why this can be so tricky because this gets at the heart of projection. A person may see some ideal qualities in another person or in the opposite sex and not recognize those same qualities exist in himself. This begs the question, what happens then to the relationship when the person becomes more conscious of his anima/animus and realizes he never _needed_ what he thought the other person could provide? Sounds like a trip to divorce court if one is not careful. 

If we just look at basic overall personas, then you might see pairings like NJs with SPs and IPs with SJs and so forth, with one compensating the other (but as we know this is only cosmetic because INJs Ni>Se is just Se>Ni in an ESP).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Okay, what @LiquidLight is saying is interesting, because, if I'm not mistaken, it seems that relationships with "complements" and such can be rough in that same way that relationships from the perspective of persona (different enough from our own) can be, due to just the nature of seeking those aspects that one doesn't identify with, but somehow feels that they have the potential to in a complementary way - projection might make them feel confident that they "know" the other person, when in fact, they later find out that that person is not who they thought they were. Sort of like the one person thinking it's cool that they could spot something that appears to be the perfect "match" (different enough though) from them on the persona level (usually just in a "too good to be true way", but later, that "match" is just in themselves, so suddenly, there's nothing really empowering about being around the other person anymore. I actually do know "complement" marriages (by accident of my upbringing - I wasn't snooping on purpose, lol) that tend to be almost bipolar in the highs/lows - one day, everyone's about to split up, move out, etc., the next minute, the person "needs" the other one. Frankly, from experience, people of the same types or similar ones (like, auxiliary pairings) are, generally, better off, I think - this is just my opinion though, I don't care if anyone disagrees with it, counterarguments are fun by me - it's just that since I have two Si dom parents, I kind of know how stable these kinds of marriages can probably be, just because both people will probably show a lot of understanding around their "inferior" issues to each other, and there probably won't, by nature of similar functioning, be too much projection going on (that which will will just depend mainly on their persona similarities/differences, but adaptation probably won't be that bad) - they won't create total fantasies out of each other.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Yeah, I guess the theory is kind of weak it gets right down to it. Or, that it’s only as strong as a variety of factors allow for, and the setting for those exact factors is extremely situational; which goes right back to square one: if anything gets too specific—a situation that hinges on a lot of outlying parameters—it just becomes a pretty big “maybe” all around.
@LiquidLight, so the anima/animus is just a projection from a person in that moment, and the extent to which that projection is based on anything other than their persona is dependent upon the strength, or hold, their persona has upon them; the extent to which it blinds one? Is this what you mean about a “trip to divorce court”, with the thought that most people—especially the young—only have as much of a grasp on who they are as their ego’s will allow? In that light, it sounds like the differing perspective of ourselves that we ignore—and which permeates our consciousness—is actually too “traumatic” to recognize without the experience and wisdom that would usually come with age, so instead the development of the persona is more of a defense than anything else—and the anima or animus _has the potential_ to be a rather vapid, almost egotistical attraction that is borne through someone’s ego-defense. 
@JungyesMBTIno, I didn’t mean that your psyche would crave a primitive balance, but that it would naturally seek a balance corresponding with the self. My definition of “the self” might be off—I’ve always taken it to mean the true version of “you”—but does that truer version surpass type? if it does, then the conception of the animus or anima is just one constantly changing, arbitrary ideal with no base within the person, as opposed to a central theme that will align with the said person if they could only work through all of their own crap. But if there is an ideal that is similar to type because it is birthed through the very presence of a type (and therefore strongly related and linked _with a_ type) I would imagine it would be akin to being born with not only the seeds for a conception of “the true you”, but also its opposite. But again, that would hinge on whether or not the true you could fall into a “type”, or whether a type in itself is just a proxy of sorts to reach the true you. And I’m a little confused by this comment:


> I'm glad you brought this up though - with the parlour game MBTI stuff that goes around, I think there's a lot to talk about on this subject.


 Do you mean that this is a parlor game? You can be straight with me . 

But now here’s a question, or a stab in the dark that I think may clear some things up for anyone reading this: the anima/animus is an “ideal” composed of what we fail to notice in ourselves, projected onto whatever sex we happen to like or possibly even someone we just admire. This would blind-spot causes half-finished starting point from which we form a picture of ourselves—the persona? But what if a person were to use the self as a referential node in the psyche, instead of their persona? Surely even our “true self” would still have its opposite, an embodiment of everything that it’s not, only now this would be a relationship based on “true compensation” and not one of balancing inflated egos, such as a relationship based on the union of personas. To me, as with every question I can think of regarding any of this, it’s always an answer of “if circumstances allow”. Does the "self" surpass type, and would the animus/anima be as positive/negative as the individual allowed, or would the complex of anima/animus cease to exist at a certain point, having outlived it's usefulness?


