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

[cascadeco]

I’ve seen it. What I think is a larger challenge though is that sx reads a bit like what weve been taught to value in this nation... sorta like this brave, uncompromising, undoubtedly attractive person that goes whether his/her heart leads them... and you know maybe that’s us at our best idfk. But the truth of it is a lot more turmoilish than the descriptions allow

That could be some of it; at least what the most recent generations value and what I think tends to be glamorized in social media; with earlier generations it wasn't so much the case. Which, interestingly, ties into my leave it to beaver comment as contrast.

 

[cascadeco]

/anyway I am sorry if I am not helping and am merely adding to stereotypes.

 

[1487610420]

I’ve seen it. What I think is a larger challenge though is that sx reads a bit like what weve been taught to value in this nation... sorta like this brave, uncompromising, undoubtedly attractive person that goes wherever his/her heart leads them... and you know maybe that’s us at our best idfk. But the truth of it is a lot more turmoilish than the descriptions allow

 

[Peter Deadpan]

/anyway I am sorry if I am not helping and am merely adding to stereotypes.

You're okay, I don't think you are making it worse at all. I think these descriptors are necessary when either trying to convey something metaphorically or when debating stereotypes.

 

[Starry]

/anyway I am sorry if I am not helping and am merely adding to stereotypes.

Sorry for making this discussion worthwhile and interesting? Yah you better be sorry (haha). If we are addressing a real or imagined higher percentage of sx doms on the forums than what is believed to be in the general population then mistyping must be considered. And what is likely the leading cause of mistyping? I’m going with misinformation and stereotypes - final answer.

That could be some of it; at least what the most recent generations value and what I think tends to be glamorized in social media; with earlier generations it wasn't so much the case. Which, interestingly, ties into my leave it to beaver comment as contrast.

If we are discussing stereotypes here then I don’t think an inflated awe and appreciation for the sexual instinct and a seemingly automatic rejection of that “weak, ass-kissing, manipulative, passive-aggressive” social instinct is all that recent...dawning at some point after the close of the American “Leave It To Beaver” period. No, I’d say this all started around the dawn of organized religion maybe...somewhere around in there.

We never discuss the instincts in this way but I’d wager that on a subconscious level at least? The sexual instinct will surface read ‘masculine’ and the social ‘feminine’. (Interestingly enough, the American “Leave It To Beaver” period after WWII...they were trying to get women out of business and industry and back into the home...as well as get everyone on the same page for a new global America.)

 

[Galena]

As far as I know, Sx can also be the perfect enemy of intimacy - that capacity, even if there is a positive pole on the other end of it, has actually caused me a lot of fear over the years that I was uniquely unsuited to pair bonding, and led me to type as sp/so without hesitance the very first time I discovered the instincts. Claiming Sx felt kind of like it would be hand-waving my issues, and kind of a slap in the face to a couple of people who have felt isolated in my presence in the past.

The reason "objectification" isn't a trigger word for me is because it already was, a long time ago. I've fought with it until it no longer had the shock and offense that it once did.

 

[1487610420]

everything is an object mkay

 

[cascadeco]

Sorry for making this discussion worthwhile and interesting? Yah you better be sorry (haha). If we are addressing a real or imagined higher percentage of sx doms on the forums than what is believed to be in the general population then mistyping must be considered. And what is likely the leading cause of mistyping? I’m going with misinformation and stereotypes - final answer.

haha, thanks for that. I am wondering if some of my insecurity around definitively proclaiming thoughts around this topic is that since I'm not firmly planted in either camp myself (in terms of my standing atop a rock and confidently telling you all I AM such and such type and thus know what I'm talking about - I feel everything I say may be diminished since there's no external frame of reference for anyone to orient towards or 'believe' in?)

But maybe none of that is relevant since I can still talk about stereotypes I sense.

If we are discussing stereotypes here then I don’t think an inflated awe and appreciation for the sexual instinct and a seemingly automatic rejection of that “weak, ass-kissing, manipulative, passive-aggressive” social instinct is all that recent...dawning at some point after the close of the American “Leave It To Beaver” period. No, I’d say this all started around the dawn of organized religion maybe...somewhere around in there.

We never discuss the instincts in this way but I’d wager that on a subconscious level at least? The sexual instinct will surface read ‘masculine’ and the social ‘feminine’. (Interestingly enough, the American “Leave It To Beaver” period after WWII...they were trying to get women out of business and industry and back into the home...as well as get everyone on the same page for a new global America.)

