Talk:Aggressor
"Despite the differences between these types in terms of temperament, base function, and quadra values, it seems that in the area of intimate relationships the irrational ego function 
largely "takes over" in determining the individual's behavior."
You've touched on an interesting issue here. Gulenko's "erotic attitudes" are just one of 8 such hypothetical groups. Another one might be called "work styles":
- ILE, LII, LSI, SLE = systematizers
- SEI, ESE, EIE, IEI = system expressers
- LIE, ILI, LSE, SLI = instruction givers
- ESI, SEE, EII, IEE = instruction takers
(arbitrary names)
Here the division is by 
vs. 
and whether the logical element is in the Ego or the Super-Id.
So, maybe what my tangent suggests is that there is nothing inherently unique to this grouping we call "romance styles." Also, romance styles have nothing to say about ethics in the relationship -- it's all purely about the sensing aspect of physical attraction, sexual behavior, and romantic flirting. So I think your comment about "taking over" in intimate relationships is a bit incorrect. We could create a different set of "relationship styles" based on the 
/ 
dichotomy that would focus instead on the way feelings are generated and maintained in relationships. (Admin 15:50, 5 July 2007 (CDT))
I do see perfectly what you mean, I will rephrase it -- I did mean onlu the sensing aspect of physical attraction, flirting, etc Expat 15:56, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
Improvements?
I'm a bit surprised that diamond8 identified best with Aggressor, when she's supposedly ILE -- granted that many people might want to identify with it, but perhaps I phrased it in such a way that might apply to the Fi PoLR ILEs as well. Suggestions? Expat 08:24, 13 July 2007 (CDT)