people say that the meaning of, foundation of, or distinctive feature of human sexuality is (meanings that various people and institutions claim sex has):
intimacy
a divine gift to humans, which should be expressed divinely
a validation of our identities as men or women
a way to strengthen the (holy, matrimonial) relationship
the ultimate expression of love
the ultimate gift to someone
the source of life (via conception)
what people do if they love each other
the fulfillment of desire
which are too complicated, and often contrary to experience … to make things even more complicated, it’s also common for people to believe that:
healthy sexual desire is driven primarily by love
healthy, mature people are driven to sexual exclusivity
Everyone’s had sex that was not at all “intimate,” and most couples have had sex that didn’t nurture the relationship one bit. Believing that these features are or should be inherent in sex just makes things worse—because when we experience sex that doesn’t reflect these ideals, we assume there’s something wrong with us or our partner.
If you believe that sex has inherent meaning, you inevitably want to have sex in ways that are likely to deliver that meaning … being loyal to sexual standards outside of yourself, concerned that they’re not fulfilling some duty to “honor” sex … and it’s as far from “spontaneous” and “being yourself” as possible
obsession with not making love “like animals”—as if we do it in ways that are somehow superior to other creatures … we shouldn’t be serving sex—sex should serve each of us. Each sexual encounter is an opportunity to create sex anew … to refresh and explore ourselves in personally relevant ways.
If we think that sex has inherent meaning, and that it’s our job to both find and conform to that meaning, we won’t be able to see sex freshly, we won’t be motivated to perceive or act counterintuitively, and we’ll accept arbitrary, outside limits on our erotic activities.