Sexuality, eroticism, sensuality... How do we articulate these notions?

The notions of sexuality, eroticism and sensuality seem to share an ecosystem in which they coexist willingly or unwillingly; when they are not used together - to the point of being perceived as interchangeable - attempts are made to differentiate them from each other to the point of opposition and mutual exclusion. There is indeed a paradoxical tension in the use of these terms, whether taken in isolation or as part of a broader lexical field.

 Sensuality refers to the five senses as a means of apprehending and perceiving the world. By extension and by cultural habit, sensuality is understood to refer to the pleasures of the body; we end up reducing sensuality to its meaning of lust and its connotation of seduction due to a long philosophical tradition that has discredited it over the centuries, in its capacity as a means of knowledge of the world, and as morally wrong, since it bears witness to human corruptibility. Whether understood as reprehensible or not, sensuality has a very broad meaning, since strictly speaking, a sensual person is as much a lover of good food as a music lover or painting enthusiast.

Contrary to this definition, which encompasses such a wide range of phenomena, our understanding of sexuality is clearly more restricted. Although it does indeed have more complex meanings than those commonly accepted, it seems to carry a more direct meaning, pointing in the direction of sexual intercourse understood as centered on genitality.

If sensuality seems to be the definition that admits the widest range of phenomena, and sexuality the one that appears to most seriously reduce the multitudes of phenomena concerned, eroticism seems to be the vaguest definition, to the point where it seems almost abusive to speak of a definition. Eroticism seems to appeal to a diffuse common notion, accepted by all without any real concept. Eroticism seems to have a strong evocative power - always subjectivized - rather than a strict, directly apprehensible definition.

Theoretical (and essentially personal) considerations

The logical and symbolic relationships between these three notions are rich enough to be the subject of numerous works, crossing many disciplines - and I'd be delighted to share my bibliography on the subject with the curious - but I should content myself with summarizing here my personal reflections on these relationships and on what I consider to be important in the articulation of these notions. By articulation, I mean an overall understanding that highlights the systematic relationships between these notions. To put it less wordily, these notions can be thought of neither separately, nor in opposition, nor in a strict relationship of equivalence. They necessarily function in concert, without ever being equivalent to one another. And - more importantly, it seems to me - a poor understanding of one leads to a poor understanding of the other two.

First, a few words on the illegitimacy of firmly separating these notions: this perspective is always used when there's a question of valorizing one of the three notions over the other two. Quite often, in a kind of pedantry of carnal inclinations, we try to make sensuality and/or eroticism appear superior in finesse, nuance and delicacy to sexuality - understood as animal regression and limited to the question of coitus. The conceptual weakness of such a position is self-evident: the desire for hierarchy and hermetic separation impoverishes the entire ecosystem. Here we can see quite clearly the extent to which thinking of sexuality without eroticism and sensuality makes it an empty notion of limited applicability. Conversely, to think of eroticism as detached from so-called animal sexuality, in the belief that it adds an extra spirit to it, distancing it from the baseness of the body, making it the pinnacle of humanity, emptying it of its physicality, materiality and texture, thus making it, very strangely, a pious notion, closer to Puritanism than to the sacred.

It's also worth pointing out the problem posed by the confusion and substitution of these terms for one another. On a personal level, even if there is a lack of accuracy, this tendency seems to me to be less damaging than the previous one, as it does not involve the value judgement required by hierarchization. However, it prevents us from seeing the fertile relationships between these different attitudes to pleasure, and how these different ways of apprehending oneself and the other in lust can give rise to virtually infinite profusions of phenomena, both in their multitude and in their extreme diversity. To confuse is (as the name suggests, and I'm not even going that far in this line of reasoning) to risk crushing multiplicity.

 Being limited by the format of this article - which I don't want to be (too) boring - I'm behaving like a good sophist and I'm not really giving a definition of eroticism, merely saying what it isn't or what it shouldn't be.

Not that I lack the will to do so, quite the contrary, and I intend to put the aforementioned bibliographical elements to good use in future articles on these issues... in the hope that these elucubrations thrown into the digital ocean will find readers preoccupied by similar questionings.

Practical implications

These ramblings aren't (just) meant to entertain me on a Sunday evening, they have an obvious practical interest: both for me as a professional and for you, potential clients of sex workers.

For me, it's an essential consideration in the way I conduct my practice, the way I think about it, conceive it, execute it, make it evolve, see its effectiveness or, on the contrary, spot its weaknesses... For those of you who use TDS services, understanding your own relationship to these notions will enable you to better target the services that are right for you, but also to better choose the person who will be able to provide you with these services. Understanding and reflecting on how you articulate these notions for yourself will, by extension, enable you to better target your expectations, and recognize the possibility (or impossibility) of resonating with a professional. We often read your mind - or at least try to - for the desires and expectations you're not able to articulate. Those that go beyond the service you've requested, which is always in the background. This more nebulous but very present part of the exchange refers in truth to your own relationship to sexuality, sensuality and eroticism, and learning to read your own mind on this subject will undoubtedly ensure more satisfying exchanges. Of course, it's not out of the question for this process to begin when you meet your professional, and for her to accompany you in whatever you wish to explore and challenge.