| Author |
 Topic  |
|
whitelila
Member
5188 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 12:03:51 AM
|
ET
Kalliope Amorphous |
 |
|
|
Roshan
Member
USA
4788 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 12:04:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by magochre
quote:
Originally posted by Roshan
Magochre,
Why do you think you ticked me off?????
I was making the assumption based on your response "speechless" here in conjunction with "ouch, that hurts" to Saintly on the other thread. But I'm getting into mind reading territory here so will back off and let you speak for yourself, lol.
`
Yeah, some weird assumptions. Speechless was because I really was. I mean it was so moving what could I really say? Ouch that hurts was for the same reason. I just don't know what to say about those pictures you posted for me, how to express how they make me feel. That's all. |
|
|
|
whitelila
Member
5188 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 12:13:55 AM
|
eidbuser
Julian Callos |
|
|
|
whitelila
Member
5188 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 12:16:22 AM
|
bear
Fernando Vicente |
|
|
|
thomg
Member
1197 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 12:16:26 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dfgray44
quote:
Originally posted by savory
This one
http://www.julio-reyes.com/Assets/Paul_and_Shama.jpg
I want/need to hold someone like that. I really long for that type of partnership where I can be close and hugging and where it doesn't feel like I'm violating the other person. Need to be someone's cute sweetheart one and only partner. I feel guilty whenever I embrace my bf and then awkwardly realize that I completely crossed his boundaries and he wants me off him immediately (sometimes he does want to be deeply hugged of course). It's like miniature rejection; have to get it in my head that it's just mis-timing.
Do you like what you're doing?
Would you do it some more?
Or will you stop once and wonder what you're doing it for?
I think one of the more immediately applicable uses of the stacking info is to know that if you're sx-first or -second, it simply isn't going to work to be in a romantic relationship with an sx-last.
No need to hesitate or judge yourself for the prejudice.
Agreed. Though it is a moot point for me how feasible a relationship is between an sp/sx 1 with a strong so last and an sx/sp (me).
Inspired by your goddess-squatting-on-the-4-winds sx/so, Gray, I've been trying to create some rough-hewn physical heuristics/associations for the stackings. These are meant to quick and dirty and crude and simplistic, btw and fyi:
Sx last - doesn't take a dump at work, unlikely to like non-vanilla bedroom stuff (anything anal-related in particular)
Sp first - a prissy vibe, like the effeminate homosexual stereotype.
So/sx - most common stacking??
sp/so a gait where each foot is placed carefully, lightly, gingerly on the ground, often tall and skinny
|
Edited by - thomg on 29 Nov 2011 12:28:17 AM |
|
|
|
dfgray44
Member
USA
11201 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 01:10:34 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by thomg
quote:
Originally posted by dfgray44
quote:
Originally posted by savory
This one
http://www.julio-reyes.com/Assets/Paul_and_Shama.jpg
I want/need to hold someone like that. I really long for that type of partnership where I can be close and hugging and where it doesn't feel like I'm violating the other person. Need to be someone's cute sweetheart one and only partner. I feel guilty whenever I embrace my bf and then awkwardly realize that I completely crossed his boundaries and he wants me off him immediately (sometimes he does want to be deeply hugged of course). It's like miniature rejection; have to get it in my head that it's just mis-timing.
Do you like what you're doing?
Would you do it some more?
Or will you stop once and wonder what you're doing it for?
I think one of the more immediately applicable uses of the stacking info is to know that if you're sx-first or -second, it simply isn't going to work to be in a romantic relationship with an sx-last.
No need to hesitate or judge yourself for the prejudice.
Agreed. Though it is a moot point for me how feasible a relationship is between an sp/sx 1 with a strong so last and an sx/sp (me).
Yeah, the non-sx-last edict doesn't guarantee any successes whatsoever. Just means there'll be some thing that doesn't get met, and the not-met-ness will be registering with the sx-first or -second, but not so much with the sx-last partner.
Inspired by your goddess-squatting-on-the-4-winds sx/so, Gray, I've been trying to create some rough-hewn physical heuristics/associations for the stackings. These are meant to quick and dirty and crude and simplistic, btw and fyi:
Sx last - doesn't take a dump at work, unlikely to like non-vanilla bedroom stuff (anything anal-related in particular)
That's not bad. Are you familiar with this guy? Granted, he's a One, so it compounds the 'bathroom' issues.
Sp first - a prissy vibe, like the effeminate homosexual stereotype.
Prissy? For all sp-firsts? A lot of macho Hollywood leading men are sp/so's. That's part of the appeal - they convey a certain absoluteness of emotional inaccessibility. Hence a special torture for those attracted.
So/sx - most common stacking??
