When taken to extremes of deprivation another difference between feeding/drinking and sex becomes evident. Extremes of hunger or thirst endanger the body tissues and create pathology, which would trigger us to ingest almost anything that is nutritious or fluid respectively, no matter how odious. In such a state and in the absence of anything to eat or drink, most of us would probably opt for the needed substance by the intragastric or intravenous route, to correct the discomfort and pathology. This highlights the biological imperative underlying feeding and drinking behavior. Sex doesn’t seem to be like this (Ågmo, 2007). Even in the extremes of deprivation, there is not an obvious threatening disturbance outside the brain that increases in magnitude over time. Neither does it appear that desire increases with deprivation in the way that hunger and thirst do. [...] According to the argument to be developed in the present book, where a failure to find a sexual outlet is troubling, this arises in the context of desires that fail to be translated into sexual behavior. The trouble starts in the brain/mind, not elsewhere. Any comparison with the bladder and urination makes the same point, though even more strongly. Clearly, the tension of a full bladder and the desire for urination serve an intrinsic biological imperative: avoiding involuntary urination or even bursting the bladder. Under medical treatment, a catheter can solve the problem of excessive pressure. Of course, there is an internal factor underlying sexual desire, which tends to lower its sensitivity for a short period of time following orgasm. It is equally clear that a signal from the genitals can contribute to desire. However, it is the contention of this chapter that for sex no regulatory factor comparable to energy, blood composition, or bladder pressure exists. Rather, the internal factor is best described in terms of the activity of particular circuits of neurons within the brain that are responsive to attractive others and are sensitized by sex hormones and signals from the genitals. This brain system is desensitized by orgasm(s), an event intrinsic to the brain.

If desire were the manifestation of an intrinsic drive we might expect masturbation to occur most frequently in people denied a sexual outlet. However, the evidence suggests that masturbation is not compensation for lack of partnered sex. Highest levels correspond with high levels of partnered sexual activity and the most diverse range of sexual activities (Laumann et al., 1994). Suppose that sexual behaviour is the manifestation of the brain’s desire processes involving the imagination, the sensitivity of which is enhanced by sexual activity (except for a period immediately following orgasm). The enormous variation in masturbation frequency and the fact that it often occurs most frequently at times of a new relationship might be expected.

And a few more:

• Comparing across cultures, or within a given culture, or even within a given individual over phases within a life-time, there are enormous differences in the frequency of sexual outlets, fantasies and desires. [...] Similarly, males with the highest frequency of sexual outlets had anything up to 45,000 times the frequency of those with the lowest (Kinsey et al., 1948). This figure arose when comparing males who were living in the same area and leading apparently otherwise similar lives. It hardly points to an internal regulation but is entirely compatible with the notion that desire is the outcome of a complex interweaving of external factors and associations, excitations and inhibitions.
  Warning: Spoiler!

  I shows this to a researcher, and he said that the Kinsey data has some errors in it. But even if the numbers are slightly off, the author still has a good point. Can you imagine a similar gap with any other human "need"? Can you imagine someone eating even just 100 times more than you for breakfast?

• An alternative to the view that we are pushed by something arising within the tissues of the body and then happen upon a suitable means of discharge is termed the incentive view of motivation and is a foundation upon which this book rests. That is to say, people are pulled by external stimuli, thoughts about them and their associations [...] To take stock, the essence of the incentive–motivation view is that motivation is triggered by: incentive objects (e.g. a partner); cues associated with them, through classical conditioning; use of the imagination to represent absent incentives, that is thoughts of them. (p. 103-109). Regarding sexual tension he writes, "in incentive terms, the tension was not what motivated the initial sexual desire. Rather the tension was introduced into the system by the desire." (p. 108).
• Extensive sexual frustration might well have subsequent consequences in the hormones of the body that underlie stress, which could be harmful. Conversely, the achievement of sexual joy and satiety might bring benefits in terms of the body’s hormonal balance. It is suggested here that adverse effects from sexual frustration arise in only one body organ – the brain/mind, and do so from psychological processing that indicates failure and thwarting of sexual goals. Sexual frustration commonly arises in heterosexual partnerships when one party (usually the male) is denied fulfillment of sexual wishes that are judged as offensive or otherwise unacceptable by the other party. (p. 98)

 but rather you should say (and it might not work, but it's the truth):  i understand that you are experiencing a strong urge right now, and if you let it subside it may come back stronger, but nevertheless, the real you does not want this, for you wrote down or told yourself/others what your true values are, and this does not shtim with that, so let's see if we can peel that outer layer away and get back to the core.