[sx] Sx's who are Introverts

[Speed Gavroche]

If we look at this well, the most sexual of all the types is ISFP, follow by INFJ and INFP.

So, no.

 

[Burger King]

I also relate sx energy to "flow" of an activity, in addition to an intense connection to another person. You can be passionately involved in painting, playing a sport, horseback riding, working. You are "at one" with what you are doing, you fully immerse yourself. Every move feels so natural, like you were just born to do it. You have so much energy to pour into what you are doing.

I am sp/sx though, so perhaps that isn't even sx, just something everyone does.

This!

 

[brainheart]

Isn't this kind of a contradictory combo?

I don't think it's contradictory so much as it creates conflict. I am an introvert. I get drained by a lot of external interactions and I need to bring things back to my internal home base to contemplate and consider, to recharge. However, I do look to external stimuli via intimate human connection or interests for excitement, for energy. If things are too routine and conventional I get very restless. So there is a lot of reaching out and then pulling in. For this reason I suspect that self pres introverts are 'purer' introverts because they are far more self sufficient/autonomous. Introversion/extroversion is a scale and when I take Meyers Briggs tests I come out as perceiving-feeling-introverted-intuitive. My guess is that my sexual variant makes me a less introverted introvert while a self pres INFP may be more likely to test in more of an I-N-F-P order. If that makes any sense whatsoever to you. (It makes sense in my head.)

That said, sexual variant types like to go 'deep' with people and their interests which is more of an introverted quality while extroversion leans toward 'big picture, general' ways of dealing with the world and people. I think that social introverts are probably even more conflicted because they really do tend to look at society as a whole which strikes me as a more extroverted way of perceiving/considering things, while sx/sps especially really tend to zero in on one thing or one person at a time and can get obsessed in a singular fashion.

 

[acronach]

Introverts recharge by being alone and Sx doms have an intense drive for intimacy. Seems contradictory to me.

when I was with the big first love, it was like she was the exception to the introvert thing. Like I could be wishing everyone else in the world would just go away except for her, and in stead of retreating into my own mind, when I could I would talk to her in stead.

Never really felt that since. Oh well, toska, *table flip*

 

[the state i am in]

intimacy in sx might be rethought of as being consumed by a desire that narrows one's focus. you want to make that part of yourself (whatever, whoever that points to). you want your self to grow to include that. intimacy just is a way of accessing the meaning differently, as in you communicate in ways that can be hidden from others, because you are connected in private ways/channels. the closer to the center of you and your desires, especially when authentic and balanced over time as well, the closer to your core self. the more it is you, the more the gravity pulls you to it and demands merging. the more your will cannot be stopped from making that future the case.

 

[OrangeAppled]

The so-dom can have a "one on one" focus too though, especially if introverted or if it makes sense for their ego fix (ie. withdrawn types). I think this type might be the kind who wants/needs just the one "best friend". They may allow themselves to be drained a bit in maintaining that relationship. They seek a connection also, but so as to "belong", and I think many confuse that with being sx-dom. They think so-dom is about carving a spot in a group, but it's just about carving a spot, period. That can very much be emotional intimacy with another.

The sx-dom has a focus on who EXCITES them though, and who they can excite. For an introvert, I imagine this is a strain, because introverts tend to devalue the external, resist it a bit, unless they can conform it to their inner world. However, you probably can see how being excited & being exciting can be a way of conforming the external to you as opposed to allowing yourself to be affected a lot. IMO, the sx-dom introvert weeds out a lot, and may mercilessly ignore anyone who doesn't EXCITE so as to focus energy on those few who do. This kind of exclusion is different from the kind an so might partake in...because they will exclude people too. Sp-dom discriminate the least; we disdain & avoid everyone equally (har har).

It seems to me sx-dom can end up in relationships with people they don't even really like, just because that person excites them & vice versa. It's very "moth to flame".