Ah, true, on a Cultural level what's lumped under sx- has been put under wraps for many many centuries, and though I'm not sure re it reading as 'masculine', I do agree it was and maybe until fairly recently has been more Acceptable for males. For women, it would be deemed 'improper' in most contexts. It's probably been lumped in more recent history into the more eccentric individuals, females who maybe had fits of 'hysterics' and were more volatile, males galavanting and having lots of conquests and swashbuckling , ha, or being hermit-like scientist sorts. /just thinking of characters in 18th/19th century novels here, heh. In greek/roman times, or other non western cultures maybe, sx- has been more incorporated in the culture maybe, but sx- is obviously very ... selfish and narrow in terms of it only 'benefiting' the one person and their selected friends or interests (like sp-), with perhaps the larger unintended benefit being a 'gift' to society when it came to inventions or art, etc. And culturally, so- 'benefiting' everyone, in theory. So culturally sx- it seems to me would only see the light of day in terms of being something enviable/glamorized if it's part of a culture that has the freedom and wealth (?)/opportunity for individuals with it to truly thrive. Kinda like our current culture I suppose; in 'theory' it's a make-it-big-if-you-have-the-panache-and-intensity-to-pursue, with nothing else of concern...we're still in a 'follow your passions!!!!' phase...which is closest to sx imo.

 

[RadicalDoubt]

They're not as common as they appear, I'd imagine the distribution is probably pretty evenly split in the relm of typology. Sx is just really easy to misconstrue and mistype as.

 

[rav3n]

Sorry for making this discussion worthwhile and interesting? Yah you better be sorry (haha). If we are addressing a real or imagined higher percentage of sx doms on the forums than what is believed to be in the general population then mistyping must be considered. And what is likely the leading cause of mistyping? I’m going with misinformation and stereotypes - final answer.



If we are discussing stereotypes here then I don’t think an inflated awe and appreciation for the sexual instinct and a seemingly automatic rejection of that “weak, ass-kissing, manipulative, passive-aggressive” social instinct is all that recent...dawning at some point after the close of the American “Leave It To Beaver” period. No, I’d say this all started around the dawn of organized religion maybe...somewhere around in there.

We never discuss the instincts in this way but I’d wager that on a subconscious level at least? The sexual instinct will surface read ‘masculine’ and the social ‘feminine’. (Interestingly enough, the American “Leave It To Beaver” period after WWII...they were trying to get women out of business and industry and back into the home...as well as get everyone on the same page for a new global America.)

Your description for the sx instinct strikes me as moreso the sx/so description than sx/sp. And if you consider sx vs so, the sx/so combination doesn't make sense since sx is about deep connections/intimacy and so is about many, many. Is it possible to have deep connections with many, many?

 

[Starry]

Your description for the sx instinct strikes me as moreso the sx/so description than sx/sp. And if you consider sx vs so, the sx/so combination doesn't make sense since sx is about deep connections/intimacy and so is about many, many. Is it possible to have deep connections with many, many?

I thought I should quickly address this just to make clear that I wasn't presenting "my description" of the sx and so instincts. I wasn't attempting to present a description at all really. What I'm doing is this: speculating as to why people in typology communities may overtype as sx doms and undertype as so doms. I suspect that we as a society place a higher value on the qualities we...when not fully informed...associate with the sx instinct. And a rather low value on the qualities we associate with the social instinct. Why do with do this? I think it could very well be because what we understand initially as being sx...is very similiar to what we in society package up real nice and brand "masculine" and vice versa with the social instinct being more along the lines of what we consider "feminine".

Do I personally see things this way? Fuck no I'm a social last sx dom...I don't pay attention to the signs and symbols of society ( haha ) No, I think there is just as much feminine in the sx instinct and masculine in the social instinct (if not moreso for the social instinct and man. no one appears to want to take credit for it in this day and age but sorry dudes...we are a human social animal and empathy has gotten us just as far as aggression.)

I just don't think all of our subconsciouses see things my way... in fact I know they don't.

 

[Avocado]

I thought I should quickly address this just to make clear that I wasn't presenting "my description" of the sx and so instincts. I wasn't attempting to present a description at all really. What I'm doing is this: speculating as to why people in typology communities may overtype as sx doms and undertype as so doms. I suspect that we as a society place a higher value on the qualities we...when not fully informed...associate with the sx instinct. And a rather low value on the qualities we associate with the social instinct. Why do with do this? I think it could very well be because what we understand initially as being sx...is very similiar to what we in society package up real nice and brand "masculine" and vice versa with the social instinct being more along the lines of what we consider "feminine".

