sx relationships?

[Ravenetta]

I used to get friendship crushes and feel strongly for specific people, although it almost never turned into friendships. When I was five there was a 12 year old girl in the trailer park that used to come around and spin the kids around. I idolized her and would rush out when she came nearby, and wait for my turn sometimes until I peed my pants. It was more intense with 'romantic' crushes. When I was in second grade I spent two weeks at a one room school and fell in love with a little boy with big brown eyes who gave me love notes on Ding Dong wrappers. I don't think we ever spoke, but he held my hand and looked worried when I cried during P.E. class. For the next few years I dreamed of him in hopes of seeing him again, and used to climb to the top of an apple tree to write poems and dreams about him. My crushes in high school and college always lasted for years, were deeply felt, but never became anything really besides distant little hints. I never felt understood or like the admiration was ever reciprocated. It only got worse as life went onto more serious relationships. I have recently written ten of my best songs for a distantly felt soul mate that I dream of more than any of the others. I'm an artist forever searching for my muse.

[The Cat]

Self-preserving (SP):
• I am my body
• Heaviness
• Anxiety all the way to hysterical visions of annihilation; cold panic (if I move, something awful is going to happen; think of a Hitchcock movie)
• Paranoid streak; blaming and accusing others for damaging/endangering/ exploiting self
• Aggressive/defensive
• Money
• Nourishment
• Health; hypochondria
• Logistics
• Generous at feeding others, helping others out in SP crises
• The people who shop only in health food stores, filter the water, install triple locks and security system, refuse vaccination
• Excessively cautious or self-destructive, even suicidal

Social (SO):
• Can be the most decent yet often fake, manipulative, or subtly to grossly antisocial (essence present or left out when relating)
• Prestige, popularity, fame
• Superiority/inferiority problems (forgetting that we’re all equal in our essential functioning)
• Delusions of grandeur or of outcast
• Involved in causes
• Clubs, parties, groups
• The scene, the beautiful people, chic, fashionable, what’s in
• Going with or against the flow
• Socialite/philanthropist/misanthrope
• Political or religious crime (terrorists, anarchists)
• Confusion of boundaries between “you” and “me,” “yours” and “mine” (i.e. using one’s home as a public place, picking from another’s plate as it were one’s own)

Sexual (SX):
• Vibrating out there, looking for a mate; peacock displaying his feathers, deer locking antlers
• Susceptibility to states of intoxication, tripping
• Schizoid disposition (split between affect and intellect, invalidating one with the other)
• Lightness, playfulness
• Curious, seeking, searching
• Often has shiny, leaky eyes (leaking the high energy of sexuality)
• Not about orgasm (which one can have alone) but about letting go, dropping barriers, intimacy, closeness, union through revealing/denuding oneself
• Madonna or whore, abstinent or promiscuous
• Frigid or impotent, unusual sexual preferences
• Crime of passion
• Least likely to become famous (SP goes for immortality, SO intent on glory; SX has other things to do)

[Earl Grey]

That is a very odd site, and the views on the variants a bit skewed from what I usually see. Most descriptions I have read emphasize that sx is not about sex, or physical intimacy, or eroticism, or any of that, though some expressions of sexual intimacy fall under it.

It's a bit of a purposeful choice. I think that if there is room for error and correction, people would be more likely to swoop in to correct, or even ask questions. Serves a dual purpose of breaking/clearing misconceptions and stereotypes, as well as gaining new information.

So what I get from such people/relationships, and their value to me, is a feeling of being understood, and the opportunity to explore topics and ideas that most people aren't interested in, at a depth most people won't or can't support.

How much do you attribute this to sx? I am sx-last, and I think it is nice to be understood, and to engage in a variety of topics while being able to delve deep into them, such as what I do with typology. From my personal POV, to provide a contrasting perspective; I think sx-es who place value in intensity, spark, or even sensuality* are shallow, absorbed, and missing the big picture. What makes what you mention, sx? Or, how is it enjoyed in a way that differs from sp or soc, if any differences exist at all? Anecdotal examples, contrasting them with your observations and experiences are fine.

*I am aware sx =/= sensuality, but there seems to be a correlation that even sx individuals mention, even if it is not physiological in nature- be it emotional, or mental.