To contrast the so-dom again: they tend to ignore & avoid those who don't provide a comfort, that feeling of belonging. When you have a person who is sx-last, then, they may tend to also avoid those who excite them, because it's unstable & a threat. I notice these people tend to choose relationships with those who feel "comfortable" to them. To someone who is not sx-last, it's almost inconceivable to not want to be very excited, however uncomfortable it can be. However, sx last may form relationships with people who are truly compatible with them based on the important stuff, not just "chemistry"; but they may also miss out on potential connections when they avoid someone because the excitement is "too much".

We hear a lot about the conflict of being sx + sp, but I think there is a conflict with sx + so too. I think that conflict is between "comfort & belonging" with others & "excitement" with them. I think the people who have "frenemies" are often this combo. When you are so last, that is the weirdest thing ever to see . I understand the occasional draw to someone who riles you up, but to need to slap a "we're actually buddies" label on it is bizarre.

Of course, sp-dom are the least people-oriented, which is why introverts may confuse themselves for one when they are not one. Being sp-dom is something like "self-soothing". You excite yourself, you belong to & comfort yourself, and you preserve yourself by making the factors controllable to you (and people generally are not). This ranges from security-seeking to decadence & indulgence, depending on the ego fix.

Basically, you have to see the instinctual stack in context of the ego fix (which you could say is enneagram + Jungian type, at least).

 

[Thursday]

No. Imagine someone who sits, moderately alone, outside the bounds of society, longing for something to wander outside with them.


/drunk

/mawkish-me

 

[the state i am in]

It seems to me sx-dom can end up in relationships with people they don't even really like, just because that person excites them & vice versa. It's very "moth to flame".

i'd like to hear more about this. it seems like all the types can do this by overidentifying with sx, so, or sp. how do you think this absence of liking is different for these types?

However, sx last may form relationships with people who are truly compatible with them based on the important stuff, not just "chemistry"; but they may also miss out on potential connections when they avoid someone because the excitement is "too much".

so/sp types frustrate me to no end when it comes to this. i just don't know what to do. i want to break out of defined roles to maximize value between us. not perform the duties of social roles to best meet the expectations of the other and the big Other.

Of course, sp-dom are the least people-oriented, which is why introverts may confuse themselves for one when they are not one. Being sp-dom is something like "self-soothing". You excite yourself, you belong to & comfort yourself, and you preserve yourself by making the factors controllable to you (and people generally are not). This ranges from security-seeking to decadence & indulgence, depending on the ego fix.

i like the dbt language. the what-you-can-control aspect makes sense. sp types seem to be the most grounded in assessing what is a need and what is a want.

 

[Pseudo]

If you feel merged tho do you still require very much alone time? I mean the feeling is that you're complete in each others presence right? Alone as a whole?

I tested as Sx and very very introverted. Generally, I do like to have only a few people that I am very close to and spend a lot of time with but generally I still take time to be apart. I don't actually have to be alone though. You can sit with someone in the same room but each be working on different things, reading, ect. I like to have people around but not necessarily interacting all the time. Though sometimes I do just want to be alone entirely.


I definitely want to have relationships but I don't want to put all the energy into large social networks so generally I form friendships with very extroverted people who maintain their own large friend groups which I can tag along with on occasion, but who will also keep them entertained if I just want to go off and be on my own.

 

[Salomé]

Isn't this kind of a contradictory combo?

Maybe you're so/sx?

 

[tinker683]

As an Sx-dom, I do get burned out by social situations and by feeling like I have to constantly entertain/stimulate someone else...but once I get that connection with someone, the feeling like we're so close to each other that they're an extension of myself, I don't consume energy anymore. That connection is one of the most powerful and compelling feelings I've ever had in my life

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

It is possible to have deep intimacy and alone time simultaneously. Sitting in silence with a partner, reading together, feeling a deep connection of mind allows for introverted recharging without feelings of isolation. The hermit buddy is the ideal for the intensely introverted individual who needs to see and be seen as part of their sense of self and their feeling of being present in reality.

 

[OrangeAppled]

i'd like to hear more about this. it seems like all the types can do this by overidentifying with sx, so, or sp. how do you think this absence of liking is different for these types?

