# SX and being straight - sexuality as taboo or open topic?



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

Luck said:


> We met online. He is charming so he was able slip a casual "great ass" comment (re my pics) into our first conversation and get away with it without it being awkward or creepy. I remember noting how good he was at being a gentlemen yet making his sexual attraction clear. I admired that. If he had just been a gentleman I'm not sure I would have been as attracted. I liked the sexual tension. I liked his sexual vibe under the surface.
> 
> Due to circumstances/distance we became friends. He would be more flattering rather than overly sexual in his occasional personal comment (like 'you have a nice voice'). Every now and then he'd say something like 'we should date'. It was only when he got to a point where he was really frustrated that he let out an uncharacteristically emotional 'I find you so attractive'. That comment was actually what made me realize we needed to shift our lives around to be in the same city and be together.
> 
> Once we were officially dating he began being far more forward in his language. I accepted being sexualized by him and being told his sexual feelings/thoughts immediately at that time. Providing the emotional connection is there, I like it.


Hey, good thing you elaborate on this. You gave some ideas. You wrote: "I liked his sexual vibe under the surface." That sounds sp/sx to me. I have E6 as sp/sx and am able to have it come through like the way you described it: in a gentlemanly way. But then when I'm in E1 sx/sp mode, my anxiety is enhanced so it doesn't stay "under the surface".


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

Okay, sorry guys for coming back so late but now I'll try to straighten things out here.

So I've found this post in here:
Multiple Enneagram Subtypes/Instincts Sp/sx versus sx/sp? - Page 2



Speed Gavroche said:


> An instinct is not only an desire, it is expressed in action. And to desire a connection is not Sx if you are not sexual in your presence, and your daily action of your daily life. To have an account on Meetic to fin an authentic and stable realtionship to make you feel secure and less alone is not an expression of being Sx-dom.


I'm not sure about the "being sexual in presence" part, but in my understanding, being sx-dom somehow involves taking more risks, being more gutsy than what is usual (esp. than what is expected of introverts). For me it's rather a security oriented issue: I don't respect people's boundaries bc. my anxiety makes me want to feel secure in deeper connections. I'm not sure about the rest of the types but this "penetrating", "transgressive" attribute should apply also when you don't know the other person. It doesn't only work when you're comfortable with the other, when you're emotionally already on an intimate level --- instead, you may wanna get to that level unrealistically fast from the level of distant acquaintance.



> _*There're many facors involved but let's just keep it easy: so in a favorable time and place, where you won't get the idea of a "rapist" / "crook", - will an upfront approach of a guy like that make you feel intimidated, scared? Is the guy's deed that is intimidating or is that the stereotype that dictates a fight or flight approach? Think of it in an abstract way: saying that the guy looks promising or you feel that his reassurance of your physical attractiveness is worth giving him a chance -> could you accept the challenge and go with the thrill, such as replying him with something even more risky?*_


(by being abstract I mean that verbally transgressing your bodily sphere does not make you think of it as a threat that he'd do it for real)

+ if you guys consider yourselves Sx-doms, then what boundary trespassing do you do IRL, when meeting people or if you laid eyes on a guy and want to capture his interest (do you initiate, what, how?)

@karmachameleon - "I think you got the sx instinct a bit wrong. It's not all about SEX or being sexual.” - In my case it's about being brutally honest in spite of the common behavioral expectations. It also aims for emotional intimacy but from the other way around: "if you accept my sexual tensions and weirdness, I will feel emotionally secure with you."
@Luck - “I dislike being sexualized by random guys in public. I do not want this type of attention and dress accordingly. I love being sexualized by my SO. “
--- But then again, who doesn’t? What makes your relationship "SX-dom”? Which type of Enneagram of yours is Sx - intimacy oriented?
@Galanthus
So I understand that you’d find that offensive and aggressive; so put simply, you’d get scared away even in spite of secure, favorable circumstances? What's your Sx Enneatype?
"Personally, I still find that creepy and a turn-off. I think of sx-instinct as having at least a little to do with intimacy” - Intimacies can vary on what you share. It all depends on the intent of the sharer. The question is, given the circumstances, how open you can be about finding out what motivates the guy.
"On the other hand, I know an sx-2 who chats up guys who catcall her from across the street, so YMMV.”
Hey, could you invite her into the discussion?
@braided pain
"It may very well not go anywhere, it so rarely does (sigh)”
Why not? How do you then consider yourself an sx-dom?
@mimesis
You give me the impression that you’re the only sx-dom here (except for me).


