[Socionics] ROMANTIC STYLES GROUPS

I don't know if it has been posted before, but I think it can be useful.
I found this truly descriptive of the dynamics on my relationships. How about you?


////////

Viktor Gulenko, a clinical psychologist and sociologist, has proposed four groups of romance styles, also referred to as “erotic behavior” groups or “erotic attitudes.”
In essence there are four different attitudes that can describe a person’s selfish (sexual) desires and expectations from their interactions with others. The general trend for these attitudes would seem like the conflict or duality between adult (either patronizing or assertive) and inner-child (either rebellious or resistant).
1. VICTIM

- ENTj - INTp - ENFj - INFp

The Victim types, identified as such by Viktor Gulenko, are the four types with Ni in their ego. Despite the differences between these types in terms of temperament, base function, and quadra values, it seems that in the area of physical attraction, desire, and flirting, the Ego element Ni, coupled with their expectations of Se style behavior in intimate partners, is the most visible factor in a Victim’s behavior.

This romance style is defined by focus on Ni which is dynamic, irrational, and introverted, with perceptions of inner imagery away from the present physical reality. This means that a Victim sees attraction between two individuals as a dynamic state, which he feels is completely natural. This accounts for a Victim’s inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as to its longer-term perspectives and implications, as well as a certain expectation that the partner will continuously take action to confirm the attraction. Failure on the partner to do so results on the individual assuming that it’s already changing. The individual counts on the partner to forcefully bring the individual “down to earth from his thoughts ” and focus on the immediate physical reality, continuously.

Typical characteristics of the Victim romance style

• prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person
• not always confident about revealing that interest
• inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
• inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time
• preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
• appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them
• this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion
• in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess”
• inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself

Perception of other romance styles

• Victim: Victims tend to perceive other Victims as puzzling and inconstant, as if they were playing games or “push-pull” behavior, but also as exciting partners if a stage of “certainty” is reached.
• Aggressor: Victims tend to perceive Aggressors as pleasantly reassuring of their interest and prone to take the initiative in that area. They find Aggressor’s sexual confidence attractive and reflecting positively on themselves.
• Caregiver: Victims tend to perceive Caregivers as comfortable and up to a point reassuring partners, but also somewhat boring, leading to a sense of stagnation. The Caregiver’s inclination to treat them as somewhat helpless is perceived as slightly insulting.
• Infantile: Victims tend to perceive Childlike types as too goofy and expecting a kind of attention that the Victims find demanding; Victim women are prone to see Childlike men as irritating.

2.CHILDLIKE / INFANTILE

- ENTp - INTj - ENFp - INFj

The Childlike types, identified as such by Viktor Gulenko, are the four types with Ne in their ego. Despite the differences between these types in terms of temperament, base function, and quadra values, it seems that in the area of physical attraction, desire, and flirting, the ego element Ne, coupled with their expectations of Si style behavior in intimate partners, is the most visible factor in manifestation of “childlike” behavior.

This romance style is defined by focus on Ne which is static, irrational, and extroverted, with perceptions focused on possibilities and alternatives to the static present reality, which the individual perceives as intrinsically boring and stagnant. This means that a person of Childlike type sees attraction between two individuals as a static state, also from the point of view of the other person, which he tries to “get moving” by actively thinking of variations of the present static state. This accounts for the inclination of Childlike types to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as connected to that person’s being exposed to the unexpected, imaginative, fun, even “weird” side of life, reality, and each other, a behavior that can be described as characteristic of young children. This focus comes together with a sense of helplessness regarding his own physical well being as perceived by Si, so he welcomes help from others in that area.

Typical characteristics of the Childlike romance style

• interest is sparked in partner with positive aesthetic attributes divorced from active, “aggressive” sexuality
• tend to try to attract partner’s interest with joking, goofy or even “strange” behavior
• try to help partner see the unexpected and fun side of things
• interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to this behavior
• appreciation for partner who actively cares about the individual’s comfort and daily needs
• neutral with regard to externally admitting who took the initiative in ending a relationship, “power” is seen as unimportant in such matters

Perception of other romance styles

• Victim: Chidlike types tend to perceive Victims as paranoid and confusing, giving mixed signals.
• Aggressor: Chidlike types tend to perceive Aggressors as a bit too “rough” and even slightly scary on occasion, or perhaps just as obnoxious.
• Caregiver: Chidlike types tend to perceive Caregivers as comforting and pleasant company, with a delightful sense of fun.
• Childlike: Chidlike types tend to perceive other Chidlike types as fun to spend time with but also as helpless and demanding in a way that they see as stressful.

