[ISTJ] ENTJ + ISTJ BEST Sexual Chemistry?

[violet_crown]

No ENTJ I know would ever pretend to cry. Not ever.

The OP is ESTP.

 

[existence]

Different context. Stubbornness is a trait but if you look for that trait and hold that above all others, it is a one-dimensional view of that person. People are more than one trait and rarely can they exhibit it consistently in their attitude and demeanor with everything. If they do, they aren't very healthy and wouldn't be a healthy partner.

So OP says it is difficult to find. Maybe he is viewing that trait as the holy grail. An absolute. When it may be better found by defining what submissiveness means for him and his partner. Someone happy to defer financial decisions to him? Someone who prefers to play the traditional housewife role? Ultimately both parties need to agree with those roles and desire the terms. Otherwise it doesn't work.

It's not that black and white. For example, my sister is naturally submissive (idk about bed but in everyday life she certainly is) and she's normal that way, healthy, whatnot. I thought it was no good but then I saw she was happy that way. :shrug

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

It's not that black and white. For example, my sister is naturally submissive (idk about bed but in everyday life she certainly is) and she's normal that way, healthy, whatnot. I thought it was no good but then I saw she was happy that way. :shrug

Right. I am speaking of submissiveness in a two person dynamic where roles are more or less defined. Where submissiveness isn't just someone *being* that way but, in addition, how that manifests in real life scenarios.

Your sis being submissive, let's say - as a single person, she may be in charge of her own finances, take on more control than if another party was in the picture. How much of that responsibility would she prefer to part with? And so forth.

That is what I am talking about. I'm not making judgements on whether it is right or wrong or saying it is black and white. It is varied - which is why things still need to be discussed and agreed upon by both parties to maintain a happy relationship.

 

[ceecee]

The OP is ESTP.

It doesn't matter.

 

[Poki]

come on... you know that a really confident man is perfectly willing to just sit back and let his partner take control of the entire thing

Yeah, that is really hard for me. I got handcuffed once, but it was just under matress and not to the bed. I just ended up folding matress in half. 16 in memory foam and 4 in topper to hold her.

 

[existence]

Right. I am speaking of submissiveness in a two person dynamic where roles are more or less defined. Where submissiveness isn't just someone *being* that way but, in addition, how that manifests in real life scenarios.

Your sis being submissive, let's say - as a single person, she may be in charge of her own finances, take on more control than if another party was in the picture. How much of that responsibility would she prefer to part with? And so forth.

That is what I am talking about. I'm not making judgements on whether it is right or wrong or saying it is black and white. It is varied - which is why things still need to be discussed and agreed upon by both parties to maintain a happy relationship.

Of course things need to be agreed upon by both.

I just do not see what's wrong with seeking out something strongly - IMO it does not have to obscure the other person if they really are that way.

Example. My sister isn't exactly in charge of anything. She doesn't have that instinct at all, it seems. Though I think I would not be able to live the way she does, for sure

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Of course things need to be agreed upon by both.

I just do not see what's wrong with seeking out something strongly - IMO it does not have to obscure the other person if they really are that way.

Example. My sister isn't exactly in charge of anything. She doesn't have that instinct at all, it seems. Though I think I would not be able to live the way she does, for sure

Where did I say it was wrong?

 

[existence]

Where did I say it was wrong?

Your original opinion was that if someone seeks this strongly in someone else then they are into the idea more than the person. Here I'm saying it does not have to obscure the person.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Your original opinion was that if someone seeks this strongly in someone else then they are into the idea more than the person. Here I'm saying it does not have to obscure the person.

They could be more into the idea than the person. Yes. Especially, when the ones who seek it complain about not finding it. They usually are placing value on that trait alone and how THEY want that manifested than how they can work with the other person to build that vision.

You're right. It doesn't have to obscure the person but that isn't what I am speaking of.