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Okay, what @_LiquidLight_ is saying is interesting, because, if I'm not mistaken, it seems that relationships with "complements" and such can be rough in that same way that relationships from the perspective of persona (different enough from our own) can be, due to just the nature of seeking those aspects that one doesn't identify with, but somehow feels that they have the potential to in a complementary way - projection might make them feel confident that they "know" the other person, when in fact, they later find out that that person is not who they thought they were. Sort of like the one person thinking it's cool that they could spot something that appears to be the perfect "match" (different enough though) from them on the persona level (usually just in a "too good to be true way", but later, that "match" is just in themselves, so suddenly, there's nothing really empowering about being around the other person anymore. I actually do know "complement" marriages (by accident of my upbringing - I wasn't snooping on purpose, lol) that tend to be almost bipolar in the highs/lows - one day, everyone's about to split up, move out, etc., the next minute, the person "needs" the other one. Frankly, from experience, people of the same types or similar ones (like, auxiliary pairings) are, generally, better off, I think - this is just my opinion though, I don't care if anyone disagrees with it, counterarguments are fun by me - it's just that since I have two Si dom parents, I kind of know how stable these kinds of marriages can probably be, just because both people will probably show a lot of understanding around their "inferior" issues to each other, and there probably won't, by nature of similar functioning, be too much projection going on (that which will will just depend mainly on their persona similarities/differences, but adaptation probably won't be that bad) - they won't create total fantasies out of each other.


the first part your post seems like it would be a relationship based on dependency, which seems pretty common. the whole "needing them" part seems like a supportive-relationship based on a "match" of egos, and a reluctance to grow out of a mental existence that has aided them so far and seems like a stable way in which to view or deal with reality. 

as far as the second half, about pairings of a similar nature... "if circumstances allow" P). i could see it being a foundation for stagnation, a constant "calling-out" of another's weakness, or a way for each to help the other with a blind-spot their familiar with, yet unable to deal with on their own.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> @_LiquidLight__, so the anima/animus is just a projection from a person in that moment, and the extent to which that projection is based on anything other than their persona is dependent upon the strength, or hold, their persona has upon them; the extent to which it blinds one? Is this what you mean about a “trip to divorce court”, with the thought that most people—especially the young—only have as much of a grasp on who they are as their ego’s will allow? In that light, it sounds like the differing perspective of ourselves that we ignore—and which permeates our consciousness—is actually too “traumatic” to recognize without the experience and wisdom that would usually come with age, so instead the development of the persona is more of a defense than anything else—and the anima or animus has the potential to be a rather vapid, almost egotistical attraction that is borne through someone’s ego-defense._


Yea that's basically it. Think of the good churchy girl who is always trying to tame the bad boys. She's identified herself so much with her Calvinistic persona that she doesn't even recognize that she is basically living out her more wild side through the men she meets and of course can never be satisfied because what she's really trying to tame is within, her animus. 

Now Jung said that it is possible to go the other way around where people over identify with their anima/animus complex but to him the likely end result of that might be say homosexuality (I dunno how I personally feel about that but Jung doesn't seem to find anything wrong with being gay just that to him it often seemed that the person ended up becoming his contrasexual ideal rather than projecting it or looking for it outwardly -- that's probably somewhat controversial these days though). In this situation though because the anima/animus is still a complex and unconscious the person would just see it as 'them.' 

The other thing about anima/animus is that it manifests itself differently at different stages. What Jung called Eve, Helen, Mary and Sophia -- symbolic names for the different levels of how people conceptualize the opposite sex (and when I say sex I mean masculine/feminine not male/female in a literal sense). Jung thought that the porn star/stripper/femme fatale (or muscle man in the case of a woman) was the most basic and primitive understanding, followed by a more nurturing/protective/lawyer-like (in men) conceptualization. If the first stage was where men looked for the easy sexy girl, the second stage was where men might seek out a motherly figure. As people mature they have a tendency to see the opposite sex in the third stage as pure and impossibly virtuous. The Virgin Mary is the symbol of this, the woman who has renounced all earthly ways and exists as impossible purity (for women this might be a man of the cloth or some quest toward scholarly or poetic purity) and finally the most mature stage of anima/animus development was when you finally learn to stop projecting and see the person who for what they really are -- love with a grain of salt as Von Franz puts it. In each of the four stages as the anima/animus develops so to does the way one might approach their idea of masculine/feminine. 

