113 replies to this topic

[dolphin]

Should we be worshipping Gulenko? Should his memory be hallowed? Should I dedicate a corner of my room to him as a shrine for all Socionics type relationships, romantic and other? Where/how do you think he came up with this Victim/Aggressor/Caretaker/Infantile thing? Why is he the expert on this? Why does everyone quote him with stuff like

"In the affairs of ze hart, Riolizabu man likes tenderly the love games, prefers fantasies and daydreams to the chains and knives of Vizzzurala."

Do you identify with your supposed "erotic type"? Have you found the interactions described in broken Russian babelfish the authority on your romantic (and other!) interactions?

It would be pretty damn awesome if a correlation could be drawn between types and romance, but right now I'm not seeing it, because individuals are so fucking different when it comes to that particular sphere. I especially hate when people type others by whether or not they are an "aggressor" or a "caretaker", aren't we supposed to be looking at motives, thought processes, whys? Not behavior?

Baby;338292 said:

No matter how much I play around with these concepts, the erotic attitudes don't offer me any insight into my relationships at all. They don't help me understand myself or other people. And thinking about my relationships this way seems clumsy and monochromatic. In order to actually see this particular dynamic at work, you have to selectively choose to ignore about 90% of your entire relationship and then cerebralize the remaining 10% to get within the ballpark. Gulenko was a fucktard.

[dolphin]

stfu lol. lots of people like that rape stuff. but i've heard many INFps talk about how they don't fantasize about being raped. it's not type related.

[Ashton]

Aggressors/Victims, typical exaggerated stereotype... meek, unconfident Ni-ego victim lacks initiative and passively waits for a strong, assertive Se-ego mistress/master to come dominate them into submission. Lives happily everafter on a sex life involving rape, violence, BDSM, humiliation, strapons, and snuff.

Caretakers/Infantiles, typical exaggerated stereotype... helpless, incompetent Ne-ego infantile lacks basic living skills and pathetically whines for a warm, cushy Si-ego mommy/daddy to come take care of them. Lives happily afterafter on a sex life involving food, daipers, adult-nursing, milfs, sugardaddies, and pedophilia.

[Ashton]

dolphin, on Aug 30 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

Should we be worshipping Gulenko? Should his memory be hallowed? Should I dedicate a corner of my room to him as a shrine for all Socionics type relationships, romantic and other? Where/how do you think he came up with this Victim/Aggressor/Caretaker/Infantile thing? Why is he the expert on this?

There is something to the erotic attitudes, but there's a lot of problems with them too in their present state of formulation. Like most everything else in Socionics, they desperately need more thorough development and clarification before we'll even begin to understand the underlying sense and significance of them.

Does Gulenko deserve our awe and admiration for supposedly being the 1st to come up with it? Certainly not. If you think about it, the thought process for coming up with such an idea is not at all complex and doesn't take any real leap of insight to deduce. For instance, if someone wonders about Socionics type being related to erotic preferences, the immediate response of most people will presumedly be rather straightforward, and they'll start trying to find patterns between dominant ego block functions and erotic preferences, and conjecturing about all the possible implications... at which point you'll effectively end up with something exactly like what Gulenko did. People on the forum do characteristically similar things to this all the time.

But why he especially doesn't deserve sweeping praise, is because as far as I know Gulenko never actually comprehensively mapped out and articulated the idea in such a way that would have made it far more readily apparent, useful, and interesting than it is now. Any written material direct from Gulenko about the attitudes consists of generic oversimplifications that are too broad to mean much of anything. Or eccentric phrases that are too narrow to mean much of anything. Or he simply waxes on about various fetishes :\.

I'll write more later.

[jxrtes]

I think one problem is that people are too intimidated by sexuality (and the opposite sex in general) to formulate their own preferences... and turn to hucksters like Gulenko or other sources for insight into this kind of thing. But it's not really worth it, because in the end they feel vapid, estranged, and hollow shells of their former selves, if not totally loopy and doing 10-20 years in prison.

discuss.

ps. the erotic attitudes are wrong.

[borderline]

jxrtes, on Aug 31 2008, 05:12 PM, said:

people are too intimidated by sexuality (and the opposite sex in general) to formulate their own preferences... and turn to hucksters like Gulenko or other sources for insight into this kind of thing.

