Interpersonal Strategy and Associated Irrational Ideas

All actual life is encounter ~Martin Buber

Drawing from Martin Buber’s words, it’s crucial to delve into what an encounter means for a Sexual 3. Who are they meeting, and who is meeting whom?

For the Sexual 3, an encounter is the wellspring of life. It’s the moment when they meet their beloved, who will hopefully acknowledge the dignity of their existence. To achieve this, they believe they must present ‘something’ that’s acceptable to the other. They can’t approach the encounter just as themselves because they’ve learned that what truly matters is being “as the other desires.” Essentially, they project their imagination of the lover’s desires onto themselves, based on the conditions their parents placed upon them for acceptance: to be an “attractive person,” the perfect man or woman.

This early experience shapes their core perspective, becoming the lens through which they filter all interpersonal interactions. Their fixation revolves around the self-deception of wholeheartedly identifying with the facade they’ve created. E3 genuinely believes in the image they aim to portray, whether it’s that of a confident,

successful individual or, in the Sexual 3’s case, the ideal partner. This subtype forgets that they’ve crafted a mask of attractiveness, sweetness, and affection, and they come to genuinely believe that this mask is their absolute truth. They deceive themselves, even before they deceive anyone else.

Once they begin the process of self-discovery and become aware of this distorted self-image, it’s as if they discover emptiness and nothingness behind the mask. This marks the pinnacle of an identity crisis where the quest for authenticity can commence. However, it’s not without traversing a desert where the Sexual 3 not only loses sight of their true self but also struggles to trust their own feelings, emotions, or thoughts.

Thus, the Sexual 3 believes they must transform themselves to encounter the other person. But who is the other? The other represents someone who can affirm the constructed image of being “right,” someone who buys into this portrayal. Consequently, the person they encounter also wears a mask, becoming another counterfeit. The Sexual 3 needs to project these idealized expectations onto them, losing sight of both the other and themselves.

To delve deeper into understanding how the Sexual 3 has built this cognitive distortion, it’s enlightening to explore a peculiar mechanism of this subtype: the unconscious mimesis and all the irrational beliefs or irrational ideas associated with it.

“Differentiating oneself from others is the most difficult thing to do; being different provokes rejection”

The personal relationships of Sexual 3s typically follow a predictable pattern rooted in the irrational belief that they lack the autonomy to hold their own opinions, ideas, or values. They tend to be conflict-averse and prioritize maintaining harmonious relationships. In essence, they feel the need to absorb what belongs to others if they cannot assert their individuality. This is akin to valuing others’ opinions over their own and denying themselves the right to stand firmly with their unique truth.

Mimesis, in the context of human behavior, represents an innate inclination to imitate or incorporate qualities from others, driven by the instinctual desire for interpersonal bonding and survival. Sexual 3s unconsciously engage in mimesis to avoid rejection and the distressing sense of inner loneliness, stemming from their experiences of lacking secure and nurturing attachments. This pattern is exemplified in the following scenario:

I deeply care about someone, and I desire their love in return. When this person strongly expresses an opinion that contradicts my own, I find it immensely challenging to voice my disagreement and assert my own opinion. Engaging in this disagreement sparks an argument, and the person becomes angry, possibly even refusing to talk to me. I enter a

state of crisis without fully understanding what is happening. I experience intense discomfort, confusion, and a nagging question in my mind – ‘Am I wrong? Did I miss something? Maybe the other person is right?’ My thoughts become entangled in an attempt to comprehend. I even start to adopt the other person’s viewpoint, unable to grasp the rejection I’m experiencing. This self-denial triggers self-accusation, shame, and anxiety, like a fear of impending punishment. This cascade finally leads to depression and sadness.

The ensuing sadness is linked to a childhood sense of abandonment, the belief that I am unlovable for being inauthentic. I’ve encountered this pattern repeatedly in my life, and it takes me weeks to regain my inner equilibrium and escape the emotional abyss created by the rejection. This ‘hole’ represents a recurring mental and emotional state, shaped by an underlying belief that I can’t be loved as I am, causing people I care about to distance themselves. It’s an automated, unconscious response, a pattern of interpretation activated by specific situations.

