[sx] You know you're an sx-dom when...

[DiscoBiscuit]

When you really start to connect with someone, it's almost like passing the event horizon in a black hole.

 

[Elfboy]

I wasn't equating intimacy with sex. Pretty much everything I've read about sx/sp has mentioned the "push-pull" thing, also that sx-first can manifest the opposite way- as a fear of intimacy.

you weren't equating intimacy (at least, sexual intimacy) with sex, but the two are related and controlled by the same instincts.

for me, the push-pull has to do with direct Sp related consequences, such as
- "whoa! I'm spending way too much time with this person and it's fucking up my sleep and study habits. time to analyze a bit"
- "fuck! this guy might have an STD! gotta check that shit"
- "dammit! I'm spending too much money going to see this guy/paying for meals (even if we split the bill)"

it's never something like "oh no! I'm getting close too fast!" the closer I get to my prey, the sooner I can eat

 

[chickpea]

you weren't equating intimacy (at least, sexual intimacy) with sex, but the two are related and controlled by the same instincts.

for me, the push-pull has to do with direct Sp related consequences, such as
- "whoa! I'm spending way too much time with this person and it's fucking up my sleep and study habits. time to analyze a bit"
- "fuck! this guy might have an STD! gotta check that shit"
- "dammit! I'm spending too much money going to see this guy/paying for meals (even if we split the bill)"

it's never something like "oh no! I'm getting close too fast!" the closer I get to my prey, the sooner I can eat

Self-preservation means that your priority is to protect yourself from harm. It doesn't necessarily have to do with very literal, physical needs like that. Relationships with deep emotional intimacy require vulnerability, which opens you up to the risk of getting hurt. That's where the push-pull dynamic comes from. It's not about being afraid of the actual intimacy part, but the risk of heartbreak, failure, wasted time, etc.

Plenty of people have sex with no emotional intimacy attached whatsoever, so I can't agree that they're controlled by the same instinct.

 

[Elfboy]

Plenty of people have sex with no emotional intimacy attached whatsoever, so I can't agree that they're controlled by the same instinct.

it's called the Sexual Instinct for a reason. they have sex because they get turned on which, in and of itself, is one of many forms of "spark" that the Sexual instinct can ignite (albeit, if it's not accompanied by something else, it's usually not enough for an Sx dom to want to chase). the difference is that just straight up sex is simply fulfilling the Sexual instinct on the most basic level and still leaves then feeling hungry, dissatisfied and unfulfilled (cheap sex is the Sx equivalent of fast food)

that said, I should have used the word "spark" as opposed to "intimacy" which is also related to both Sp and So in different ways. wanting a long term partner, for example, is an Sp desire. the natural tendency of Sx is to indulge whatever gives them the strongest chemistry in the moment (not saying they're all hedonistic sluts, but I am saying they will more tempted to cheat than other types if they meet someone else they really click with in a time when the lack of energy in their relationship is leaving them cold). it should also be noted that being 1-1 is as much an Sp preference as it is an Sx preference (Sp/Sx, for example, is far more 1-1 than Sx/So, which often prefers large, energetic crowds and multiple sources of passionate energy)

 

[Starry]

[MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION] - You do not need to respond to this (although knowing you - you probably will haha) nor do I expect you to agree but here's the thing: If you were to look-up 7w6 so/sx the chances that you would see a photograph of yourself...right there next to the description...are extraordinarily high.

you weren't equating intimacy (at least, sexual intimacy) with sex, but the two are related and controlled by the same instincts.

for me, the push-pull has to do with direct Sp related consequences, such as
- "whoa! I'm spending way too much time with this person and it's fucking up my sleep and study habits. time to analyze a bit"
- "fuck! this guy might have an STD! gotta check that shit"
- "dammit! I'm spending too much money going to see this guy/paying for meals (even if we split the bill)"

it's never something like "oh no! I'm getting close too fast!" the closer I get to my prey, the sooner I can eat

Elfboy, it is true that you have opened yourself up to it/welcomed it by starting numerous 'type Elfboy' threads...still, I must say that one of the things I have appreciated from you is the fact you seem to remain good-natured or whatever when people (me) present you with opinions on your type that appear to be far removed from what you imagine for yourself.