3. CAREGIVERS

- ESTj - ISTp - ESFj - ISFp

The Caregiver types, identified as such by Viktor Gulenko, are the four types with Si in their ego. Despite the differences between these types in terms of temperament, base function, and quadra values, it seems that in the area of physical attraction, desire, and flirting, the ego element Si is the most visible factor in determining Caregivers’ behavior.

This romance style is defined by focus on Si which is dynamic, irrational, and introverted, with perceptions of the present reality and physical sensations rather than inner imagery. This means that a Caregiver sees attraction between two individuals as a dynamic state, which he feels is completely natural, as he also sees the physical comfort and well-being of another person as dynamic. This accounts for a Caregiver’s inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as connected to that person’s physical well-being. The individual’s own dynamic and introverted Si perceptions lead to a sense of sleepy drifting in them, which makes him welcome Ne impulses from another person designed to shake him out of it from time to time.

Typical characteristics of the Caregiver romance style

• attraction is naturally sparked by the perceived aesthetic attributes of the prospective partner, but cooled off if such attributes are accompanied by a perception of “too aggressive” sexuality
• inclination towards tenderness, “soft” rather than “hard” approach
• prone to adopt maternal approach to the physical comfort and needs of partner
• interest is further maintained if partner welcomes this approach
• prone to assume that partner will need help in practical, daily matters
• neutral as to who ended a relationship, “power” is not seen as important in such matters

Perception of other romance styles

• Victim: Caregivers tend to perceive Victims as puzzling and never contented, sometimes as paranoid and insecure.
• Aggressor: Caregivers tend to perceive Aggressors as a bit over-the-top in their approach to romantic interactions and sexuality and ultimately not pleasant to have stable intimate relationships with.
• Caregiver: Caregivers tend to perceive other Caregivers as comfortable partners, but ultimately somehow less than satisfactory.
• Infantile: Caregivers tend to perceive Childlike types as delightful partners with a sense of fun that brings joy to their lives.

4. AGGRESSORS

- ESTp - ISTj - ESFp - ISFj

The Aggressor types, identified as such by Viktor Gulenko, are the four types with Se in their ego. Despite the differences between these types in terms of temperament, base function, and quadra values, it seems that in the area of physical attraction, desire, flirting, and the like, in intimate relationships, the irrational ego element Se, coupled with their expectations of Ni style behavior in intimate partners, is the most visible factor in an Aggressor’s behavior.

This romance style is defined by focus on Se which is static, irrational, and extroverted. This means that an Aggressor sees attraction to another person as a static state, which he feels it is up to him to change in the direction more in agreement to his preference. This accounts for an Aggressor’s inclination to take the initiative in approaching the object of his interest and being “relentless” in his pursuit, as well as, even during an established relationship, continuing to try to “shake things up” or “get things moving”. If his partner is not receptive to such behavior, this discourages the Aggressor, and results in his interest cooling off.

Typical characteristics of the Aggressor romance style

• no doubts about own interest in another person
• not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest
• focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate
• romantic interaction is more about “toughness” than “tenderness”
• needs to feel some sense of “superiority” over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely “keep up”
• this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy
• in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being “bossy”
• little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a “who cares” front simultaneously

Perception of other romance styles

• Victim: Aggressors tend to perceive Victims simultaneously as pleasantly able to “keep up” regarding more “intensive” interactions, and also as not annoyingly prone to always wanting “to win”. Aggressor women perceive Victim men as totally devoted yet reassuringly “strong”.
• Aggressor: Aggressors tend to perceive other Aggressors as exciting partners worthy of admiration and respect, but ultimately unsatisfactory due to a sense of never-ending competition for an ill-defined “upper hand”, which becomes frustrating.
• Caregiver: Aggressors tend to perceive Caregivers as somewhat boring and patronizing.
• Infantile: Aggressors tend to perceive Childlike types as too goofy and unexciting, ultimately not taking them seriously as partners.

(Compatibility Theory between Erotic Attitudes)

High Complementary

• (Caregivers & Infantile): The caregivers types find the infantile most ideal for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the infantile types for the most part enjoy having their selfish “look after me” needs met by the caregivers types.
• (Aggressor & Victim): The aggressor types find the victim types most ideal for accepting their programming and control-attempts whilst the victim types for the most part enjoy having their selfish “see if you can tame me” needs met by the aggressor types.