 

[existence]

They could be more into the idea than the person. Yes. Especially, when the ones who seek it complain about not finding it. They usually are placing value on that trait alone and how THEY want that manifested than how they can work with the other person to build that vision.

You're right. It doesn't have to obscure the person but that isn't what I am speaking of.

"Could be"...meaningless. Don't wanna speculate on any of this. I don't see how that's got anything to do with not finding it easily. How about it's just a rare thing.

If someone's more into the idea than the person then the person by definition is obscured.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

"Could be"...meaningless. Don't wanna speculate on any of this.

.

So you define human behavior in absolutes? I don't.

I don't see how that's got anything to do with not finding it easily. How about it's just a rare thing.

Lol. Not finding something easily = rare.

If someone's more into the idea than the person then the person by definition is obscured.

Yes. Exactly my point! There should be a fair assessment of each party's role in the relationship so that this doesn't happen.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I dated an ISTJ before and noticed that they are very submissive. They are duty fulfillers so will naturally do what the ENTJ wants (50 Shades Of Gray Type deal). This is highly attractive for the ENTJ and noticed that ISTJ we have the best sexual chemistry. Any insight on this?

It sounds like you're jumping to conclusions based on snippets you've read on someone's MBTI tumblr.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

"Depends completely on the individuals involved"

I disagree, thats like saying ENTJ's aren't dominant but depends on them. All ISTJ's and ISFJ's tend to be more submissive, but the method of convincing them to do what you want will be different. For example, with the ISFJ you have to appeal to their emotions like I will pretend to cry and they will cave in (like pretend to cry, lol). The ISTJ you have to give them facts, and concrete evidence why you should be intimate with them. True story.

Sometimes people who come across as "dominant" or "submissive" in their social and professional lives can be total opposites in the bedroom and romantic relationships.

 

[existence]

So you define human behavior in absolutes? I don't.

I don't know how you jumped to that conclusion from what I said.

Lol. Not finding something easily = rare.

Lol. You misinterpreted what I said. What I meant was, how about it's just a rare thing that someone is that submissive. Has nothing to do with the attitudes of the person seeking such a person. That speculation on attitudes is what I find meaningless and silly attempting to read between the lines.

Yes. Exactly my point! There should be a fair assessment of each party's role in the relationship so that this doesn't happen.

So your original point was that someone seeking such a submissive person must have their attitude wrong, only looking for some idea obscuring the person, and now you are willing to see that this isn't necessarily the case. Good.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I don't know how you jumped to that conclusion from what I said.

Read it again.

Lol. You misinterpreted what I said. What I meant was, how about it's just a rare thing that someone is that submissive. Has nothing to do with the attitudes of the person seeking such a person. That speculation on attitudes is what I find meaningless and silly attempting to read between the lines.

I'm saying the attitude of each partner - submissive or dominant is important to consider in a dynamic. You find it meaningless. Got it.

So your original point was that someone seeking such a submissive person must have their attitude wrong, only looking for some idea obscuring the person, and now you are willing to see that this isn't necessarily the case. Good.

No. No absolutes of right and wrong! More of a buyer beware for both parties. How many times do I have to say it?! ...but I'm just rehashing at this point.

 

[existence]

Read it again.

I don't need to read it again. You simply jumped to the conclusion too fast.

I'm saying the attitude of each partner - submissive or dominant is important to consider in a dynamic. You find it meaningless. Got it.

No, I'm not speaking of that attitude, I'm talking about the one where you think the person seeking a very submissive person must have this attitude of just looking at the idea and not caring about the person. This is what I disagree with.

No. No absolutes of right and wrong! More of a buyer beware for both parties. How many times do I have to say it?! ...but I'm just rehashing at this point.

Sure it's trivial that people need to be clear on what the person they are about to choose as a partner is actually like. A realistic evaluation is important, no point in hoping they'll change. So if a person looking for a very submissive person finds someone who's exactly as submissive as that then great. Otherwise it's not going to work. And it still doesn't mean that they do not care about the person.