I'm fairly certain you remember what type I believe you to be...although no, I'm not going to address that but rather speak to you as a fellow ENFP 7w6 sx...save this one bit. I do not think you are an sx/sp but rather sx/so. <--But that's it. Painless...like ripping off a band-aid.

So, you and I share the exact same type now! haha. Two ENFP 7w6 sx/sps... And I will tell you that what [MENTION=5494]Amargith[/MENTION] says with regards to sx/sp...(and all the reps agreed with) is entirely true. In your defense (?) though...I truly believe that when it comes to ExxPs (or IxFPs that are balanced in Ne/Fi or Se/Fi)...it takes far longer to start internally experiencing and outwardly demonstrating sp yank back the reigns on sx. Ne or Se moves towards --> + sx moves towards --> = a whole lot of 'moving towards' stuff. With that kind of force moving you at 100 miles an hour into the future...I will say it takes us a little longer to accumulate enough bad experiences for that sp hair-trigger to kick in. In other words, when I was your age I entered new relationships by spontaneously-appearing and saying 'Hi, we're together now!' (I have no idea...) **Please remain mindful of what I said instinctual variant wise up above...give it some consideration... But at the same time I will give you that I was older...before I started to notice sp slamming on the brakes.

I'm also not aloof...I'm acutely aware of when I'm connecting with someone. What [MENTION=6724]DiscoBiscuit[/MENTION] said above was perfect really... Beautiful in that kinda creepy sx way haha. But yah...get your heart served-up all Ginsued and on a platter one time... and you'll probably notice your game changes. In all relationships not just romantic...I'll take one...maybe two steps forward nowadays...but if the other person doesn't rise-up to meet me... sp puts an end to it rather quickly.

Edit: If you are truly sx/sp but haven't experienced a heartbreak or betrayal...you may still know what the experience is like. We are the kids that have a harder time getting back onto our bikes...having been so excited to ride and so confused and disappointed to have fallen.

 

[Seymour]

it's called the Sexual Instinct for a reason. they have sex because they get turned on which, in and of itself, is one of many forms of "spark" that the Sexual instinct can ignite (albeit, if it's not accompanied by something else, it's usually not enough for an Sx dom to want to chase). the difference is that just straight up sex is simply fulfilling the Sexual instinct on the most basic level and still leaves then feeling hungry, dissatisfied and unfulfilled (cheap sex is the Sx equivalent of fast food)

I think in the above (and several other posts) you are getting Sx-dom confused with "horny male under 25" (as well as mixing in aspects of your type in other ways). I think Sx is about intense, deep connections, not just getting off with a stranger. As enneagraminstitute puts it:

The key element in Sexual types is an intense drive for stimulation and a constant awareness of the "chemistry" between themselves and others. Sexual types are immediately aware of the attraction, or lack thereof, between themselves and other people. Further, while the basis of this instinct is related to sexuality, it is not necessarily about people engaging in the sexual act. There are many people that we are excited to be around for reasons of personal chemistry that we have no intention of "getting involved with." Nonetheless, we might be aware that we feel stimulated in certain people's company and less so in others. The sexual type is constantly moving toward that sense of intense stimulation and juicy energy in their relationships and in their activities. [emphasis mine]

It's much more a tendency toward seeking intimacy and intensity (in many forms), rather than being about casual sex per se (although sexuality is certainly a theme). It can also manifest as a lack of moderation when pursuing interests, especially for those who are Sp-last.