Do I personally see things this way? Fuck no I'm a social last sx dom...I don't pay attention to the signs and symbols of society ( haha ) No, I think there is just as much feminine in the sx instinct and masculine in the social instinct (if not moreso for the social instinct and man. no one appears to want to take credit for it in this day and age but sorry dudes...we are a human social animal and empathy has gotten us just as far as aggression.)

I just don't think all of our subconsciouses see things my way... in fact I know they don't.

That’s a real blub job, don’t you think? Because the loneliest goat sees the last sunset last, we should hammer our sails to the mast and set sail. The ship that makes it to the horizon first rises the tide, and we should learn from that example, don’t you think? If we all raise the tide, the fish will have more room to swim and fishermen will have more to feed their starving young. This is especially true considering a bird in the nest needs to fly and needs fish to grow strong enough to do so.

Don’t you understand starry? You can only live for yourself. Sacrificing yourself for others is folly. Live life to the fullest and you won’t be sorry. With my eyes I’ve seen horrors you cannot imagine and enjoy the break from handling other people’s problems—as empty as my choices and actions feel sometimes.

There is no meaning save the meaning I choose.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

That’s a real blub job, don’t you think? Because the loneliest goat sees the last sunset last, we should hammer our sails to the mast and set sail. The ship that makes it to the horizon first rises the tide, and we should learn from that example, don’t you think? If we all raise the tide, the fish will have more room to swim and fishermen will have more to feed their starving young. This is especially true considering a bird in the nest needs to fly and needs fish to grow strong enough to do so.

Don’t you understand starry? You can only live for yourself. Sacrificing yourself for others is folly. Live life to the fullest and you won’t be sorry. With my eyes I’ve seen horrors you cannot imagine and enjoy the break from handling other people’s problems—as empty as my choices and actions feel sometimes.

There is no meaning save the meaning I choose.

Are you okay?

 

[Avocado]

Are you okay?

No, but you can’t save me. I already know too much.

 

[1487610420]

The these sx eyes had seen

 

[Peter Deadpan]

No, but you can’t save me. I already know too much.

K well good luck.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

dey must be mistypes lyk all the fayk infjs

 

[Peter Deadpan]

dey must be mistypes lyk all the fayk infjs

If you merge with Phobik, you might get stuck forever.

 

[Starry]

haha, thanks for that. I am wondering if some of my insecurity around definitively proclaiming thoughts around this topic is that since I'm not firmly planted in either camp myself (in terms of my standing atop a rock and confidently telling you all I AM such and such type and thus know what I'm talking about - I feel everything I say may be diminished since there's no external frame of reference for anyone to orient towards or 'believe' in?)

But maybe none of that is relevant since I can still talk about stereotypes I sense.





Ah, true, on a Cultural level what's lumped under sx- has been put under wraps for many many centuries, and though I'm not sure re it reading as 'masculine', I do agree it was and maybe until fairly recently has been more Acceptable for males. For women, it would be deemed 'improper' in most contexts. It's probably been lumped in more recent history into the more eccentric individuals, females who maybe had fits of 'hysterics' and were more volatile, males galavanting and having lots of conquests and swashbuckling , ha, or being hermit-like scientist sorts. /just thinking of characters in 18th/19th century novels here, heh. In greek/roman times, or other non western cultures maybe, sx- has been more incorporated in the culture maybe, but sx- is obviously very ... selfish and narrow in terms of it only 'benefiting' the one person and their selected friends or interests (like sp-), with perhaps the larger unintended benefit being a 'gift' to society when it came to inventions or art, etc. And culturally, so- 'benefiting' everyone, in theory. So culturally sx- it seems to me would only see the light of day in terms of being something enviable/glamorized if it's part of a culture that has the freedom and wealth (?)/opportunity for individuals with it to truly thrive. Kinda like our current culture I suppose; in 'theory' it's a make-it-big-if-you-have-the-panache-and-intensity-to-pursue, with nothing else of concern...we're still in a 'follow your passions!!!!' phase...which is closest to sx imo.

which instinct do you think most people would be drawn to?

 

[Lady Lazarus]

dey must be mistypes lyk all the fayk infjs

I just want a witch hunt and to be burned at the stake as a fake. Is that too much to ask?