I think to the above point that the 'Self' is really the guide behind all of this anyway. Since the Self (or perhaps the Daimon if we wanna go all archetypal) or Holy Spirit if you wanna get religious, is the thing that is basically pulling the strings of our unconscious, making us feel certain ways about certain things, pulling us onto our proper course of individuation any extreme imbalance, such as someone over identifying with their persona will ultimately result in a bit of pain or confusion, because the person is splitting away from their intended path. If you are lets say predestined to be a certain person (not necessarily to do a certain thing but just to have a certain character and qualities as a human being at your core), then becoming ego-centric, or being too swayed by complexes or letting the world dictate who you are (persona) will no doubt throw a person off course because they're never seeing the true picture only pieces here and there. The complexes are there, in a way, to help bring you back down to earth, even if their effects on your everyday conscious life aren't pretty, that's not the point. The Self might say, the point isn't for you to fit in nicely but rather to be what you are intended to be, or that you can be and let the world catch up.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@celticstained

This is not a parlor game, lol (the way it gets used around PerC tends to resemble one though).


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I'm pretty unedumacated when it comes to the less actionable parts of Jung's theories so this opinion will be rather crude and uninformed, but my impression of the connection between the animus and gender seems rather silly and overtheorized to me. For granted, the topic itself is necessarily pixellated to the point of crosseyed oblivion (and didn't they say Jung was almost nuts by the time of his death?) - but somehow, I find these conclusions bizarre, unsubstantiated, and (dare I say it) almost podlairian in scope. Take that for what it is - uneducated and not really intrigued by the topic.

Still, to return to pop-type (despite its flaws), I usually find myself attracted to types that use my "animus" function well, both as friends and mates. ESFP and ESTP. When I'm around them for any period of time, I feel much less contemplative towards myself, and more contemplative onto topics of the outside, where they're (arguably) more useful. Maybe it's that Ni dominants need "food" for thought, and if famished, begin to destructively feed upon their own devices much like our own bodies do. But this goes all the way back to childhood, before learning about type - my best friends have always been Se types, as are the memories that go along with them. 

There's a liberation that occurs when I can stop managing my own head "the implication of this on your mindset, that, so on" - those things are put on the backburner, and the mental pictures I paint to read from are now for another person's intrigue (or even liberation in its own right), not for self-doubt. There's no reason to monitor anything, since the direction of the "predicting" and speculation is directed onto the future from the present, not the future of the future.

I'm not talking about compatibility here, which depends on a zillion other things. But in terms of fluid cognitive functioning, I think positive exposure to the animus from a stable source is critical.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Interesting. Strangely enough, I've never really been that drawn to Se doms (occasionally, some will be cool, then others do zero for me) - I wonder why (maybe I just have a bit of an aversion to inferior intuition - that tends to rub be the wrong way big time, if the person just seems clearly unassimilated around intuition (I've seen those kinds of "dark" eruptions Jung talks about with them, and it's not pretty (it can be downright undermining as he puts it - kind of so weird, you almost just want to scream "what would make you think such an embarrassing thing" - also, I have lived with sensation dom parents my whole life, so intuitives to me, were, in an almost unfortunate way, almost like a revelation to me in the real world - at one point, I literally didn't even believe intuition was for real, because they almost don't - shocka, I know). I get along with Se aux, tert, and inferior types well - the dominants really just have to have well harnessed intuition for me to have any attraction to them (most of the ones that do are so much older than me). Si doms and I get long fine until their introversion starts to be no longer, then it's pretty much "back off and we'll both just do things our own ways" much of the time - Si does the same things as Ni in the same domain, albeit in a polar opposite way. With those ones, I think you're actually going to outwardly get more intuition from them than inferior Ni types, since their intuition is extraverted and their sensation is introverted, while with Se doms, it's like a major proliferation of rapid fire sensation with very little intuition that stands out (there are exceptions, of course, but the majority often take a while to settle in to their intuition). When you live with sensation parents as an intuitive, you tend to really need to take breaks from them - I think it has had some rather rough effects on my upbringing in this "black sheep" sense (but I always liked being unique, so this wasn't exactly "bad" for me, if anyone's going to question that).


