Identified by Ukrainian researcher Victor Gulenko, the four Romance Styles describe a person's characteristic attitude and expectations in close relationships. They map the tension between adult and child roles — between the patronising and the rebellious, the assertive and the resistant.
As with most small groups, these attitudes assist in type identification and verification alongside individual type profiles.
Careful — The Patronising Types
Careful types view others in a caring — and sometimes arrogant — way, resembling a parent figure who believes everyone else needs their attention and should follow their advice. They interact like a non-aggressive control-freak: expecting others to accept their care without rebellion.
They dislike signs of dismissiveness from others, especially when their care is rejected, and this can produce frustration. They typically adopt a patronising tone that communicates, however warmly, "I know what's best for you."
Their characteristic attitude: "I know what's best for you (like your parent)."
| Type | Code | Title |
|---|---|---|
| LSE | ESTj | The Director |
| SLI | ISTp | The Craftsman |
| ESE | ESFj | The Enthusiast |
| SEI | ISFp | The Mediator |
Infantile — The Rebellious Types
Infantile types have a lot of needs and can appear selfish — like a child expecting others to adapt entirely to their behaviour. They can seem openly needy for love and care, while appearing openly rebellious against the "right kind" of attention when it arrives.
They do not want their partner to control them directly, but prefer loose boundaries that give them freedom to act. They dislike aggression or indifference from others, and this produces a characteristic plea for warmth without conditions.
Their characteristic attitude: "I want your friendship (if you expect my attention)."
| Type | Code | Title |
|---|---|---|
| ILE | ENTp | The Searcher |
| LII | INTj | The Analyst |
| IEE | ENFp | The Psychologist |
| EII | INFj | The Humanist |
Aggressor — The Assertive Types
Aggressor types view others in an openly dominant way, expecting complete mental submission. They can display a victim-like appearance when using indirect methods to control others, turning aggressive when those methods fail. They dislike signs of weakness in themselves and interact like a bossy control-freak.
Their characteristic attitude: "I am in control (like your supervisor)."
| Type | Code | Title |
|---|---|---|
| SLE | ESTp | The Marshal |
| LSI | ISTj | The Inspector |
| SEE | ESFp | The Ambassador |
| ESI | ISFj | The Guardian |
Victim — The Resistant Types
Victim types can project either a submissive or arrogant view of themselves depending on the situation. The submissive version never questions the partner's control, though expects them to show the way. The arrogant version looks aggressive and challenges others in order to find someone who proves themselves stronger.
They dislike signs of weakness in others, and their characteristic dynamic is a search for someone capable of genuinely dominating them — not through force, but through demonstrated strength.
Their characteristic attitude: "I want you to control me (if you can)."
Sub-types within each Romance Style
Each Romance Style contains two distinct sub-types that approach the core dynamic from slightly different angles.
Careful: Teachers and Caregivers
Teachers (LSE, SLI) approach love seriously, almost with the intention to instruct. This can read as condescending to the object of their affection, though it is rarely intended that way. Like the Childlike types they pair with, they may live somewhat outside their own sexuality and tend to intellectualise it. They are looking for a worthy pupil.
Caregivers (ESE, SEI) openly express a need to protect and nurture their romantic interest. They are natural listeners and, depending on the person receiving it, this can register as either warmth or insincerity. They are looking for someone who will not only accept their parental tendencies but genuinely thrive on them.
Infantile: Childlike Types and Pseudo-Caregivers
Childlike types (ILE, LII) seem to exist somewhat outside their own sexuality — processing it psychologically, as an emotional or intellectual entity rather than a straightforward physical one. In a partner they are looking for someone who will understand and protect their particular quirks, and engage with their sexuality on the same intellectual or emotional level.
Pseudo-Caregivers (IEE, EII) exhibit paternal or maternal tendencies in everyday life and carry these into their romantic relationships. They habitually try to give their partner what they believe is needed, which can leave them drained when their own needs go unmet. In a partner they are searching for a combination of strength and gentleness.
Aggressor: Conquerors and Aggressors
Conquerors (SLE, LSI) are assertive types who do not flinch at their own sexuality. They express desire without reservation and are won over only by direct shows of submission — and only once they feel they have earned it. They will be insulted if a romantic interest concedes too easily, and bored if the resistance collapses without a fight. They are looking for an equal: someone who can play the game without breaking.
Aggressors (SEE, ESI) may appear relatively submissive in daily life but carry assertive tendencies into romance. They are won over by indirect acts of submission and find it particularly compelling when their love interest acts out of character. Like Conquerors, they are looking for an equal — someone whose solid exterior they can dismantle piece by piece.