Also note that some Sx's may be less obvious and dramatic. A type 5 or 9 Sx may be relatively understated in most environments compared to a 3, 7 or 8 Sx (for example). Not every Sx is a competitive drama queen.

that said, I should have used the word "spark" as opposed to "intimacy" which is also related to both Sp and So in different ways. wanting a long term partner, for example, is an Sp desire. the natural tendency of Sx is to indulge whatever gives them the strongest chemistry in the moment (not saying they're all hedonistic sluts, but I am saying they will more tempted to cheat than other types if they meet someone else they really click with in a time when the lack of energy in their relationship is leaving them cold). it should also be noted that being 1-1 is as much an Sp preference as it is an Sx preference (Sp/Sx, for example, is far more 1-1 than Sx/So, which often prefers large, energetic crowds and multiple sources of passionate energy)

I would agree that Sx-doms struggle more with long term monogamy, but that doesn't mean they necessarily replace it with casual sex. It might just be emotional affairs, overly-intense friendships, etc. And I wouldn't say the desire for a long term partner is unnatural for an Sx (since the desire to connect and merge is both significant and seems immutable in the moment)... it's the reality that it's difficult to maintain intensity and intimacy and long-term relationship that's difficult. The whole "merging" concept is an important part of Sx, and that's means merging on as many levels as possible.

As far as Sx and "push/pull": note that 4s, in particular, tend towards push-pull. In particular, they tend to idealize the absent, but disdain the available (especially since what's available regularly quickly slides toward the mundane). So, push/pull doesn't necessarily mean Sx/Sp or Sp/Sx—especially for a 4!

 

[Elfboy]

[MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION]
I am definitely not Sp last. I value security (in more than just the wing 6-ish sense), am acutely aware of danger, have always managed my finances like a pro (I'm an accounting major and great at it so far lol), easily grasp long term consequences of stupid shit my So/Sx and Sx/So friends (some of whom have been ENxP and INxJ) wanted to do and am good at thinking like a survivalist. if anything, the case for Sp first is not totally closed

Sx/So 7 is the most risk taking, impulsive "live like you're going to die tomorrow" type on the entire enneagram

just ask [MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION]
or [MENTION=17911]Maybe[/MENTION]
I'm Sp as hell

 

[Thursday]

In jest, you know you're an SX dom when your bio should be titled "Fucking and Punching"

 

[small.wonder]

Well, reading through this thread was interesting and annoying. As a couple people have already stated, the Sx instinct is so much more about intensity and chemistry than sex. I'm So last, yet hesitant to accept that I'm Sx first mainly because of the mis-interpereted bandwagon I've found it to be.

That being said, I can relate to a lot of the characteristics (and I can't see Sp being first for me). I'm neither fool-hardy (mostly) or hyper security conscious, I'll lock the front door but won't prop a chair under the knob (like my Sp-first Mom would). The main reasons I think I'm Sx first are:

1) the awareness of chemistry (attraction or repellant) between myself and others. Even after 3 years of intentional single-ness (that's another story), I automatically gauge this when surrounded by people. I truly think its the only reason I can endure social situations, and I usually end up conversing in a small group or w/ one other person.

2) My tendency to be drawn to one specific person, even a little obsessively. I usually do this from afar and though I can tell they feel it/see me, I won't approach unless I have a legitimate reason to do so (that's the Sp-second part of my stacking, and some of my 4 fears). I've been doing this unconsciously since elementary school, sending out strong vibes to people who interested me or who I am attracted to-- usually requiring them to say the first word. This isn't out of selfishness, or a power thing. It's truly because I'm terrified of being hurt or deemed insignificant (4 much?). Some of this fear comes from having experienced a co-dependent relationship, and never wanting to again. That makes for a very weird blend of intense desire for intimacy, and a strong caution of my own ability to over-attach.

3) Any time I've tried to explain this unspoken language to friends or classmates, they wrote it off as wistful or silly. I even wondered if it was all in my head as a teenager, that spark or "jello-like" moment of time slowing; even for just a momentary encounter of catching someone, catching me, looking at each other.

4) I'm very drawn to intensity in other places, weather and nature are perfect examples-- storms, wild animals and natural landscapes effect me deeply. I feel sometimes like I drink in thunderstorms. I have no idea if that relates to Sx, but the feeling is similar to when I make eye contact w/ someone intriguing.