[Earl Grey]

Sx wants to be able to plug into others and send sparks and shocks back and forth, romantically or otherwise. Neither individual can pick and choose who elicits reactions, meaning that it will either be there or it won't. Sx individuals are very picky about whom they like to share this exchange with and they use the elements of attraction and repulsion to control the dynamic. The second instinct will be used in support of the first, so an Sx/Sp type may stonewall those that don't interest them, whereas an Sx/So may use social dynamics to encourage the connections they want (like being obvious about the fact that they enjoy interacting with someone else more than you). Conversely, you can observe what they are blind to when they are rejecting someone. Is it the social dynamic including niceties or hierarchical expectations (Sx/Sp), or is it personal boundaries (Sx/So)?

This is slightly unrelated to my own OP, but out of curiosity; why? Is it fulfilling? What does it gain you? What is the purpose for this 'sparks and shocks' thing (which I have personally called 'tangoing' with someone, before I realized that such interactions fell into the realm of sx)? This is a real question. If someone engages me in this manner, I cannot help but wonder why. What is the peacock dancer seeking? (and what message is it sending?)

- - - Updated - - -

Enneagram experts have differing opinions. But for a typology that's directive, this is problematic.

You're welcome to share your personal views/anecdotes.

[Earl Grey]

I sure wish it happened more often because also as @/Coriolis mentioned, 99% of the time I feel I am in a desert.

Is that bad?

The 1% rare spark is what I seek, and also tied to this quote, no, I can't outline a precise set of traits that cause this to occur, nor can I force it. It's either there pretty much the first few seconds of interaction or it is not. I am sure tied to romance it is tied to pheremones as well as probably a degree of complementary characteristics that can play off one another well; but that intangible 'chemistry' is something I can't easily pinpoint. Tied to friendships, I suppose it's just an easy flow and sync/understanding in conversation, shared understanding of the world or at least similar modes of viewing and processing and assessing; again, happens quite rarely, an effortless 'flow'. I'm just very much aware that, for example, it probably seems unfair (?) to observers or even people who might want to get closer to me who don't see or feel that spark when I'm interacting with them but who see it when I interact with other people.

I don't understand. At first, reading this seems like it puts a focuses on the personal intimacy/chemistry one might feel with another, but as @Coriolis mentioned above and as you mention later in this paragraph, there is "an easy flow and sync/understanding in conversation, shared understanding of the world or at least similar modes of viewing and processing and assessing;".

For clarification, is the 'pull' more related to the person, or is it more related to what they have to offer- the information itself? I notice that sx individuals tend to see the 'person' they are talking to (the former), while I ignore it more- I see what they offer, and who they are as a person matters only as much as how easily they can give me the information I seek (the latter). I am sure it is not black or white, but that there might be people on each extreme either way (eg; a detrimental sticking to an individual due to the spark they provide, despite not actually providing much of this 'seamless' understanding and exchange of information. Diseased sx). For example, there may be overlap, which seems to be Coriolis' case- the information and the person behind it come hand in hand to demonstrate the overall quality of the interaction and following relationship, if it does develop. How does it look like from your, an sx individual's end?

It is probably also why if 50 people who knew me or worked with me, who were customers, or who were my friends, were asked to describe me, I'd get potentially 50 different responses. I think it's partly sx (I'm really 'cold' to some people, for example if I dislike them strongly and am ok with them receiving that message, quite the opposite to others, neutral and probably boring/flat to a lot of others), and partly other things (a tendency to sometimes chameleon based on who I'm interacting with / playing up on commonalities vs highlighting opposition).

Edit: Re my pets? I anthropomorphize them waaaaaay too much. They are my life companions.

From an external viewpoint, I guess there would be overlap. I type as sx-last, but people also see and describe me differently, for reasons that I attribute/can attribute with soc. Even so, it is interesting to see how people can appear chameleonic- both via sx or soc, and it goes to show that it is not the experience, rather the underlying reasons that point to a type.

[Earl Grey]

I used to get friendship crushes and feel strongly for specific people, although it almost never turned into friendships. When I was five there was a 12 year old girl in the trailer park that used to come around and spin the kids around. I idolized her and would rush out when she came nearby, and wait for my turn sometimes until I peed my pants. It was more intense with 'romantic' crushes. When I was in second grade I spent two weeks at a one room school and fell in love with a little boy with big brown eyes who gave me love notes on Ding Dong wrappers. I don't think we ever spoke, but he held my hand and looked worried when I cried during P.E. class. For the next few years I dreamed of him in hopes of seeing him again, and used to climb to the top of an apple tree to write poems and dreams about him.

