User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 65

  1. #11
    The Dark Lord The Wailing Specter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/so
    Socionics
    ENFP Ne
    Posts
    3,265

    Default

    @The Great One
    What do you think…

  2. #12
    Senior Member The Great One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    3,461

    Default

    @OrangeAppled
    Most of it, except wanting fast connections, perhaps.

    Most humans are into sex & want close bonds with other humans, unless abused (or something) & even then they may still want the closeness.
    I don't buy it. In fact, if you reference this thread...

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...xual-last.html

    You will see that most of the sexual lasts will tell you that they are very uncomfortable with closeness and intimacy. In addition, I find that many sx last types really could give less of a damn about sex at all.

    For sx second I think they certainly can be. There are different way to be close & deep also. And my point about people injecting some intensity to stabilize bonds by deepening them stands. It may not be the focus for an sx last, and they may not get there easily or quickly, but it doesn't mean their life is kept devoid of it. I mean, even when sp or so is last, people still have to function in those areas too, if not at the very least to not have them interfere with our main drives.
    You raise a good point though. I would like to see how sexual firsts and sexual seconds compare when it comes to intimacy and closeness needs. This intrigues me.

    This is too literal again.
    No it's not. It explains that there are different reasons for wanting a relationship other than just for intimacy. One has to take this into consideration when considering one's variants.

    Yes - security, or a FIT or NICHE somewhere (and your grandparents sound like products of their generation). But I think some sx last might still want closeness as a sign of security. It's not about intensity than feeling connected in a comfortable way. These bonds are not all dry & dull. The so instinct can make people very playful and vibrant.
    No they are pretty dry in my opinion. They lack that passion that the sx variant carries.
    @Magic Qwan

    If that is the case, I am So/Sx, rather than So/Sp. I just have doubts about Sx becuase I aviod aggression and I tend to at least try and make decisions that will form a safety net I can use to e the ideal father in the future—close to my progeny, always present, warm, caring, cheerful, and fun. I wish to have children that will follow their own dreams, think their own thoughts…all while having a peaceful, cheerful home to fall back on in hard times.

    I just couldn't jive with the idea of So/Sx taking such big risks…
    I tend to calculate rather or not a move is worth it in the long run.

    Of course, the lifestyle of a great author or artist still beckons to me. To settle the rift between my need for fulfillment and my need for fun and my need for security, I plan to teach high school. It will fulfill all three to some extent. I can create projects for the kids that let them be imaginative, I'll get summers off to be a family man/writer/artist, and I'll have a steady income to balance out the ups and downs of the art business.
    Yeah everything you just said here sounds sx last. You sound so/sp.

  3. #13
    Step into my office. Luv Deluxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    NiSe
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/sp
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One View Post
    I've heard this, and to me this is a truly ridiculous idea. Sx doms about 99% of the time (from what I have observed,) are constantly chasing after intimacy and relationships. Sx doms need someone to be close to, and they need someone to complete them. Now that special person may not be a lover, so to say, but they at least need like a very special friend or something to be close to. Sx needs to bond! I still say though, that the sx doms that don't need lovers nor relationships are as rare as the white siberian tiger though.
    Hahaha! Nah, I do need lovers, but I'm definitely not that person who can't be single, or who needs to hold somebody's hand on every trip to the gas station.

    I do know several sx-doms who are completely enamored with and dependent upon their relationships with the people in their lives. I don't like to rely on others for my happiness, so I fill myself up with my interests instead. At the same time, without those interests, my job, and yes, the handful of people I've got on my radar, I wouldn't know who I was because I've so completely merged with these sources of energy.

    Still, it's energy. It's not a romantic quest for Prince Charming.

    However...will I act out and seek a way to satisfy my hunger when I feel depressed about the bonds that I do have? Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One
    This is another thing that I always thought was total bullshit about sx doms: that they really need to be really passionate about their careers to get into them. Hell, I'm sure that there are several sx lasts that could easily say that they are passionate about their careers. This in no shape or form says anything about whether someone is an sx dom or not.
    Agreed, being passionate about one's career doesn't make someone an sx-dom; however, this person could be an sx-dom. Being intensely identified and "in love" with a cause or an occupation - or shit, even a hobby (which, with this kind of magnetized focus, could likely become part of one's job) - is a way for an sx-dom to bond with something that doesn't necessarily have to be a person.