Haha, this is somewhat true. But I still think that it's an interesting topic and I want to look more into it.

[christy_b]

Allie, on Sep 1 2008, 04:16 AM, said:

... I still think that it's an interesting topic and I want to look more into it.

Me too. I belive there is something to be said for the erotic types (I don't think they are total bs), but we are going to have to look into our own lives to see how they really work. We need to make them work for our experiences instead of trying to make our experices fit them. You can't cut reality out and Gulenko's theroy does this, imo.

[Ashton]

dolphin, on Aug 30 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

Why does everyone quote him with stuff like

"In the affairs of ze hart, Riolizabu man likes tenderly the love games, prefers fantasies and daydreams to the chains and knives of Vizzzurala."

Lol, probably because they're uneasily uncertain if it's serious or parody. And nobody will even touch it with a 10-foot pole to find out. Eeeghh.

Quote

Do you identify with your supposed "erotic type"?

Ya.

Quote

Have you found the interactions described in broken Russian babelfish the authority on your romantic (and other!) interactions?

I don't remember what I've read from Russian babeltuna on the subject. If it's like most Russian Socionics stuff I read then some parts I'd find accurate and other parts would make me go "ugh wtf."

How I interact in a romantic relation does not and won't ever occur outside of that. It's not possible for me to do.

Quote

It would be pretty damn awesome if a correlation could be drawn between types and romance

I do think that is possible. But not with the Gulenko erotic attitudes as they are, since they were never satisfactorily developed to the necessary extent that would make this possible.

Quote

but right now I'm not seeing it, because individuals are so fucking different when it comes to that particular sphere.

You have to read between the lines and play a bit loosely with the verbiage - and moreover, detach the fetish-ery that tends to get connoted to this stuff. Bear in mind too that the way the attitudes are often described is very extreme and dramatic, and so should not be taken as a literal depiction of how they will manifest in most people. That's what I had to do to make a lot of this more clear. Even then it's fuzzy, but at least the pictures are recognizably there. And if you care enough to look, you can start spotting the various attitudes in individuals even though there is great variance in their particular expression.

Quote

I especially hate when people type others by whether or not they are an "aggressor" or a "caretaker", aren't we supposed to be looking at motives, thought processes, whys? Not behavior?

Yeah, it's extremely annoying and misleading when that happens. And no, a lot of people will probably never understand that the observable behavior of another person (as it appears to people) is not a 1 to 1 window into the motivation and cognition of that person. They'd rather make these shallow attributions because it's convenient and doesn't require any real understanding. And why waste time understanding when we can just get straight on to the business of making declarations about people and telling them what they are, whether they like it or not.

[Ashton]

dolphin, on Aug 30 2008, 11:19 PM, said:

stfu lol. lots of people like that rape stuff. but i've heard many INFps talk about how they don't fantasize about being raped. it's not type related.

Rape roleplay stuff just seems silly to me lol. Dunno the appeal.

[Ashton]

Allie, on Sep 2 2008, 05:22 PM, said:

This is why we should all just have sex so we know each other socionically. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO KNOW OMG

I am asexual. No dice.

[Ashton]

Why do I suddenly feel paralyzed with indecision and don't know what to say

[borderline]

Because you want to be taken advantage of.

[Ashton]

Allie, on Sep 2 2008, 05:44 PM, said:

Because you want to be taken advantage of.

Do not

[Capitalist Pig]

WHOEVER THOSE 3 OTHER PEOPLE ARE WHO TOOK MY OPTION FUCK YOU I WILL FIND YOU AND KILL YOU THERE CAN ONLY BE 1 HIGHLANDER

[dolphin]

Quote

Yeah, it's extremely annoying and misleading when that happens. And no, a lot of people will probably never understand that the observable behavior of another person (as it appears to people) is not a 1 to 1 window into the motivation and cognition of that person. They'd rather make these shallow attributions because it's convenient and doesn't require any real understanding. And why waste time understanding when we can just get straight on to the business of making declarations about people and telling them what they are, whether they like it or not.

I would hate it when people type by those things, like for example "Allie is a victim so she can only be INFp, INTp, ENFj, or ENTj"....etc.