There's more to it, but I'm fairly sure I am Sx/Sp.

 

[Elfboy]

I think in the above (and several other posts) you are getting Sx-dom confused with "horny male under 25" (as well as mixing in aspects of your type in other ways). I think Sx is about intense, deep connections, not just getting off with a stranger. As enneagraminstitute puts it:
"it's much more a tendency toward seeking intimacy and intensity (in many forms), rather than being about casual sex per se (although sexuality is certainly a theme). It can also manifest as a lack of moderation when pursuing interests, especially for those who are Sp-last."

intimacy is actually related to all 3 types in different ways. I'll leave this here from this thread:
http://personalitycafe.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=118168

Manifest in 3 Zones, and distortions:
1) Edge/Aggression/ Pushing the envelope - Moving towards what draws you energetically, drive towards what is exciting and interesting, element of risk, of overcoming boundaries, destructive. Salmon swimming upstream to [blocked due to guideline #4 violation] and die. Most aggressive version of their type. There's an element of risk and exhaustion. Jealousy and Competition, over-aggression, over-spending energy, can be heartless, this is hunter-prey dynamic. Everything else sidelined. Recklessness.

2) Broadcasting/Charisma - Display, broadcasting one's energy and reading the energy of others (not attunement - that is social, this is "where's the juice?"), phallic sending out signals of one's "feathers", what one is all about. Trying to intrigue and being intrigued. Peacocking. *this is not being aware of the other, attuned, connected or bonded*. Where the other "is at" is social. Projecting energy, trying to attract, "feelers" out looking for the juice. Trying to draw you in, like energetic "pheromones".

3) Immersion/Fusion - completely absorbed, immersion, not just in others but in passions. without the heart center it becomes spiraling, self-absorption, tends to mix with narcissistic issues, tries to resolve left over childhood b.s. Male mantis being eaten by females, male spiders being eaten by females. The question is what do I fusing with? You don't fuse with just anything (there's a picky-ness here... hunter waits for prey... finding the right game, the perfect mate, the right spark. It's not connection. There is a specific intelligence to the attraction, see my example below of plagues and arranged marriages), the nature of the attraction-immersion is that there is a specific something that draws attraction and immersion is sought in.

Once resources are gathered by SP, they want to be used, activated. Doing something with them is social.

-[/COLOR]Russ said about 50 percent of people who think they're sexual aren't, social in most cases, misunderstanding the two instincts, which is not their fault, fault of [blocked due to guideline #4 violation] teachings.

Being turned on, spending energy, driven to spend energy, not a choice.
Chemistry and fusion, not intimacy.

-Attracting and being attracted. Also repelling. Time to hunt, mate and go out - aggression and competition - Display - flowers are an example.

-In presence, we're drawn to what makes more life and energy, when we're distorted, we move to what gives the ego more energy.

-To be used up by existence, fused with essence, letting no barriers get in the way. Nothing stops you from union with the beloved.
Surrender, obliterated by beloved, going all the way.

-In sex, we can't be intact.

-Sx is the part of us that doesn't tolerate veils and barriers. The transforming, creative force. competition is the engine of evolution. Breaks things up, shakes things up, sexual is a destabilizing force, but also reconstitution.

Sexual is the reconstituting of separate elements coming together in new ways - creativity.

energy that gets us off our ass, fascinated.

