Roger:

I agree that there is room for confusion here and that we should all strive to make our meanings clear.

The two phrases you suggest are, of course, too cumbersome to be used in full over and over again. Most people would use "sex" to describe the first phrase, and "love" for the second.

This is OK as long as we are careful, but I must say this dichotomy makes me nervous. Consider the following analogy:

Whole libraries full of useless debate have arisen over the last four centuries because Descartes and other western philosophers assumed a rigid distinction between "mind" and "body". Most of these debates evaporate once you realize that there is no such distinction. Mind and body are just words; the reality is an organic whole.

I fear the same thing could happen with sex and love. One of the problems in our society is that most people see these as two distinct things. Thus we have all these pathetic attempts to have sex without love or to have a "pure" love without sex. The results of this confusion are nothing less than tragic for both sexes.

"Sex" and "Love" are arbitrary distinctions we apply to something that is in reality a single organic whole. Even "non-sexual" love, as in the affection between a man and his dog, has an inescapable element of touching, of petting. There is a single voice that rises up from our hearts and that voice says "Touch and be touched!"

So let us all try to say what we mean as precisely as we can. But beware the easy dichotomy! Sex and love are one!