Ashton, on Sep 2 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

Rape roleplay stuff just seems silly to me lol. Dunno the appeal.

Ya that's the point. People have different preferences. Just because rape appeals to you doesn't mean you're a victim. etc.

Ashton, on Aug 31 2008, 06:54 AM, said:

There is something to the erotic attitudes, but there's a lot of problems with them too in their present state of formulation. Like most everything else in Socionics, they desperately need more thorough development and clarification before we'll even begin to understand the underlying sense and significance of them.

...

But why he especially doesn't deserve sweeping praise, is because as far as I know Gulenko never actually comprehensively mapped out and articulated the idea in such a way that would have made it far more readily apparent, useful, and interesting than it is now. Any written material direct from Gulenko about the attitudes consists of generic oversimplifications that are too broad to mean much of anything. Or eccentric phrases that are too narrow to mean much of anything. Or he simply waxes on about various fetishes :\.

christy_b, on Sep 2 2008, 04:31 AM, said:

Me too. I belive there is something to be said for the erotic types (I don't think they are total bs), but we are going to have to look into our own lives to see how they really work. We need to make them work for our experiences instead of trying to make our experices fit them. You can't cut reality out and Gulenko's theroy does this, imo.

It seems like everyone thinks Gulenko's types are overexaggerated, but almost everyone who's posted here has said something to the effect of "there's something there". But that's my problem. What the hell is there? If there's not the stupid fetishes, etc....what is the thing about these attitudes that people are seeing? If you have to read between the lines, what sort of information do you look for? I think it would be interesting to try to map out these things and develop them like you are saying, because just saying that they're "shadowy interpretations of literal behaviors" isn't enough to give me anymore insight into them. If people would say what they think they are rather than what they're not, because it doesn't take someone with a shoot-the-roof IQ to figure out what the behaviors are not.

[borderline]

Ashton, on Sep 2 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

Do not

Liar.

cogsci, on Sep 2 2008, 08:13 PM, said:

WHOEVER THOSE 3 OTHER PEOPLE ARE WHO TOOK MY OPTION FUCK YOU I WILL FIND YOU AND KILL YOU THERE CAN ONLY BE 1 HIGHLANDER

It wasn't me. I swear.

dolphin, on Sep 2 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

I would hate it when people type by those things, like for example "Allie is a victim so she can only be INFp, INTp, ENFj, or ENTj"....etc.

When the hell did I become a victim?

dolphin, on Sep 2 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

It seems like everyone thinks Gulenko's types are overexaggerated, but almost everyone who's posted here has said something to the effect of "there's something there". But that's my problem. What the hell is there? If there's not the stupid fetishes, etc....what is the thing about these attitudes that people are seeing? If you have to read between the lines, what sort of information do you look for? I think it would be interesting to try to map out these things and develop them loike you are saying, because just saying that they're "shadowy interpretations of literal behaviors" isn't enough to give me anymore insight into them. If people would say what they think they are rather than what they're not, because it doesn't take someone with a shoot-the-roof IQ to figure out what the behaviors are not.

Dolphin tell us your most thrilling, intimate, sexual experiences. I will tell you what attitude you are.

[dolphin]

Allie, on Sep 2 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

When the hell did I become a victim?

It's an example. People would do things like that, and state, "well, she can't be gamma because of blah blah, and she's probably not ENFj because of blah reasons, so she's most likely INFp." See how that works? People type you as an erotic type from your behavior, then use that to find your Socionics type. And neither are fucking accurate ways to do that. It fucking pisses me off. That's all.

Quote

Dolphin tell us your most thrilling, intimate, sexual experiences. I will tell you what attitude you are.

That brings up something else. Are these attitudes simply romantic? Or are they applicable to all type relations in general?

[dolphin]

Allie, on Sep 2 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

I would think strictly romantic. How often do ENXjs come off as "victims" lol.

True

[dolphin]

strrrng, on Sep 2 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

Applicable to what? Intertype relations? Doubt it. They simply seem like simple manifestations that occur on a general, superficial level, with respect to given functions. Nothing more.

I want to map them out. I think it would be interesting.

