(NSFW) Which do you prefer, a very sexual person or a very sensual person?

With my SO her sensuality is like an aura around her and this does always take things up several levels from what I have been used to with people before her.

It’s interesting trying to work out a definition actually because I feel that sensuality has that kind of special X factor that just gives a completely different feeling inside than somebody that is very sexual. For me anyway it just creates something different in the air.

I love the sensuality of life.

Anyone can have sex. But to wallow in all the senses and experience it on another level as a sensual person is so much nicer. Plus you get to experience life on so many levels when you relax and let your senses take in everything.

I love this question. I have to use examples. Because appreciation of sensuality dictates I do.

Sensuality is floating when you walk, or feeling the texture of a rough of a peely blanket or a knitted one. Appreciating the ribbing of cordoroy.

Music will create wrap around the individual informing them of their moves, though not physically dancing every move is deliberate and in sink.

It shrinks the world down to the two of you regardless if you are alone together.

It is living art. A masterpiece of movement. An awareness a presence.

A deepened voice. Body instantly alert, waiting to hear more. Each touch a stroke a caress smooth warm. Leaving behind a trail.

Even if the purpose is not to instantly seduce.

A sexual person sees a naked person and sees sex. Has needs so therefore develops techniques and moves but the underlying goal is principally sex and release.

@rosehips Love it!

Sensuality that leads to heightened sexuality, please. ;)

Sensual, sensual, sensual!

Lol it would have been better if I edited it. But yeah, thanks for reminding me with this question, it has been a while since I have met such a person they can be a rare find.

Guys, please jump in and support me on this. We can be sensual can’t we?

^^yes, how odd we have only had one male answer

I know. What’s up with that?

@Adirondackwannabe That the most mind blowing lovers are all on this thread? And we are so few?

Wait isn’t @TheProfoundPorcupine male? Though he just does express appreciation for it. It is hard to fully appreciate something you don’t have a modicum of.

But thanks for stepping up @Adirondackwannabe

@rosehips Yes, I should have written one other male, or you and one other. It’s late here! If the @TheProfoundPorcupine can see it, he must know it? As in have it?

So many couples don’t communicate. Life is so much better when you do. And so is the lovemaking.

I like to think I have it and can be sensual at different times.

@Shippy I make mistakes frequently without reason.

It is a theory. I am not certain of its universal correctness. After all one can appreciate many apparent things yet not have the ability to perform them. Maybe it is true with intangible qualities though.

Can sensuality be learned do you think. For example geisha’s are taught the art of seduction companionship.

@Adirondackwannabe so true!

You can try to separate out sensuality and sexuality for purposes of this question if you want, but it won’t get you anywhere. They can’t be separated.

I don’t know why people try, other than we are Westerners and we think everything can be sliced and diced and pulled into little parts and that this will give you some greater understanding.

Unfortunately, in the case of sexuality and sensuality, when you try to understand them separately, you miss the point and lose everything.

They are aspects of the same thing, but you can’t trade one in for another, or be all one and none of the other. That’s so ridiculous, I can’t even talk about it. But it’s similar to trying to separate sexuality from any other aspect of being a person. Or separating it from love. It can’t be done. People who say they are doing it are cutting themselves off from themselves. Becoming less than human. I think it’s a psychological sickness, actually. Though I wouldn’t know how to treat it.

I’m with you, @Shippy. Sexuality without sensuality can be had in a machine. A pile driver or a milking machine. You need a good mix of both to really be sexy.

@ETpro That would be a machine, not a human, and it wouldn’t be sexuality.

Anyway, if you have good communication with your partner, none of this is an issue. If you don’t, you can talk until the cows come home to the milking machines, and it won’t make a whit of difference.

@burntbonez Did I have to say figuratively speaking to get the point across? Do you really think I’d seduce a milking machine or a pile driver?

@ETpro I think I see where you are going, equating intimacy with sensuality.

I argue that you can have intimacy with them without them being attuned to the sensual, although it is even a fuzzier line then sensuality v sexuality.

@wundayatta I think it is ok to seperate them in the way you seperate a blockbuster movie that is a success from a movie that has every aspect thought about considered and developed. They are components whose end results are the same but one leaves a more lasting impression. While the other is just a pleasurable moment lost in the passage of time.

