I didn't miss the point at all. What I am saying is that it is a lame one that is poorly substantiated. "You just can't separate sexuality into parts without creating pain." That's like saying you cannot possibly enjoy a great meal without contemplating the physiological effects of the nutrients you absorb from it. Yes, you can. You can also enjoy sex very much without any regard whatsoever for whether or for how it might effect your soul, before, after or during. The pain the author refers to exsists only if it is invited. The author appears to believe that some level of guilt is forever looming in the background. I do not adhere to that concept at all.

"Perhaps on the surface we can act as if we do not need the deeper, inner meaning of sexual intercourse." Well, yes and no. Yes we can completely enjoy a sexual connection with another without further consequence. I do believe that there is recreational sex that is simple and pure unto itself. However, do we, in the long run, "need the deeper, inner meaning"? Yes. I think most of us eventually arrive at a time in our lives when we are ready to accept that aspect and its connection to true love.

Yes, I do think it was entirely possible for the woman in the example to have been able to bring only her body to bed. At it turned out, she was not there just for recreational purposes; but I maintain that she could have been. The author chose the example of an emotionally entangled woman just to bolster his weak point.

I know what I have said here might sound as though I, personally, am a complete gadabout and advocate the same. This is far from the actuality. I am merely arguing philosophies here.