[Ashton]

dolphin, on Sep 2 2008, 07:39 PM, said:

It's an example. People would do things like that, and state, "well, she can't be gamma because of blah blah, and she's probably not ENFj because of blah reasons, so she's most likely INFp." See how that works? People type you as an erotic type from your behavior, then use that to find your Socionics type. And neither are fucking accurate ways to do that. It fucking pisses me off. That's all.

Yeah, it's really stupid. And wrong. If anything, I think the attitudes are not going to be evident in one's general observable behavior like that. Unless you were observing the person's romantic interactions with their partner in a relationship, or observing how they interact with someone they're romantically interested in. And even then it might not be so obvious, and only something that avails itself in the utmost privacy.

Sometimes they may even be contradictory and belie one's public personality. For example, I remember hearing about a psychological profiling they did on men who were the clientele of dominatrixes. The most frequent visitors were business execs, lawyers, politicians, generals, bankers, stock brokers, doctors, etc. In other words, very successful men who exercised a lot of control, dominance, and power in their daily lives. And then apparently in private would seek out some woman to dominate them lol. Not that visiting dominatrixes is necessarily attitude related (just ftr, I'm not into that sort of thing so don't bother speculating), but I think it illustrates an interesting point nevertheless.

Quote

That brings up something else. Are these attitudes simply romantic? Or are they applicable to all type relations in general?

I think they're simply romantic. They may even be something that exists in a more purely romantic sense, as opposed to a purely erotic sense. Not that romantic/erotic wouldn't overlap. But they may be more clearly demonstrative in the non-sexual components of a romantic relationship.

[Ajax]

I too think there might be something to them. I am somewhat of a victim as described yet in a sense I am also an aggressor. I have both victim and aggressor type fantasies and behaviours...I do have periods where I want to do the "rape" so to speak, which I guess is probably a little unusual for a female to admit.

Non-sexually, I work better under a whole lot of external pressure. If there is no pressure I can become complacent. I do not wish to be dominated into submission in every sphere and at all times. It is more complex than that... it is more that there needs to be a balance and a type of constant interplay/exchange between the dominant and submissive energies. Ultimately I wish to carry out his wishes and would like him to carry out mine with equal vigour.

To be honest most of the"INFps" on 16t who claim not to identify with the whole victim/aggressor thingy are most often people who I suspect of being delta and ENFp for other reasons. From what I have seen of caregiver/infantile relationships, there also seems to be a constant exchange of roles between them so that sometimes the caregiver becomes infantile and the infantile becomes caregiver.

[Capitalist Pig]

I can not, in any way, identify with the Erotic Attitudes. Not a single one. It all sounds like nonsense.

[borderline]

Capitalist Pig, on Sep 15 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

I can not, in any way, identify with the Erotic Attitudes. Not a single one. It all sounds like nonsense.

That's why you got your own poll option.

[Ashton]

Allie, on Sep 13 2008, 10:43 AM, said:

That or they just don't want to admit they want to be raped. That's not the "victim" thing to do. lol I do relate to aggressor though. Also, I hate talking about victim/aggressor as "roles" or w/e. I don't want to take a role. I don't want to actually rape anyone. I'm just um....

Yeah, this is a difficult topic to elaborate on. Hmm I'll add more later. Have to think on it.

Yeah, I'm not into roles - I need the reality of another person, not a play script. I just can't take that sort of thing seriously at all. My imagination isn't engrossing enough for me I guess, I dunno.

As far as the "rape" stereotype that's associated with Victim/Aggressor dynamics... umm I wouldn't be into that, as "rapee" or "rapist" lol. Not only because I couldn't take it seriously, but because the nature of that kind of act is something dehumanizing, impersonal, objectifying, etc. At least how I'm thinking of it I guess. So why would I desire that?

I don't know how many people are actually into that sorta thing. It does seem more prevalent with Beta, or they're more vocal about it at least, so I assume its something they desire. It would be interesting to see what quadra-specific differences there are between those of the same attitude.

[Ashton]

Allie, on Sep 15 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

That's why you got your own poll option.

lol

[dolphin]

Ashton, on Sep 18 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm not into roles - I need the reality of another person, not a play script. I just can't take that sort of thing seriously at all. My imagination isn't engrossing enough for me I guess, I dunno.