It is a Western conceit that you can separate inseparable things for purposes of certain kinds of analyses. Honestly, I didn’t get your blockbuster separation, but I don’t think it matters.

When we fall prey to this idea, we think we understand things in ways that are lies. The world isn’t separate and it doesn’t separate. It is a wholistic thing and for some things such as spiritual things, trying to hold these ideas separately makes us think things that aren’t true and aren’t helpful.

People like to take their humanity and throw it away, I think. They want to turn into machines. @ETpro likes using machines as a metaphor, but the problem is that when you separate out sexuality and sensuality, you literally have turned people into machines. I guess they do it themselves. But they lose a significant portion of their humanity when they do that, and turn themselves into something manmade for a specific purpose. In the process, they lose whatever it was they were trying to create.

It’s hard to explain this because if you believe separation is possible, it means you aren’t whole. If you aren’t whole, you can’t experience wholeness. You can’t experience love the way it is possible to experience it.It’s pieces and parts. Put tab a in slot b. Wiggle this way. Provide a little torque. Achieve pleasure meter setting of 5.

Sensuallovingsexuality can’t think that way. It just is. People are present. There are no barriers. It is person to person. No thinking. Just being. Falling in love second after second. Each impulse leads to the next. No planning. I ideas. No counting. No scoring.

Why anyone would seek anything other than that is beyond me. But once you can conceive of separate sensuality and sexuality, then I suppose you can no longer conceive of wholeness or direct experience or pure being. It is all planning and mind based experience. It just makes me sad and a little bit angry, because I believe it actually harms us psychologically, spiritually, and physically.

When you experience is direct, you can’t help but fall in love. There is no separation between you and the other person. Love must be a part of it. And the love making and all other aspects of the dance will be perfect because you both will be perfectly present. Judgment will not be a part of the experience. Only is-ness.

I’m sure I sound pretty ridiculous, and I can hardly believe I am saying this, myself. All newage and Eastern or something. But it isn’t from those things. It is from my own experience, and it sounds ridiculous and stupid because I don’t know how to talk about it. Maybe it can’t be talked about. But I know I can show anyone how to experience it. It’s not just me. But many of us who have learned how to experience the world this way. Unfortunately I can’t tell you where to learn this without blowing my cover.

Hmmm @wundayatta. I would compare a holistic approach to the medical field. Specialists do exist and are necessary. As in traditional medicine.

However there are benefits reaped from a holistic treating the body as a single being also yields rewards and is logically sound.

I think as long as you can see and feel both sides there is nothing amiss with that approach. It just makes one a multilevel thinker.

As to the blockbuster analogy, a lot of blockbusters are formulas. Expensive formulas based on critics and polls and well known and liked actors top of the line technology. But many of them don’t stick with us the way movies that are carefully put together. Maybe with limited budgets and sometimes even nobodies.

Where there are artisans. Who put themselves into the production. A camera crew who is inventive and innovative thoughtful. A creative design team passionate and zany and commited to authenticity or the overall mood of the show. Actors who are allowed to invest in their characters and own them a little. Argueing for their personality. Directors and executive producers who allow some debate the exchange of ideas but also have the will to draw the line somewhere. The writing team that write and rewrites to the last minute to make everything perfect. Who have favorite lines and also favorites that were cut in editing. People who are commited to excellence and art and are a team. The collective makes the movie adds depth meaning and some life that makes blows other movies out of the water sets the bar to new highs.

That is was I meant. Their lines and contributions intersect into a seamless production.

People can just be sensual and the lines are difficult to establish but that is why there are different words. The differences are subtle. They do exist.

And one can be present without the other. But it is much better when they all coalesce.

It is not judgement so much as knowing something is there or missing. Later exploration makes the difference apparent.

I think sensuality is more of a turn on. Being focussed on sex isn’t very sexy. Sensuality is close to spirituality for me though it comes from the senses. Sexuality is more physical. But what would one be without the other?

@wundayatta I disagree. Porn, which is loved by many has no sensuality. It’s sex. Hardcore fucking, close ups, and who gets off on this? Many of course, else it would not exist.

Sensuality is deeper it is not something that can be bought or sold.

It is not something that is given freely. It is a deep soul feeling, it is being there in the present moment.

Of course most enjoy both, but of course they can be seperate.

