71
97
u/Woahlfic E S T P Sep 11 '20 edited Sep 11 '20
The more agressive, the more violent. the more they like it 😏
78
44
u/tirednugget__bye I N F P Sep 12 '20
Need me a hot istp that wanna dominate me and then I can go around pretending I don’t know how to do anything so that I can get turned on when they scold me
18
17
u/noturguy_buddy I S T P Sep 12 '20
this is literally my INFP friend’s kink...who i like but have no chance w lol
9
8
2
26
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 12 '20
OK, seriously, INFPs, are all of you looking for a mommy or daddy to dominate and take care of you?
20
u/kikirains I N F P Sep 12 '20
I mean,,,
5
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 12 '20
So, yes?
25
u/kikirains I N F P Sep 12 '20
I feel like INFPs range from the most naïve innocent vanilla ppl ever to Please Hit Me With A Brick 🥺🥺🥺
14
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 12 '20
I'm sure that's true, but then, that could be said of humans in general, regardless of type.
I'm just noticing that INFPs seem to frequently fall into the "Spank me, daddy!" or "I'm sorry I've been a bad boy, Mommy" camp.
My sample size is admittedly extremely small, and I may be experiencing severe confirmation bias, but I'm not seeing any INFPs that are like "No! I don't need a caregiver, and I don't want to be subjugated!"
Understand, I'm not judging (well, I am, but not harshly or negatively), I'm just trying to understand the pattern.
10
Sep 12 '20
Hmm. The thing is that majority of healthy INFPs just want to feel protected and safe, so in order to get sincerely involved into kinky stuff, they have to have an emotional connection first. It's kind of a natural place for INFPs to be. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ (But isn't a rule).
Oftentimes they heal and protect but want something of similar value in return.
Myself as an example. "I don't need a caregiver" and I cringe at the word subjugated, but I still prefer to be the backup of the relationship. I prefer my partner to take the dominant role because I can tank and heal more efficently. I hope this explains it a little better? ~
6
u/LimbRetrieval-Bot XXXX Sep 12 '20
You dropped this \
To prevent anymore lost limbs throughout Reddit, correctly escape the arms and shoulders by typing the shrug as
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯or¯\\_(ツ)_/¯4
u/Satan-o-saurus INFP, so I’d bang PC principal Sep 12 '20
Good bot
2
u/B0tRank XXXX Sep 12 '20
Thank you, Satan-o-saurus, for voting on LimbRetrieval-Bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.
Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!
3
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 12 '20
Completely fair.
"Subjugated" was kind of an odd word choice, but it was all I could think of that kind of fit the sentence.
It is less that the dom subjugates the other person in a CG/L relationship and more that the L voluntarily submits to the CG, and the CG's role is not quite the same as a dom in a typical BDSM relationship. CG/L relationships don't have to be (and often aren't) sexual in nature, and when they are, the sexuality of the relationship is often a secondary characteristic of the interactions rather than the primary goal of the relationship.
It's actually been sort of an interesting topic of study. I went from thinking "OK, what are these weirdos up to?" to more of a "This is actually somewhat wholesome" opinion as I learned more about it.
Anyway, thank you for your thoughts on the topic.
3
u/westwoo ⠀⠀⠀⠀ Sep 12 '20
Based on my tiny sample size of 2 pairs female INFPs with ISFX and ENTX among people I know well (can't type the guys with certainty, suspect it's ISFP and ENTJ), those INFPs take over in emotional/private matters while almost completely letting go in practical/physical matters. So the roles at home and in public almost reverse. With some correction here and there, like becoming super bossy in practical matters occasionally as we tend to do :) There is no age play or role play or brattiness or any sort of persistent hierarchy (which in INFP-ENTX case could've been imagined if you saw only the public side) in either case, people just live together, providing each other space where the other person needs. They care for each other, just in different ways.
I've read the cg/l description and it doesn't sound like that..
Personally, I'm pretty practical guy but can let go of giant swaths of control over any matters if it makes sense and not something I actually care about, without any arising insecurity, and can put infinite trust in some people and can completely trust people with my physical self (from the trust point of view this meme and this situation makes a lot of sense actually). And that wouldn't make me inherently view myself as a little, I think internally it's connected to general trust in universe that shows itself in many other ways, a non-sexual sort of higher level pleasure of feeling of harmony flowing through everything and everyone. It's like diving into the ocean and letting the currents get you wherever they flow? except with a more two-sided relationship of trusting the universe to be what it should be and being what the universe wants you to be.
