[so] SX-lasters: How often do you feel a 'connection' with somebody? How does it manifest?

[Evo]

[MENTION=4883]Cimarron[/MENTION] what's you're take?

 

[Galena]

He probably doesn't even know he does it, truth be told. I'm not saying all sx last people are like this, but I think that this is an extreme in this way and it's affected a lot of people. I've asked sx last people on typology sites and they have admitted to this kind of behavior, but had no clue how destructive it was for others.

It took me 20 years of life to become conscious of the nature of my own set of unbalanced sx-last habits through the eyes of other types, but when I did, it was one of the darkest self-revelations I've ever experienced. Maybe because of how deep and primal the instincts run, and empathizing with that along the branches of different variants - wait a minute, there are other ways to starve.

But it also made me understand what compatibility and incompatibility realistically mean. We can and should be considerate of those we care about, try to meet in the middle, be strong for them sometimes, but we also have the right for our needs to be reasonably met. Some friends can't meet them for each other as well as others without violating their instinctual cores.

 

[renaiziphonts]

This probably sounds pretty stupid and a little irrational, but I have four friendships that lasted and were meaningful. One of which I have been in a long term relationship with. With each of them I felt an immediate connection. Jon I had met in grade school, I trusted him immediately, and we were best friends. I should add I am heavily antisocial, so that's impressive. With Ben, I met him during middle school, and within the hour we were throwing paper airplanes into an industrial fan. With Nate, I sort of just decided that he was awesome and engaged in stupid dangerous stunts. With Kimberlee, I had began arguing with her over a group project, and a few moments in it struck me how amazing she was. Love at first sight, I guess. Truth be told, I am not sure why I just "know" that these four people were to be friends, but it was an impulsive instantaneous trust and recognition, like I had known them my entire life, and I actually haven't made a real friendship without that. I have come close, but it's not the same.

So yeah, I have trouble meeting people.

 

[Cimarron]

I feel for all the Sx-doms here saying that trying to build some kind of connection with an Sx-last felt "lonely"; it feels lonely from our side as well. It is depressing to see what you think is a nice bonding experience dismissed with a "That's it? That's all you've got?" kind of emotional response. Because of this, some people have said that it's best for both parties (in terms of finding meaningful relationships) for Sx-doms to stick with other Sx-doms, or at least avoid Sx-lasts. I'm not ready to look at it this way, because of closing off so many people potentially off the bat, but if we want to say that it's statistically bound to work better/worse for such-and-such types (and just be aware of that going into it, I guess), okay, maybe.

I personally value intimacy a lot, I would say, and yearn for more of it in my life, with potential romance but even with my own best friends, too. Maybe idealize it a little. Except once I actually get it, then it can be kind of intimidating and I may hem-haw a bit. But this lack of connection is not because I don't care about establishing close connections. Part of it is probably not investing in doing something to build those close connections, although I'm not sure how I would. (more Sp-ish than So, here) Maybe my attempts to create intimacy are misguided, flubbed, half-hearted, I don't know, it's hard to say. Maybe the fact that I can't pin it down is part of it, too. Then again, when I do want to really establish intimate connection, I do take some initiative to do so, but again....the Sx-last idea of intimacy is lighter and more "secondhand" than others think of "intimacy", probably. And I wonder if maybe some of it is myself, like being someone who lives in the Amazon, and refuses to move to colder climates but still complains about never seeing snow.

That's another aspect, is the kind of feeling that I just don't get the "language" that everyone else seems to "know" regarding this realm. Like I missed the memo or the class that all the Sx-ers took. I look around at other people enjoying this "intimacy" and wonder when I'll feel it. Yeah, I'm less in-tune to connections in general. I can't really tell when I have them or when someone else has them, which generally leads me to conclude that this "connection" thing may all be in people's imaginations. Although, maybe not, but who knows?

So, those are some random thoughts on it.

 

[BlackCat]

+

It took me 20 years of life to become conscious of the nature of my own set of unbalanced sx-last habits through the eyes of other types, but when I did, it was one of the darkest self-revelations I've ever experienced. Maybe because of how deep and primal the instincts run, and empathizing with that along the branches of different variants - wait a minute, there are other ways to starve.