In essence, the Sexual 3 becomes a mirror of the values held by others, losing their sense of self and strength, ensnared in the trap of self-denial. They adapt to the values of different individuals, experiencing the world through varied lenses based on who is before them. The experience of rejection is like being abandoned, serving as a painful confirmation of perceived inner flaws and ugliness. The pursuit of validation and confirmation for their idealized self invariably ends in frustration. Instead of regaining the strength to assert themselves, they tumble back into self-doubt, subjecting themselves to self-inflicted torment.

Questions such as “Who am I, where does the other’s influence end, and where do I truly begin?” plague their self-reflection as they embark on their personal journey. Before embarking on this voyage of self-discovery, they often grapple with an inherent lack of understanding about their own identity, and their self’s fragility leads them to form symbiotic bonds with their partners, using these relationships as a way to explore their own sense of self. As one Sexual 3 articulates, “I find it challenging to maintain a differing viewpoint from my partner or to establish my own boundaries; it instantly triggers a void filled with anxiety.”

“Being disliked by someone is very threatening, but if I’m a good mother, partner, and daughter, I’ll earn a place in heaven”

In the realm of human existence, friction, conflicts, competition, and territorial disputes are inevitable. Sexual 3s prefer not to engage in this fight; they are not the wolves, but the innocent and adorable lambs, willingly subjecting themselves to exploitation. They see

themselves as the Lamb of God, the sacrificial figure offering themselves for the sake of world peace.

In their quest to avoid involvement in the tumultuous nature of human interaction, the Sexual 3 assumes a stance of helplessness, embodying the innocence of a child who avoids causing any trouble. They deftly manipulate their relationships, striving to achieve their desires through complacency and projecting an aura of benevolence. They willingly become the sacrificial offering, feeling a sense of superiority through their imagined divine goodness and apparent powerlessness, thereby inviting those with ill intentions to abuse them. The inner warrior is held captive within a metaphorical cage, disarmed to prevent any missteps, all driven by the misguided belief that pleasing everyone will provide protection and validation. Here is how one Sexual 3 describes it:

I fear conflict because I perceive myself as an easy target as soon as I’m confronted. To avoid reaching a point where I can’t defend myself, I strive to sidestep trouble. Given my insecurity, I can’t engage in confrontations, allow myself to get upset, or let others feel discomfort because, in my mind, if I don’t, I’ll be obligated to make amends, ensuring that such conflicts never occur with me. I market myself as someone who never causes problems.

In the following statement, you can sense the enormity of their efforts to avoid conflict and deny their own humanity. This character’s profound insecurity appears to cast a spell over their environment, creating a bubble of pathological contentment.

Driven by the fear of the patriarchal world, characterized by aggression, abuse, and the exploitation of nature and individuals, especially the vulnerable, such as children and women, it’s become apparent to me that, as Claudio elucidates in his book Healing Civilization, this environment fosters inverted values. I reluctantly admit that my unconscious motivation for marriage was to seek protection from a man who adeptly spoke the language of aggression and competitiveness. His strength promised me security, yet it came with the unspoken understanding that he could offload his aggression onto me whenever the need arose. As a result, I admired his power, projecting strength onto him, and at the same time, I hated him for abusing other people and myself.

How did I manipulate him? Firstly, I concealed my true self, feigned understanding and interest in his worldview, and adopted his values as my own. This included matters relating to child-rearing, where to live, how to dress, what to think... I even began doubting my own values, questioning my authenticity, and disregarding the anger and rejection stemming from the relationship and my impostor persona. I redoubled my efforts to love him from a self-centered perspective, enduring this façade with the hopes of finally obtaining from him the love I had dreamed of.