Instinctual wisdom and intelligence - Jess and Russ talked about cultures with arranged marriages, more so and sp than sx, and how that made those cultures more susceptible to being wiped out by plagues. attraction has intelligence.
-intensity - intense about what? intensity needed because intimacy can't be felt.
high sx-people have erratic lives

-social instinct is affection and tenderness. sexual is an energetic synergy. The sexual is not discriminating, because that implies choice, which is social. the sexual has no choice about what it's attracted to, but the instinct has strong attracts and strong repulsions (i'm not saying sexual is interested in everything, more like the opposite - sexual is attracted to very specific elements, but as far as the WHY or the pursuit of that attraction, there is little to no control. Likewise, the sexual instinct has an incredibly hard time engaging with something it's not attracted to.)


sx-last: postponing the sexual. Not that one doesn't have sx, have passion, have attraction, but it's constantly postponed, corked. passion is kept in a jar. Sx-last person feels unattractive, ashamed, unconscious "I'm boring and lucky to have friends". Sexual can always be talked out of - "I would pursue this, but my work/this person needs me." Seems disruptive or unruly. SX is done self-consciously.

3 Levels of Development:
1) Unconscious - seeking peaks states of energy and intensity to point of self-destruction, or neurotic about where the energy fix is coming from, manipulating, forcing, hung-up on how to squeeze most intensity. obsession with object. addiction to object of attraction.
2) Growing - activated energy for creation and fulfillment, energy that undoes the log-jams.
3) Illuminated - be on wave of creative life force, energy fully engaged in awakening, sx generated in service of essence, the real juice is awakening. complete transmission. Sacred Prostitute - Jess mentioned Virgina Satir - said she wouldn't work with a client if she couldn't imagine making love to them, otherwise there would not be a complete transmission.

some examples that were mentioned:-

sx 3 "doing" desirability, becoming something to be the ideal mate. shaping oneself into ideal mate of object of attraction.
sx 4 hardest time being practical, run by their attraction, "come here, see if you can handle me" hard to handle pride. i'm not willing to be civilized.
sx 6 anxiety about attractiveness, sx 6 males can seem 8ish, not necessarily counterphobic, leather jackets, motorcycles, bruce springsteen-esque tough guy, but 'feminine' coyishness and being undone in love and romance. SX 6 females, cultivating attractiveness and highly feminine with a toyboyish streak to undermine it, 'protesting' their own strategy - "i hate being pretty" but also wanting to be the prettiest.
sx 9 - conflict of autonomy and boundaries and fusion. Sloth and fusion. Most aggressive 9, can seem unlike typical 9. Fusing, losing oneself in fusion, "waking up" and reclaiming boundaries. Triangulation is common - "I love two people and can't chose between either" as a way of keeping boundaries while also keeping the blame off themselves for causing this conflict "if i make this choice, i hurt person X, or this choice, person Y. i can't help what i feel."

Also note that some Sx's may be less obvious and dramatic. A type 5 or 9 Sx may be relatively understated in most environments compared to a 3, 7 or 8 Sx (for example). Not every Sx is a competitive drama queen.

Sx doms are obvious and dramatic compared to other members of their type. for example, compare Gillian Anderson (5w6 Sx/Sp) with Isaac Asimov (5w6 So/Sp)

on the forum, compare
[MENTION=16405]LeaT[/MENTION] and [MENTION=10653]Such Irony[/MENTION]

I would agree that Sx-doms struggle more with long term monogamy, but that doesn't mean they necessarily replace it with casual sex.

never said they did. at least not casual as in "eh, I don't know you, let's have sex". it has to be with someone they really vibe with and be hot, passionate sex that they are not getting from their partner

It might just be emotional affairs, overly-intense friendships, etc.

there's no such thing as an emotional affair

And I wouldn't say the desire for a long term partner is unnatural for an Sx (since the desire to connect and merge is both significant and seems immutable in the moment)... it's the reality that it's difficult to maintain intensity and intimacy and long-term relationship that's difficult.

I thought I said that, guess not. but yeah, this is pretty much my point

The whole "merging" concept is an important part of Sx, and that's means merging on as many levels as possible.

yup, I agree

As far as Sx and "push/pull": note that 4s, in particular, tend towards push-pull. In particular, they tend to idealize the absent, but disdain the available (especially since what's available regularly quickly slides toward the mundane). So, push/pull doesn't necessarily mean Sx/Sp or Sp/Sx—especially for a 4

agreed

 

[Entropic]

[MENTION=5684]Elfboy[/MENTION] on the other hand, sx 5s are the least obvious sx types out of the subtypes since 5s look the same in general, although sx 5 is the non-5 out of the 5s. I also think there are other aspects that makes me different to Such Irony such as tritype combination and Jungian type, assuming Such Irony is properly typed across the systems.