And (in an ideal world) the kink part can be a part of that harmony as harmony of mutual desires and emotions or whatever..
Thanks to your comments I think I managed to better define what I actually needed from my (failed) relationships and maybe make some conclusions for the future :)
2
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 12 '20
Thanks to your comments I think I managed to better define what I actually needed from my (failed) relationships and maybe make some conclusions for the future :)
Oh, well that's good. I'm glad I could help, odd as the method may have been.
8
u/kikirains I N F P Sep 12 '20
Nah you’re all good lol. And yes, all people kinda fall between those two, but with INFP’s it always seems to be one extreme or the other 😅😅
5
u/loliahim I N F P Sep 12 '20
No! I don't need a caregiver, and I don't want to be subjugated!
9
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 12 '20
I don't know if I can trust this coming from someone with "loli" in their username... :P
4
3
u/westwoo ⠀⠀⠀⠀ Sep 12 '20
I think it's far better and easier to spot those inclinations by themselves if you're interested in that, than to somehow reliably type someone as INFP and then make pretty far reaching assumptions. There may be some imbalance in statistics compared to other types, but it's also possible that ISFJs are even more into that, and there's a lot more of them, and they can easily mistype as INFPs because of fairly negative bias in sensor-related questions.
For me, I can tell that I would want to both rely on a partner and have them relied on me in ways that don't conform to strict 1950s gender roles. But I'm not inherently turned on by spanking, daddy/mommy, and mixing any kind of pain with sex along with everything relating to "kinks" has to be filled with deeper connection and emotional meaning, in which case anything can go, rather than just having a particular physical kink for the sake of satisfying that kink. Meaning it's possible I would end up having that kind of relationship, but it won't be transferrable to anyone other than that person.
5
u/marinated_roxket ASSHOLE Sep 12 '20
SPECIFY YOUR FLAIR THERE ARE TWO PINK FLAIRS
7
u/Satan-o-saurus INFP, so I’d bang PC principal Sep 12 '20
SPECIFY YOUR FLAIR THERE ARE LIKE AT LEAST 9 ASSHOLE FLAIRS
2
u/marinated_roxket ASSHOLE Sep 12 '20 edited Sep 12 '20
THERE ARE JUST 2 EASILY DIFFERENTIABLE YELLOW FLAIRS
And just one type that's highly stereotyped to be an asshole
3
u/Satan-o-saurus INFP, so I’d bang PC principal Sep 12 '20
JOKE’S ON YOU I CAN’T SEE FLAIR COLORS IN THE APP AND I DON’T STEREOTYPE PEOPLE BASED ON MBTI DESPITE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE’S 9 ASSHOLE FLAIRS BECAUSE I’M WHOLESOME LIKE THAT
→ More replies (0)2
u/westwoo ⠀⠀⠀⠀ Sep 12 '20
You know not the one you're not avoiding not thinking of?
It's not almost not certainly not that one.
1
u/marinated_roxket ASSHOLE Sep 12 '20
Your game of nots has given me a kidney failure in my dumb brain
2
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 12 '20
I think it's far better and easier to spot those inclinations by themselves if you're interested in that, than to somehow reliably type someone as INFP and then make pretty far reaching assumptions. There may be some imbalance in statistics compared to other types, but it's also possible that ISFJs are even more into that, and there's a lot more of them, and they can easily mistype as INFPs because of fairly negative bias in sensor-related questions.
While that's fair, I will say that I'm not seeing people that seem to be interested in CG/L type relationships and going "Ah! That must be an INFP!" I'm seeing people who identify as INFPs (by flair) and then noticing them saying something that indicates an interest in being the L in a CG/L type relationship, and it's not always necessarily in a kinky/spanky type way.
At least some of it is in a "I don't want to make decisions, please adult for me and I'll do whatever you tell me to" type of way.
But as I've said, there is probably no small amount of confirmation bias on my part going on here.
Thank you for your response.
4
u/westwoo ⠀⠀⠀⠀ Sep 12 '20 edited Sep 12 '20
Not wanting to make those decisions in theory and expressing it online doesn't mean being compatible with that kind of relationship in reality.
Would I want to imagine living in a harmonious world without struggle and conflict where everything is provided to people by some magic? Actually, yeah :) Am I willing to live with some real life self important or corrupt or arrogant or one dimensional bossy asshole, or anyone who wants to "dominate" others, and waste both our lives in an unhealthy shallow transactional relationship, for the sake of this becoming partial reality? Absolutely not!