Victim: Pseudo-Aggressors and Challengers
Pseudo-Aggressors (ILI, LIE) exhibit aggressive tendencies in everyday life and carry these into their romantic approach. They are typically uncomfortable with the word "victim" and everything it implies. In a partner they are looking for a worthy opponent — someone strong enough to absorb their idiosyncrasies without yielding.
Challengers (IEI, EIE) unconsciously throw down a gauntlet for prospective partners. They know, at an almost subliminal level, exactly what they are looking for — and anyone who does not fit will be subjected to an unpredictable hot-and-cold dynamic. They can appear amorphous, taking on qualities of other Romance Styles depending on who they are testing. Healthy examples carry a quiet sense of self-worth: they are the prize, available only to whoever proves themselves the rightful owner.
What each style talks about freely, and what makes it squirm
The same four groups turn up in R.K. Kovalenko and N.A. Zvonaryova's 2020 lecture course under a different name, the psychoanalytic groups, with exactly the same types in each. Their account adds something Gulenko's descriptions don't: which topics each group will happily joke about in public, and which ones make it want the ground to swallow it. They suggest using it to make conversation more comfortable, bring people closer, and understand how couples interact when looking for a partner.
It works because each style shares the same intuition and sensing elements in the same blocks of Model A. Four kinds of topic are in play:
- Comfort: health, food, comfort, sex, and how good they are
- Timing: deadlines, urgency, trends, how things will develop, whether now is the moment
- Meaning: possibilities, images, ideas, double meanings
- Power: strength, status, appearance, prestige, defending your territory
| Style | Free | Welcome | Private | Awkward |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Careful LSE, SLI, ESE, SEI | Comfort | Meaning | Power | Timing |
| Infantile ILE, LII, IEE, EII | Meaning | Comfort | Timing | Power |
| Aggressor SLE, LSI, SEE, ESI | Power | Timing | Comfort | Meaning |
| Victim LIE, ILI, EIE, IEI | Timing | Power | Meaning | Comfort |
The columns follow the four blocks of Model A. Free is the Ego, where a type understands the area in detail and jokes about it in public without a second thought. Welcome is the Super-Id: the type sees the area only on the surface and is glad of help with it, but is perfectly happy to talk and joke about it. Private is the Id: real understanding, but the type finds it awkward to make a public show of it. Awkward is the Super-Ego, where understanding is thin and the authors' word for joking about it in public is shameful.
Two patterns fall out of the table, and both match the compatibility section below.
Your freest topic is your complement's favourite. Careful types joke freely about comfort, which is exactly the area Infantile types are glad to be helped with and love to talk about, and it works the other way with meaning. Aggressors and Victims trade power and timing in the same way. That's part of why Careful pairs so well with Infantile, and Aggressor with Victim: each partner's easiest subject is the other's welcome one, and Duals always come from one of those two pairings.
Your freest topic can be someone else's worst. A Careful type's easy jokes about food and comfort are a Victim's most embarrassing territory, and a Victim's talk of timing and trends is the Careful type's. Infantile and Aggressor types have the same mismatch over meaning and power. Neither is doing anything wrong. They're just each relaxed about the subject the other finds hardest to hear about in public.
On a first date, that makes the table quietly useful. If someone goes stiff when the conversation turns to status, or deadlines, or the food, you may have found their last column, and the kind thing is to change the subject rather than push the joke.
Compatibility between Romance Styles
Highly complementary
Careful and Infantile types are the most natural pairing. Careful types find Infantile types ideal for receiving their parental-like attention, while Infantile types enjoy having their "look after me" needs met without having to compete for authority. Aggressor and Victim types pair similarly well: Aggressors find Victims ideal for accepting their control attempts, while Victims find Aggressors attractive precisely because they do not yield.
Moderately complementary
Careful and Victim types are a weaker pairing: Careful types find Victims a poor fit for their nurturing since Victims do not appear needy enough. Aggressor and Infantile types similarly misfire: Aggressors find Infantile types resistant to being programmed, and Infantile types find Aggressors too domineering.
Poor complementarity
Careful and Aggressor types are the least satisfying combination for Careful types — Aggressors are frustrated by attempts to nurture them and respond with dominance rather than gratitude. Infantile and Victim types also clash: Infantile types are disappointed when Victims fail to act companionably, while Victims are frustrated when Infantile types do not provide the strong lead they are looking for.
Note that identical types can appreciate each other initially — they recognise one another — but tend toward unmet expectations over time, since neither can provide what the other is actually looking for.