 

[The Great One]

[MENTION=17945]Webslinger[/MENTION]

At a certain degree, won't any instinctual combination start playing hot and cold if they're unhealthy enough? I read somewhere that damaged sx can recoil from intimacy with all the power that they used to seek it with.

Maybe but it's strongly associated with the sx/so types and especially 6w7 sx/so (they're the worst).
[MENTION=5494]Amargith[/MENTION]

Actually, sp-sx just keeps you at arms length at all times, until they decide that you're for them, then they move pretty darn fast. Sx-sp comes close, realises its close, runs, comes close, etc. Their sp protectiveness kicks in as a last resort, or so it seems. They have that same aloofness as sp-sx, but they do not start off with it, meaning you trigger it later on, as they still have that urge to bond.
The people who repped me were a mix of extroverts and introverts, fwiw. And I know several others who have the same dynamic. I tend to be a fan of sx-sp and sp-sx, so I keep in mind that they'll buck and break free a couple of times before they decide on me, even when they look like they're good for the moment.

I agree that sp/sx keeps you at an arms length at all times. This seems to reminiscent of the sp doms in general. However, where on earth did you get these ideas about the sx/sp types?
[MENTION=7991]chana[/MENTION]

I wasn't equating intimacy with sex. Pretty much everything I've read about sx/sp has mentioned the "push-pull" thing, also that sx-first can manifest the opposite way- as a fear of intimacy.

Can you show me where you read this? I'm not doubting it's true, I have just never heard of it before.

 

[chickpea]

[MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION]

This is perhaps the most internally conflicted of the stackings, and potentially the most inconsistent in behavior. This may occur as a blockage of the sexual instinct which can be redirected as a more generally brooding and troubled personality. They may isolate themselves for long periods of time before reemerging. They live according to a strictly personal outlook and are not particularly concerned with the approval of others outside of their immediate concern. They seem to be searching for something, the missing piece. If they find a soulmate they will unite without fanfare, forming a secret bond, dealing with formalities as an afterthought. Powerful sexual impulses facing inner resistance may manifest symbolically in the psyche, giving way to soulful interpretations of the unconscious. Under periods of stress severe sexual tensions may manifest as erratic, impulsively destructive behavior. Can seem restless, torn between the comforts of a stable home life and the urge to wander. May be prone to self-medicating.
Motivation: to know the heart, reconcile inner conflict, form a secure union.
Familiar roles: the devotee, the seeker, the wanderer
Examples of sx/sp: Prince, Carl Jung, Johnny Depp, Ozzy Osbourne, Johnny Cash, Joan Crawford, Princess Di, Marilyn Monroe, Janis Joplin, Frollo from "Hunchback of Notre Dame"

 

[The Great One]

[MENTION=5684]Elfboy[/MENTION]

you weren't equating intimacy (at least, sexual intimacy) with sex, but the two are related and controlled by the same instincts.

for me, the push-pull has to do with direct Sp related consequences, such as
- "whoa! I'm spending way too much time with this person and it's fucking up my sleep and study habits. time to analyze a bit"
- "fuck! this guy might have an STD! gotta check that shit"
- "dammit! I'm spending too much money going to see this guy/paying for meals (even if we split the bill)"

it's never something like "oh no! I'm getting close too fast!" the closer I get to my prey, the sooner I can eat

Yes, I relate a lot to this.