As far as the "rape" stereotype that's associated with Victim/Aggressor dynamics... umm I wouldn't be into that, as "rapee" or "rapist" lol. Not only because I couldn't take it seriously, but because the nature of that kind of act is something dehumanizing, impersonal, objectifying, etc. At least how I'm thinking of it I guess. So why would I desire that?

I don't know how many people are actually into that sorta thing. It does seem more prevalent with Beta, or they're more vocal about it at least, so I assume its something they desire. It would be interesting to see what quadra-specific differences there are between those of the same attitude.

nicki

[Ashton]

dolphin, on Sep 18 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

nicki

infps = rape fodder

[hoodrat]

I work in a pharmacy and whenever a girl comes in and gets birth control and an antidepressant, I know I'm in love. Her feeble semblance of a fighting spirit is already broken.

[Ashton]

hoodrat, on Sep 21 2008, 11:12 PM, said:

I work in a pharmacy and whenever a girl comes in and gets birth control and an antidepressant, I know I'm in love. Her feeble semblance of a fighting spirit is already broken.

lmao

[borderline]

I think every 4/5 girls are on birth control and anti-depressants. Why do birth control and anti-depressants make whores?

[Riddy]

Allie, on Sep 22 2008, 06:21 AM, said:

I think every 4/5 girls are on birth control and anti-depressants. Why do birth control and anti-depressants make whores?

Because increased levels of serotonin and progesterone lowers sexual inhibitions?

[FDG]

Capitalist Pig, on Sep 16 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

I can not, in any way, identify with the Erotic Attitudes. Not a single one. It all sounds like nonsense.

+1 me too.

Erotic attitudes simply fail when they exclusively focus on the perceiving intuitive/sensing functions excluding the thinking/feeling in their extraverted/introverted domain. Thus I expect that generally speaking every rational subtype will have a lot of problems relating to one of them (or, at least, relatively more problems than an irrational subtype).

When an ENFj uses Fe, is he/she going to look like a victim? Perhaps even more, when an ENTj uses Te is he/she going to look like a victim? Rick made a fair point that other 4 erotic/relationship styles should be added, one for each rational function.

[borderline]

FDG, on Sep 23 2008, 01:29 AM, said:

+1 me too.

Erotic attitudes simply fail when they exclusively focus on the perceiving intuitive/sensing functions excluding the thinking/feeling in their extraverted/introverted domain. Thus I expect that generally speaking every rational subtype will have a lot of problems relating to one of them (or, at least, relatively more problems than an irrational subtype).

When an ENFj uses Fe, is he/she going to look like a victim? Perhaps even more, when an ENTj uses Te is he/she going to look like a victim? Rick made a fair point that other 4 erotic/relationship styles should be added, one for each rational function.

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Also, it seems like Betas in general tend to relate more to the erotic attitudes than Gammas do. So it may not be just a rational type thing, since there are INTps that don't consider themselves "victims" and ESFps who don't think of themselves as "aggressors". I can see how many Beta STs relate to being the aggressor and Beta NFs relate to victim, but that doesn't really work for Gamma types as well.

So I don't think should always mean aggressor and always mean victim. One erotic attitude really cannot represent two different quadras. with is very different from with lol

[Ajax]

I speculate that rather than anything to do with rationality, it is more likely a beta thing, I did notice before that gammas do not seem quite so interested in being obvious victims and aggressors in the sexual sense at least. For beta, both Fe and Ni are internal processes and the only way most if not all of us with these functions as dominant can really contact with external situations and sensations is if some type of strong external physical pressure forces us to.

I don't want to get into this too much but sex for INFps and ENFjs can be really dull if it is some type of slow and gentle thing, we probably are not even really there mentally in that situation, it is just too none forceful to drive us into the present. Also, the beta aristocracy probably also fuels the obvious victim and aggressor, dominant/submissive atitude in betas. I have notice too that the infantile/cargiver atitude also seems much stronger or more obvious in deltas than in alphas probably due to the aristocracy thing again. This is all speculation though and I could probably argue that sexual atitudes are more complex than socionics and are link to certain personal developmental issues rather than quadras but I don't feel I can discount Gulenko at this time.