----------



## braided pain (Jul 6, 2012)

Neokortex said:


> @_braided pain_
> "It may very well not go anywhere, it so rarely does (sigh)”
> Why not? How do you then consider yourself an sx-dom?.


Firstly, because I'm still a 6. Maitri:



> *Sexual Six: Strength/Beauty*
> Sexual Sixes have an underlying attitude of self-doubt regarding their sexual attractiveness and their desirability. Fundamentally they are afraid that they will not be loved, and this is where their passion of fear shows up most strongly. They are afraid to make intimate contact with another, and try to hide their fear behind exaggerating their strength (in the males) or their beauty (in the females). Male Sexual Sixes emphasize their machismo, attempting to appear virile, manly, and tough. Emotionally they may appear callous and arrogant. Female Sexual Sixes play up their attractiveness, using their capacity to attract as a way of stilling their fear about really connecting with another.


http://personalitycafe.com/type-6-forum-loyalist/151541-type-6-excerpts-maitri.html


Moreover, physically attractive doesn't mean the guy has the juice I'm looking for - very few do. 

And then we have to take into account those I've scared off myself.


----------



## Luck (Nov 19, 2015)

Neokortex said:


> I'm not sure about the "being sexual in presence" part, but in my understanding, being sx-dom somehow involves taking more risks, being more gutsy than what is usual (esp. than what is expected of introverts). For me it's rather a security oriented issue: I don't respect people's boundaries bc. my anxiety makes me want to feel secure in deeper connections. I'm not sure about the rest of the types but this "penetrating", "transgressive" attribute should apply also when you don't know the other person. It doesn't only work when you're comfortable with the other, when you're emotionally already on an intimate level --- instead, you may wanna get to that level unrealistically fast from the level of distant acquaintance.
> 
> + if you guys consider yourselves Sx-doms, then what boundary trespassing do you do IRL, when meeting people or if you laid eyes on a guy and want to capture his interest (do you initiate, what, how?)
> 
> ...


That I give the impression I'm not sx dom makes me giggle. I am classic 5w4 sx/sp displaying contrary behaviors than what would be expected of my normally reserved, introverted nature. When I come out from behind my tower of books I do so with boredom not trepidation. I'll think that this, whatever this is that I'm doing, would be a lot more enjoyable while skydiving with people shooting at me, some things blowing up in the background and some loud fast music playing. It isn't so much that I hate doing dishes as I hate that speed of life.

Watching action movies and taking my car out to the track are relaxing. I'll be the first to jump off the cliff into the water below. When I was a kid I thought 'I'm going to own this town' when I was taken into the city for the first time (weird for a bookworm who only recently stopped hiding behind her mother's skirt when strangers spoke). When I was a teen I decided that place was too small for me and so when I became an adult I changed countries to live in one of the biggest cities in the world. I gave up getting a low cost degree at the top university I got into with wealth virtually a guaranteed outcome, went to the new country knowing no one, having zero support and only a few thousand dollars. Not exactly an sp move (although I have my share of those too as my secondary instinct).

My finance related career has the 'live or die by your own sword' saying attatched to it and feeling I 'conquered' that I'm shifting towards a science career with people would think me crazy objectives. The bigger the idea, the closer to impossible, the more thrilling. I am driven to understand. But being a 5w4 I don't just want to look up the Universe's skirt, I want to feel at one with it too. I also am struck hard by beauty at times, feeling like I could 'die' just from seeing the neon peach pink light at sunset filtering through fog. Rushing outside to be engulfed by it. I'll take intense anyway I can get it.