I think sp/so is the most common stack, followed by sp/sx. It's an sp world.
sp/so a gait where each foot is placed carefully, lightly, gingerly on the ground, often tall and skinny
To me, sx adds a liquid 'messiness' of emotional susceptibility/vulnerability (i.e.- archetypal feminine formlessness). So the lighter/effeminate stuff you're using for sx-last, in general, doesn't fit for me.
|
|
|
|
savory
Member
3131 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 01:23:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dfgray44
I think one of the more immediately applicable uses of the stacking info is to know that if you're sx-first or -second, it simply isn't going to work to be in a romantic relationship with an sx-last.
No need to hesitate or judge yourself for the prejudice.
I used to judge myself for it a lot when we first got together, me feeling very messy in his presence but him not even seeming to pick up on my messiness. Or with me being flirty and wanting to exchange mess, and him recoiling or not picking up on it at all. And I knew it was a sx-last issue from the first time I met him but still went along to see what would happen. I've learned many a thing from this relationship though. Not sorry I tried it. We make very decent domestic partners; keeping house is easy (as it is with my sp/so sister).
quote:
Just means there'll be some thing that doesn't get met, and the not-met-ness will be registering with the sx-first or -second, but not so much with the sx-last partner.
Yes.
quote:
Prissy? For all sp-firsts? A lot of macho Hollywood leading men are sp/so's. That's part of the appeal - they convey a certain absoluteness of emotional inaccessibility. Hence a special torture for those attracted.
My bf completely. Rugged bike messenger turned security company monitor. Looks hot in his uniform (I told him to wear it around the house but he only changes into it when he gets to work).
Do you like what you're doing?
Would you do it some more?
Or will you stop once and wonder what you're doing it for? |
Edited by - savory on 29 Nov 2011 01:27:59 AM |
|
|
|
thomg
Member
1197 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 02:05:35 AM
|
Yes, stacking is a prior, threshold issue - a necessary, rather than sufficient, condition for compatibility. As an sx/sp, only sx/sp and sp/sx have really done it for me.
My last post was casual, but upon further consideration I don't retract my linking of sp-first with a (subtle) effeminacy. Noli me tangere was said by a maiden, of course. This is not to say that I disagree with the sense of the archetypal feminine (connection, union, quivery vulnerability, the agony of receptivity) in the sx, it's just that on a visceral level, as a fairly masculine sx first, the daintiness or fear of mess in an sp-first male seems to the sx-first male as a female style.
You say hollywood stars - but to me a lot of hollywood male stars, who 'perform' their masculinity, via the multiple reflexive mirrors of the screen, can be quite effeminate. I think of BrokeBack Mountain (though neither actors were sp first, their characters seemed to be), or more importantly, what I take to be the subtle effeminate features of someone like a Cary Grant or James Stewart.
Prissy is too strong a word, of course, I was just gesturing in that general direction. But the 'pursed lips' of the sp, the holding back, can seem just as maidenly, surely, as sx. I guess, it's a more recent, post-Christian or at least societal construction of femininity - as purity/chastity/virginity/withholding - that comes across for me with sp first, as opposed to the more archetypal metaphors around union to do with sx-first.
On the other hand, the let-it-allhang-out-and- F-the-consequences aspect of the sx-first has masculine aspects to it. The flip side of the sx vulnerability is brazenness/shamelessness.
Nobody is sp first in my family, and many are so/sx. Hence my guess. I'm not sure about this, though. So the majority of people are sx-last?
I guess sp/so is the most pragmatic number - I mean, from an evolutionary perspective - the survival of the species (or more properly, the individual genes) would be optimised by sp/so.
|
Edited by - thomg on 29 Nov 2011 02:12:46 AM |
|
|
|
The Wayfarer
Member
USA
4432 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 02:46:00 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dfgray44
Sp first - a prissy vibe, like the effeminate homosexual stereotype.
Prissy? For all sp-firsts? A lot of macho Hollywood leading men are sp/so's. That's part of the appeal - they convey a certain absoluteness of emotional inaccessibility. Hence a special torture for those attracted.
I get frequent feedback from intimates that I have an emotional inaccessibility I think that's a good way of putting it. For me it's there but it's tightly packed and certainly walled against the other person seeing it. When it comes out it can be a bit like a shaken soda can being opened prematurely.
I believe the following adjectives are used by detach to describe my emotionality, of course these only come up in an argument but "crusty", "mean", or "closed off" are typical adjectives.
I don't do physical intimacy well...or, at all (hugging, snuggling, hand holding, sitting close to the other person) all of that feels like I'm having the breath sucked from me. Luckily my partner doesn't like that either. However on the down side when I'm attracted to someone and I want to breach physical barriers I often feel like my insularity is huge barrier. So this intense longing for closeness happens without the ability for me to actually allow the space to be breached for fear of boundary loss and total envelopment or scaring the other with some untapped caged intensity.
If I'm prissy it comes only from the 4 leading the show, and that only shows up about my environmental accommodations or if some sort of standard I have for something isn't met. Most of it happens internally, except when I get really schizoid about my space, then I can throw a proper diva fit.