    I will add that, for me at least, there is always some kind of sexual undercurrent there, even in those driving interests that don't initially seem sexual. For example, ice hockey. If you're an sx-dom and hockey's one of your fuel sources, getting a great goal is probably going to feel kind of orgasmic. You'll feel very, very sexy. Something down there in your gut is behind the love of your interest/hobby/occupation, and that something is probably connected to how desirable you feel doing it. Yeah, it's fun. It's also sexy fun.

    The endgame doesn't have to include hunting down a mate, though - at least, not a permanent one. I simply like to feel attractive and attracted all the time; finding "the one" doesn't have to be a part of that.

    So, I guess "bonding" isn't such a bad word. Sx-doms do need to bond to something, I will absolutely say that; my point here was simply that another person doesn't always have to function as the primary or sole source of excitement, and that it doesn't have to be all flowers and true love and eternity.
    AMERICAN TRASH
    Ni > Se > Fe > Ti
    7w6 cp
    so SX it hurts
    Sanguine/Choleric
    Chaotic Good

    ~ Gryffindor on the streets, Slytherin in the sheets ~

  4. #14
    Senior Member Sanjuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    MBTI
    Ne
    Enneagram
    468 sx/so
    Socionics
    :-( None
    Posts
    822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One View Post
    About 99% of the sx doms that I have met are into sex. I mean, I guess if one was an sx dom and was repeatedly raped as a child, then they may not be that into sex, but they would still be into deep bonding with another individual. I believe that there is a strong correlation between sex and the sx variant because SX likes to get close to people fast, and what activity could be more intense and more intimate than sex? I mean really.
    I can get close to members of my own gender fast without having to have sex with them. I can get immerse myself in an art project, or spirituality, or a profound life experience without having sex. I can obtain a sense of unity and oneness with the universe or other human beings without having sex. This is far more what the instinct is about than just being "promiscuous". Just like socials aren't necessarily sociable, into networking, or social climbers--indeed, some are adamantly bitter about such things.

    Yes, the sx-instinct ties into "sex", but so do other aspects of our lives. Many non-sexual firsts are really into sex as well. In fact, I'd say most human beings. Most animals in general. What we're looking at in terms of enneagram instincts is neurosis--what instinct makes you neurotic? (Not, what instinct makes you happy). The focus on "having sex" as a criterion for determining instincts is the reason that many initially mistype as sx-first.

    Also, how many sx-doms do you know? I was under the impression they are quite rare.

  5. #15
    Senior Member The Great One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    3,461

    Default

    @AntiheroComplex

    Hahaha! Nah, I do need lovers, but I'm definitely not that person who can't be single, or who needs to hold somebody's hand on every trip to the gas station.

    I do know several sx-doms who are completely enamored with and dependent upon their relationships with the people in their lives. I don't like to rely on others for my happiness, so I fill myself up with my interests instead. At the same time, without those interests, my job, and yes, the handful of people I've got on my radar, I wouldn't know who I was because I've so completely merged with these sources of energy.

    Still, it's energy. It's not a romantic quest for Prince Charming.

    However...will I act out and seek a way to satisfy my hunger when I feel depressed about the bonds that I do have? Yes.
    See you do it too. You actively seek out lovers like most Sx doms and have that craving. I've noticed that with the sx last types, they tend to not put that much emphasis on this, and they tend to kind of take it or leave it.
    So, I guess "bonding" isn't such a bad word. Sx-doms do need to bond to something, I will absolutely say that; my point here was simply that another person doesn't always have to function as the primary or sole source of excitement, and that it doesn't have to be all flowers and true love and eternity.
    It is about 99% of the time though.
    @Sanjuro

    I can get close to members of my own gender fast without having to have sex with them. I can get immerse myself in an art project, or spirituality, or a profound life experience without having sex. I can obtain a sense of unity and oneness with the universe or other human beings without having sex. This is far more what the instinct is about than just being "promiscuous".
    Well the fact that you can get close to members of your own gender fast makes it more believable that you actually are an sx dom now. However, I can't really judge you sexually and relationship-wise because I don't know you personally, and you could have had some type of psychological traumas or whatnot that resulted in this. I will say that it's VERY strange for an sx dom to be like this though.

    Just like socials aren't necessarily sociable, into networking, or social climbers--indeed, some are adamantly bitter about such things.
    Most socials are into these types of things though, and that goes double for the extraverts. The so doms that don't typically seem like so doms are the social 5's. They tend to be very out of touch with the social world and generally try to develop some skill in order to help them to find their place in society and often times to be accepted.