[Ashton]

Ajax, on Sep 25 2008, 06:07 PM, said:

I speculate that rather than anything to do with rationality, it is more likely a beta thing, I did notice before that gammas do not seem quite so interested in being obvious victims and aggressors in the sexual sense at least.

Yeah, I was going to post in response how I think the Victim/Aggressor dichotomy - the name itself and how it's described - is more befitting of the relationship dynamics of Beta than it is Gamma. IMO anyway.

Quote

For beta, both Fe and Ni are internal processes and the only way most if not all of us with these functions as dominant can really contact with external situations and sensations is if some type of strong external physical pressure forces us to.

I can connect with external situations and sensations easily - it's just I get so bored a lot of the time because there's not enough stimulation there. So I'm always liking strong and/or unique sensations in anything just because they provoke more of a feeling of "aliveness." ADD-related I think for me.

Quote

Also, the beta aristocracy probably also fuels the obvious victim and aggressor, dominant/submissive atitude in betas. I have notice too that the infantile/cargiver atitude also seems much stronger or more obvious in deltas than in alphas probably due to the aristocracy thing again.

Hmm, that's a good and interesting point.

Quote

This is all speculation though and I could probably argue that sexual atitudes are more complex than socionics and are link to certain personal developmental issues rather than quadras but I don't feel I can discount Gulenko at this time.

It could be that developmentally well-adjusted people don't have strongly differentiated "erotic attitudes." And that these attitudes are more or less something that only become apparent in those who possess some sort of neurosis that has happened to manifest itself sexually.

When I was 16 I briefly dated an ESTp who had fantasies of being gagged, tied down, beaten, and raped and all of that. I don't know why, but my immediate thought when she told me was that she had "daddy issues" lol. And so it struck me as neurotic and repulsive. There was some kind of bizarre tension in her relationship with her dad, I don't know what was going on there. Weirded me out.

I don't think that most people I know would say that they identify with any of attitudes. Not that I know any of their sexual preferences (and I'd rather not lol). But I think you can sort of tell regardless if a person would be like that. And from what I gather I can't imagine most people approaching it in terms of "aggressor/victim" or "caretaker/infantile" - though it's obvious that some people are like that.

[borderline]

That means Nicki identifies with them. Hence the trying to look innocent.

[Ashton]

Allie, on Sep 26 2008, 03:48 AM, said:

That means Nicki identifies with them. Hence the trying to look innocent.

Oh right. How could I forget.

[BulletsAndDoves]

Hate to be that uppity queer theorist activist with emo glasses and asian cane that makes snobby comments about art and shit they don't like, but...

There's this word I use frequently. It's called heterosexism.

This whole idea that a passive deer in headlights person needs a big rough dykey chick to throat fuck them senseless might make sense on paper, but through practice I find this to be annoying. It's an ideal, but in reality you learn things are more complicated than that. Depending on the situation and circumstance, two Yangs work much better or two Yins. Sometimes the person that is pursued wants to do the pursuing, etc.

All I'm saying is, for a lifetime partner I want another passive person. Sometimes I'd like an assertive, dominant person but not really. They're usually not that good in bed anyway, since even the 'dominant' people are like, shy in social situations and shit. I just want a person to be interested and sensual with me. Fuck all this roleplaying top/bottom bs. Fuck all the 'ooh type B needs type A or they will clash' nonsense. I've seen that shit too many times before. Written by people with no actual experience in human relationships much at all, like those weird narcissistic overly college educated straight boys that need to rape girls to be with them. Creepy.

If a person starts spouting this nonsense to me, I have a tendency to think they don't actually get laid much.

[borderline]

I have an ESTp friend who's definitely more socially dominant than sexually dominant. So yeah, I'd agree that a lot of the A and B stuff is bullshit.

[BulletsAndDoves]

I'm socially submissive usually, but in bed I can play both roles equally depending on my mood.

Plus I don't know, when I'm with anybody I just want to enjoy them sensually, if I start thinking I'm dominant or submissive I get out of my body and into my head, which I don't like, because the physical sensation of sex is what I enjoy the most. A simple fucking when I really want it is more powerful to me than needing all that bizarre anime shit just to get an erection.