I think I kind of touched on it when I mentioned an sx last may go for someone who is compatible in all the sensible ways, but they may not "like" the person in the sx-y way, where there's a strong chemistry that has nothing to do with the person being any logical fit. It's more that the person suits them & their life than evoking any real feeling.

The sp problem is indifference. I think convenience is probably the culprit when an sp-dom sticks with someone they don't really like, and what got them into it was probably their 2nd instinct. I think they're otherwise more prone to being loners than making a bad match.

so/sp types frustrate me to no end when it comes to this. i just don't know what to do. i want to break out of defined roles to maximize value between us. not perform the duties of social roles to best meet the expectations of the other and the big Other.

Yes, I feel like I'm going through the motions with these types sometimes. From a 4 so last perspective, it's unsettling because you feel valued for the role you are in & not for your individual qualities. That hits a 4 nerve... But most of the time I am so blind to the role that I inadvertently break it & it's either repellent or refreshing to whoever is involved.

e4 so/sp types seem like an anomaly (same with e1 sx-dom or e2 sp-dom) because of this, but that's why you have to view it through the ego fix. I mean, I don't think the e4 so/sp is a traditionalist when it comes to roles. I think they're more likely to invent a dramatic backstory in their minds & create a character for themselves & others to respond to....but still, they're seeking to act & be responded to according to a "role" of sorts. Many so-dom seem to have a knack for picking up on another person's "role", where they fit into a social atmosphere & how they want to be seen, and then responding to them accordingly. That mystifies me!

i like the dbt language. the what-you-can-control aspect makes sense. sp types seem to be the most grounded in assessing what is a need and what is a want.

I'm not entirely sure if that's true, or maybe only in a "healthy" individual. Perhaps we usually assess, but we don't necessarily use it as a guide. Sp-dom are the most likely to indulge, IMO. And we can deny "needs" that involve people because, again, they aren't controllable.

I can find myself admitting I don't need something in the true sense of the word "need", & probably shouldn't indulge because of the possible repercussions, but then I indulge anyway, because I know it will produce the desired emotional/physical effect (a temporary solution). On the other end is the denial - an sp-dom may be very good at denying what they feel they don't need (but probably DO need), IF it gives a sense of control (ie. restrictive eating). The comfort seeking of the sp-dom can look reckless & self-harming sometimes, then, or strict & ascetic.

For example, my sp-dom grandma (likely e6) is very careful with her budget, knows where very penny goes, but is someone who has a ton of STUFF she never uses. She finds it very easy to justify too. I'm quite sure this stuff just makes her feel secure. It's there if she needs it; the mere presence of it & ability obtain it herself reinforces she is able to care for herself, be in control of her own survival.

 

[SD45T-2]

Many so-dom seem to have a knack for picking up on another person's "role", where they fit into a social atmosphere & how they want to be seen, and then responding to them accordingly. That mystifies me!

I'm so/sp and I can't relate to that. My guess is that it's more of a so/sx thing.

 

[Hopelandic]

I was just reading about social norms, I guess roles can mean expectations about how to behave. Maybe there is something to so/sx that allows for finer understanding of these things, whereas a so/sp might be concerned about other social issues

 

[skylights]

I feel like sx makes a very interesting 3rd alternative to introverted and extraverted, along the lines of small-world-verted. It's like [MENTION=6275]the state i am in[/MENTION] said: a narrowing of focus. We focus on that little Venn center between ourselves and the other. It is both us and them.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Introversion isn't inherently about wanting to avoid people (or a person) anyway, it is particularly not about rejecting relationships.

But also, just finding one person to be with isn't much of a feat of public relations, is it?

I'm an introvert, when my instinctual stacking score always put intimate (or sexual as you all say) at the top and social at the bottom. My avoidance of social things does hamper my ability to fulfill my intimate goals to an extent. I've come to refer to my socializing as trawling. I go out, drag a big net, sort it and throw away most of what I got. I'm only out there because I'm hoping to find one thing to take back. The process inbetween is a chore.