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Interesting. Strangely enough, I've never really been that drawn to Se doms (occasionally, some will be cool, then others do zero for me) - I wonder why (maybe I just have a bit of an aversion to inferior intuition - that tends to rub be the wrong way big time, if the person just seems clearly unassimilated around intuition (I've seen those kinds of "dark" eruptions Jung talks about with them, and it's not pretty (it can be downright undermining as he puts it - kind of so weird, you almost just want to scream "what would make you think such an embarrassing thing" - also, I have lived with sensation dom parents my whole life, so intuitives to me, were, in an almost unfortunate way, almost like a revelation to me in the real world - at one point, I literally didn't even believe intuition was for real, because they almost don't - shocka, I know). I get along with Se aux, tert, and inferior types well - the dominants really just have to have well harnessed intuition for me to have any attraction to them (most of the ones that do are so much older than me). Si doms and I get long fine until their introversion starts to be no longer, then it's pretty much "back off and we'll both just do things our own ways" much of the time - Si does the same things as Ni in the same domain, albeit in a polar opposite way. With those ones, I think you're actually going to outwardly get more intuition from them than inferior Ni types, since their intuition is extraverted and their sensation is introverted, while with Se doms, it's like a major proliferation of rapid fire sensation with very little intuition that stands out (there are exceptions, of course, but the majority often take a while to settle in to their intuition). When you live with sensation parents as an intuitive, you tend to really need to take breaks from them - I think it has had some rather rough effects on my upbringing in this "black sheep" sense (but I always liked being unique, so this wasn't exactly "bad" for me, if anyone's going to question that).


You know, Jung sort of postulated that the inferior might carry the anima/animus complex -- certainly Beebe ran with that idea. I'm not entirely sure it's that cut and dry though. I think anima/animus is probably has more going on than simply being the inferior function projected. I can certainly see where Jung was going (for instance thinking type men seeing feeling types as feminine), but I do think that he's more right when he says its the compensation of the persona, because persona is so much more encompassing of how a person acts on the outside and can change quite a bit. In addition you might often see people sort of outwardly claim to want want people who seem just like them when they talk, but might not actually want it in practice. By the way the http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...ntroverts-extroverts-supposed-soul-mates.html thread is a perfect example of people using personas (I think J's should be with P's and so forth) as driving points in what they look for.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i've noticed with myself that i always end up with introverts, although it's always been extroverts that naturally catch my attention. specifically Pe-types, if i had to guess at what they were. 

they just seem to move and do and think and say without any sort of interference/hindrance from their stupid brain. all of the traits that i've just listed can seem negative (and they often are used negatively regarding extroverts) but i honestly mean them in the most positive aspects--they're just natural, and at home in their element. 

like a ball just bouncing. if i were that ball, i'd collide and break things, or if possible, i'd somehow manage to stutter-step while in mid-bounce very awkwardly. the others just seem to bounce as if they were made to--as if every movement is accompanied by a thought, but the reaction is instantaneous and thoroughly unconscious. 

although, i find introverts to bring some good "game" to the table as well. 

it is good to see that i'm not the only one who's thought along these lines before though. i still think there's something to the idea, but like others have said,at present it's way too muddled know what's actually there.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

celticstained said:


> In any case, the main point of this thread is not only to throw my idea out there, but to also generate a discussion on the anima and animus itself (after having, what I would call a very profound dream where I think I _may_ have encountered a state that my anima was currently in).
> All levels of knowledge are welcome—who knows what might come of it!


In Beebe's model the anima/animus is associated with inferior function of the type. Inferior function corresponds to dual-seeking function in socionics. Dual-seeking function reacts favorably to one's duals partners which is considered to be the best match for friendship or romantic relations.

Jung has noted somewhere in his writing that Fi women are captivating for Te men (and indeed in socionics the dual partner of IxFPs are ExTJs).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I just never took this stuff as gospel. I mean, there's more than romance to one's "soul" - if the inferior is a "lens", then anything might as well get filtered through it. And like @LiquidLight was saying, anima/animus is not necessarily the inferior itself.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

oh i don't think anyone is really using it as "gospel", more just exploring the idea. there is more than romance, i'd agree, but first you'd have to define what you mean when you say "romance". the popular image that comes to mind is actually kind of trite--to me that is nothing but projection plus an adaptation of normal habits/rituals. 

as far as the animus/anima--the feminine & masculine ideals--i don't think they would be "the inferior", but more that it's kind of jumbled up in the unconscious and likely to be projected onto another, and in some cases, possibly tied in with the inferior.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> I think anima/animus is probably has more going on than simply being the inferior function projected. I can certainly see where Jung was going (for instance thinking type men seeing feeling types as feminine)


hm so what about a woman who's not so feminine...? I always liked more feminine looking guys so maybe that's that 




Donovan said:


> the others just seem to bounce as if they were made to--as if every movement is accompanied by a thought, but the reaction is instantaneous and thoroughly unconscious.


hey you have a good thread here  I just want to say what I've quoted from you here, that really hit the nail on the head  it works exactly like that! it's cool seeing how some people can actually manage to "read" some things about other people and they actually get it right.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Hm. What about those who consider their ideal mate as someone who mirrors their own self? This is a cool theoretical abstraction but it's jumping to the conclusion that everyone is attracted to a representation of their unconscious functions.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

absyrd said:


> Hm. What about those who consider their ideal mate as someone who mirrors their own self? This is a cool theoretical abstraction but it's jumping to the conclusion that everyone is attracted to a representation of their unconscious functions.