But it also made me understand what compatibility and incompatibility realistically mean. We can and should be considerate of those we care about, try to meet in the middle, be strong for them sometimes, but we also have the right for our needs to be reasonably met. Some friends can't meet them for each other as well as others without violating their instinctual cores.

Yeah, precisely! It has been a struggle to learn about how the social instinct affects me. It was like the biggest burden in the world to bear when I realized the consequences.

I feel for all the Sx-doms here saying that trying to build some kind of connection with an Sx-last felt "lonely"; it feels lonely from our side as well. It is depressing to see what you think is a nice bonding experience dismissed with a "That's it? That's all you've got?" kind of emotional response. Because of this, some people have said that it's best for both parties (in terms of finding meaningful relationships) for Sx-doms to stick with other Sx-doms, or at least avoid Sx-lasts. I'm not ready to look at it this way, because of closing off so many people potentially off the bat, but if we want to say that it's statistically bound to work better/worse for such-and-such types (and just be aware of that going into it, I guess), okay, maybe.

Have you ever actually encountered the bolded outside of the internet?

I personally value intimacy a lot, I would say, and yearn for more of it in my life, with potential romance but even with my own best friends, too. Maybe idealize it a little. Except once I actually get it, then it can be kind of intimidating and I may hem-haw a bit. But this lack of connection is not because I don't care about establishing close connections. Part of it is probably not investing in doing something to build those close connections, although I'm not sure how I would. (more Sp-ish than So, here)

Yeah I've found that it's best to ease things in with the non sx dom types. It's for certain doable, but some people's interaction styles can definitely put others' off.

That's another aspect, is the kind of feeling that I just don't get the "language" that everyone else seems to "know" regarding this realm. Like I missed the memo or the class that all the Sx-ers took. I look around at other people enjoying this "intimacy" and wonder when I'll feel it. Yeah, I'm less in-tune to connections in general. I can't really tell when I have them or when someone else has them, which generally leads me to conclude that this "connection" thing may all be in people's imaginations. Although, maybe not, but who knows?

I think sx when used in the vein of people kinda stems from the willingness and openness of personal information. With the soc or sp instinct supporting it, is where this gets guided socially (more toward a select few individuals, or toward a lot of people who have somewhat similar values). The "language" I think is just the general personal tone, it's kind of "inviting" for other people to share. And creating that atmosphere that makes it feel okay to be more personal by someone being personal first to initiate.

On the other hand, sx seems to also really be about "desire" and adding more to this sense of being "personal" if that makes sense. Which is why sx doms are more likely to engage in activities or associate with people who are more personal in some way, whether it's an activity that bolsters some sense of self or is just right for what they want. Or if it's a person who is really open or who really meshes well with the person's own interaction style of sharing.

Hope this makes some sense. Thanks for sharing, Cim!

 

[Redbone]

I feel for all the Sx-doms here saying that trying to build some kind of connection with an Sx-last felt "lonely"; it feels lonely from our side as well. It is depressing to see what you think is a nice bonding experience dismissed with a "That's it? That's all you've got?" kind of emotional response. Because of this, some people have said that it's best for both parties (in terms of finding meaningful relationships) for Sx-doms to stick with other Sx-doms, or at least avoid Sx-lasts. I'm not ready to look at it this way, because of closing off so many people potentially off the bat, but if we want to say that it's statistically bound to work better/worse for such-and-such types (and just be aware of that going into it, I guess), okay, maybe.

I personally value intimacy a lot, I would say, and yearn for more of it in my life, with potential romance but even with my own best friends, too.

More random thoughts...

Yeah...it is kinda tempting to throw in the towel. I admit that I've thought, "A so-dom? Not again...oh, hell no!"

Sorry about that! I admit that at times, it felt deliberate (I can't speak for sx-doms but I'm pretty close to it) and it felt like the stereotype of male/female sex--man has a relatively easy time reaching orgasm...woman does not and is being asked, "Was it good for you?" NO-- IT WAS NOT GODDAMMIT!!! YOU CALL THAT INTIMACY??!!

Okay...I'll stop. I know it's not deliberate. I have no idea what to do. Surely there must be a way to get the porridge just right but I don't know what that could be.

