You Are Good Enough

So you"re not a "10" in every which way. But you"re probably pretty spectacular in some way, và definitely good enough in most areas of life. If ever there were a time to stop beating yourself up for being human, it is now.

Mental Health Personality Personal Growth Relationships Family Life View Help Index Do I Need Help? Recently Diagnosed? Talk khổng lồ Someone

You Are Good Enough

So you"re not a "10" in every which way. But you"re probably pretty spectacular in some way, & definitely good enough in most areas of life. If ever there were a time to lớn stop beating yourself up for being human, it is now.

Verified by Psychology Today


Sex Are You Making Love sầu or Just Having Sex?

Find out what love-making really is & how you can do it.

Posted May 06, 2013 | Reviewed by Lybi Ma

It is often said that “making love” is just a euphemism for “having sex.” To be sure, these terms are frequently used interchangeably. Unfortunately, this comtháng use (or misuse) can mask the important distinction between these two activities. Indeed, many people who have sầu “good sex” mistake it for love sầu only to find out that their apparent lover was not the person with whom they cared to spend their life. 

This is not to lớn proclayên the moral, or prudential, superiority of making love sầu. Indeed, some would prefer khổng lồ just have sex. “Sex alleviates tension,” said Woody Allen, “Love sầu causes it.” Still, it is important that one gets what one bargains for. 

Of course, making love (as distinct from being in love) necessarily involves having sex. But having sex, even great sex, is not necessarily making love—just as a nice cool beer is not a glass of wine. Truly, some may prefer the taste of one to the other, and a beer may be the drink of choice on a given occasion (say, at a Knicks game); but it would indeed be unfortunate if one ordered a glass of merlot in an intimate setting & was served a Bud. 

So are you making love or just having sex? Are you getting what you really want? And if not, how can you get it?

The first of these three questions can be answered only if one knows the difference between having sex versus making love. But this, in turn, requires pinning down the meanings of each.

Bạn đang xem: What's the difference between having sex and making love?

According lớn philosopher Alan Goldman, sexual desire is desire for liên hệ with another person"s toàn thân and for the pleasure which such tương tác produces; sexual activity is activity which tends to fulfill such desire of the agent.

Goldman claims that sexual activity is not necessarily a means to any further kết thúc. For example, procreation is not the essential purpose of having sex; so you are not doing anything wrong (that is, misusing your body) if you are having sex without trying to get pregnant. Indeed, according lớn Goldman, there is no essential purpose to lớn sex beyond fulfilling your desire for tương tác with another person’s toàn thân. 

I think we can take Goldman’s trương mục of sexual activity as a working definition for developing & contrasting the idea of love-making. Inasmuch as sex is a desire for physical contact with someone else’s body, it is a mechanical activity. Rubbing, touching, caressing, kissing, sucking, biting, &, of course, intercourse, as fulfillments of a desire for physical tương tác, are all sexual activities in this sense. Here, a key word is “mechanical” because these activities are essentially ways of mechanically stimulating or arousing oneself. Per se, they are self-regarding. They seek self-gratification—fulfillment of a purely self-interested desire.

As philosopher Immanuel Kant stated, “Sexual love sầu makes of the loved person an Object of appetite; as soon as that appetite has been stilled, the person is cast aside as one casts away a letháng which has been sucked dry.” Here the idea that “sexual love” is self-regarding is clearly articulated by Kant. However, for Kant, it is in the transformation from self-regarding khổng lồ other-regarding sexual activity that sex partners begin to lớn see each other as persons rather than as mere objects or things. Thus, he says, “under the one condition, that as the one person is acquired by the other as a thing, that same person also equally acquires the other reciprocally, và thus regains và reestablishes the rational personality.”

Such reciprocal sexual activity is, for Kant, possible only in the context of monogamous marriage where each sex partner gives the other a contractual right lớn the other’s body toàn thân. In this case, mutual desires for physical contact with one another’s bodies are gratified by each sex partner. But while this mutual sexual agreement (whether inside or outside the context of marriage) may be a precursor to love-making, the latter takes more than mutual consent to let each other satisfy a sexual desire. This is because such mutuality is still mechanical and focused on one’s own state of arousal as distinct from that of the other và therefore fails to capture the intimate character of love-making. So Kant’s idea of “sexual love,” even in its mutual sense, is not truly that of love-making.

So what else besides mutuality is involved in love-making?

As distinct from mere sex, love-making dissolves the chasm between “you” and “me.” The resolution, however, is not “us” because “we” can still be divided. Instead, in love-making there is the mutual consciousness of unbounded unity without partition. “Love sầu,” says psychologist Eric Fromilimet, is “in the experience of solidarity with our fellow creatures.” It is, explains Aristotle, “composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies." In making love sầu, your loins are mine, & mine yours. The titillations of mine are yours also, và conversely. My past, present, and future; my hopes, dreams, and expectation; and yours, coalesce as one—not two—persons. There is resignation of separateness khổng lồ inclusion of the other. It is an ecstatic resonance that defies any breach in Oneness. 

It takes two to Tango, and so too does it take (at least) two lớn make love. Unreciprocated love-making is unsuccessful love-making. The flames of love-making are quick to die when one gives oneself, body & soul, only to lớn be turned away. Where the other seeks only a body, wanting only sex, love-making is squandered even if it is not (at least at first) apparent khổng lồ the one attempting lớn make love sầu. It is a counterfeit if based on pretense because there is duality, not unity, and there is manipulation và objectification, not authentic, mutual respect.