Now this one is interesting. What on earth is a 'friendship crush'- if you two do end up as friends, why not just call it friendship? Shall I refer to people I wish to be friends with, as people I have 'friendship crushes' with? The way you word it implies that there may be a difference, a distinction. I am interested in knowing. Why do you call it a 'friendship crush', what difference is there between that and 'regular friendship', if any? Is that your default?

My crushes in high school and college always lasted for years, were deeply felt, but never became anything really besides distant little hints. I never felt understood or like the admiration was ever reciprocated.

Do you think this is specifically sx, and if so, how? You may use anecdotes of non-sx, or fellow sx individuals if that helps. I am sure that longing is no monopoly of sx individuals, but would like to know what makes this particularly sx, why, and how.

It only got worse as life went onto more serious relationships. I have recently written ten of my best songs for a distantly felt soul mate that I dream of more than any of the others. I'm an artist forever searching for my muse.

As a slight OOT from the OP, this seems quite peak sx 4. Related to OP, there are resources that say that sx-lasts 'believe' that they can 'control' their attractions. I do see it that way and find those articles accurate, or at least, for myself. Do you think that this is a choice? Is this something you 'let' happen? Given the choice of going through and stopping, which would you choose, and why? In other words, how do you value this? What does this bring you? What do you think of the notion of 'controlling' your attractions- and the people who do or claim to do so?

[Earl Grey]

Sexual (SX):
• Vibrating out there, looking for a mate; peacock displaying his feathers, deer locking antlers
• Susceptibility to states of intoxication, tripping
• Schizoid disposition (split between affect and intellect, invalidating one with the other)
• Lightness, playfulness
• Curious, seeking, searching
• Often has shiny, leaky eyes (leaking the high energy of sexuality)
• Not about orgasm (which one can have alone) but about letting go, dropping barriers, intimacy, closeness, union through revealing/denuding oneself
• Madonna or whore, abstinent or promiscuous
• Frigid or impotent, unusual sexual preferences
• Crime of passion
• Least likely to become famous (SP goes for immortality, SO intent on glory; SX has other things to do)

Do these apply to you? There is a focus on sexuality and romance, a non-platonic consummation here. Just like I mentioned in OP, I am sure sx individuals are still able to connect to others in less than sexual ways. You do not think about how sexual or flashy, or electric your mother (or father, or sibling...) is to have a deep and satisfying relationship with her, neither does she need to be 'intoxicating'. That precisely is my question- how do sx relationships manifest? Surely it is not all sexual.

Do you agree with this- what do you think about the relationship between sx and sexuality? You do not have to give me articles for the 'right answers'. I am interested in how sx individuals describe their experiences, because I am sure that there are exceptions or even deviations within the type, many of which are very individual. Yours, if any, would be interesting to hear about, and very welcome, whether they deviate or if they match any online descriptions present.

[Earl Grey]

I personally see descriptions 'flowing out from' an inner subjectivity as unique and obviously very personal to the writer, though it need not be a unique feeling or experience per se; but still, I don't "argue" about someone's personal experience of X anything, because in my eyes, there isn't really anything to argue about...

Since you were asking how "who is SX" personally approaches relationships and such, I am just going to answer from experience...I am not trying to argue what SX is or is not, and I personally really hate needless and cruel invalidation of what someone is trying to express, anyway.

Bolded: there isn't. The data exists. What is up to debate is how it is 'diagnosed', so to speak. It is not for the doctor to debate on the existence of the patient's symptoms, but it is up to them to accurately diagnose whatever symptoms the patients present, provided the patients themselves are willing. That much enters the realm of truth/falsehood, because a cyst is a cyst and cancer is cancer, though the patient may have come and called it something else, a 'bulge', a 'sore'.

It does not invalidate or erase the person's symptoms (read: experience), but brings it to better clarity, and the patient is free to refuse diagnosis. That is what I am doing. I cannot argue how a person sees something or even what they see at all- I leave that up to their own eyes, especially in this realm where 'symptoms' aren't as clear cut and testable. Fire away.