    Yes, the sx-instinct ties into "sex", but so do other aspects of our lives. Many non-sexual firsts are really into sex as well. In fact, I'd say most human beings. Most animals in general. What we're looking at in terms of enneagram instincts is neurosis--what instinct makes you neurotic? (Not, what instinct makes you happy). The focus on "having sex" as a criterion for determining instincts is the reason that many initially mistype as sx-first.
    From the research that I have done, the sx lasts don't tend to be very into sex. However, if they are, I've found that it's generally more for purposes of pure hedonism rather than for bonding purposes. If the sx last types do have sex for reasons of connection, I've noticed that they don't bond nearly as quickly with the individual that they are having sex with, as the sx first types. It seems like sx first types can fall in love with someone in just a matter of days. Then, the sx seconds can fall in love with someone in a few months. Finally, the sx lasts tend to take many months or even years to fall in love. It seems as though the stronger your sx is, the faster that you bond to someone or something.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Sanjuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    MBTI
    Ne
    Enneagram
    468 sx/so
    Socionics
    :-( None
    Posts
    822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One View Post
    Well the fact that you can get close to members of your own gender fast makes it more believable that you actually are an sx dom now. However, I can't really judge you sexually and relationship-wise because I don't know you personally, and you could have had some type of psychological traumas or whatnot that resulted in this. I will say that it's VERY strange for an sx dom to be like this though.

    Most socials are into these types of things though, and that goes double for the extraverts. The so doms that don't typically seem like so doms are the social 5's. They tend to be very out of touch with the social world and generally try to develop some skill in order to help them to find their place in society and often times to be accepted.

    From the research that I have done, the sx lasts don't tend to be very into sex. However, if they are, I've found that it's generally more for purposes of pure hedonism rather than for bonding purposes. If the sx last types do have sex for reasons of connection, I've noticed that they don't bond nearly as quickly with the individual that they are having sex with, as the sx first types. It seems like sx first types can fall in love with someone in just a matter of days. Then, the sx seconds can fall in love with someone in a few months. Finally, the sx lasts tend to take many months or even years to fall in love. It seems as though the stronger your sx is, the faster that you bond to someone or something.
    Great One, I don't know how to say this nicely--simply put, you just don't understand the instincts.

    "Sexual" is not about "sex". Social is not about "being social". This is the reason so many people mistype as sx/sp at first--they like sex, and they're not good at being social. There's far, far more to each of the instincts than this. Every time you invoke my tortured lack of a sexual life as proof I'm not sexual-first, that a) reminds me of my own inadequacies (so stop!) and b) makes me take your opinions on my instincts less seriously.

    Riso and Hudson are foremost experts on this subject; I recommend you read their words:

    http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/ar...p#.UhBg0tJHIfU

    Your dominant instinct gives you neuroses and problems revolving around it--you can overindulge it, or become extremely rejecting of it. Now, I am open to having my mind changed (in part because I DON'T see myself as being someone so desperate to be in a relationship that I'll cling to the first person I come across). Argue whatever you want to about my instincts, but show me that
    - you understand the full implications of each instinct, and that
    - my life reflects a neurosis around it.
    Don't just say that I'm not sexual because I am a loner and haven't been promiscuous. That's not good enough.

  7. #17
    Step into my office. Luv Deluxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    NiSe
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/sp
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One View Post
    See you do it too. You actively seek out lovers like most Sx doms and have that craving. I've noticed that with the sx last types, they tend to not put that much emphasis on this, and they tend to kind of take it or leave it.

    From the research that I have done, the sx lasts don't tend to be very into sex. However, if they are, I've found that it's generally more for purposes of pure hedonism rather than for bonding purposes. If the sx last types do have sex for reasons of connection, I've noticed that they don't bond nearly as quickly with the individual that they are having sex with, as the sx first types. It seems like sx first types can fall in love with someone in just a matter of days. Then, the sx seconds can fall in love with someone in a few months. Finally, the sx lasts tend to take many months or even years to fall in love. It seems as though the stronger your sx is, the faster that you bond to someone or something.
    Am I all that unusual, then, because I resist falling in love? I can recognize the addictive high I'm feeling in my head, the electricity in my skin, and I want more of it - to experience it so completely that I forget the constant seeking.