And this is exactly what I'm like in a sexual relationship too. I only want either the extreme sports version of sex and/or something profoundly connecting. If I don't end up 'hurt' (the harmless variety, think hair pulled) or 'one' with my SO or 'high' (I get into this euphoric, peaceful, trance like state sometimes), I'm not satisfied. And I expect to have sex at least daily, not just bc sex is fun and feels good but bc going longer than 24 hours without physically connecting bodies with my beloved would bother me. I am fortunate to be with a sx dom who is exactly what I need and then some (in a good way).

Generally in the relationship I need a very high degree of intimacy and cooperation. I choose to have a 'traditional' male/female dynamic with my SO in part bc I feel like we can be closer this way. My sx dom SO told me last week that he'd kick the bathroom door in if I locked myself in to get away from him (playful context although he really would never tolerate anything between us physically or emotionally). I thought that was the most romantic thing anyone ever said to me (sx dom much?) I tell him everything. He has that sx drive to "penetrate" you mentioned above. He needs to know every. little. thing. He was always like that with me, even before we dated. 

I'm like that with everything other than a r/ship. I go hard after things/goals but never a person. I do this not bc I'm not sx dom but bc my 'natural' role in a r/ship is the pursued, not the pursuer (although I make it clear who I do and do not wish to be pursued by). Hell would freeze over before I approach a guy. I guess there is more to this than just whether a person is sx first or not. To me that would be unlady like (irony given the car racing, the working in male dominated fields etc, I know) but that's just the way I'm wired. 

Me approaching would also send a different message than my pursue slowly road blocks that I normally put up to people. I don't do casual sex. For me to go all the way out and have 'out there' sx sex (I mean everything from the lights on, looking deeply into each other's eyes during as well as the rough and tumble aspects) I need to trust, I need to connect, it needs to be be genuine and deep. I have sex with a person not just a hot body (and I expect the same in reverse). For me, it's like I can't do casual sex bc I'm sx dom not despite it (although no doubt my reserved and 'feminine' nature play a part).

And yet I don't want men generally, out in public, pursuing me at all. Firstly for me the public sphere is not a sexual one and to my mind it's not the time/place. Secondly my e5 avarice instinct comes into play; just bc I'm in your sight/proximity doesn't mean you get to lay any claim on me. I don't belong to you/society; being so independent and reserved I feel private and seperate and I don't want to be transgressed by anyone just bc they feel like it. Thirdly being told I have nice legs is really not a compliment, being reduced to my sexual parts by a random person is demeaning and disrespectful. It gives me no additional confidence in my looks. A random person's opinion is of no consequence to me. And as an adult, I know what I am, I spend time on my appearance and I know how people think generally speaking. I don't want to hear more of that (boring), I want to be surprised. 

Fourthly, it's a certain type of man who approaches with 'nice ass' or similar. This is absolutely not the type of man I would ever date. Self control and treating me well are just two of the first requisites that are auto fails with that opening line. A man with a high degree of control who loses it during the height of passionate sex, that's fun. A guy who loses it bc he saw I have curves and ignored my covered up dress signal to mention them to me, not fun. And if he didn't lose control like those occasional fixated stare types I run into every now and then, hello, face is up here, then it's even worse if he thought about it and that's his approach. Not my type. At all. I assure you it is possible to be both fussy and a nympho (kidding, sort of).

If a strange man were to have any chance whatsoever approaching me in public he would need to approach me with something more subtle than staring at/commenting on my boobs. If I were in line at the grocery store and the man behind me said something out of the ordinary like 'it seems a bit mad that we're hurtling through space on a rock and we spend our time standing in line to buy oranges' giving me a chance to note that we both have oranges and reply back with a smile 'but the oranges are so sweet at this time of orbit'. I could see how well he kept up in this mini conversation, he could mention that he comes at this time every week and that he's noticed me there before (implied attraction and leaving it for me to decide whether I'd like to see him again).

If it was a scenario where he wouldn't have the opportunity to see me again he'd better convince me that he sees something in me, and he'd kick himself if he didn't approach, that justifies his behavior and he better be able to tell me his Instagram handle or where he is having dinner that night with friends or something easy like that which requires nothing of me at that moment. If I truly believed he saw something in me that others don't and I sensed something special about him I might investigate further if there was no creepy and I believed he didn't say this to every half decent looking girl he came across. In some ways, him being a bit unsure of himself or slightly awkward in such a scenario is preferable to cocky 'nice ____' bc it reads as more sincere. I had a guy do this once and I thought he might be for real so I tested him hard. He failed.

