{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02834008097165992, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.604123711340206, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Grace Reid on Typology

On a talk show radio station in Cape Town recently, two of the presenters were discussing the erotic implications of Valentine’s Day: “What gets you in the mood?” asked the female presenter. The man replied, “Ooooh, the best is to take your honey for wining and dining, and then . . . ,” and he gave a chortle reminiscent of Maurice Chevalier. The female presenter replied, “What do you mean? That’s not sexuality! There’s no time for that nonsense when you want to get into sexuality, just go straight to the . . .” and then she gave the Chevalier chortle. It occurred to me that, aside from displaying a remarkable gender stereotype reversal, this exchange might reflect contrasting psychological types and how these differences can create perplexing challenges in sexual relationships. In the past I’ve sought guidance on this question and been struck by the dearth of published material on the topic of Jung’s psychological types as they interface with sexuality. I find this lack of exploration curious, considering how frequently this kind of dilemma occurs in clinical practice. The radio conversation reminded me of a patient’s relationship conundrum. When she came home from a tiring day of work on her birthday last year, she found the house in darkness. As she ascended the stairs from the garage, her partner called out, “Don’t turn on the lights!” Walking into the dark living room, she tripped and nearly fell onto the tent that had been pitched beside the sofa. Her partner turned on a camping lamp and handed her a glass of champagne. “Happy birthday, my darling!” she said proudly. Drinking champagne by the tent was followed by the making of a fire in their barbeque, cooking food in the dark, eating on a camp table next to the tent, including a cake with the right number of candles, and love making in a sleeping bag inside the tent. This was not the ultimate turn-on for my patient, an introverted intuitive thinking type. She had once remarked that she’d like to go camping some time. Her extraverted sensation thinking type partner seized on this detail and developed it into her idea of the ultimate romantic surprise, when all my patient wanted that night was to flop into her own bed the moment she came home. Loathe to hurt her partner’s feelings, she went along with the plan as enthusiastically as she could, but her suppressed resentment and the late night made her irritable the next morning. “Birthday camp” was only a slightly exaggerated example of the conundrum of their union: opposites had attracted, but now their relationship was out of balance, spiraling into a dismaying descent of hurt feelings and alienation fueled by their typological differences.