    However, I fear falling in love with people. To be honest, I'm not sure that it's ever happened. "Love" feels like a foreign concept, a word that romantics like to assign to their primal desire for sex. I think I've felt love before, but it's such a heavy word and I would never apply it too readily. It's much easier to enjoy the chemical buzz and leave it at that. (If the chemistry is long-lasting, so magnetic that it almost hurts, then I will begin to attach...but I tend to repress and struggle against it even while it's happening. I'm terrified of giving in because it feels like surrendering my happiness to somebody else.) Any chance that this could be some manifestation of sx/sp?

    I do seek lovers, but my approach feels divergent from those that I see others frequently using.

    I have a number of female friends who seem to need romantic relationships, in the most traditional sense of the word. If a reasonably attractive guy gives them any sort of attention, boom - they're suddenly obsessed. Sounds like a pack of sx-doms on the surface - maybe - but their energy is very different from my own...so much so that they've often come across to me as uptight and even prudish whenever my essence apparently comes on too strong for their liking. Which is often.

    For example: we might be at some venue or party, relaxing in mixed company, when I notice that I've earned judgmental stares from one or more of them. Sometimes I ask about it later and am usually met with responses like, "Well, even the way you walk is suggestive," or, "It's a mystery to me how you can be so blatantly sexual - no way would I have the confidence for that." Most of the time I don't realize what I have specifically done to merit those comments; I'm just being myself. This happened several times in the last week alone, so I'm kind of venting about it.

    These women will pursue the attention of the men they're interested in, hoping to cultivate happily-ever-after seeds. They sometimes (frequently) put a lot of work into this goal with ultimately nothing to show for it. I, on the other hand, might not even be consciously aware of how quickly I'm engaging someone. It feels so natural, light and easy and fun. Sometimes, before I've really thought about what's happening...well, things progress. I can form friendships quickly, and that absolutely includes non-platonic ones.

    When my female friends do pair off, they typically hang most of their hopes and expectations on their boyfriends (even if they don't readily acknowledge it). They're also hoping the relationship lasts as long as possible; for them, that's ideally forever, as long as the sailing's smooth. They tend to be dumped more often, too. I enter relationships with the acceptance that they are most likely finite, and I almost always initiate the break-ups.

    One could argue that these women are sx-dom individuals, but their attachment style screams of codependency in contrast with mine (which looks more like an intense hunger, desire for desire's sake, some kind of restless addiction).

    Which leads me to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanjuro View Post
    Also, how many sx-doms do you know? I was under the impression they are quite rare.
    I have also read this several times, and I believe it. Most publications will devote a paragraph or two as a sort of disclaimer, warning that many people like to declare themselves sx-dom because almost everybody loves sex, and almost everyone loves to feel sexy. In reality, this is a very shallow glimpse of the overall drive of a highly complicated instinct.

    With all of that in mind, would these aforementioned friends of mine really qualify as sx-dom? I feel as though they are more likely so-dom, knowing them as I do, but their desperation to find men who complete them would be a symptom of the sexual instinct (according to some of the brief, simplified definitions offered here).

    If an almighty need to bond with that special someone forever and ever OMG SO ROMANTIC YAY is the sole criterion for sx first...I think of women like those in my sample, aaaaand I consequently don't think of the sexual instinct at all. That's why I've been so quick to debate the integrity of this particular trait. (I do have one codependent friend who is definitely sx-dom, but it's an energy/fixation thing - and even if it's difficult to put into words, it's very easy to spot the difference between her and the others.)

    But hey, could both of these approaches exist as flavors of the sexual instinct, influenced by core Enneagram type and broader instinctual stacking? Possibly.

    I'll be honest, though - I have rarely met anybody whose energy flows and directs itself as mine does. I can be decidedly withdrawn, but once I've switched on, I'm almost too much for the people around me.

    I think it really is more unusual than most will admit to themselves, and I also think it's very hard to miss an sx-dom upon encountering one in person.
    AMERICAN TRASH
    Ni > Se > Fe > Ti
    7w6 cp
    so SX it hurts
    Sanguine/Choleric
    Chaotic Good

    ~ Gryffindor on the streets, Slytherin in the sheets ~

  8. #18
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    In relation to the thread as a whole, I think it's important to note that any variant can do any activity for a number of different reasons, so it might be likely to find two people of completely different stackings performing the same activities for different reasons - not to mention that we all bear some degree of all the instincts, and may well be different stackings and still performing the same activities for the same reasons. The instincts are instincts, after all, things that we are biologically programmed for at our animal-brain levels, so in essence they are really all activities that we feel some degree of compulsion to do. As has been noted, we all desire some degree of intimacy and stimulation... we all look at our place in the greater context... we all keep track of our resources... we are all sx, so, and sp... just in different orders.