The Wayfarer
"Time is a factory where everyone slaves away earning enough love to break their own chains.”-Hafiz
|
|
|
|
dusty
Member
2935 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 03:07:20 AM
|
| Wayfarer, do you think boundary issues are common with sp 4s? Can you tell me anything more about your boundary issues? |
|
|
|
rockthrower
Member
Australia
2701 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 08:22:15 AM
|
 |
|
|
|
dnimon
Member
Australia
6015 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 08:24:27 AM
|
walden....journeys end
"It's okay to lose your pride over someone you love, but don't lose the one you love due to your pride."
|
|
|
|
dnimon
Member
Australia
6015 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 08:30:23 AM
|
Riley
"It's okay to lose your pride over someone you love, but don't lose the one you love due to your pride."
|
|
|
|
Glasgow
Member
Germany
6236 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 08:30:48 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dnimon
walden....journeys end
"It's okay to lose your pride over someone you love, but don't lose the one you love due to your pride."
hell, no, walden likes to wear her hair loose
 |
|
|
|
dnimon
Member
Australia
6015 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 08:37:31 AM
|
magochre
"It's okay to lose your pride over someone you love, but don't lose the one you love due to your pride."
|
|
|
|
dnimon
Member
Australia
6015 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 08:41:22 AM
|
riley and walden........throwdown
"It's okay to lose your pride over someone you love, but don't lose the one you love due to your pride."
|
|
|
|
whitelila
Member
5188 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 09:42:05 AM
|
myself
 |
|
|
|
baba
Member
2758 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 09:50:14 AM
|
Dusty:
|
Edited by - baba on 29 Nov 2011 09:50:37 AM |
|
|
|
whitelila
Member
5188 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 09:53:45 AM
|
baba
Scarlett Graafland
|
|
|
|
whitelila
Member
5188 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 09:55:38 AM
|
dfgray
Jim Kazanjian |
|
|
|
whitelila
Member
5188 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 10:00:19 AM
|
dnimon
Jacek Yerka |
|
|
|
baba
Member
2758 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 10:00:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whitelila
baba
Scarlett Graafland
ok... 
Sensitive 4w5 vs. Self-Confident 3w2
|
Edited by - baba on 29 Nov 2011 10:01:21 AM |
|
|
|
whitelila
Member
5188 Posts |
|
|
Lake
Member
7207 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 10:06:48 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by savory
quote:
Originally posted by dfgray44
I think one of the more immediately applicable uses of the stacking info is to know that if you're sx-first or -second, it simply isn't going to work to be in a romantic relationship with an sx-last.
No need to hesitate or judge yourself for the prejudice.
I used to judge myself for it a lot when we first got together, me feeling very messy in his presence but him not even seeming to pick up on my messiness. Or with me being flirty and wanting to exchange mess, and him recoiling or not picking up on it at all. And I knew it was a sx-last issue from the first time I met him but still went along to
see what would happen. I've learned many a thing from this relationship though. Not sorry I tried it. We make very decent domestic partners; keeping house is easy (as
it is with my sp/so sister).
quote:
Just means there'll be some thing that doesn't get met, and the not-met-
ness will be registering with the sx-first or -second, but not so much with the sx-last partner.
Yes.
quote:
Prissy? For all sp-firsts? A lot of macho Hollywood leading men are sp/so's.
That's part of the appeal - they convey a certain absoluteness of emotional inaccessibility. Hence a special torture for those attracted.
My bf completely. Rugged bike messenger turned security company monitor. Looks
hot in his uniform (I told him to wear it around the house but he only changes into it
when he gets to work).
Ouch to all of this. Savory- listening to you here, and tidbits youve posted previously over time, has me positive im with a sp/so.
I used to like his lack of reaction to my emotional messiness, it felt like i was being accepted for who i am without judgement. I called him my rock. Now, however, i am getting the increasing feeling of wanting to shake him or hit him-- to get him riled up so he can feel what i feel, but now i see he just isnt programmed that way. It leaves
me with the question of how much intimacy is enough? It feels crazy to say it, but i want some emotional messiness. Ill take the intensity and the ugliness if it means i can have the good stuff that feeds the deepest part of my being.
anyway sorry for continuing the derail. I blame my sx...
Do you like what you're doing?
Would you do it some more?
Or will you stop once and wonder what you're doing it for?
tentative typing:
9w1>7w6>2w3
sp/sx
INFP
>_< |
Edited by - Lake on 29 Nov 2011 10:29:57 AM |
|
|
|
whitelila
Member
5188 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 10:07:18 AM
|
Still, i want to post 10 for chem-art, but nothing is good enough.
.........................................................
That is all i have the energy for right now. I'll do others later. |
Edited by - whitelila on 29 Nov 2011 10:07:56 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Member Energies