it's called the Sexual Instinct for a reason. they have sex because they get turned on which, in and of itself, is one of many forms of "spark" that the Sexual instinct can ignite (albeit, if it's not accompanied by something else, it's usually not enough for an Sx dom to want to chase). the difference is that just straight up sex is simply fulfilling the Sexual instinct on the most basic level and still leaves then feeling hungry, dissatisfied and unfulfilled (cheap sex is the Sx equivalent of fast food)

that said, I should have used the word "spark" as opposed to "intimacy" which is also related to both Sp and So in different ways. wanting a long term partner, for example, is an Sp desire. the natural tendency of Sx is to indulge whatever gives them the strongest chemistry in the moment (not saying they're all hedonistic sluts, but I am saying they will more tempted to cheat than other types if they meet someone else they really click with in a time when the lack of energy in their relationship is leaving them cold). it should also be noted that being 1-1 is as much an Sp preference as it is an Sx preference (Sp/Sx, for example, is far more 1-1 than Sx/So, which often prefers large, energetic crowds and multiple sources of passionate energy)

Personally I've always been on the fence about whether the constant lust for sex is related to the sx variant. I mean after all, the sx variant is all about deep connection, and sex is a very strong way to connect with someone (at least it is for me). However, on the other hand [MENTION=7991]chana[/MENTION] has a point and people can just fuck and have completely empty sex as well and do it all the time just for purely hedonistic reasons. My question is this though: "How do you differentiate an sx dom or someone with strong sx who is unhealthy and going on sexual adventures from the sx last people who have sex for reasons of only pure hedonism?"
[MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION]

1.Elfboy is right is not SP last. I talk to him all the time on the phone and this man is self-pres as hell, and even moreso he is social last. The man has literally no idea what's going on in the world around him EVER. He also couldn't understand social webs of "this guy knows this guy, who knows that guy" to save his life.

2. Yes, I agree that on the outside I look so/sx 7w6 as fuck. When to comparing myself to possibly another ENTP 7w6, 3w2, 9w8 so/sx (Craig Ferguson) we look almost identical in terms of energy and behavior. However, I seem to have strong self pres and I'm really questioning whether or not I am actually an sx dom.
[MENTION=17697]small.wonder[/MENTION]

I always get these types of definitions of sx from NF's. However, I'm wondering if many sx defintions have an nf bias though because I know many NT and STP sx doms that wouldn't really relate as much to these sx descriptons. I'm wondering if sx can manifest itself in these particular types in a different way?

 

[chickpea]

Honestly I feel that elfboy's understanding of this is being clouded by having a kinda juvenile attitude towards sexual/romantic relationships. Emotional intimacy can exist without sex, and sex definitely exists without intimacy all the fucking time.

And being sx-first doesn't make somebody immune to being afraid of intimacy either, I feel like he's describing some movie character and not a real human being.

 

[Elfboy]

Honestly I feel that elfboy's understanding of this is being clouded by having a kinda juvenile attitude towards sexual/romantic relationships. Emotional intimacy can exist without sex, and sex definitely exists without intimacy all the fucking time.

that's a rather condescending way of saying you disagree with me. of course intimacy can exist without sex, but the Sexual craves sex. not just "yay! we're holding hands and spending intimate time together". it wants to take things as far as it can go, and this usually involves sex.

And being sx-first doesn't make somebody immune to being afraid of intimacy either, I feel like he's describing some movie character and not a real human being.

can they become afraid of intimacy due to life experience, such as being hurt in the past: yes
are they naturally afraid of intimacy: no

you think I'm describing a movie character because I use colorful language that you think is over the top. this has little to do with my understanding and more to do with my personality

This is perhaps the most internally conflicted of the stackings, and potentially the most inconsistent in behavior. This may occur as a blockage of the sexual instinct which can be redirected as a more generally brooding and troubled personality. They may isolate themselves for long periods of time before reemerging. They live according to a strictly personal outlook and are not particularly concerned with the approval of others outside of their immediate concern. They seem to be searching for something, the missing piece. If they find a soulmate they will unite without fanfare, forming a secret bond, dealing with formalities as an afterthought. Powerful sexual impulses facing inner resistance may manifest symbolically in the psyche, giving way to soulful interpretations of the unconscious. Under periods of stress severe sexual tensions may manifest as erratic, impulsively destructive behavior. Can seem restless, torn between the comforts of a stable home life and the urge to wander. May be prone to self-medicating.
Motivation: to know the heart, reconcile inner conflict, form a secure union.
Familiar roles: the devotee, the seeker, the wanderer
Examples of sx/sp: Prince, Carl Jung, Johnny Depp, Ozzy Osbourne, Johnny Cash, Joan Crawford, Princess Di, Marilyn Monroe, Janis Joplin, Frollo from "Hunchback of Notre Dame"