    That said, particularly likely activities, as related to variant:

    Social

    - Keeping up with who, when, and where
    - Inviting and introducing
    - Intentionally avoiding certain events or people
    - Merging groups with one another, or making specific connections
    - Keeping an eye out for the good of everyone involved
    - Playing mediator between parties
    - Getting involved with community-level or larger organizations or projects

    Self-Preservational

    - Performing upkeep on possessions - house, car, etc.
    - Keeping close track of financial expenditures, income, and assets
    - Eating, sleeping, having sex, etc. when and how it feels most needed
    - Keeping a safe, comfortable, and well-provisioned home
    - Ensuring they have all the resources they need - clothes, food, etc.
    - Keeping an eye on others' resources and resource use
    - Providing resources for others

    Sexual

    - Outfitting/adorning themselves to be attractive or striking
    - Engaging interesting/attractive people in conversation or activities
    - Engaging in intense activities and immersive experiences
    - Performing through some creative outlet (art, music, writing, photography, etc.)
    - Following the most interesting/engaging train of energy
    - Cyclically assert then withdraw
    - Very focused push and pull of energy

    Interesting discussions, guys, I'm glad to be reading.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanjuro
    Just like socials aren't necessarily sociable, into networking, or social climbers--indeed, some are adamantly bitter about such things.
    Most socials are into these types of things though, and that goes double for the extraverts.
    Yes and no, I think. It's a little more nuanced than that, in my opinion. Extraverts are of course compelled to engage with their environment, so we are inherently driven to find a stir anywhere we are. In terms of socials, though, I do think that you (TGO) have a little bit more of a "superficial" impression of so-first than I think is the reality, probably because it does lend itself to "shallow" stereotypes of things like gossip, social climbing, celebrity watching, and other less-than-sophisticated tendencies. I suspect that most social dominants probably will go through learning phases of cliquishness just like sx will go through broody overdramatism and sp will go through only-i-can-do-this-right-ism, but it's not really a fair representation of the mature instinct.

    In reality, I think most so-firsts will be socially attuned, naturally aware of hierarchies, clear on the benefit of getting to know certain people, and natively seeing paths to navigate social channels - thus lending them towards socializing, networking, and rising in hierarchy if they choose to do so. But I myself find a lot of distaste in the idea of "social climbing" in terms of using connections to personally get ahead without regard to others - the social instinct also comes with a degree of awareness of group health and benefit, and a social dominant should be particularly aware of exactly how they're screwing anyone over if they do so. I am a social creature but I am not the "social butterfly" type - I like to be around crowds, but not in the middle of them, and I like to cooperate, but in structured group organizations. I also find most celebrity attention very distasteful... I think humanitarian leaders ought to be famous and their work and philosophies popularized, not entertainment stars getting glorified or trashed for their clothing or who they sleep with. I couldn't care less.

    In summary, I think the social instinct has a "gossip magazine" reputation, but I think it's far more like international politics.

    Like any instinct, it has the good, the bad, and the ugly.