I have noticed that so-doms tend to like a low, steady kind of intimacy/warmth from friends. It feels diluted to me. The two so/sp that I spoke of seem to pretty much direct the same "amount" all the time...no warmer, no colder. Sorry...having trouble putting this into words here. One is steady/warm/cottony/comfy kind of warmth (think teddy bear stuffed animal) and the other isn't warm at all...just this...oh hell, he just ain't warm period but I wouldn't call him cold or lacking feelings. He's passionate but it has been changed somehow...could be because he's 4w5.

*sigh*

I value intimacy a great deal, too, but I will get "full". I go on binges, gorge and then I want to slowly digest the experience. Alone in my comfortable nest.

 

[Cimarron]

Have you ever actually encountered the bolded outside of the internet?

I would say I've seen it several times. It's usually more the emotional atmosphere or chain-of-events that can be summed up as an implied "That's it?", not a verbal, out-loud question. Not that I'm blaming people, rather it probably has to do a little with both sides not getting through to each other.

And to Redbone and BlackCat, not sure if you were addressing it to me or the OP or just your experiences, but I'm Sp-dom. Meanwhile the OP was discussing an So-dom acquaintance, so carry on.

 

[Haven]

We all have a basic need to connect with others, it's a matter of priorities. Intimacy is something I keep putting off and putting off in favor of building a stable social network. I don't think I need/experience it less than anyone else. Maybe I just value it less and don't quite recognize what it is or isn't and I'm like the guy at the poetry jam saying it's so deep when I have no idea what's going on, but I've neglected my intimate side so much that anything resembling intimacy feels overwhelming so I'm just going to take a break now because that was just too much at once. So I'm just an intimacy lightweight I guess.

 

[small.wonder]

This thread is a great read so far, mostly because I never thought about it (or saw it) the way some of you have described-- very, very helpful.

It took me 20 years of life to become conscious of the nature of my own set of unbalanced sx-last habits through the eyes of other types, but when I did, it was one of the darkest self-revelations I've ever experienced. Maybe because of how deep and primal the instincts run, and empathizing with that along the branches of different variants - wait a minute, there are other ways to starve.

But it also made me understand what compatibility and incompatibility realistically mean. We can and should be considerate of those we care about, try to meet in the middle, be strong for them sometimes, but we also have the right for our needs to be reasonably met. Some friends can't meet them for each other as well as others without violating their instinctual cores.

+ a million. Learning more about the other instincts (and what their cravings are for) is so helpful. That said, the bolded has been unfortunately true for me in certain cases. I was close friends with a Sp/So 2w1 for several years and always left frustrated and feeling held at arms length. I cared a lot about her, but rarely felt let in-- when I was it was very few and far between, but good. The truth though is that relationships loose value for me if they are not regularly emotionally intimate, if I'm not involved in their life (and they in mine) on a weekly basis. My relationship with the aforementioned friend eventually deteriorated in part because I'd voiced my frustrations a number of times, and all she could really do was shrug and apologize. I still see her from time to time and in passing, but it just didn't nourish either of us.

I think I need to meditate more on how my Sp-last mannerisms manifest negatively.

 

[Avocado]

More random thoughts...

Yeah...it is kinda tempting to throw in the towel. I admit that I've thought, "A so-dom? Not again...oh, hell no!"

Sorry about that! I admit that at times, it felt deliberate (I can't speak for sx-doms but I'm pretty close to it) and it felt like the stereotype of male/female sex--man has a relatively easy time reaching orgasm...woman does not and is being asked, "Was it good for you?" NO-- IT WAS NOT GODDAMMIT!!! YOU CALL THAT INTIMACY??!!

Okay...I'll stop. I know it's not deliberate. I have no idea what to do. Surely there must be a way to get the porridge just right but I don't know what that could be.

I have noticed that so-doms tend to like a low, steady kind of intimacy/warmth from friends. It feels diluted to me. The two so/sp that I spoke of seem to pretty much direct the same "amount" all the time...no warmer, no colder. Sorry...having trouble putting this into words here. One is steady/warm/cottony/comfy kind of warmth (think teddy bear stuffed animal) and the other isn't warm at all...just this...oh hell, he just ain't warm period but I wouldn't call him cold or lacking feelings. He's passionate but it has been changed somehow...could be because he's 4w5.