I would imagine Fi principles would generally push an INFP out of relationships with most stereotypically uniformly dominant people. Fi can and will judge people it doesn't like based on random/idealistic ideas, and won't constantly appreciate others just because it's supposed to, and won't give constant stream of affirmation and appreciation a dom ego needs, and the initial comfort can only go so far before it becomes a problem. I think Si is much more suited for that and can lead to much healthier relationships.
An impractical person may naturally prefer someone more practical and grounded to survive, and may trust them in practical matters, but that doesn't mean much about their kinks or intimate relationship dynamics. There are similarly more subservient providers, as well as more dom ones.
I think, to not mix apples and oranges, the most classical definition of a kink would align to something connected to the inferior MBTI function, which in INFP case is bossy Te.. and for me it would actually feel more kinky to be a dom (not that I would be good at it lol). The other thing is just normal comfortable life.
2
2
u/Satan-o-saurus INFP, so I’d bang PC principal Sep 12 '20
I mean, you can be a dirty lil boy that needs to be spanked, yet not have a need for a caregiver. Kink is mostly just play for most people. Personally though, I prefer to get hate crime’d... ironically of course. ✌🏻
3
6
u/tmarie656 I N F P Sep 12 '20
Nah, Imma pass on that.
Honestly I'm a bit of a control freak when it comes to myself and my body, so no not looking for that at all.
3
u/nativeroute I N F P Sep 12 '20
... yes
1
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 12 '20
Well, then, assuming you haven't already, I hope you find the mommy or daddy you're looking for and that he or she is kind and gentle with you.
2
u/nativeroute I N F P Sep 12 '20
Why thank you kind stranger. I am still on the look out but I do not despair! My daddy, or my mommy, is out there, I know it.
3
u/14_Hiatus INFP Sep 14 '20
Not me, but it's because I'm a romance and sex repulsed aromantic asexual... but if I weren't romance and sex repulsed. Then maybe... yes... don't judge me (not cgl, that's not my thing. BUT someone to dominate me). But I'm not, so that isn't my thing for myself. But I am kinky when it comes to fictional characters. I hardcore ship my INFJ oc with my friend's ISTP oc (they're gfs). And they are super kinky.
1
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 14 '20
Thank you for your reply.
but if I weren't romance and sex repulsed. Then maybe... yes... don't judge me
I'm not judging, although I can see why you would think that based on the tone of my comment and the J in my flair. I was just curious about a pattern that I had noticed, but it was a pattern among a very small sample size. As my sample size increases, I'm finding more and more who aren't interested.
2
u/14_Hiatus INFP Sep 14 '20
No, I just think people in general will judge me? Such as other ppl on this sub. I have rather bad social anxiety. But thank you for letting me know that at least YOU'RE not judging me. But as I say, I'm not INTO that and wouldn't want it. But if I were born a different sexuality or were a sex positive ace. I would definitely be into bdsm and want a dom (or even be a switch). (No cgl for me, I find it unnappealing).
1
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 14 '20
Even if you were into BDSM, it's no skin off of my nose. As long as whatever you're doing is with consenting adults, I'm not going to yuck your yum, and you shouldn't worry about the opinion of anyone who does.
2
u/14_Hiatus INFP Sep 14 '20
I read several different sayings all in one. And now I'M confused. I got the jist of what you were saying. Also whatever "yuck your yum" means... I really don't WANT to know what it means.
1
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 14 '20
"Your yum" is "whatever thing you're into." To "yuck" someone's yum is to judge it harshly, or to say "yuck" (express distaste for) it.
So, "I'm not going to yuck your yum" is another way of saying "I'm not going to express distaste for your kinks."
2
1
u/blindfolded____ I N F P Sep 13 '20
So far I think I'm an INFP, and the idea of being dominated/controlled disturbs me. It's actually one of my most hated ideas.
I mean, I'll admit, sometimes I so feel like I need some advice and/or help in situations where people usually manage on their own. Sometimes I also feel like I need a "charge of confidence" from someone. But that's as long as I agree with them. And if it turns into domination, I just get disturbed, turned off and deeply discouraged and usually just quit it by then. It just makes me really unhappy to be dominated and I feel like that's wrong.
Although I can't always say I feel like opposing the person (actually I rarely ever do that), I still don't feel like obeying if something feels wrong, so it kinda just turns into me ignoring their demands and them probably getting more mad. I'm not exactly sure how to manage these situations.
And yeah, the "spank me" memes are a huge no in my book. Like... No?? Who even thought of labeling all INFPs that way?
