It’s time to get the message and reexamine your definition of sex.

A Sexologist Explains Why Sexting Is Still Sex

“Sexting is still considered sex.” I posted in an Instagram Reel. 

The comments flooded in: “No it’s not, because there’s no dick! STFU!”, “How?!??!”, “Who lied?”, and a few trolls said, “Well, I guess I'm a rapist. :)” and “So texting someone saying you’re going to commit a murder is actual MURDER.” 

Clearly, I'd stirred something polarizing. But here’s the thing – as a sex coach and educator who wants to advocate for people seeking sexual gratification – I know sexting is still sex. And here’s why: 

In sexology, the study of human sexuality, we are taught to honor many forms of intimacy or means of sexual pleasure – everything from ‘vanilla’ activities like cuddling to philias like love dolls. It’s all valid! 

Sexting, like many forms of non-penetrative intimacy, is still sex. 

According to Merriam-Webster, sex is defined as “sexually motivated phenomena or behavior”. Synonymously there is “sexual intercourse; involving penetration of the vagina by the penis” and “intercourse (anal or oral) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis”. The point of contention for non-sex educators lies in saying ‘sex’ but really meaning 'sexual intercourse'. So we need to stop equating them. 

The idea that sex can only be a penis in a vagina, a penis in a hole, or an object in a hole plays flagrantly into cisgender heteronormative patriarchy. If you confine ‘sex’ to penetration, oral sex, or anal sex, you are stifling your own capacity for pleasure. 

What about all those incredible experiences of passion met with passion ­– like a really intense make-out session? Why wouldn't we want to celebrate all forms of sex, knowing that value placed on the experience is individual and wholly not unanimous? 

Ascribing such a limited definition of sex is invalidating to so many kinds of sex: lesbian sex, virtual sex, trans sex, disabled sex.... This list goes on. It doesn’t hold space for the experiences of sexual trauma victims, those incapable of being penetrated, those with STIs or illnesses preventing penetrative sex, and many more populations who just don’t like being penetrated. 

Culturally, we like to apply hierarchies to things, and sex is no exception. Subscribing to the idea of hierarchical sex (with penetrative sex at the top, and everything else swimming nebulously beneath it) dismisses the nuance of what many folks in the sexuality space describe as a sexual energy exchange. 

For those still on the fence about if sexting, exchanging nudes, cybersex, phone sex, or any other virtual sex ‘qualifies’ as sex, I’d like to share this thought: If any of these acts are done non-consensually or with someone under the age of consent, are they 

How about when someone does these for money? Is it ‘sex’ then? The answer is yes, because all of these instances involve “sexually motivated phenomena or behavior”.  

Honoring the validity of nuanced sex only when it’s a crime or when it makes others uncomfortable weaponizes sex – which is toxic. 

This toxicity is extremely harmful to certain populations. The main population that is adversely affected by this hierarchical and context-driven mentality is sex workers. 

While I was moderating an audio-only chatroom about sex education, a sex worker said something noteworthy. “Sex work is illegal where I now live. Since, quote, ‘sex work’ has been redefined over the years, I now can't engage in it at all. I want people to redefine what ‘sex’ is for themselves, because there are laws, institutions, and authorities creating a definition for us [SWers] – and we need to catch up to them.” 

If the definition of ‘sex’ can be distorted to shame queer people, penalize sex workers, and rightfully lock up pedophiles, then we need to have the same predisposition to deem non-penetrative sex as ‘real sex’ outside these constraints as well. 

But my point here is not merely a misnomer. Dismissing non-penetrative sex and sexual activity as ‘not real sex’ is patriarchal, queer-phobic, ableist, and harmful to the fullest expressions of sexuality.  

Let’s stop defining sex for what it’s 

My job is to validate the sex and intimacy that people are (or aren’t) having – no matter how freaky or unconventional. As long as it’s safe and consensual for everyone, I encourage people to do what they wish! So it really gets under my skin and invalidates my profession when I hear, “Sex is just penetration”, “If we’re not touching it isn't real sex” or “We were just sending nudes – it’s not like we were having sex.” 

At what point is sex considered ‘real’? In short, whenever you experience a sexual energy exchange. 

I invite you to think more deeply about what sex is and how wide your definition must stretch to accommodate the breadth of human sexuality. Humans are capable of validating various sexual orientations, differences in race, class, and culture – yet we still ascribe to the idea that in sex, one size fits all. 