*sigh*

I value intimacy a great deal, too, but I will get "full". I go on binges, gorge and then I want to slowly digest the experience. Alone in my comfortable nest.

That sounds about right…

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

I very often feel deep connections to a particular someone, but they are always inaccurate and never reciprocated. I always daydream about love and someone I like without pursuing it ever, whenever I see someone I really like, I can't be myself and I just need to get away. These things aren't usually what I imagine them to be, it takes so much courage to even initiate something that is supposed to be so natural. In the meantime, I see all these people with their relationships, and I feel like shouting in their faces - 'How in the world do you do it?!?!?!?'... Oh well!

As a supposed sx-first, I feel like this!

Thanks for this thread, btw, guys. This is really interesting!!

 

[Redbone]

And to Redbone and BlackCat, not sure if you were addressing it to me or the OP or just your experiences, but I'm Sp-dom. Meanwhile the OP was discussing an So-dom acquaintance, so carry on.

No, no...not really addressing you. It just sent me Ne spinning...

More spin-off...
My co-worker is an So-dom (pretty sure he is so/sp). It takes up a large chunk of What Is Important. He says it gives him joy to see everyone together, having fun and feeling good. He also wants to make sure that they are comfortable, have good food, drink, etc. That it hurts when people are left out, left behind, or forgotten...go hungry, thirsty, and what not. His wife isn't like this and he doesn't understand why she doesn't feel good to be a part of the circle ('round the fire?). He will often ask me if I'm getting with my family or friends over the weekend and if we'll be having a "good time" and urges me to connect with others in this way. He thinks my reluctance and that of his wife's comes from shyness. He frequently talks about how he spent the weekend with friends and family. It's clear that this gives him a great deal of joy and he finds a lot of meaning from the social connections he has with others.

I feel a little wistful from time to time wondering if I am missing something.

 

[Southern Kross]

+ a million. Learning more about the other instincts (and what their cravings are for) is so helpful. That said, the bolded has been unfortunately true for me in certain cases. I was close friends with a Sp/So 2w1 for several years and always left frustrated and feeling held at arms length. I cared a lot about her, but rarely felt let in-- when I was it was very few and far between, but good. The truth though is that relationships loose value for me if they are not regularly emotionally intimate, if I'm not involved in their life (and they in mine) on a weekly basis. My relationship with the aforementioned friend eventually deteriorated in part because I'd voiced my frustrations a number of times, and all she could really do was shrug and apologize. I still see her from time to time and in passing, but it just didn't nourish either of us.

I think I need to meditate more on how my Sp-last mannerisms manifest negatively.

This is a general comment (and certainly not directed at you specifically, small.wonder) but I admit I'm getting a little irritated by some of the posts like this. I know you're simply expressing your experience but it is so common for Sx-lasts to be talked about like this. We are so often the punching bag and I just get a bit tired of it. The So-lasts in this thread have admitted a degree of fault on their part, but so far Sx-doms haven't exactly done the same. There can be an implied assumption that the fault lies purely with us and not with you guys. Yes, So-users are a great deal more adaptable to others, but the burden should not entirely placed on them.

There's these implications that we Sx-lasts are all vapid, soulless, robots incapable of passion or the sorts of boundless intimacy that Sx-doms endlessly demand. We could just as easily talk about Sx-doms as selfish, needy, neurotic, emotional vampires, drama queens and spoilt children, who use and exploit other human beings to feed their needs like a crack addict. That sort of stereotyping* approach serves no one and we shouldn't apply them so readily. Also we need to acknowledge that while Sx-lasts need to be more open and present for their friends, maybe So-lasts/Sx-doms need to chill the hell out too.

Sorry, I'm ranting a bit and don't mean for anyone to take this personally. I just hate when I start to see discussions about Sx-lasts descend into that sort of thing. I'm simply advocating for a little more balance and a deeper understanding (pun intended) of the factors involved.


*I for one, am a e4, therefore intensity of experience IS important to me - albeit not as much as some Sx-doms.

