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.
Indeed, according to Goldman, there is no essential purpose to sex beyond fulfilling your desire for contact with another person’s body.
I think we can take Goldman’s account of sexual activity as a working definition for developing and contrasting the idea of love-making.
Where the other seeks only a body, wanting only sex, love-making is squandered even if it is not (at least at first) apparent to the one attempting to make love.
There is also powerful symbolism in love-making as depicted.Here, a key word is “mechanical” because these activities are essentially ways of mechanically stimulating or arousing oneself. They seek self-gratification—fulfillment of a purely self-interested desire.As philosopher Immanuel Kant stated, “Sexual love 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 lemon which has been sucked dry.” Here the idea that “sexual love” is self-regarding is clearly articulated by Kant.Truly, some may prefer the taste of the 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 and was served a Budd. But this, in turn, requires pinning down the meanings of each.According to philosopher Alan Goldman, sexual desire is desire for contact with another person's body and for the pleasure which such contact produces; sexual activity is activity which tends to fulfill such desire of the agent.The titillations of mine are yours also, and conversely.