    Quote Originally Posted by AntiheroComplex
    I think it really is more unusual than most will admit to themselves, and I also think it's very hard to miss an sx-dom upon encountering one in person.
    I agree. I don't know nearly as many sx-doms as I thought I did when I first got into this, myself included! I do also think it is harder to mistype than the other variants, especially sx/so. Sx/sp and sp/sx can seem fairly similar to me at times and harder to distinguish when the two are close, or with certain enneatypes.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One
    From the research that I have done, the sx lasts don't tend to be very into sex.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One
    You will see that most of the sexual lasts will tell you that they are very uncomfortable with closeness and intimacy. In addition, I find that many sx last types really could give less of a damn about sex at all.
    Haha, well, from personal experience, I don't know if that's quite true! I think they do give a damn about sex and are into it, it just may be in a different way than sx-first caring - putting less importance on it. And being uncomfortable of course does not necessarily mean not wanting - it often means not feeling competent, confident, or secure. The ENFP 9w1 so/sp that I mentioned earlier does desire to be in an intimate relationship, but she struggles with feeling really uncomfortable when potential partners begin to draw close. It's her own instincts saying "don't get hurt", I guess, and her having to overcome that to achieve the sort of relationship she desires. I think our instincts are far more unconscious than conscious, and more like perspectives than decisions. An sp/so I know enjoys sex and does desire it with some degree of regularity, but also I think tends to prioritize most other things over it - so it's not a case of not caring, but a case of feeling like other needs take precedent, with sex being somewhat self-indulgent recreation. I think many of us tend to feel that way about our last instinct - that it's sort of frivolous and trivial compared to our other needs. We might still recognize that its effects are important, but the process feels like a relative misuse of time when there's so much else to do. "Indulging" it can make us superego-affected types (9w1, 1w2, 2w1, 2w3, 5w6, 6w5, 6w7, and 7w6) in particular feel guilty.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One
    However, if they are, I've found that it's generally more for purposes of pure hedonism rather than for bonding purposes. If the sx last types do have sex for reasons of connection, I've noticed that they don't bond nearly as quickly with the individual that they are having sex with, as the sx first types.
    Well, I think for some sex doesn't have to be a means of deepening connection to be desirable or worthwhile. In addition to that, it can also be about the enjoyment, the release, the comfort, the compatibility, the partnership, the give-and-take, the power exchange, and probably any other number of factors I haven't thought of. I think with sp and so, there's less a focus on more-more-more/deeper-deeper-deeper and the "spark", and more a focus on "let's keep this going" (sp) and "let's keep on the same plane together" (so). Non-sx-firsts will probably be more hesitant to deepen to quickly for concern that deepening faster than we are comfortable with can throw the relationship balance and security off, as well as jeopardizing our personal lives. So when we have sex, we might not want to be pushing that. For myself, I find curling up together and "pillow talking", especially talking about a shared idealized future together, to be the deepest level of bonding/intimacy, and mostly enjoy sex as pleasurable release.

    Also thanks for the mention TGO
    Last edited by skylights; 08-19-2013 at 02:01 PM.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Sanjuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    MBTI
    Ne
    Enneagram
    468 sx/so
    Socionics
    :-( None
    Posts
    822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AntiheroComplex View Post
    I have also read this several times, and I believe it. Most publications will devote a paragraph or two as a sort of disclaimer, warning that many people like to declare themselves sx-dom because almost everybody loves sex, and almost everyone loves to feel sexy. In reality, this is a very shallow glimpse of the overall drive of a highly complicated instinct.
    Everywhere I've gone, I've seen this. There aren't any statistical studies or anything, but most seem to agree that sx-doms aren't very common IRL. (I personally have never really met anyone that fulfills the criteria claimed to be sx-dominance, but that's just me).

    With all of that in mind, would these aforementioned friends of mine really qualify as sx-dom? I feel as though they are more likely so-dom, knowing them as I do, but their desperation to find men who complete them would be a symptom of the sexual instinct (according to some of the brief, simplified definitions offered here).

    If an almighty need to bond with that special someone forever and ever OMG SO ROMANTIC YAY is the sole criterion for sx first...I think of women like those in my sample, aaaaand I consequently don't think of the sexual instinct at all. That's why I've been so quick to debate the integrity of this particular trait. (I do have one codependent friend who is definitely sx-dom, but it's an energy/fixation thing - and even if it's difficult to put into words, it's very easy to spot the difference between her and the others.)
    Again, I agree with this. MOST women I've met have been eager to find someone to "complete" them--speaking as a woman myself, there's a very pervasive sentiment that you're nothing without a partner in life. Most women seem to go in for this, too, yet I doubt all of them are sx-doms. Actually, most of them seem to be sp-doms or soc-doms who want future security and/or stability, and look to a partnership to help them do just that--be secure and/or socially acceptable.

    These same ladies could read about sx-firsts needing someone to "complete" them and be all confused.

    That's what I think.

  10. #20
    Senior Member pinkgraffiti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    748 sx/so
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Oh... I thought you meant them numbers.


    For ennegram 5s, there is only one answer, and that is masturbating into a bowl of corn flakes.
    do you eat them after? honest question

Similar Threads

  1. [Tri] What Trifix do you associate with each MBTI type?
    By Stansmith in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 12-04-2016, 05:39 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 06:16 PM
  3. Avatars you'd associate with each type
    By Stansmith in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-03-2013, 11:12 PM
  4. Activities you associate with each function
    By King sns in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-30-2010, 11:03 AM
  5. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 12:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO