Interpersonal Strategy and Associated Irrational Ideas

The cognitive world of the Sexual 2 is distorted by a central idea of overabundance or false abundance (a term that defines the fixation common to all subtypes of the 2), which supports the passionate feeling of superiority over others. There is an overvaluation and interpretation of reality based on the belief that one can give more than others, that one is a "universal giver," especially in the realms of love, understanding, care, intimacy…

Also, the belief in being freer or more independent than others. In the end, the belief that one is more special.

This egocentric generosity is based on a maneuver to hide one's own need, one's own deficiency. It is always the other who lacks, and one must give to the other. It is like playing the role of a "mother of the poor children of the world," of the needy. One sees oneself in the other and gives: "I have more than enough, and you lack, and in this way, one covers their own lack with the other and with themselves."

Here is an example from a Sexual 2 woman:

"I feel my power by giving, and in doing so, I control the other, because I place myself above them, and they end up indebted. I don’t need: This is so ingrained in my psyche that asking for something for myself is synonymous with humiliating myself. (And asking for apologies is even more degrading.) It still costs me to allow myself to receive without believing that I must repay it because I deserve it.

With men, receiving is even worse. Because it mixes with the sexual aspect, which generates even more confusion for me. If a man invites me, the thought comes to mind: 'Do I have to return it "in kind"?' And in intimacy, for years, I’ve had a front rejection toward postures I lived as submission: 'I don’t submit. What will he think? I’m not the type to kneel.'"

Disconnected from my sexual desire, I connect through theirs, and then I enter a power struggle, where I use them to obtain my pleasure. Then my body closes, expels, and rejects. If I don't connect, I play a game where I hold on until you finish, and I expect your gratitude. You won’t find me giving myself. I only pretend.

I have a network of friends with a direct "you-me" relationship, and when one asks, I activate "response mode," and that takes priority, even stopping my own life. It’s the price of friendship, of the relationship... 'I can’t fail you'; I have to take responsibility.

My relational management is in the "you-me." It involves many people one at a time. When I have multiple fronts open, I don’t cover even my basic needs and end up exhausted. Sometimes I feel trapped in other people's affairs.

When I approach to offer what I know you need, I’m already relating from a place of overflowing abundance: the "universal giver" capable of covering your desires. Fleeing from the awareness of lack, that is, from the atmosphere of envy, which I live in as humiliating and dangerous.

Anonymous

This cognitive system appears early on in the childhood dream of a Sexual 2:

"When I was little, I dreamt that, on the road to the village where we spent our summers, we had an accident, and everyone was knocked unconscious. I, though I was small, managed to reach the pedals of the car and intuitively drove to the nearest hospital. I was their savior, and they would all be very grateful for it."

Sonia Gomá

A few years later, she had this other dream:

"I’m tired of pulling people along. I’m carrying my friend on her own motorcycle, but I see that my support is turning into dependence because she has stopped using her own personal resources. The best thing I can do is let her fall and not pick her up.

Then other girls appear, very relaxed, waiting for me to handle their issues while I’m busy with other fronts, and they ask me to buy them tickets. 'Let everyone handle their own, and I’ll go handle mine,' I say, angry, while climbing a hill and it starts to rain.

In the end, my father appears and gets on my bike so I can carry him. Resigned, I pedal with him on my back."

This mechanism learned in childhood ends up blinding and confusing me about what my real need is. This perpetuates the difficulty of asking, of being receptive, meaning recognizing that I too need, and that very often, what I offer, especially love, is what I really need.

Sonia Gomá

Yet, another contribution:

"We had an English exam at the Official School. In the oral part, my sister got a bit blocked; I, on the other hand, chatted 'all over the topic that came up, one I’m a specialist in.' Believing that my sister would fail, I felt guilty for not being able to rescue her during the oral, in her expected failure. To compensate for her disappointment and raise her self-esteem, I built her a false diploma.

In the end... I was the one who failed! And she passed. What now? I acted a bit whiny, disappointed, and powerless, but then I made light of it, joking: 'Bah... I consider myself passed, and besides, I don’t even need a title!'"

Anonymous

Conclusion: Instead of recognizing that I need my sister as a partner for exams so I don’t feel alone, I enter into competition with her. In the oral part, my pride kicked in (more than hers...), I pitied her, then belittled her and tried to comfort her (thinking the lie of a false diploma would help her).