I have actually wondered if broken or 'damaged' attachment patterns (combined with 'temperamental inclinations' basically making for a passionate personality) might put SX at the forefront of...issues someone is fixated about. Or in other words, if it might make for a first or second strong fixated instinct. If, in fact, that situation would be most salient for SX compared to SO or SP...I have wondered about this of course, because I have a feeling based on what I have observed around me, and I also remember a youtuber mentioning SX first or second for those with attachment issues. Interestingly, I was speaking to a research mentor about attachment styles, and he mentioned that preoccupied (anxious) styles may display "scary" behaviors (not all of course, but I suppose some) such as stalking, clinginess in a scary way, basically what he described sounded a lot of unhealthy SX. Not that it "proves" anything but it's an interesting anecdote regardless.

It is an interesting anecdote. Not many typological models offer descriptions/explanations for diseased/out-of-the-norm/traumatized, 'special case' individuals. Enneagram takes a shot at that, however, I have never seen it applied to variants, only the types themselves. This provides food for thought and brings forth more questions- whether or not the all variant can be tied to other models, such as attachment patterns, and if so, which pattern can each type be correlated to? Out of personal interest, do you have the youtube link? I would like to view it, and see if any correlation exists, as well as learn about what attachment patterns overlap with, or can be attributed to soc and sp.

---

---

The rest of what you typed are very personal and anecdotal, and I can see how they fit into sx (and even a couple of enneagram types). It is quite illuminating. It seems that you attribute that 'shame' reaction to soc (and I do not disagree), while sx is not necessarily the absence of it, rather it is entirely a different mode of reaction/attachment to begin with- it seems to be more push-pull, and focused, individual, if I am reading this correctly. Correct me if I am wrong.

For you personally- I take it that you are so/sx (or sx/so)? How much overlap is present between those two states? What does sx 'feel' like, instead of soc's "a more general sense of shame, of feeling "oh they are watching me and I feel embarrassed!" kind of 'meekness' (no negative judgment implied) that people sometimes refer to with regards to SO"

Can you elaborate on this "SX related obsession and torture around 'special friendships')."? What is this 'torture' like? If soc seems to be shame-based, what might be more accurate, or closer to sx?

"How do I value them? The relationships? A lot lol, I don't think I even have a choice there. It is terrifying and feels like I might be flayed, or ripped in half, if I don't get what I need/want. [...] Well given my SX heavy relationships are those where I like (am attracted to) someone, what I want is very straightforward - I want that 'nakedness'/intimacy. And what I want might become clearer too when I actually achieve it, or get close to it at least haha.

I echo my question to Ravenetta for you;

Related to OP, there are resources that say that sx-lasts 'believe' that they can 'control' their attractions. I do see it that way and find those articles accurate, or at least, for myself. Do you think that this is a choice? Is this something you 'let' happen? Given the choice of going through and stopping, which would you choose, and why? In other words, how do you value this? What does this bring you? What do you think of the notion of 'controlling' your attractions- and the people who do or claim to do so?

[Luminous]

Can definitely identify with these patterns. I will totally stonewall / be really blank-faced with a lot of people; I will act completely opposite those I am truly drawn to.
-----------------------
I sure wish it happened more often because also as @Coriolis mentioned, 99% of the time I feel I am in a desert. The 1% rare spark is what I seek, and also tied to this quote, no, I can't outline a precise set of traits that cause this to occur, nor can I force it. It's either there pretty much the first few seconds of interaction or it is not. I am sure tied to romance it is tied to pheremones as well as probably a degree of complementary characteristics that can play off one another well; but that intangible 'chemistry' is something I can't easily pinpoint. Tied to friendships, I suppose it's just an easy flow and sync/understanding in conversation, shared understanding of the world or at least similar modes of viewing and processing and assessing; again, happens quite rarely, an effortless 'flow'. I'm just very much aware that, for example, it probably seems unfair (?) to observers or even people who might want to get closer to me who don't see or feel that spark when I'm interacting with them but who see it when I interact with other people.

It is probably also why if 50 people who knew me or worked with me, who were customers, or who were my friends, were asked to describe me, I'd get potentially 50 different responses. I think it's partly sx (I'm really 'cold' to some people, for example if I dislike them strongly and am ok with them receiving that message, quite the opposite to others, neutral and probably boring/flat to a lot of others), and partly other things (a tendency to sometimes chameleon based on who I'm interacting with / playing up on commonalities vs highlighting opposition).

Edit: Re my pets? I anthropomorphize them waaaaaay too much. They are my life companions.