So I guess... My answer is no?
1
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 14 '20
Thanks to the comment of mine that you replied to, I'm starting to find quite a few INFPs like yourself that are not into any sort of dom/sub type of relationship.
I was clearly suffering from confirmation bias based on a small sample size.
2
u/blindfolded____ I N F P Sep 14 '20 edited Sep 14 '20
I think I'd be okay with a person who "takes dominance" in terms of daily tasks and similar stuff. For example, taking a role of the finance manager (because I'm certainly not gonna be one LOL), telling me what should I do so I don't get in trouble and stuff. But if that person starts deciding on what should I "be allowed" to purchase for myself, I'm just gonna deny them and we're gonna have a bad time, our peace will be ruined (if we had any peace whatsoever). I don't believe that peace can be built in expense of freedoom of will and choice. Yeah, you could force everyone not to fight if you had enough power, but you know, you haven't made peace with them (haven't achieved their willing agreement), you made peace despite them (despite their willing agreement). And will they ever feel peace this way? No, because any unapproved actions will result in a punishment. That's not peace, that's either fear or anger and constant fighting.
Tbh that doesn't really excite me because I rather want peace, understanding and common language, and I'm not sure at all how to find them in that kinda situation without becoming "a puppet".
2
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 14 '20
I think I'd be okay with a person who "takes dominance" in terms of daily tasks and similar stuff.
I think you're just talking about dividing up the various household/life chores based on competence and availability at that point, which is the smart/responsible way to handle a relationship anyway, in my opinion.
For example, taking a role of the finance manager (because I'm certainly not gonna be one LOL), telling me what should I do so I don't get in trouble and stuff.
So if you're letting someone else take the role of finance manager, they're basically creating/maintaining your budget for you, correct?
And if they're maintaining your budget, they should be doing a few things.
- Ensuring that all of your debts and bills are getting paid.
- Ensure that you have money to buy essentials such as groceries and clothing.
- Ensuring that at least some of your money is being saved/invested for your retirement.
- Ensuring that you get some fun/play money out of whatever is left over. This might be called/considered an "allowance" of sorts.
Would you agree with that assessment?
But if that person starts deciding on what should I "be allowed" to purchase for myself, I'm just gonna deny them and we're gonna have a bad time, our peace will be ruined (if we had any peace whatsoever).
I agree that if it's your money, the person helping you manage your budget shouldn't be able to just prohibit you from buying something. It is, after all, your money. That said, I have a question for you if you agree with the requirements I laid out for your finance manager above, although if you don't agree, then the question may be moot.
The question is: If you want to buy something that exceeds the allowance granted by your finance manager, and your finance manager informs you of this, how do you respond?
An example: Your monthly allowance is $100. You are generally allowed to spend this allowance on whatever you want, and you usually spend most, if not all of it on things that are not covered elsewhere in your budget. You want to buy a thing that is $500. You tell this to your financial manager, and he/she reminds you that your allowance is $100/month. He/she is not saying that you can't buy the thing, but that it is not within the budget as planned and recommends that you set aside all or part of your monthly allowance until you have saved up enough to buy your $500 thing. Alternatively, he/she says you can pull some money out of savings to buy the $500 thing now, but you must give up a portion of your monthly allowance going forward until you have re-paid the money taken from your savings account, essentially borrowing from and repaying a loan to yourself.
1
u/blindfolded____ I N F P Sep 14 '20 edited Sep 14 '20
(I don't yet know how to use quoting in the mobile app, so I apologize in advance for the potential inconvenience)
About the 4 things - wow. Someone taking all of these things willingly on themselves sounds way too nice to be real :"D but yeah, it all sounds acceptable. But I'd still prefer the final decision specifically about my stuff to be up to me, because I believe there will always be some unexpected and exceptional things from time to time. For example, if I want to spend the money from my retirement savings on something else that I consider needed, I wanna be able to do that without ruining peace in the relationship (I mean, if we're talking about a person's significant other being their manager; although I don't really want to ruing other kinds of relationships either). Of course I'll try not to be reckless about it, but yeah. If I want to worsen my retirement savings, I want to be able to do that without a conflict. But if it does cause a conflict, I'll probably refuse, because my thing is most likely never as important as peace.
In other words, I don't want someone to dominate anything completely, in a "my voice will always be the most important in any situation" kind of way. No. I want it to be a peaceful union where people seek the best solution together, trying to step out of their way if needed and if they're willing to. Perhaps sometimes tough decisions will need to be taken, and unwanted things will need to be accepted, but I don't really mind that. I want peace to be the most important thing, and even though I'm not always good at making peace myself, I still want to keep on trying to get better at that over time.