But of course, the growing resentment and frustration caused by self-denial and unmet expectations led to my shifting blame onto him, accusing him and holding him responsible for my pain.

My most prominent fear during my marriage, one of which I was fully conscious, revolved around the idea of being left alone and struggling to sustain myself. This fear was fueled by my apprehension of entering a competitive world and a deep-seated belief in my own inadequacy. I hesitated to confront the abuse that unfolded within my marriage, dreading the specter of abandonment and the loss of my innate strength. It was this apprehension that led me to perceive my inherent weakness as a manifestation of goodness, an inability to harm others.

At the same time, I started to take revenge on my husband by closing off my heart, simulating affection, speaking ill of him to my girlfriends, thinking about other men while we were making love, threatening him with separation, and convincing myself of my superiority.

An array of passive-aggressive behaviors progressively grew in intensity over the years. Catastrophic thoughts consumed me – thoughts of accidents, wars, tragic events, my children’s demise, a desire not to continue living, or fantasies of his death as an escape from my suffering. Today, I can acknowledge that my repression of vital energy and the denial of my own anger transformed into a sadistic form of resentment projected onto perceived horrific events or individuals I deemed ‘bad.’ My disconnection from myself and the mask of benevolence prevented me from recognizing my own manipulation and aggression, from confronting that dark, vengeful side.

“If I expose the conflicts I have with someone I love, the relationship will come to an end.”

In their quest to establish intimate and secure connections, Sexual 3 individuals tend to view others through rose-tinted glasses. This perspective represents a vain disconnection from reality, where they deny both their own flaws and those of others. Lacking a well-developed intuition to guide them, they struggle to discern between people with good and bad intentions. Consequently, they lack a conscious alarm system to alert them when they are in potentially unsafe scenarios. When anxiety about their own safety arises, they begin to question their perceptions, straining to find signs of validity in the other person or situation while denying their own instincts. They often create idealized fantasies of people and experience profound disappointment when they become aware of human limitations.

The elevation of the couple as the epitome of absolute love serves as a substitute for their deep yearning for a loving union. Their admiration for strong and powerful individuals represents a denial of their own aggressive and humiliating tendencies toward the weakest. These idealized relationships promise, finally, an entry into paradise.

Sexual 3s often find it challenging to admit that there are people they genuinely dislike and reject for who they are. Their idealized self prevents them from acknowledging these feelings. They often feign excessive generosity in an attempt to garner sympathy and avoid their deepest fear: being disliked.

Reflecting on my past, I remember a time when I presented myself as naturally friendly to anyone I encountered. My friendliness was driven by a desire to uphold the image of being good-natured and also by the mercantile utility of deriving value through associations with others. There was a phase in my life when I was fixated on establishing connections with individuals of high societal status. Being friends with influential people provided me with a sense of glamour, importance, and value that I did not feel within myself. I bought into the illusion of my own charisma through association with others, despite secretly acknowledging that I might be shallow and uninteresting.

These fantastical self-deceptions obstruct genuine connections with others. The Sexual 3 fails to truly engage with the person in front of them, preferring to engage with their own idealized notion of a perfect person or an ideal world. Since they deny their own experiences, they also remain disconnected from themselves. If they get angry, of course, they don’t let it show. Fear of consequences, disguised as fear of being wrong, inhibits anger. They tend to question their own feelings and often suppress their authentic emotions. Their ability to idealize themselves, a coping mechanism developed during childhood to alleviate the anguish of disconnection, continues to shape their relationships. This idealization promises something that seems to have been missing or is still missing in their lives. And so, they sacrifice genuine connections between two real individuals in favor of the irrational ideas that their true selves are not worthy of love, that they cannot have a place in this world, and that what they are, by the virtue of being themselves, is not enough.

Their tendency to respond with “As you wish” characterizes their automatic, thoughtless reaction. These three words are uttered without a genuine consideration of their own desires or resistance. They embody both a denial of their own needs and a keen desire to please. The belief here is: “If I show my true self, I will be abandoned, because I do not deserve to be loved.” Only when they’re certain the other person is already emotionally invested and firmly within their grasp do they reveal the frustrated and demanding facets of their desire for love and acceptance.