As philosopher Martin Buber would express it, the intimacy of love-making is at the màn chơi of “I-Thou” as distinct from “I-It.” Thus, you cease to lớn be an object or thing & instead become “Thou.” I am bound up with you as Thou and you with me. Of course, as Buber reminds us, the unity of the “I-Thou” is not permanent và I must at some point begin to lớn see you as an “It.” For example, in touching each other’s body, each does what he or she knows is most erotically felt by the other. Here there is a sort of delicate, momentary analysis và deliberate targeting of a toàn thân part. But instantaneously each becomes Thou again with co-mingling of not just toàn thân but soul. In making love, there is thus a virtually seamless reciprocity between I-It và I-Thou.

There is also powerful symbolism in love-making as depicted. Fotrả lời gradually builds to lớn climax as in the unfolding of a life of two living as one. As such, making love is inspirational, for it signifies & embodies two mutually living as one. 

Erich Fromilimet maintains that there is separateness as well as unity in love: “In the act of loving, I am one with all, yet, I am myself, a separate, unique, limited mortal human being.” Here, Fromilimet is careful lớn bao tay that love (in all of its manifestations & not just in romantic love) is not bondage & subjection khổng lồ another human being or denial of one’s autonomy. However, the mutuality of love-making as depicted here guards again domination, for the goal is not khổng lồ control the other but instead to đại bại oneself in the other as the other in oneself. 

This has implications for the cognitive, perceptual, & symbolic aspects of love-making. When one merely has sex, one perceives the other as an object of pleasure, as Kant describes. In mere sexual activity one may seek to lớn dominate, control, and even humiliate in order lớn elicit sexual pleasure. Indeed, there are as many ways to lớn cognize and treat one’s sex partner as there are ways the human animal can satisfy a sexual desire. But, love-making is unifying whereas these cognitions are relational và assume logically distinct beings. For example, masochistic sex—thinking of oneself as lowly and servile relegates oneself lớn something less than và therefore distinct from one’s sex partner.

Xem thêm: Các Mẹ Ơi Mỹ Phẩm Pizu Có Tốt Không Webtretho ? Mỹ Phẩm Grinif Có Tốt Không

In contrast, the language of love-making involves thoughts (& perceptions) that unite rather than separate, divide, or alienate. “Two hearts beating as one” expresses a unifying metaphor, although it is not very sensual; while “I want khổng lồ feel you all over” can be very erotic but still objectifying. “I want to get lost inside of you” can be both erotic and unifying. Unifying thoughts can be deeply personal & can trả lời in the mind’s eye moments of intimacy & solidarity. They can reflect tenderness; an adoring (or adorable) look; or the instant when you knew you wanted khổng lồ be together for an eternity. They can be ineffable & unspoken; simply expressed; or set into poetic verse. “One half of me is yours,” speaks Shakespeare’s Portia (in his Merchant of Venice), “& the other half—my own half, I’d Gọi it—belongs to you too. If it’s mine, then it’s yours, và so I’m all yours.” In its diverse nuanced forms, from Shakespeare lớn the average Joe, the language of love-making symbolizes, & invites, the coalescence of two into one. In contrast, compare the dis-unifying, objectifying nature of the four-letter language of just having sex.

Adapting a metaphor gleaned from the neo-Platonist philosopher Plotinus, the unity experienced in love-making may be compared khổng lồ an axiomatic system. Each axiom is essential to the system & cannot be understood apart from it; but the system itself is over & above sầu và distinct from any of its axioms. Similarly, the unity of love-making is not possible without the two lovers, but it is over và above và distinct from them. So, in this sense, there is still distinctness in unity. But it is the Oneness of love-making that itself admits of no division.

Accordingly, it is essentially this unifying aspect of the activity of love-making that largely distinguishes it from mere sex. And here is a central “how” of love-making that follows from it: Surrender yourself to lớn the other; sensually coalesce; và trust that the other reciprocates. For, lượt thích religious experiences, love-making has an element of faith. If you attempt lớn have sex without such faith, then you will only have sầu sex. 

Transcover the self-interested desire for sexual satisfaction so that your sexual partner’s self becomes yours, & conversely, making the goal of other-regarding sex moot.

So, bởi you have sầu khổng lồ be in love in order khổng lồ make love? To get a handle on an answer khổng lồ this question you might consider what I have had lớn say in my blog on How good are you at making love? In any sự kiện, my considered judgment is that it can help to lớn be in love sầu. But this doesn’t mean that one must be in love. For I suspect that many people make love well before (if ever) they are actually in love sầu. 

Given its powerful symbolism, building a loving sexual relationship, as described here, may even pave the way to a more loving relationship beyond the bedroom. Try it out. The taste of wine is what you may crave. But sometimes one may also want a tall, cold one. So it doesn’t mean you can’t, when the mood is right, just have sex.

Facebook image: Flystock/Shutterstock


About the Author


Elliot D. Cohen,Ph.D.,is the president of the Logic-Based Therapy và Consultation Institute & one of the principal founders of philosophical counseling in the United States.