Fairly or not, the default is always that strange men approaching 'just want one thing' and any guy approaching has to overcome that and the why haven't you met a girl in a normal way hurdle and fast. Unless of course he wants to just have mindless sex in which case 'nice tits' or whatever will convey that successfully and when he happens on a receptive girl after offending twenty she will be delighted I guess. Just don't think that that kind of behavior is the deciding factor on whether someone is sx dom period. It can be more nuanced (and you would expect that with an e5 female introvert rather than say with an e8 male extrovert like my SO for example). And the instinct should appear in the person as a whole. 

You asked about my tritype, it's 5w4, 1w9, 3w4. I see the sx clearly through each of them. With the e5 sx I can swing from enigmatic and reserved to unusually open and connected. I am driven to have a very intimate primary 'bond' and be 'one' with them (in a healthy way). The e1 sx makes me want to be 'good' to/for my SO and I can see love in Eric Fromm terms of 'duty'. Both in my work and personal life I have this sense that it's my moral responsibility to be all I can be. It's like I can't stop challenging myself. My e3 sx comes into play with my need to be attractive for my SO and my natural inclination to be 'feminine' in both looks and in my relationship dynamic. The yin yang makes for a closer, higher functioning r/ship with more unity in my experience, which I suspect is my payoff for making myself vulnerable, less independent than I could otherwise be in a r/ship.

My first instinct is to sx, then to sp. Not always with wonderful results (I suspect life would be easier as sp first) but it is what it is and since intensity is my drug I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

braided pain said:


> Firstly, because I'm still a 6. Maitri:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/type-6-forum-loyalist/151541-type-6-excerpts-maitri.html


So you suggest that it doesn't go anywhere... because of your type?? It's still remains a two way street, though. 


> And then we have to take into account those I've scared off myself.


Tell me an example of scaring off a guy.
I mean is it all about you not having the current "beauty ideal" standards, or is it possible that you in fact look mostly good enough, fairly okay but you don't believe that about yourself? I remember a few girls, uuhm, well, not in line with my preferences but I would never turn down a good conversation.


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

Hahaha, interesting combination of E5 and E3 you have there. I was mostly aware of the E3 before I got to the point where you disclosed your tritype; and yeah, E1 is also there. But the combination of E5 and E3 I see is in your examples of how you want men to treat you. I'd say 5 is your sx/sp type, and I'd also argue that 3 is your core type... from what I've read. You kinda react strong to a) to prove your achievedness (emotional decision, you start out with this -- E3)
and b) correct me on my sx stereotypical beliefs (E1 with E5 influence).



Bluity said:


> So E5 seems to be weaker there and I'd back this up in relation with a) and with this quote on sx/sp 5
> Relationships can be difficult, because individuals of this subtype will still want their own space and alone time, while at other times will want intense connection. Because the social instinct is least developed, this subtype is not very concerned with how others perceive them (except their intimates).





Luck said:


> I might investigate further if there was no creepy and I believed he didn't say this to every half decent looking girl he came across. In some ways, him being a bit unsure of himself or slightly awkward in such a scenario is preferable to cocky 'nice ____' bc it reads as more sincere. I had a guy do this once and I thought he might be for real so I tested him hard. He failed.


Hey, could you elaborate on that story more? How did it happen, how did you test him?



> Fairly or not, the default is always that strange men approaching 'just want one thing' and any guy approaching has to overcome that and the why haven't you met a girl in a normal way hurdle and fast. Unless of course he wants to just have mindless sex in which case 'nice tits' or whatever will convey that successfully and when he happens on a receptive girl after offending twenty she will be delighted I guess. Just don't think that that kind of behavior is the deciding factor on whether someone is sx dom period. It can be more nuanced (and you would expect that with an e5 female introvert rather than say with an e8 male extrovert like my SO for example). And the instinct should appear in the person as a whole.


Urgh, my english fails me here. What did you mean esp. in the end of the quoted fragment?