“If I am desired, I exist.” “Revealing my pleasure will lead to humiliation.”

The Sexual 3 represses instinctive, spontaneous, and erotic pleasure, often criminalizing the expression of Eros. This repression leads to guilt and shame, preventing them from fully experiencing life. Shame becomes a self-control mechanism that keeps them from surrendering to pleasure. Deep down, they are ashamed to live.

While their sexual instinct drives them toward union with a partner, they often eroticize their relationships subtly. They may unconsciously do this, intensifying their seductive tendencies to please and gain affection. Their primary awareness is the need to connect with their partner through sexuality to feel alive:

“It’s really important for me that my partner desires me sexually. I can feel his yearning for me in those intimate moments, and that’s when I might trick myself into thinking he’s truly interested and in love. But when he doesn’t show that desire, I start to question whether he really loves me.”

This character seeks confirmation and love through sexual encounters, even if those encounters aren’t necessarily pleasurable for them. Their focus is on fulfilling their partner’s needs at the expense of their own.

The heart remains distant because it closed itself off long ago due to the pain of having its vital, loving energy rejected. It ends up inculcating its inner child, which still holds an innocent and erotic essence. This inner child isn’t interested in seduction or manipulation but in expressing itself through pleasure and the expansive joy of life. The belief “If I am desired, I exist” reflects this deep loss of vital energy, connected to the childlike innocence (their link with E8). This leads to a strong need to feel desired as a way to unlock repressed desires suppressed by an overbearing superego. This need reinforces the conviction that they have to be in a relationship, often forming codependent bonds to avoid the fear of being left alone. It is this same neurotic need that prevents them from breaking off frustrating and unhealthy relationships.

Despite appearing as experts in intimacy, it is not true intimacy that this frozen and anxious heart knows. Sexual 3 individuals remain in a state of longing and may mistake it for genuine intimacy. However, true intimacy arises when two individuals reveal their authentic selves, with all the vulnerability involved in the sexual encounter.

“What is expected of me?” “If I manage to seduce you, I can rest.”

The Sexual 3 lives under the illusion that they can mold themselves into what others desire, whether it’s their partners, colleagues, close associates, or even momentarily interesting strangers.

“At work, I easily grasp what’s expected of me or the unspoken philosophy of the company. If the situation demands that I appear stressed and loaded with work, I can effortlessly adopt that role. If it’s more appropriate to admit my lack of knowledge as a form of humility, I can do that as well. If, on the other hand, the expectation is to be knowledgeable, I can seamlessly pretend to know things I don’t. I have a natural talent for discerning what will

make others accept me. There’s a strong need in me for their affection and approval. I’d even go so far as to say it’s not so much an effort but a reflex, as instinctive as breathing.”

For the adaptable Sexual 3, the art of fitting in is so ingrained and automatic that it becomes second nature. In order to be liked, they are willing to put others and their wishes first.

“If my partner didn’t approve of my friends, I gradually distanced myself from them, eventually cutting off all contact. If he didn’t like my haircut, I would change it. If he didn’t like the way I spoke, I made a conscious effort to alter it, striving to mold myself into the person he wanted, all in pursuit of satisfying my desperate need to feel desired at any cost.”

In this regard, I became like a Barbie doll who had no life of her own, and existed only through the vain image she produced: what her man desired, which she had learned through societal and educational influences.

Sexual 3s permit humiliation as a part of the steep price they pay. Their pact with the devil costs them dearly, causing life itself to turn bitter and desolate as they accumulate repressed anger, drifting further away from their inner radiant source. Presenting themselves as mere objects distorts the childlike yearning for self-validation, acceptance, love, and belonging. The deep-seated belief, “If I’m not pleasing, I’m not worthy,” echoes an age-old wound where the vital drive failed to meet anticipated responses.