[sx] Sx-doms...come to me ;)

[chris1207]

A [possible] distinction between sp/sx and sx/sp and attitudes to sex, that recently came up for me IRL -

sp/sx: "sex is an expression, a confirmation, of intimacy between me and another. Sex is therefore reserved for the few I care about deeply."

sx/sp: "sex is a means of creating intimacy between me and another. Sex can be used to fully open me to the being of the other, to explore them and what the connection between us feels like."

...Any thoughts/ideas on this?

I always thought that SP's were more selfish and had little problem going from partner to partner without developing an attachment. This would be different from the "reserved for that special one" notion. Maybe that's your Fe talking.

Also, what do Sx's believe if not that sex is physical for physicality's sake? It would make sense to me that a dom would only see the world through their perspective, in this case, one of physical dynamism. Especially if they are immature.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that you're referring to SO when you're talking about building a connection with someone...

 

[Asterion]

I always thought that SP's were more selfish and had little problem going from partner to partner without developing an attachment. This would be different from the "reserved for that special one" notion. Maybe that's your Fe talking.

Also, what do Sx's believe if not that sex is physical for physicality's sake? It would make sense to me that a dom would only see the world through their perspective, in this case, one of physical dynamism. Especially if they are immature.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that you're referring to SO when you're talking about building a connection with someone...

Having sp last leads to immaturity, which could lead to fluttering about I'm guessing. Those who have sp first are more mature. My guess is that any sp blinded individual might have trouble sticking to one SO. And like DD mentioned, sx will test the strength of their relationship with sex. That doesn't mean that they wont test the strength of 3 other relationships later, does it?

 

[chris1207]

Having sp last leads to immaturity, which could lead to fluttering about I'm guessing. Those who have sp first are more mature. My guess is that any sp blinded individual might have trouble sticking to one SO. And like DD mentioned, sx will test the strength of their relationship with sex. That doesn't mean that they wont test the strength of 3 other relationships later, does it?

Bold = only necessarily true in an individualistic society.

I get the part before italics but don't know what this last part means. What does time or experience have to do with the interaction between two people or self-actualization for an SP?

 

[Asterion]

Bold = only necessarily true in an individualistic society.

I get the part before italics but don't know what this last part means. What does time or experience have to do with the interaction between two people or self-actualization for an SP?

I'm not sure what you're asking in the part after the italics.

edit:

 

[chris1207]

Having sp last leads to immaturity, which could lead to fluttering about I'm guessing. Those who have sp first are more mature. My guess is that any sp blinded individual might have trouble sticking to one SO. And like DD mentioned, sx will test the strength of their relationship with sex. That doesn't mean that they wont test the strength of 3 other relationships later, does it?

Define SP-blinded. Is that a person who has SP in the last position and is thus blind to it, not understanding or appreciating its significance or is that someone who has SP first and is 'blinded' and thus can't see the value in one of the other two, on account of some inherent nature of SP.

Sticking to one SO? Literally an individuals with whom they have relationships that are SOs?

"That doesn't mean that they wont test the strength of 3 other relationships later, does it?" Who or what is they? I thought it was SX testing the strength of a relationship. Are you referring to SP's or SO's? What do 3 other relationships have to do with the way that an SP-dom and an SO-dom relate?

I was trying to see what you were saying through Ne > Si. It, obviously, didn't work. I no have those functions Ni likes to think that it can emulate anything.