The mere act of giving not only enlarges my self-image as a giver but also creates in the other an "emotional debt," an imbalance in which I will be perceived as a generous helper, and the other, whether aware or not, will feel like a lacking debtor.

Sonia Gomá

A new example:

"I prided myself on being the specialist in good breakup closures and the best ex. For years, I dragged along my past relationships, becoming their best friend, supporting them, offering them my shoulder, even going to some of their weddings... Maintaining an exclusive and special bond with each one of them, even if they had another partner.

I thought this un-catalogable place was earned by my own merits (after investing my time with them, I had acquired rights 'for what we had between us'). When a relationship ended, in some way, I felt that he owed me. For all I gave him, for all I loved him, I made him dream, feel vibrant..."

Anonymous

This idealized image of oneself involves the construction and maintenance of a whole cognitive system that includes, as we see, erroneous assumptions that imbue them with numerous irrational pretensions.

As Karen Horney points out:

"Pride is not specifically tied to imagination but to all mental processes; intellect, reason, and willpower.... The idealized image is a product of the imagination. But it wasn’t created overnight. An incessant work of intellect and imagination, mostly unconscious, is dedicated to maintaining the private fictitious world, through rationalizations, justifications, externalizations, and reconciliation of irreconcilables; in summary, through the quest to make things appear different from what they are."

In this way, the Sexual 2 disguises their need for love with false abundance; their sadness with joy; their lack of spontaneity with impulsiveness; their repression with freedom; their lack of respect for the other with excessive attention and submission; and their lack of commitment is translated into false promises.

The interpersonal strategy of the Sexual subtype of the 2 is thus based on their own illusions about how to satisfy their need for love. In their beliefs that:

• they have the right to obtain love by manipulating and seducing; • they are exceptional and deserve it immediately; • what they didn’t have yesterday is owed to them today; • evoking admiration means receiving love; • narcissistic self-sufficiency corresponds to real autonomy and freedom; • they don’t need others that much; • they are capable of satisfying others' needs and being indispensable; and • they are fully predisposed to the relationship.

Regarding this last belief, in reality, what they are is more disabled when it comes to creating emotional bonds. Indeed, they seem to aspire to exactly what terrifies them the most: the love relationship, which cannot be fulfilled if they are incapable of building bonds that tend toward everyday life and equality.

And yet, their basic strategy, as we know, is seduction, due to the neurotic need to evoke desire in others. They know that in a world where erotic desire is "sold" very well in the market of personal success, it is a great strategy to be desired. And no matter how much they realize the self-deception internally, they cannot renounce the secondary advantage of the magic of contact. Their skills have been perfected over the years, but they have forgotten that it was meant to be a means and not an end in itself.

The associated irrational ideas are: "If they don’t desire me intensely, they don’t love me or I’m not worth it," and "If they don’t reciprocate me in everything, they don’t love me or I’m not worth it."

As we’ve been saying, the generosity of the Sexual 2 hides motivations that are not as virtuous as they may seem, as it serves a pseudo-superiority ego: "I have more than enough to give."

When they think of themselves, they see overabundance. And they continuously offer their services to cover up their deep feeling of having nothing and being able to do nothing, of lack, of inconsistency.

The associated irrational ideas here are: "If I show my need, they won’t love me," "If I show my lack, they will realize that I’m worth nothing and will abandon me," and "The elders give, they don’t show their needs; only if I appear as the greatest will they love me."

Let’s illustrate with an example: I was twenty-seven when Manel asked me: "And you... what do you need?" The question hit me like I had never heard it before, and I answered, "Well... I don’t know..." Then my personal therapy began.

Anonymous

Another strategy, which belongs more to the Self-Preservation subtypes but is present in all Sexual 2 subtypes, is presenting oneself as the good boy, the good girl. It’s a way of avoiding open conflict, of not confronting, an implicit pact of non-aggression. No one wants to harm a child, and even less so if they are good.

This strategy originates in the childhood learning of being liked this way, hiding the bad child. If the good child is socially accepted, the bad child is the one who hasn’t hyper-adapted to the needs of others, erasing their own needs. The good child doesn’t desire, or doesn’t show their desires, or desires only "desirable things." In this way, the bad child remains repressed in the shadow of the unconscious, along with their instinct.

The associated irrational ideas are: "If you are confrontational and show your anger, they won’t love you," and "If you show yourself as you are, they won’t love you."