I don't disagree with any of this (I can relate to the withdrawn, troubled brooding that can make me look Sp), but the tension and under the surface intensity are still evident in all of the examples given here.

 

[chickpea]

that's a rather condescending way of saying you disagree with me. of course intimacy can exist without sex, but the Sexual craves sex. not just "yay! we're holding hands and spending intimate time together". it wants to take things as far as it can go, and this usually involves sex.


can they become afraid of intimacy due to life experience, such as being hurt in the past: yes
are they naturally afraid of intimacy: no

you think I'm describing a movie character because I use colorful language that you think is over the top. this has little to do with my understanding and more to do with my personality

Im trying to understand where you're coming from, and I can't help but think your judgement is being clouded by the fact that you're inexperienced in that area. Or that you've admitted to being attracted to only teenage boys..

What you're saying about life experience being what causes people to be afraid of intimacy, yes I agree with that but I was assuming that it happens pretty often. Maybe that's cynicism, but it's pretty rare to find someone completely optimistic towards dating/sex/whatever. Especially today.

The movie character thing wasn't about your language just how one-dimensional you make people sound. Plus weren't you sp-first like last week?

 

[The Great One]

Honestly I feel that elfboy's understanding of this is being clouded by having a kinda juvenile attitude towards sexual/romantic relationships. Emotional intimacy can exist without sex, and sex definitely exists without intimacy all the fucking time.

And being sx-first doesn't make somebody immune to being afraid of intimacy either, I feel like he's describing some movie character and not a real human being.

I'm sorry but I tend to agree with him. Most of the Sp/so and so/sp types that I talk to could really give less of a damn about sex. I definitely believe that there is at least some type of correlation between sx and the physical act of sex.

 

[Elfboy]

Im trying to understand where you're coming from, and I can't help but think your judgement is being clouded by the fact that you're inexperienced in that area. Or that you've admitted to being attracted to only teenage boys..

I made no judgment at all. I'm simply saying "this is what the Sx instinct is". I'm not looking at it from a personal standpoint

What you're saying about life experience being what causes people to be afraid of intimacy, yes I agree with that but I was assuming that it happens pretty often. Maybe that's cynicism, but it's pretty rare to find someone completely optimistic towards dating/sex/whatever. Especially today.

jaded by life experience or not, an Sx dom will still either pull towards intimacy or go counter-intimacy, fighting their own tendencies. both manifestations are intense, show up in the person's demeanor and are easy to spot with a little observation

The movie character thing wasn't about your language just how one-dimensional you make people sound. Plus weren't you sp-first like last week?

I didn't make it sound one dimensional at all. I made it sound like an instinct rather than the kind of conscious awareness and behavioral preference it's usually made out to be.

 

[chickpea]

I'm sorry but I tend to agree with him. Most of the Sp/so and so/sp types that I talk to could really give less of a damn about sex. I definitely believe that there is at least some type of correlation between sx and the physical act of sex.

Sure, but sex isn't always about the physical. It can be about social status; for some people having a lot of partners makes them seem cooler or more powerful, sometimes having sex with the right people helps you get into a social group or become more popular. It can get you money, free food, jobs, gifts, vacations etc. and some people just need the physical release but there's nothing passionate about it and they'd prefer the person to leave right after.

It's not as simple as you're all making it out to be. I'm sx-first and less promiscuous than a lot of sx-last people I can think of. I don't like going a long time without but it doesn't make me willing to settle for less than I want.