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?

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.

Hmm. Not sure.
Which type is most open-minded towards 3-ways with either gender and recreational sexual activity in novel locations?

This post was edited by kero at December 28, 2014 9:52:00 PM PST

I prefer Sexual-Secure, but I could see myself with a Sexual-Social.

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.
:)

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.

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.

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.

Per Project Evolove's description, I'd be sx/so.
Per "The Complete Enneagram", I'd be enneagram 7 with so/sx instinct.
My happiest relationship was with an ESFP 729 sx/so.