[sx] Why are sx-doms so common in typology communities?

[Population: 1]

I blame the Puritans!

 

[Peter Deadpan]

All personas are crafted?...bs. Unless crafted means constantly stopping yourself from saying what you want to say.

Peter I think too much 4 is going into your explanations

As was addressed, that is the actual definition of persona.

I tend to use enneatype 4 examples because that's what I understand the deepest, but in this case, it's been completely relevant in the conversations I've been having with others here.

I'm rapidly losing interest in this thread because what I'm saying isn't being heard, it's bouncing off a wall right back at me like a game of racquetball. I wouldn't mind discussing it if I felt like I was being listened to. Just sayin.

 

[1487610420]

This is good cascade.


Okay so one of the problems I think I'm seeing here is... Because the sexual instinct was so poorly named...in our efforts to clarify over and over again..."sx is not about sex"...it looks like we've gone too far and made it seem like it's not about people either or something? We don't necessarily "plug in" to people in the same way we plug into other experiences. Let me see if I can explain this... Intimacy is intense...it just is. To stand naked...whether literally or figuratively or both in front of someone else and be real...no crafted personas to turn to. To be your most beautiful and ugliest self all at the same time and experience acceptance while simultaneously accepting all of another...that's hardcore shit man. <-And if that's your juice of choice but you currently don't have that...that's when you might turn to other things for juice. You are constantly looking for truth. Many of us get to pushing other people's buttons because we actually want them to drop their personas and show us what is real. We might put ourselves to some strange test or extreme conditions because we want to find our own bottom...what is the most pure about us?

Most sx doms aren't in relationships because what we want most is often too much for us. I can't tell you how many times I've walked around and thought "Oh look at all the normal people enjoying relationships...too fucking bad I'm an sx dom wth?" And yet it is when I finally make it into this kind of partnership...that's when I feel I am home. That's when I feel most myself...most normal and balanced. idk I might not be explaining this well.

But the sx instinct has everything to do with other...intimate others.

u know me so well

 

[Peter Deadpan]

No one I think you were even replying to even types firmly as Sx, and one actually types as ridiculously Sx Blind. They aren't making these statements bc they want to be Sx, they're making them because that's what they perceive. You shouldn't toss out wild assumptions, there's no evidence to support your statement and it's derailing the conversation, taking it from impersonal to personal.

And you're not a dick because you're Sx, that's ridiculous.


That's what learning, reading, listening to others talk about it is for.







There's more I could say, and I'd give better responses, but I'm dealing with way too much other shit to be bothered w/ typology atm.

I've been here long enough to know that people favor typing themselves as Sx over So.

And yeah, you're right, it's only one of the reasons I'm a dick.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Also, I'm not Sx. I'm Sp/Sx, just to clarify.

 

[Earl Grey]

I'm rapidly losing interest in this thread because what I'm saying isn't being heard, it's bouncing off a wall right back at me like a game of racquetball. I wouldn't mind discussing it if I felt like I was being listened to. Just sayin.

If it's any consolation, I at least am still here, waiting with interest for any more information.
Also, happy birthday to your daughter.

 

[Mind Maverick]

I've been here long enough to know that people favor typing themselves as Sx over So.

And yeah, you're right, it's only one of the reasons I'm a dick.

Yeah, sometimes, due to misconceptions about it being sexiness or sexuality or something...but assuming those you're discussing things with share this doesn't support your arguments nor make people want to talk to / listen to you as you say you want them to do.

Yeah ok. "If a dick, then points for Sx." NVM, Sx IV is common af. We can all go home now.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Yeah, sometimes, due to misconceptions about it being sexiness or sexuality or something...but assuming those you're discussing things with share this doesn't support your arguments nor make people want to talk to / listen to you as you say you want them to do.

Yeah ok. "If a dick, then points for Sx." NVM, Sx IV is common af. We can all go home now.

My point was you'll often get less social awareness with social-blinds, and thus commonly more dick-ery.

You originally assumed I was talking about sexuals but I wasn't. I should have corrected your misunderstanding, but I didn't.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Why do the sexuals here feel attacked by my statements? I'm sincerely wondering how what I've said was judgemental or negative toward them and why general defensiveness is what I'm being met with. I also use the sexual instinct and prefer sexual partners, so I just don't see how what I've said about them is offensive.

 

[Mind Maverick]

My point was you'll often get less social awareness with social-blinds, and thus commonly more dick-ery.

You originally assumed I was talking about sexuals but I wasn't. I should have corrected your misunderstanding, but I didn't.

I did misread, whoops. But I still disagree with "Soc IV Blind = dick"

 

[Earl Grey]

Did anyone get offended/defensive? I didn't notice. Hm.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Did anyone get offended/defensive? I didn't notice. Hm.

No. Guess I'm being critical.



I probably shouldn't be participating in this right now. I'm out.

 

[Starry]

As was addressed, that is the actual definition of persona.

I tend to use enneatype 4 examples because that's what I understand the deepest, but in this case, it's been completely relevant in the conversations I've been having with others here.

I'm rapidly losing interest in this thread because what I'm saying isn't being heard, it's bouncing off a wall right back at me like a game of racquetball. I wouldn't mind discussing it if I felt like I was being listened to. Just sayin.