 

[PeaceBaby]

There's these implications that we Sx-lasts are all vapid, soulless, robots incapable of passion or the sorts of boundless intimacy that Sx-doms endlessly demand. We could just as easily talk about Sx-doms as selfish, needy, neurotic, emotional vampires, drama queens and spoilt children, who use and exploit other human beings to feed their needs like a crack addict. That sort of stereotyping* approach serves no one and we shouldn't apply them so readily. Also we need to acknowledge that while Sx-lasts need to be more open and present for their friends, maybe So-lasts/Sx-doms need to chill the hell out too.

I feel you here SK. I haven't been in thread because I have personally been on the fence about being so-sp or so-sx.

If you think of sx-firsts as energy consumers rather than energy conservationists (sp-first) or energy providers (so-first) it's easier to define the edges. As a consumer, sx-first primary need or expectation is to be fed. Once nourished, they will be able to give energy-out (sx-so) or hoard it (sx-sp). sx-firsts have the hardest time of any type maintaining a balanced relationship to energy, because they know they want it and it always feels to them like it is being withheld. Therefore, the attitudinal perspective is one of looking to the other as the causative factor in that withholding, rather than coming to the realization that their need for energy outstrips the resources around them.

In an sx-sx relationship, the tension of who's feeding who tends to increase with time, as one partner will generally feel that they are being tapped for resources rather than being nourished with them.

 

[Southern Kross]

I feel you here SK. I haven't been in thread because I have personally been on the fence about being so-sp or so-sx.

If you think of sx-firsts as energy consumers rather than energy conservationists (sp-first) or energy providers (so-first) it's easier to define the edges. As a consumer, sx-first primary need or expectation is to be fed. Once nourished, they will be able to give energy-out (sx-so) or hoard it (sx-sp). sx-firsts have the hardest time of any type maintaining a balanced relationship to energy, because they know they want it and it always feels to them like it is being withheld. Therefore, the attitudinal perspective is one of looking to the other as the causative factor in that withholding, rather than coming to the realization that their need for energy outstrips the resources around them.

In an sx-sx relationship, the tension of who's feeding who tends to increase with time, as one partner will generally feel that they are being tapped for resources rather than being nourished with them.

I think this is an apt description (in broad terms).

Then why is it so often that Social doms are accused of denying others of what they demand, instead of questioning the right to reasonably make those demands in the first place? The matter is so much more complex and two-sided than people seem to want to allow

 

[five sounds]

I feel you here SK. I haven't been in thread because I have personally been on the fence about being so-sp or so-sx.

If you think of sx-firsts as energy consumers rather than energy conservationists (sp-first) or energy providers (so-first) it's easier to define the edges. As a consumer, sx-first primary need or expectation is to be fed. Once nourished, they will be able to give energy-out (sx-so) or hoard it (sx-sp). sx-firsts have the hardest time of any type maintaining a balanced relationship to energy, because they know they want it and it always feels to them like it is being withheld. Therefore, the attitudinal perspective is one of looking to the other as the causative factor in that withholding, rather than coming to the realization that their need for energy outstrips the resources around them.

In an sx-sx relationship, the tension of who's feeding who tends to increase with time, as one partner will generally feel that they are being tapped for resources rather than being nourished with them.

Yeah, I absolutely don't think there is fault in any one party with an sx-dom and sx-last person having relationship issues as a result.

This post rang pretty true to me. I get my energy from being immersed. It's been a part of growing up for me not to rely on people for that, especially not only on my intimates. I am developing other ways to feed myself by exploring ideas, getting lost in music, going on solo adventures, etc. However well I develop those self stimulating strategies, I'm still sx first, and I still need a higher degree of intensity or closeness especially in my romantic relationships. It's about finding balance while still honoring your needs.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I feel you here SK. I haven't been in thread because I have personally been on the fence about being so-sp or so-sx.

If you think of sx-firsts as energy consumers rather than energy conservationists (sp-first) or energy providers (so-first) it's easier to define the edges. As a consumer, sx-first primary need or expectation is to be fed. Once nourished, they will be able to give energy-out (sx-so) or hoard it (sx-sp). sx-firsts have the hardest time of any type maintaining a balanced relationship to energy, because they know they want it and it always feels to them like it is being withheld. Therefore, the attitudinal perspective is one of looking to the other as the causative factor in that withholding, rather than coming to the realization that their need for energy outstrips the resources around them.