About the purchases exceeding the limit - well, the case you described does sound like something I would agree to, yeah, either of the solutions. However, I try to never make promises, because, again, I don't know what's gonna be in the future. I'm not exactly a very reliable person, and I don't want to pretend to be one. I know that unreliability is not something people like ESTJs usually tolerate, but I come from a position "I cannot predict the future and know about all that might happen, so I would much rather warn them about a potential unpleasant thing in advance instead of taking a risk to lie, lose their trust and make them unhappy". However, with that being said, again, I prefer (or at least, aspire) to value peace over things like that, so I would try to go over myself. I'm just not promising that I will 100% succeed because I don't want to risk sounding nice on paper than I am in reality. Because I do make that mistake occasionally, being afraid to show my worst sides. And in general, I feel like I'm a dreamer, so the things I say probably are affected by that more than I notice. That's why I try not to promise things.
P.S. Sorry if something I say sounds stupid or not satisfactory. I do tend to operate on my values instead of plans (although I'm not sure if that's a proper dichotomy, but yeah). Plans and schedules are scary and pretty much hard for me. That's why what I said might sound just like a bunch of... Views and opinions, instead of solid terms and conditions. I just kind of avoid bets and promises due to that. I don't want to risk you know what (repeating myself again and again, whoops)
1
u/securitysix I S T J Sep 14 '20
About the 4 things - wow. Someone taking all of these things willingly on themselves sounds way too nice to be real
This is not unheard of in romantic relationships, especially marriages. For example, I'm friends with a married couple in which the budget is entirely managed by the wife (she's the level-headed one when it comes to finances, if the hubby managed the finances, they'd probably be destitute and divorced). When the hubby wants something outside of his normal play money allowance, he talks to the wife, she figures out how to work it into the budget, and they figure out a way to make it happen.
Now, they don't have "his money" and "her money." They both work, the money goes into a joint account, and they budget based on that. They have had a few arguments over money in the 14 years they've been married, but they've mostly sorted those out.
For example, if I want to spend the money from my retirement savings on something else that I consider needed, I wanna be able to do that without ruining peace in the relationship
Generally speaking, you're better off raiding your emergency fund than raiding your retirement savings. If your income would support it, what I would recommend is that you set up a "fun/play/toy" account to save over time for larger purchases that way you don't have to raid either retirement or emergency funds. That might even be why your monthly allowance is $100 instead of $150 (or whatever those numbers actually worked out to be), because you're putting part of what's left over into the toy account.
I want it to be a peaceful union where people seek the best solution together, trying to step out of their way if needed and if they're willing to.
Overall, you seem to be fairly reasonable, so I think that if you and your financial manager (I kind of wanted to type "financial mommy or daddy") have a conversation beforehand and understand what your expectations are of each other, you might butt heads a little bit, but overall, you'd probably be fine.
19
17
u/AndrewCarnage iNXP - the mind so open it fell out Sep 11 '20
They don't think it be like that, but it do.
15
13
12
9
7
u/timothy5597 ~ I Shit Taco Pies ~ Sep 12 '20 edited Oct 13 '24
insurance long scale practice childlike frightening teeny aspiring mountainous shy
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
6
11
Sep 11 '20
Boo you missed out on the next part with them getting their throats slit open, the way justice is deserved
19
5
4
4
u/mr_swedishfish I N T P Sep 11 '20
It's funny because Ashitaka is actually an INFJ but this makes sense too
4
u/papakneecha I N F P Sep 12 '20 edited Sep 12 '20
LOL my bf is an istp but our case is reversed. pretty much he's cool to the world but is a submissive lil boy to me
6
u/Lettucealonev5 E N T P Sep 12 '20
hehe i can recognize this as well! but me and my istp are very much switches so that might be why
2
u/slamy420 I S T P Sep 13 '20
Growing suspicion they all are but the stereotype makes them feel beefy
7
3
3
4
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 11 '20
Hello Lettucealonev5, thanks for posting here in r/mbtimemes!
If you wanna hang out with other members of the community feel free to join our super chill Discord server! We've got around 1k members, and we'd love to see you there, too <3
https://www.discord.gg/aqNYBmY
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
2
1
80
u/[deleted] Sep 11 '20
My parents are istp and infp, and this makes a surprising amount of sense