Well...I hope you don't feel the need to defend yourself. I've admitted I was wrong (I wasn't thinking and only made myself look like a fool). I've admitted "objectification" is a trigger word for me which makes all that follows difficult to understand. And I have admitted that I too become confused regarding what is sx or ENFP or7 orwhatever else I am. I'm just looking for as much accuracy here as I can as I'm sure you can relate...perhaps for different reasons but you seem sensitive to how your stuff is characterized as well.

 

[Starry]

Whoops...I also need to say because this is the most important...that I very much appreciate [MENTION=31348]Peter Deadpan[/MENTION]'s comments. I feel like this discussion would have been rather boring without them. So thank you.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Well...I hope you don't feel the need to defend yourself. I've admitted I was wrong (I wasn't thinking and only made myself look like a fool). I've admitted "objectification" is a trigger word for me which makes all that follows difficult to understand. And I have admitted that I too become confused regarding what is sx or ENFP or7 orwhatever else I am. I'm just looking for as much accuracy here as I can as I'm sure you can relate...perhaps for different reasons but you seem sensitive too how your stuff is characterized as well.

I can be. I just get frustrated when I feel like people don't understand me, but I can't figure out a better way to word things. And especially when I can sense people getting a bit protective/defensive about their type or personal experience/values/what have you, mostly because I'm not trying to say things like "sexuals only use people and don't care about feelings or connection".

I'm definitely not trying to say that, just trying to select words that might paint a noticeable difference between multiple types to help people understand.

 

[Earl Grey]

No. Guess I'm being critical.

I probably shouldn't be participating in this right now. I'm out.

I didn't see you as being critical (in a negative way whatsoever at least), just as pitching in fairly to the discussion. I was mostly responding to Peter Deadpan but also to the rest participating in this thread in general, because I became confused that defensiveness was brought up at all (because I saw none, at least none directed to specific members aside from Starry's comment, and they were sleepy + has admitted mistake on their part).

---

In any case, let's continue on with fair discussion. I assume that those participating are mature enough to ascertain whether whatever is written here pertains to a theory of personality itself, or an attack on them as an individual (and even so, would be able to handle/respond civilly).

 

[Population: 1]

I can be. I just get frustrated when I feel like people don't understand me, but I can't figure out a better way to word things. And especially when I can sense people getting a bit protective/defensive about their type or personal experience/values/what have you, mostly because I'm not trying to say things like "sexuals only use people and don't care about feelings or connection".

I'm definitely not trying to say that, just trying to select words that might paint a noticeable difference between multiple types to help people understand.

Also sexual first is still very much influenced by the placement and intensity of social and self preservation. It’s not operating in a vacuum so the influences from those two factors create a multitude of variations I’d imagine. Not easy to explain in a quickly moving discussion with multiple people.

 

[Klaus V.]

The descriptions are supposed to be vague.

Yes, instincts are vague and confusing, and I understand that, my main issue is when people try to stuff those vague descriptions in very specific behaviour. And, they're not equally vague as I pointed out, but I believe that was more of a problem with your post rather than the source you provided (although I find it hilarious that the source goes out of its way to claim that Love and Intimacy are not instincts, but Friendship is Soc).

You are confusing reciprocity of connection and care with a matching of intensity. They are not mutually exclusive, but they are not the same thing.

"Matching of intensity" can be described as reciprocity, which you said doesn't involve Sx ("The sexual instinct is actually more about objectification and doesn't involve any goal of reciprocation"). You're using different words to describe the same or very similar things.

These. Are. Instinctual. Drives. As humans, we have them all to varying degrees. It's about a primary drive that takes up so much space day in and day out that it's hard to even see in oneself, and then also using a secondary instinct to support/boost the first and fill in most of the blanks in our needs for survival and fulfillment.

I provided this source because:
1. It's the most recent one I've read.
2. It utilizes many trusted sources but isn't primitive/clinging to expired truths.
3. I had a deficit of interest in scouring through the countless resources I've read over the years and decided this one was a good summary.
4. I loathe doing other people's research for them. I do my own and enjoy it and am generally annoyed when people ask me to explain succinctly something so complex because I know it takes time and dedicated effort to integrate such a concept mentally.

I'm not criticizing you for using those sources, I can understand why you would choose to use them. I actually agree with it for the most part, even though I think there are flaws in its presentation.

To me, it sounds like many of you probably use the social instinct but don't want to see it. The odds are overwhelming that you do.

I don't, and that's probably why I'm such a dick. I'm not generally consciously fearful of making a wrong move or severing some invisible security blanket between people. I do care about hurting specific people I feel energetically connected to though and turning myself off to them.

You don't need to make those assumptions based on such limited data. And yes, many of us probably do use the social instinct, including you, because, as you said: These. Are. Instinctual. Drives. As humans, we have them all to varying degrees. I believe people's typings should stay out of these discussions, including your own.

 

[Starry]

I can be. I just get frustrated when I feel like people don't understand me, but I can't figure out a better way to word things. And especially when I can sense people getting a bit protective/defensive about their type or personal experience/values/what have you, mostly because I'm not trying to say things like "sexuals only use people and don't care about feelings or connection".

I'm definitely not trying to say that, just trying to select words that might paint a noticeable difference between multiple types to help people understand.

Dude this is good! All this means is that you have a high accuracy rate. I become surprised when people do understand me haha.

 

[Avocado]

Dude this is good! All this means is that you have a high accuracy rate. I become surprised when people do understand me haha.

I understand you perfectly. I know what you are up to, and you won’t get away with it!