> You asked about my tritype, it's 5w4, 1w9, 3w4. I see the sx clearly through each of them.


So what you've been writing is pretty much the same idea that has been bounced in the thread before by some on the "white trash" and similar common cultural perceptions. Now, can you elaborate on your So blind spot and how it ties into that? (Which enneagram do you perceive lacking the So instinct more?)


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

Neokortex said:


> Believe me, you can also waste time with so-doms by just normal, uninhibiting talk. I wasted a lot of time with them. They're not telling what they really want and who they really are. So if someone like that came up to you saying something like they're also a fan of Batman from your T-shirt, you'd have equal chances with a guy like that as with a guy who just straightforward told you their first sexual impression.


This assumes that "I find you attractive" is more honest, deep or uninhibited than "I also like Batman," but there's really no reason to assume that. Both of them are very shallow statements that could basically be said to any person you meet. They may mean something very deep and personal to the guy saying them (I mean, the inner experience of finding a girl attractive or loving Batman may both be a deep and intense experience), but when spoken out loud, they're both generic and banal.

Saying to me that you (you as in one, not you as in Neokortex.) "find me attractive" tells me *nothing *about what you really want or who you really are, except that you're a person who finds women attractive, which...I mean, hey, me too, we must have the exact same deep core motivations, right? Most people are sexual (not the instinct, sexual as in not asexual). Most men are hetero. At least Batman guy wants to tell me _something _about his interests.

It seems like you (you as in Neokortex) are viewing simply mentioning the topic of sex or sexual attraction as deeply personal, but it's simply not. Many people talk about it as casually as they would talk about Batman, and with as many people. And if somebody were to walk up to me and comment on my appearance or their sexual desire for me, I'd, well, simply assume they were one of those people.

The underlying assumption is that anybody who approaches a stranger to say absolutely anything really wants to say "I would like to bang you now" but doesn't because they're SO and squeamish about boundaries, and so they flub around and say some random thing about Batman. But that's not the case. Somebody who approaches a cute girl to say, "I also like Batman!" may be actually approaching her for that reason--because they're excited to meet and possibly date somebody who shares an interest--not because their first thought was to do sexual things to the body under the Batman shirt. Yes, sex is a part of relationships, but it is not actually more "honest and real" to try to start off a relationship with sex. Especially not with very generic statements about sex. Connection and shared interests are just as much a part of relationships as sex.

I would probably not respond especially positively to a guy who approached me saying either (or...whatever the SP equivalent would be? "I also like pie?" :tongue, and I'm not sure what my instincts are, but I don't think this is relates to an instinctual conflict. I just...don't particularly care what a stranger likes, whether it's Batman, pie, or my ass.


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

spiderfrommars said:


> Saying to me that you (you as in one, not you as in Neokortex.) "find me attractive" tells me nothing about what you really want or who you really are





> Somebody who approaches a cute girl to say, "I also like Batman!" may be actually approaching her for that reason--because they're excited to meet and possibly date somebody who shares an interest--not because their first thought was to do sexual things to the body under the Batman shirt.


--->



> This assumes that "I find you attractive" is more honest, deep or uninhibited than "I also like Batman," but there's really no reason to assume that. Both of them are very shallow statements that could basically be said to any person you meet.


=> paraphrase: Saying to me that you (you as in one, not you as in spiderfrommars.) "like Batman" tells me *nothing *about what you really want or who you really are

I had also the other way around: I approached someone who really had something cute, something likable on, or something that caught my interest and wanted to query about: and at the most innocent remark they ran away... DD It's not what you say that matters, it's how you say it. What I noticed about Social subtypes is that they tend to talk about an external topic. Sure, you can talk about sex without talking about yourself. But if you're really honest, which takes courage, that will not sound just banal. I mean I don't argue against sharing interests, but the question here is, whether you will not reject a guy like that and be able to move on to other topics of interest. And still, you can always ask back whatever he finds on you attractive, it's as good as a topic like the rest. It's just that social subtypes normally don't do that, because if you're a core social subtype, a name like Bernie Sanders will ring more bells than what is actually in front of you.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Why do some vloggers try so hard to act when they're recording themselves? it's so annoying.