In an sx-sx relationship, the tension of who's feeding who tends to increase with time, as one partner will generally feel that they are being tapped for resources rather than being nourished with them.

This is a great way of putting it!

 

[OrangeAppled]

I think this is an apt description (in broad terms).

Then why is it so often that Social doms are accused of denying others of what they demand, instead of questioning the right to reasonably make those demands in the first place? The matter is so much more complex and two-sided than people seem to want to allow

I think sp-first get accused of this the most. But the idea of having some right to the demand seems so, yes. The idea that there is some protocol to be adhered to, or else you are being unreasonable in your demands. Since you're so/sp, you probably have both aspects. Being sp/sx, I have a bad tendency to want to receive more than I give, as far as energy. I want more response to me than I want to respond in turn, and it's a problem in my relationships if I don't keep aware of it. I like getting emails, messages, texts, invites, etc, but I feel burdened to respond. I just soak up and soak up. But the energy it takes to respond sometimes is overwhelming.

I know so types generally expect a reasonable, fair, even give-and-take, and I like that idea, but I don't practice it as well in reality (and it's funny considering I DO worry about unevenness in feelings, of caring more than others. I suspect this self-preservation aspect is also protecting me from putting out energy where I may not receive anything back, so I make others "prove" it).

When someone is sx-dom, I think it's like they don't realize how much they are demanding. They just seem aware of what they are putting out, and not considering they are not always reciprocating, but just sucking, or that their giving feels like it has strings attached. The so type's "giving" feels like it has strings attached too, but not in the luring-in way an sx's does, where they seem to begin to take at a higher rate than they are giving once they've "got you".

I know an e2 who I think is sx/sp, and she creates this fun, sexy, party girl image to attract a boyfriend, then once she's moved in and frequently gotten engaged within 2 months (yes, its a pattern), she stops being so fun & sexy. Now all of her many illnesses, physical & emotional, come to the fore & she can no longer work, so she expects the fiancé to support her. She still wants tons of pampering, attention and affection, while really contributing nothing to the relationship, not even being emotionally supportive, and not even bothering to cook or clean or do anything despite not working. Then when they cannot handle it all, she dumps them & moves onto someone else.

That's a very extreme example of someone who is unhealthy in many ways, but it illustrates the luring through appearing to give a lot, and then eventually demanding more & more without giving as much as times goes on.

 

[small.wonder]

This is a general comment (and certainly not directed at you specifically, small.wonder) but I admit I'm getting a little irritated by some of the posts like this. I know you're simply expressing your experience but it is so common for Sx-lasts to be talked about like this. We are so often the punching bag and I just get a bit tired of it. The So-lasts in this thread have admitted a degree of fault on their part, but so far Sx-doms haven't exactly done the same. There can be an implied assumption that the fault lies purely with us and not with you guys. Yes, So-users are a great deal more adaptable to others, but the burden should not entirely placed on them.

There's these implications that we Sx-lasts are all vapid, soulless, robots incapable of passion or the sorts of boundless intimacy that Sx-doms endlessly demand. We could just as easily talk about Sx-doms as selfish, needy, neurotic, emotional vampires, drama queens and spoilt children, who use and exploit other human beings to feed their needs like a crack addict. That sort of stereotyping* approach serves no one and we shouldn't apply them so readily. Also we need to acknowledge that while Sx-lasts need to be more open and present for their friends, maybe So-lasts/Sx-doms need to chill the hell out too.

Sorry, I'm ranting a bit and don't mean for anyone to take this personally. I just hate when I start to see discussions about Sx-lasts descend into that sort of thing. I'm simply advocating for a little more balance and a deeper understanding (pun intended) of the factors involved.


*I for one, am a e4, therefore intensity of experience IS important to me - albeit not as much as some Sx-doms.

Yeah, I think this is unfortunately true of some Sx-doms and the way they paint Sx-last folks-- I personally do not see my previous post as doing that though (and I do acknowledge you said it wasn't addressed towards me individually). I said that the reason my close friendship didn't work out was because neither of us were feeling satisfied with the friendship. She was Sp first and I'm Sp-last, so I'm sure she was just as frustrated in other ways in our relationship-- though the only time she ever gave voice to that was after much passive aggression, when she ended basically telling me that she resented the "power over her" she'd given me by allowing emotional intimacy. This flabbergasted me because I'd felt manipulated by her...obviously it's a long story, but it was definitely mutually agreed on as not a great thing-- at least not to have as a staple friendship.