Average Complementary

• (Caregivers & Victim): The aggressor types find the victim types least ideal for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the victim types for the most part shun their attempts to nurture them since they don’t appear aggressive enough.
• (Aggressor& Infantile): The aggressor types find the infantile types least ideal for accepting their programming and control-attempts whilst the infantile types for the most part shun their attempts to dominate them since they don’t appear companionable enough.

Poor Complementary

• (Caregivers & Aggressor):The caregivers types find the aggressor types most unsatisfying for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the aggressor types for the most part get frustrated by there attempts to nurture them since it makes them feel like “victim” types.
• (Infantile & Victim): The infantile types find the victim types most unsatisfying for having their “look after me” needs met whilst the victim types for the most part get disappointed by their attempts to act companionable since they don’t appear to dominate enough.

Any identical types would likely find the other interesting at first as someone they can automatically appreciate although for the most part will lead to unmet expectations since each partner doesn’t fufill the other’s needs although they can still enjoy each other’s company.




CAREFUL

The Patronizing Types

• Views other people in a caring and sometimes arrogant way resembling a kind of "parent figure" where everyone else needs their attention and should listen to their advice.
• Interacts like a non-aggressive control-freak, usually in a caring way expecting others to accept their care without rebellion.
• Doesn't like showing signs of aggression in themselves especially when others reject their care, thus producing frustration.
• Usually takes a "patronizing" tone with others thus readily seen to have an "I know what's best for you (like your parent)…" attitude.

INFANTILE

The Rebellious Types

• Has lots of needs and can seem selfish (like a child) expecting others to totally adapt to this behaviour.
• Can seem openly needy for loving and care though appear openly rebellious against care preferring the "right" kind of attention instead.
• Doesn't want the partner to directly control them though would rather have loose "boundaries" to act within.
• Hates signs of aggression or indifferency in others thus usually comes across as having an "I want your friendship (if you expect my attention)…" attitude.

AGGRESSOR

The Assertive Types

• Views others in an openly arrogant and aggressive way expecting complete mental submission.
• Can have a very victim-like look using indirect methods to control others and turning aggressive when they refuse to submit.
• Hates signs of weakness in themself thus interacts like a bossy control-freak.
• Usually takes an insistent tone towards others thus presenting with an "I am in control (like your supervisor)…" attitude.

VICTIM

The Resistant Types

• Can project either a submissive or arrogant view of themselves.
• The submissive version never questions the partner's control though expects them to "show the way" with the relationship.
• The arrogant version looks aggressive and always challenges people in order to find someone who acts stronger than them self.
• Hates signs of weakness in others thus presents with an "I want you to control me (if you can)…" attitude.

Compatibilities between these Erotic Attitudes:

High Complementary…

• The CAREFUL types find the INFANTILE types most ideal for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the INFANTILE types for the most part enjoy having their selfish "look after me" needs met by the CAREFUL types.
• The AGGRESSOR types find the VICTIM types most ideal for accepting their programming and control-attempts whilst the VICTIM types for the most part enjoy having their selfish "see if you can tame me" needs met by the AGGRESSOR types.

Average Complementary…

• The CAREFUL types find the VICTIM types least ideal for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the VICTIM types for the most part shun their attempts to nurture them since they don't appear aggressive enough.
• The AGGRESSOR types find the INFANTILE types least ideal for accepting their programming and control-attempts whilst the INFANTILE types for the most part shun their attempts to dominate them since they don't appear companionable enough.

Poor Complementary…

• The CAREFUL types find the AGGRESSOR types most unsatisfying for receiving their parental-like care and advice whilst the AGGRESSOR types for the most part get frustrated by there attempts to nurture them since it makes them feel like "victim" types.
• The INFANTILE types find the VICTIM types most unsatisfying for having their "look after me" needs met whilst the VICTIM types for the most part get disappointed by their attempts to act companionable since they don't appear to dominate enough.

Any IDENTICAL types would likely find the other interesting at first as someone they can automatically appreciate although for the most part will lead to unmet expectations since each partner doesn't fufill the other's needs although they can still enjoy each other's company.





Source: http://definitive-socionics.wikidot.com/small-groups:erotic-attitudes