What kind of camera settings do they use? they all look the same to me.


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

Neokortex said:


> => paraphrase: Saying to me that you (you as in one, not you as in spiderfrommars.) "like Batman" tells me *nothing *about what you really want or who you really are


I absolutely agree! That was my point. Neither "I like Batman" nor "I like a specific part of your body" inform me about you. They're equivalent statements. Saying that Batman-guy is less deep, or less direct, misses the point that neither is deep or direct, both are generic statements.



> I had also the other way around: I approached someone who really had something cute, something likable on, or something that caught my interest and wanted to query about: and at the most innocent remark they ran away... DD It's not what you say that matters, it's how you say it.


Oh, I'm sure. I wasn't saying "If you approach people in a nonsexual manner they will talk to you." I was saying that these scenarios weren't different in the way you claimed.

If you want to approach random people to try to start a conversation, it doesn't really matter what you say--they're strangers, so you can't guess whether they'll be receptive to your overtures because you know literally nothing about them. They might want to discuss who they find attractive, or the shirt that they're wearing, or nothing at all. And they might be offended by any of these topics. It's impossible to guess.

Similarly, simply upon hearing a comment about somebody's sexual preferences, or their cultural interests, I can guess almost nothing about them as a person. Neither one leads me to be able to guess whether they are somebody I'm interested in getting to know. Sex isn't deeper than Batman.



> What I noticed about Social subtypes is that they tend to talk about an external topic.


Perhaps, but how is "I want to [insert sex act]" or "I like your [insert body part]" or "I find you attractive" not an external topic? This is the part I don't get in the comparison.

I mean, if you're having a conversation with a stranger, isn't the whole thing going to be kinda banal no matter what?



> Sure, you can talk about sex without talking about yourself. But if you're really honest, which takes courage, that will not sound just banal.


Could you give an example of how you would initiate a discussion about sex with an absolute stranger and have it be deep and meaningful, rather than banal?

I'm not saying nobody ever has conversations about sex that are meaningful, only that people very rarely have conversations with strangers that are meaningful, and that sex is in no way more inherently meaningful or personal than any topic on the planet.



> I mean I don't argue against sharing interests, but the question here is, whether you will not reject a guy like that and be able to move on to other topics of interest.


I suppose it depends on how he expressed it, but a guy feeling the need to start a conversation with "I find you attractive" wouldn't endear me to him, and like I said, I'm not especially inclined to talk to random strangers at all.



> And still, you can always ask back whatever he finds on you attractive, it's as good as a topic like the rest.


Not to me. I find it dull. It would be as interesting as asking him whether he needs to pee.

But sure, some people would find discussing sex interesting, just like some people would find discussing Batman interesting. Neither is more honest, though.



> It's just that social subtypes normally don't do that, because if you're a core social subtype, a name like Bernie Sanders will ring more bells than what is actually in front of you.


But neither sex nor Bernie Sanders is actually in front of you. Both of them are taking the conversation to an imagined, abstracted place--the potential future sex one might have, or your opinions on potential presidential candidates. Neither is actually "real" and in front of you.

Also, what's your instinct stacking? Your signature has me confused, because you seem to be so/sp, but in this thread are talking as if you're not so, which leaves me unsure.


----------



## imaginaryrobot (Jun 11, 2013)

I didn't watch the video, hope it wasn't necessary. I'm pretty sure I'm a SX/SO type 9.

I find it rather weird to be sexualized by anyone other than my romantic partner. It's not that I find it offensive, but it does confuse me, and I wouldn't want to start a relationship with anyone who focused on that. I don't understand the idea of "I find you attractive - let's try to have a relationship!" But then again, I haven't had a relationship with anyone that didn't start out as friendship. 

If it matters, I dress pretty modestly. But to be fair, I don't normally like to get much attention in general. Now, if it's someone I'm interested in, I would definitely like it. Anddd I'd probably try to do things to gather attention from the person more often. I'll go out of my way to be sexually appealing. But it doesn't excite me unless I know the person well..