I relate to the above very much. I've been called intense, and I've been called ice queen.

It's a bit of a purposeful choice. I think that if there is room for error and correction, people would be more likely to swoop in to correct, or even ask questions. Serves a dual purpose of breaking/clearing misconceptions and stereotypes, as well as gaining new information.

I like the way Peter described them. Or adding a little to the page you linked to which says:

The self-preserving instinct is associated with vigilance, protectiveness and aggression; in one way or another you have to fight to stay alive, and you must destroy in order to eat.

The social instinct corresponds to the herd instinct in animals; it involves the sense of belonging to a group, and a preoccupation with your interactions with and place within the group, the pecking order. Where interactions includes bonding, connection, communication not just with a large group but with others at all, even one-on-one.

The sexual instinct strives towards syntony with the world, to be in tune and vibrate with it; you have to cover a lot of space, emit the strongest and pick up the subtlest signals when searching for the most or best of mates.

I like this definition of sx, which fleshes out the ideas from above:

(SX): This is being ‘in heat’ (psychologically), exploring for ‘electrical juice’, the narcotic of attraction, pushing the envelope, the edge, pouring through for that peak something, fanning out electric-colored peacock feathers, the sense of being a half-something on the hunt for the other half, exposure to potential self-destruction in the realms of Social and Self-Preservation. ‘The World as a mating dance,’ broadcasting the self as a beautiful object, attempting to allure with the ‘art of me’ (my aesthetic, my music, my art, my taste), casting a net (or a pheromone) out for that certain someone to complete an electrical circuit, a nose for the individualized scent of the soul we long to burn our imprint into, and they into ours. Chemistry, not intimacy. Involuntary attraction and repulsion. Archetypally, this Instinct rules the alchemical processes, transformation/transmogrification, metallurgy, phoenix rising from the ashes, the radical rebirth in the wild-eyed shaman whirling in fire and blood. Some authors have sought to tame this Instinct with new names, such as Intimate or one-to-one, but any attempt at reworking the Instinct into something wholesome/spiritual/romantic misses the mark: the Sexual Instinct is an unbridled narcotic of wanting, untethered by ethics/morality. Recklessness. A live wire longing to burn…and be burned to death. The classical image of Eros’ arrow (erotic attraction) shot through the heart accurately alludes to the danger here: potential ruin and destruction under the guise of Love.

How much do you attribute this to sx? I am sx-last, and I think it is nice to be understood, and to engage in a variety of topics while being able to delve deep into them, such as what I do with typology. From my personal POV, to provide a contrasting perspective; I think sx-es who place value in intensity, spark, or even sensuality* are shallow, absorbed, and missing the big picture. What makes what you mention, sx? Or, how is it enjoyed in a way that differs from sp or soc, if any differences exist at all? Anecdotal examples, contrasting them with your observations and experiences are fine.

*I am aware sx =/= sensuality, but there seems to be a correlation that even sx individuals mention, even if it is not physiological in nature- be it emotional, or mental.

Shallow? Oh dear, no. Sx is about dropping barriers; "union through revealing/denuding oneself". For me, it feels extremely expressive and meaningful. Though that might partly be because it does allow for much deeper so bonding, connection, understanding. But finding someone I want to reveal myself to fully is not at all something shallow. Absorbed? Missing the big picture? Why do you assume it's not the big picture to those who are sx doms?

This is slightly unrelated to my own OP, but out of curiosity; why? Is it fulfilling? What does it gain you? What is the purpose for this 'sparks and shocks' thing (which I have personally called 'tangoing' with someone, before I realized that such interactions fell into the realm of sx)? This is a real question. If someone engages me in this manner, I cannot help but wonder why. What is the peacock dancer seeking? (and what message is it sending?)

I gather you're asking why sx seeks to "plug into others and send sparks and shocks back and forth"? At a basic level, it's instinctual. Why do you seek food? Or water? Shelter? Friends? Sunlight? Fresh air? Is sx fulfilling? It can be. It can also make one feel like a hungry ghost, never satiated, if one cannot find someone to adequately share it with. (Why cascadeco's desert analogy is very bad.) What is the dancer seeking? That electrical connection, vitality, juice, fire, flame, passion.