I am sorry you have have had negative experience with Sx first individuals and the way the have framed those with different instincts, though I'm not sure I'm guilty of that personally. I've definitely been frustrated by the disconnect it sometimes causes in relationships, but would never blame that on the other person or who they are.

I feel a similar sentiment of being "written off" as a Sx dom too, like I'm just too much for everyone and feeling like I set fire to things, and people just steer clear of me. This is not reality, but it is how I feel sometimes!

 

[skylights]

I've had/have three very close relationships with sx last. Maybe these can provide food for thought.

My mom is sp/soc. She's very warm and helpful, ESFJ 2w1. She will absolutely do everything to make you feel better if you're feeling bad, but it's all about action and practical things. And hugs, lol. But she's very self-effacing, which is 2, but also sx-last. It's hard to get into her emotional core, even though though she's very much a Feeler and she's incredibly caring. It's like there is a level of her which rarely presents itself and is really hard to reach. But she forms such deep bonds. It's a steady, incredibly strong, practically-expressed love. And it is so, so strong. What is surprisingly like sx to me is that she has those super, super strong bonds with her parents, my dad, and her children. And not really any others. I think they take a really long time to develop.

My best friend in college was soc/sp. Part of the reason I became friends with her was that I was fascinated by her "shell". She was very private, even though she was a fairly outgoing and gregarious ENFJ, 3w4. She had an incredible veneer. Very perfect on top and lots of stress below. And later, as I would learn, pain. She was so careful about who could see what of her, and only leaked the hurt parts to the people she had a high level of trust for. I felt like I was always the one pressing for us to be closer friends, but as time went on, she also came to trust and rely on me. She has shared heartbreaking depth, though. I know that there are very few people in the world who have been privy to her sharing those feelings. After college, we went on separate paths, and I catch up with her periodically, but I still have to prompt her for private feelings. She will stay in the "socially acceptable" zones otherwise.

I'm in a relationship now with a sp/soc 9w1 ISFJ. I sometimes feel a lack of that "burning passion" sense in our relationship, but the longer we are together, the more I understand that it's not that those strong feelings are not within him, but that he is actually fairly uncomfortable with them - as far as I understand it he feels like they disrupt his feelings of personal stability - and he's uncomfortable about voicing or demonstrating them, as well. He also was slower than me to voice feeling love, but we spent a ridiculous amount of time together at the beginning of our relationship. We still do, actually, if life doesn't stop us. We have to intentionally cut ourselves off of we will hang out with each other until we are sick of each other. That seems like an sx thing, but evidently not.

So I think... Patterns being... I notice a theme of difficulty to "get in" to their intimate feelings. That might be represented by a shell, or by time needed to establish connection, or by certain "keys" being needed to feel ready to open up with someone. It's also usually a limited amount of people they bond deeply with, but the bonds are very strong where they exist. And they may not prefer the emotionally, dynamically charged, urgent expression of feeling that I think sx-strong people tend to prefer.

FWIW, I do not think they are "less deep". I used to fear that, which is as lacking in truth as N being "deeper" than S. Both are illusions brought about by differing ways of conveying information. I think if Sx-first feels like they are not getting enough or if Sx-last feels like they are overwhelmed (and even as Sx-second I have personally felt overwhelmed by some Sx-firsts!), then it is probably a "lost in translation" more than an inherent flaw on either person's part.

Then why is it so often that Social doms are accused of denying others of what they demand, instead of questioning the right to reasonably make those demands in the first place?

First - want to say that I emphasize with the feelings in your post. Sx-last tendencies seem to become a scapegoat for Sx-first frustration sometimes.

IRT the quote - Can you give an example of what you mean? I don't think I've heard this before, or maybe I have and I don't realize.

--

PS - Not sure I can see myself as an energy provider, or other Socials like that. I see the creator-preserver-destroyer triad and I love the idea but I don't think it necessarily works here. Maybe Social as energy/resource rearranger if anything.