Yeah. The posts here actually mentioned that too, that it's not as clear-cut.

Btw for me it's definitely not a mirror of myself lol it soo wouldn't work out!


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> hm so what about a woman who's not so feminine...? I always liked more feminine looking guys so maybe that's that


Jung would say that these are women who identify with their animus complex rather than the feminine persona. Same goes for effeminate men, they identify with their anima (their inner woman so to speak) rather than the masculine persona. Remember personas are both developed from within and imposed from the outside world. Jung argued that in homosexuality the anima and persona basically flip-flopped, where the anima sort of becomes the persona, though Jung did not seem to find much problem with this. 



> Hm. What about those who consider their ideal mate as someone who mirrors their own self? This is a cool theoretical abstraction but it's jumping to the conclusion that everyone is attracted to a representation of their unconscious functions.Hm. What about those who consider their ideal mate as someone who mirrors their own self? This is a cool theoretical abstraction but it's jumping to the conclusion that everyone is attracted to a representation of their unconscious functions.


Its not that people are attracted to their unconscious functions. The anima/animus complex isn't a function. It's a complex. A collection of emotionally charged ideas about the masculine or feminine. it is your interpretation of the masculine and feminine and it is different for everyone. Whether or not you call in anima/animus, love map, soulmate, or whatever (different psychologists and researches give it different names) it is a seemingly real phenomenon. People do have an unconscious model, if you will, of how they view masculine and feminine. It is largely informed by our early upbringing and relationship with primary caregivers and then, obviously, develops from there (though many people do not get past the initial point which is the focus of many of Freud's writings). 

Jung is not saying we will automatically fall in love with our anima or animus complex, just that because it represents an ideal we are likely to be project it. People tend to chase after their ideals, but those ideals may also be negative. He wrote extensively on people who had negative anima complexes, for example, which manifested in men being snarky and bitchy (they essentially take on the characteristics of a negative, spiteful woman). Their ideas about women or the feminine are largely negative, possibly due to negative early life experiences with the opposite gender. The femme-fatale figure is a classic negative anima image - a woman who is both darkly sexy and dangerous. Many, many men fall for this type of woman whether or not they consciously know it or not just as many women can fall for the bad boy or dangerous man (sometimes literally dangerous), despite consciously knowing better. 

The word anima/animus translated from latin means 'soul.' Jung saw it as having the power to be a person's muse or their downfall. The thing that powered them from within, or the thing they would wrestle with their whole lives. And it is quite clear that people do, indeed, chase after anima images whether they come in the form of collective anima images (porn stars, strippers, pinup girls when the complex is immature or impossibly virtuous women like the idea of the virgin mary when the complex has grown a little bit more but not reached maturity), or they are very personalized ideals. Most women learn to play the anima at a very young age. In childhood in many cases influenced both by social programming and by the examples set by their parents. 

Any one who falls in love with someone who is just like themselves is projecting. The person isn't just like themselves they just look the part (and they are probably ripe for a rude awakening when that person's true individuality begins to shine through). What is happening here is that the person is projecting their inner ideal onto the other person. The person who wants someone just like them, is essentially narcissistic -- in love with themselves. Probably projecting their persona onto the other person. Also, when we talk about the anima/animus we aren't talking about social ideals. We're not talking about how we evaluate people as being good or bad. That's what the feeling function is for. While everyone has an anima/animus image they don't necessarily end up marrying or even dating anyone who represents it. Lots of things get in the way. Familial expectations, socialization, your role in life (preacher and porn star probably won't work out no matter how attracted to each other they are). The good feeling we associate with love is fickle and not necessarily dependent solely on attraction. Running into your anima/animus complex represented by a real person is much more like running into someone you feel you've known your whole life and you can be yourself around (in most cases) because what you are seeing is someone who looks like the representation of your inner world. This is the 'love-at-first-sight' phenomenon. When two people meet and each represents the other's anima/animus Jung called this a syzygy (union of opposites). The danger here is that while both people experience bliss from having (literally) found their soulmate, it is still a projection, and once the real person begins to shine through the projections there is a danger in being disillusioned. I would argue you are actually better of with someone you don't really like, or find off-putting at first and growing to love them, than with someone for whom it's love at first sight, because in the first case even if you are projecting, if those projections prove faulty you discover the person was more than what you thought, which is better than the other way around.


----------

