Forums » Sexual-Socials

List of newest posts

    • September 5, 2018 7:06:45 AM PDT
    • Neither PEVO nor Heidi Priebe lists Sexual/Social (Sx/So) as a common Instinct among INTPs – a point with which I differ. I suspect that Instinct is misreported nearly as often as Type.

      Sexual/Socials “channel their sexual energy and aggression into intimate, one-on-one relationships or into heartfelt political, artistic, or scientific causes.” I think we eventually discover that the people to whom we are most intensely attracted are not our ideal partners for all situations. That's probably a good thing. It forces us to branch out.

      “Heartfelt causes” makes Sx/So a strong preference. I am reminded, though, of Joan Baez's song about her relationship with Bob Dylan, in which she writes “A savior's a nuisance to live with at home.”

      At home, some Sx/So's will seek out the balancing influence of a Secure Primary or Secure Secondary. Out-and-about, a Social Primary can force us to get out of our own heads and interact with other humans in a more casual way. These pairings come with their own tensions, though. Each partner is being pulled way outside their comfort zone and is likely to have friends and associates with whom they can share other interests, sometimes intensely. Earning one another's trust and respect is absolutely essential.

      Secure/Sexual (Sp/Sx) is probably my second preference. This is not one of the three that PEVO suggests are most common for us. PEVO lists INFPs among Sp/Sx's, as does Heidi Priebe (though perhaps only 22% of INFPs. For all I know, they use the same source. For all I know, they are the same person.) INFPs may appeal to me for some of the same reasons as Sp/Sx.

      So is Instinct or Type the main attraction? I think a strong case can be made that Instinct is a better indicator of similar social motivation, while Type is a better indicator of similar communication styles. Similarity is not the same as attraction. Similarity is not the same as compatibility.

    • April 7, 2017 1:00:09 AM PDT
    • Was interested to see that my type is typical of Sexual-socials. My occupation was also mentioned. I would prefer to date a Sexual- social or Social-sexual. I also crave that INTENSE and DEEP 1 on 1 connection.

    • October 24, 2016 7:51:15 PM PDT
    • I'm really attracted to other sexual-socials but I wouldn't mind dating a sexual-secure variant. It's just that they might not want to talk about or participate in the things I identify with as much. They wouldn't mind talking about it per-say, but I imagine they wouldn't really want to work towards those goals along with me. Which is okay! As long as we have an intense one-on-one relationship that's fine.

    • March 25, 2015 1:29:26 AM PDT
    • I'm haven't been exposed to instincts before this site, but after reading the descriptions, I definitely gravitate towards sexual-secures and sexual-socials naturally.
      :)

    • December 23, 2014 12:20:21 PM PST
    • I prefer Sexual-Secure, but I could see myself with a Sexual-Social.

    • October 25, 2014 8:43:17 PM PDT
    • Hmm. Not sure.
      Which type is most open-minded towards 3-ways with either gender and recreational sexual activity in novel locations?

    • March 26, 2013 11:04:25 PM PDT
    • Hey! I prefer primary sexuals always. That intense one on one connection is so important to me. As far as the secondaries, I think i prefer secure secondary types because I don't really want to be with someone who may prioritize the social over the one on one often.

    • July 30, 2012 4:51:17 PM PDT
    • I'm a Sexual-Social. I never really used Instincts before to analyze my girlfriends, but now, after reading the descriptions, I realize that my past girlfriends were sexual-secure and social-sexual. I liked them both in very different ways (ended up breaking up with them...but that's another story). I want the opinion of other sexual-socials...which do you prefer the most of your three supposed matches...another sexual-social, a sexual-secure, or a social-sexual?

    • July 26, 2018 4:44:04 PM PDT
    • In public I have a very submissive posture, like im trying to hide (I am). When im with people im close to, I sit like im ready to pounce them and rave about the newest thing I adore.

      When I'm with someone im interested in, I shamefully try to look as cute as possible.

    • October 24, 2016 7:59:55 PM PDT
    • I don't have that posture you speak of but...like Zenith mentioned I would like to think sx/so females are attracted to/adopt flamboyance be it through mannerism or dress. As an INFP I am highly attracted to opulent images and adopt fashions I think are..."powerful" and "captivating". I'm also highly protective of the person I'm becoming and deeply wish to merge /represent the things I believe in. I don't care if I have to sacrifice my Introvert "comforts", if you could call it that.

    • May 24, 2015 2:27:44 PM PDT
    • Those are really interesting observations. I definitely "puff up" at times and will walk with some swag. But I've always chalked that up to my DC roots, haha.

    • April 30, 2015 9:14:13 PM PDT
    • I've been told I have a bitchy resting face even tho I'm super bubbly

    • March 25, 2015 1:45:48 AM PDT
    • As a newly discovered sexual-social, I feel like expressing my individuality through an almost flamboyant style will captivate those who I can potentially connect with and will alienate those who deem me socially unacceptable. It serves kinda like a filter.

      I also use my sexuality as an initial hook to attract people and expand my horizons, later showing many other aspects of myself.

      I'm kinda raw in my mannerisms though, lol. I slouch sometimes, I don't mind eating with my hands (I PREFER to do so but you know, "society" haha), I overindulge insatiably especially when I'm really stressed or really happy.. and this includes alcohol.

    • February 12, 2014 9:34:50 PM PST
    • I generally agree with the above comments. I would add I think the sexual-social females are often more confident, more appearance conscious, but care less about what others think, although they know how to get along confidently with most people anyway without offense (unless intended), and the men... I can't be so sure about this... can be similar. As for body type... it wouldn't be a body type so much as more common postures, having a strong, centered composure, with presence, often, and interest in others. Just a thought from one side of it here

    • October 18, 2013 9:52:00 PM PDT
    • Not neccesarily, I have rather good posture and I am not aggressive at all (unless attacked).

    • August 19, 2012 3:09:00 PM PDT
    • Yea, I would agree that sexual-socials are more "out there" looking than the rest. I think the girls have that loose spirit look, and the guys, like you said, have that intense, super-focused-on-what-they-are-doing.

    • August 1, 2012 6:53:25 PM PDT
    • Generally the SPs have that nice straight back posture and composure. Sexual-socials (based on what I observe) have an aggressive, intense posture. Eg. body hunched forwards, raised shoulders demonstrating aggression, less grounded stance...

      Though I think all that may be highlighted in guys more.

    • July 30, 2012 6:41:04 PM PDT
    • Is there a certain look or body type associated with Sexual-Socials?