@Shippy I dislike porn just because that’s what it almost always is. It’s possible to be sensual/sexual in front of a camera, reveling in seducing those who will watch. It’s a rarity in porn, even so-called amateur porn. Most amateurs just do what they have seen Evil Angel and the like crank out. But great, hot, sensual porn does exist. And the fact that it does keeps me looking for it.

@ETpro For me being sensual is a real feeling. Not one of the porn actresses you may be thinking of are experiencing a real feeling. Trust me on this one.

We are human beings. We aren’t like a cake that has half a teaspoon of salt, two cups of flour, a half cup of sugar and two eggs. The cake has components before they are mixed together. They can’t be separated out once mixed together.

Humans never existed in the unmixed state. We are not made up of two cups of sexuality, one cup of sensuality, and a tablespoon of hotness. That’s not what went into making us, and it’s not like you could separate us out into components, even if you could measure the amount of an abstract idea within us.

We are always some mix of sensuality and sexuality and love and hate and all the other things that we feel and express. Some people try to suppress parts of themselves at times because you can’t be a feeling person and be a piece of meat at the same time. People acting in porn try to suppress their feelings so they can be meat, and they do it to some degree, but you can’t do it completely, because there is always a part of you that is a person, and that feels things.

There may be no relationship between the actors, and thus they have to fake it most of the time. I mean, these women see men come into the room that they have never seen before, and on camera, they have to start having sex with this stranger. What can they know about each other? They know they are professionals. They know how to masturbate with another person. They know how to get excited enough to do what they have to do.

Anyone can see this and know that is what is going on. The people are holding themselves at a safe distance because they have no relationship. On rare occasions, something does happen and they do make a connection, and when they do, the hotness of the porn instantly mushrooms.

But inside, the actors are still people. They are doing something to suppress themselves in order to act, but at the same time, they want real connection. It’s easiest to have a real connection with someone you love. Clearly you don’t love someone you’ve just met, unless, for some reason, you’ve managed to find some way to communicate physically that is special and personal.

But that’s porn. That’s not real life. We see professionals suppressing parts of themselves and it is a mistake to transfer that over to real relationships. When we are really with people we might care about, we have to be there fully. Sex and sensuality and everything else are all part of it. It’s a different mix for everyone, but it’s always all there.

@Shippy I like you, but I am not going to trust you on this one. I do not believe you are privy to the inner thoughts and motivations of everyone else on Earth. And I’ve know some porn stars, and done a bit myself, so I actually do know the motivations of some.

@wundayatta I am not going to say any of us can absolutely quantify anything.

But to use your metaphor I can taste individual ingredients. It used to be a game with some of my cook friends identifying their ingredients.

What I am saying is if you look for something you can find it, or find it missing. Not saying one has ¾ s somthing or other.

We are humans we seek knowledge and understanding. Condemning others because of curosity a very human trait because you don’t share it is not like you.

@rosehips It’s not like me because it isn’t me. And the metaphor only goes so far.

Yes, you can play around, trying to figure out what went into it, but the only reason you do that is because the tastes meld in such a way that it can be tricky to figure out what goes into it. And in the end, it doesn’t matter (unless you want to replicate it). What matters is the whole cake. Or dish.

And the only thing that matters is the whole person, too. You can guess how much sex and how much mind and how much history goes into a person, but a person can not be separated into parts any more than a cake can. What goes into a person is less important, because people are unique, and you are not going to be trying to build a new person according to a recipe. That’s where you are taking the metaphor to a pont where it fails.

It is a mistake to look at people as being made up of parts and ingredients. People are whole. They are not separable. I’m not condemning curiosity. I’m condemning the model of personality that suggests that people are parts. It leads you into a wide variety of misunderstandings and gets in the way of good relationships. It’s a poor model.

Curiosity is fine. And it’s fine to propose any model you want. But when the evidence does not support the model, it is not a good thing to stick with the failed model. Now we can argue about whether the model has failed, and that is fair and proper. We should stick to that, rather than making it personal about whether some line of investigation is me or not me.

I think the Parts based model is a bad way to understand human personality. I think it is ineffective. I do not condemn anyone for proposing it, but I don’t think it can be supported. I think the wholistic model is better. It explains more and helps us understand more.