I don't understand. At first, reading this seems like it puts a focuses on the personal intimacy/chemistry one might feel with another, but as @Coriolis mentioned above and as you mention later in this paragraph, there is "an easy flow and sync/understanding in conversation, shared understanding of the world or at least similar modes of viewing and processing and assessing;".

For clarification, is the 'pull' more related to the person, or is it more related to what they have to offer- the information itself? I notice that sx individuals tend to see the 'person' they are talking to (the former), while I ignore it more- I see what they offer, and who they are as a person matters only as much as how easily they can give me the information I seek (the latter). I am sure it is not black or white, but that there might be people on each extreme either way (eg; a detrimental sticking to an individual due to the spark they provide, despite not actually providing much of this 'seamless' understanding and exchange of information. Diseased sx). For example, there may be overlap, which seems to be Coriolis' case- the information and the person behind it come hand in hand to demonstrate the overall quality of the interaction and following relationship, if it does develop. How does it look like from your, an sx individual's end?

For me, who they are as a person is ultimate. That may be their character, it may be a talent, it may be some je ne sais quoi. The specific message is not as important as the who.

Do you think this is specifically sx, and if so, how? You may use anecdotes of non-sx, or fellow sx individuals if that helps. I am sure that longing is no monopoly of sx individuals, but would like to know what makes this particularly sx, why, and how.

I have also had very deep, unrequited feelings that lasted for years, decades even. Which all began with a little spark.

Do these apply to you? There is a focus on sexuality and romance, a non-platonic consummation here. Just like I mentioned in OP, I am sure sx individuals are still able to connect to others in less than sexual ways. You do not think about how sexual or flashy, or electric your mother (or father, or sibling...) is to have a deep and satisfying relationship with her, neither does she need to be 'intoxicating'. That precisely is my question- how do sx relationships manifest? Surely it is not all sexual.

Do you agree with this- what do you think about the relationship between sx and sexuality? You do not have to give me articles for the 'right answers'. I am interested in how sx individuals describe their experiences, because I am sure that there are exceptions or even deviations within the type, many of which are very individual. Yours, if any, would be interesting to hear about, and very welcome, whether they deviate or if they match any online descriptions present.

The bonding I share with my family and most of my friends is primarily so. Sx sparks are rare, sadly.

Sexuality can encompass all sx, so, and sp. The best experience I've had has been a combination of sx and so. A consuming hot fire, leaving me breathless, satiated in all ways.

[Earl Grey]

I like this definition of sx, which fleshes out the ideas from above:

I have seen this before, the question is why? Is this a constant? What about more platonic relationships? Do sx individuals just not care for anything in between?

Shallow? Oh dear, no. Sx is about dropping barriers; "union through revealing/denuding oneself". For me, it feels extremely expressive and meaningful. Though that might partly be because it does allow for much deeper so bonding, connection, understanding. But finding someone I want to reveal myself to fully is not at all something shallow. Absorbed? Missing the big picture? Why do you assume it's not the big picture to those who are sx doms?

Faulty question based off a faulty assumption, based off faulty reading. I was stating an opinion, not fact. What you say is meaningless to me, and shallow in the grand scheme of other things I do value. Subjective preferences are relative. This much is a value statement of preference for which there is no real answer. Only the individual can say for themselves whether or not it is shallow to them. It is to me.

I gather you're asking why sx seeks to "plug into others and send sparks and shocks back and forth"? At a basic level, it's instinctual. Why do you seek food? Or water? Shelter? Friends? Sunlight? Fresh air? Is sx fulfilling? It can be. It can also make one feel like a hungry ghost, never satiated, if one cannot find someone to adequately share it with. (Why cascadeco's desert analogy is very bad.) What is the dancer seeking? That electrical connection, vitality, juice, fire, flame, passion.

This made something click in my mind. Maybe the reason I cannot see its value is that I see things primarily (and naturally) through an sp lens, so I cannot see why or how it is fulfilling. Personally, I cannot see value in the things you mention for its own sake.

For me, who they are as a person is ultimate. That may be their character, it may be a talent, it may be some je ne sais quoi. The specific message is not as important as the who.

The bonding I share with my family and most of my friends is primarily so. Sx sparks are rare, sadly.

Sexuality can encompass all sx, so, and sp. The best experience I've had has been a combination of sx and so. A consuming hot fire, leaving me breathless, satiated in all ways.

Interesting. So, according to you, there is a definite distinction- sx is in its own realm, and other connections do not involve sx?