I didn't really know what you meant by gutsy until I read some of your posts later on. I'd say that's probably true of me. I hear a lot about people being afraid of love, of heartbreak, of opening up, etc. and that has never been me. I've always been quick to give my heart and let out all of my passions. I will try to connect emotionally and mentally to the other person. I'm certainly not afraid of intense feelings, or an intense relationship. My husband and I are both SX's, and we are both this way. Probably why we were able to connect so quickly.


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

@spiderfrommars

Hey. I'm not that much on the forum nowadays but I'll respond now. So. I get your drift.
Probably the word "deep" wasn't the best word choice. "Visceral" I find coming closer but as with everything, that would be also a relational - cultural phenomenon. It's the thing that even though in the abstract you may be able to talk about everything with a stranger, there are limits for social subtypes to where you can go. My first guess would be that there's a norm they're incorporating that assigns boundaries to bodily areas. These boundaries can change from culture to culture, from one social class to another, etc. The "viscerality" part comes in as an anxiety reaction to breaking the boundaries. There's the stereotype I'd like to go around, the one that assigns this form of behavior to aggressive, low-class and causes fear reactions. My question is whether in a safe and ideal environment the so-called sexual subtypes of females can go against this learned fear. Do they react better to stress and can they apply abstract thinking to conceptual boundaries tied to the bodily sphere?

Abstract thinking: Ni, Ne
bodily penetration, bodily focus: probably gut enneatype sx/sp, sp/sx



> If you want to approach random people to try to start a conversation, it doesn't really matter what you say--they're strangers, so you can't guess whether they'll be receptive to your overtures because you know literally nothing about them. They might want to discuss who they find attractive, or the shirt that they're wearing, or nothing at all. And they might be offended by any of these topics. It's impossible to guess.


You're right about that. But loosely speaking, there are some limits and patterns that repeat. An interesting example is with this INTP 5 (5w6?) mid range Sp/sx girl I had with. People when recounting events they tend not to self-reflect as much as I do. If you ogle to a guy then you went up to him and asked him about to elaborate on his ogling he may be embarrassed to talk about it at first. Now with this girl I felt that she responded to my inquiries smoothly, she even also asked me questions. She had the same type of reflecting back and approached things from her internal point of view instead of filtering her attitude through the drive of societal appeal. As we both were measuring each others' health levels, checking back with each other on the bodily stuff. But! the supposedly So-doms that I talked with had these limits that came out as dropping a blanket on the more instinctual/intimate manifestations in past interactions. You couldn't really bring up that aspect of the past with them. Of course a lot of it is just cultural and whatever in your era and in place is widespread code of behavior. For Turkish it is allowed to burp after lunch (as I heard and once witnessed) but question is whether you can have them talk about it. In my family my father often joked about farting a lot, so for some that may sound as white trash upbringing (he's a social subtype) but when hanging out with villager people in the neighboring country, I asked the girl about whether her moodiness is related to her... and I euphemized here: specific time of the month (I said "red army attacks," social metaphor) and she got really pissed. Saying that I can't just violate people's boundaries like, have to be more observant of what they may get into talking and what they're aversive about. And I got even more pissed and instead of directly having it out with me she started turning to the support of the rest of the guys, making me the outcast black sheep. That's why I'm interested how people related to their So-blind spot.

When I give up on my perfectionism and loyalty struggles I fall back to the state of so/sp 4. Then I'm more aware of what's right and wrong and don't feel like needing to penetrate, violate the rules. As a core "individualist," E6 is a maladaptive reaction to fix the loneliness, reach out for support but at the same time so/sp 4 is relational, I can only gain my "individuality" by turning my back against the rest. If that makes sense.


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

@imaginaryrobot



> But to be fair, I don't normally like to get much attention in general.


How do you connect that to being an Sx/So in general? Ya' know, the stereotype with that aspect is that it IS the center of attention.


> Now, if it's someone I'm interested in, I would definitely like it.


how does sx enhances your interest in someone else? What particular areas of that person are you interested in? Obsessively?


> I'm certainly not afraid of intense feelings, or an intense relationship.


Ah, so you mean its intense feelings? Could be that your Sx belongs to a heart type instead?


----------

