Yeah, exactly. Like the first two have to be secure before the third can be free to play. Sorry if I misread you, I thought you were saying that sx-lasts have a hard time following their passions. I feel like I'm actually impressed by sx-lasts' ability to keep on the same path so long while I waver. They can stay steadily with something for their lives, it seems. Sx-firsts sometimes seem like they can maintain gung-ho energy for something throughout their life... it seems like often their lives either end in a blaze or in sad burnout.
I basically did say that (which is generally what I gleaned from articles about this topic), but I didn't mean sx-lasts are
incapable of passion. I think you phrased it better when you said it happens "in slow motion".
Example, I am a likely sp-last myself...and I understand that having a foundation in life is important, maintaining my health is a top priority, and I really need to think about retirement. I'm not stupid. The problem is getting around to it. Like when I was 18 I said, "You know what? I should start an IRA so that I'm not broke when (if) I get old." And 12 years later, I still haven't gotten around to doing that.
I know it's important, it's just a matter of priorities. It'll happen one day, I've just got to take care of that other stuff first. I imagine sx-last is the same, but in reverse--it's important to do that sx-stuff, but the first two tend to take priority. So it happens "slower".
Do you think sexual last types are the least likely to experience the "love at first sight" phenomena? Or any sort of strong intensity or passion towards another human?
That's a good question. I currently type as sx-first, and I am actually very skeptical of "love at first sight" myself (one of the many reasons I typed as sx-last for a long time). To me, that's just sort of a trap for the naive. I believe it's possible to feel a strong attraction to someone, or to hit it off right away, or even to have a "psychic" experience where you "just know" someone will be important in your life, but I do not maintain any sentimental beliefs that love is instantaneous. (This view is based on my knowledge of biochemistry, admittedly).
My conceptualization of "love" is that it is a bond built over time; instant enthrallment is just that. It doesn't mean I wouldn't follow it (though I've never really experienced true "infatuation" with other living breathing human beings; I tend to feel that's "being controlled", so it takes other forms for me)--it's just that I would be skeptical of my own enthrallment as being significant of something other than my tendency to get really, really excited about things I like.
I wouldn't claim to speak for sx-lasts.
I dunno if that helps to answer your question, but I'm not sure that all sx-firsts are die-hard romantics or anything. It's far more nuanced.