Is There Really a Difference Between Making Love and Having Sex? 59%

By Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.35%

3/18/2026, 3:02:40 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Confirmation Bias, and Overconfidence Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 19.6% saturation with 234 hits. Analysis detected 1,742 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,196 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.3% and a BS Rank of 59% (9,070 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.60% of the article peer group.

“*Patience is not simply the ability to wait—it's how we behave while we're waiting*.”—author Joyce Meyer 
“*Last night I had sex with my husband, but he did not actually touch me—he just penetrated me. 
I was so sad I could cry*.”—Married woman 
The expressions *making love* and *having sex* are often used interchangeably. 
However, although making love typically involves sex, not every <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/sex" title="Psychology Today looks at sexual" class="basics-link" hreflang="en">sexual</a> encounter can be described as making love. 
Compared with merely having sex, making love is usually longer, more patient, enduring, profound, and more emotionally intimate. 
The differences between the two can be grouped into three broad categories: 
1. 
**Temporal richness** 
2. 
**Emotional closeness** 
3. 
**Profound romantic activities** 
Below, I briefly discuss these categories while examining in greater detail the roles of *patience* and *sexual afterglow* in distinguishing between making love and just having sex. 
**1. 
Temporal Richness: Patience and Impatience** 
“*Patience is not sitting and waiting; it is foreseeing. 
It is looking at the thorn and seeing the rose, looking at the night and seeing the day. 
Lovers are patient and know that the moon needs time to become full*.”—Rumi 
“*It’s now or never, be mine tonight, tomorrow will be too late*.”—Elvis Presley 
A central difference between making love and merely having sex concerns their *temporal structure*, which is clearly reflected in the issue of romantic patience. 
A *patient heart*, which values time in both the present and the future, is essential in making love. 
An *impatient heart*, which focuses mainly on the immediate moment, is more characteristic of just having sex. 
Making love involves a balance between patience and impatience, whereas casual sex often relies primarily on impatience. 
The additional time involved in making love is expressed in richer and longer interactions before, during, and after sex. 
There is typically no rush in affectionate actions; they are often performed slowly and tenderly. 
Moreover, the impact of making love extends beyond the time partners spend together. 
In one <a href="https://www.wikihow.com/Tell-if-It%27s-Real-Love-or-Just-Sex">survey</a>, 69 percent of participants reported that when sex involved love rather than mere lust, they continued thinking about their partner and fantasizing about being together. 
Such lingering <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/relationships" title="Psychology Today looks at intimacy" class="basics-link" hreflang="en">intimacy</a> reflects the broader atmosphere characteristic of making love rather than just having sex. 
Patience should not be understood as passive waiting. 
Rather, it is typically *active and dynamic*: we continue doing something despite difficulties or delays. 
Patience may involve postponement—allowing something to occur later than expected—but the delay is purposeful and helps nurture the appropriate circumstances. 
This kind of delay differs from *<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/procrastination" title="Psychology Today looks at procrastination" class="basics-link" hreflang="en">procrastination</a>*, which is the unnecessary postponement of tasks one intends to complete. 
Indeed, research suggests that increased liking for someone is associated with greater patience, partly because individuals perceive the larger future reward as worth waiting for (Roberts and colleagues, 2021). 
**2. 
Emotional Closeness** 
“*For me, sex is a purely physical pleasure. 
Making love is also sex, but it’s not just physical pleasure—there’s an emotional connection. 
I’m very concerned about how you’re feeling*.”—Woman 
The additional time involved in making love often enhances *emotional closeness* between partners. 
This closeness is expressed through shared and mutually attentive activities that generate stronger resonance and responsiveness between partners. 
Making love typically involves greater emotional intimacy, less emphasis on explicit “dirty talk,” and a stronger sense of comfort and freedom. 
In this context, *giving often becomes more important than receiving*. 
Partners who are making love engage in a more other-regarding sexual interaction. 
Research supports this idea: Shared activities that are satisfying, low in <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/stress" title="Psychology Today looks at stress" class="basics-link" hreflang="en">stress</a>, and conducive to intimacy predict higher relationship quality both immediately and over time (Girme and colleagues, 2014). 
**3. 
Profound Romantic Activities** 
“*We cannot be happy if we expect to live all the time at the highest peak of intensity. <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/happiness" title="Psychology Today looks at Happiness" class="basics-link" hreflang="en">Happiness</a> is not a matter of intensity but of balance and order and rhythm and harmony*.”—Thomas Merton 
The additional time involved in making love enables partners to cultivate *greater romantic depth*. 
In the romantic realm, it is useful to distinguish between *romantic intensity* and *romantic profundity*: 
 *Romantic intensity* refers to a momentary peak of desire—a snapshot of passion<br>• *Romantic profundity*, by contrast, reflects a broader and more enduring romantic orientation 
External novelty often plays a major role in generating romantic intensity. 
In contrast, romantic profundity relies heavily on familiarity, stability, and gradual development. 
Romantic depth is expressed throughout all stages of making love—*foreplay, intercourse, and afterglow*. 
It appears in behaviors such as eye contact, kissing, holding each other, gentle touching, conversation, learning about each other, helping one another, and bringing out the best in each other. 
**The Importance of Sexual Afterglow** 
“*My married lover was cut off emotionally the moment he ejaculated. 
The speed with which he left me emotionally and physically was incredible. 
He actually left the bed to get a drink and did not return*.”—A divorcee 
The differences between making love and just having sex can be observed *before, during, and after orgasm*. 
However, *sexual* <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-the-name-of-love/201809/why-afterglow-is-the-most-important-part-of-sex">*afterglow*</a>—the lingering feeling of satisfaction following sex—is particularly significant because it occurs after the <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/orgasm" title="Psychology Today looks at sexual climax" class="basics-link" hreflang="en">sexual climax</a> has already taken place. 
Most people experience, on average, *about a whole day of afterglow*, though some experience up to two days, while others experience little or none. 
Afterglow is not merely a means of achieving sexual satisfaction; rather, it reflects the *deeper romantic* **attitude** between partners. 
Research suggests that afterglow, even more than orgasm itself, can influence how people feel about their partner. 
Although sexual afterglow is less intense than orgasm, it may play a *greater role in long-term romantic satisfaction* (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019; Breedin and colleagues, 2025). 
Spouses who report stronger afterglow experiences also report *higher levels of marital satisfaction*, both initially and over time. 
Sexual afterglow appears to function as a mechanism through which sex promotes *<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/oxytocin" title="Psychology Today looks at pair bonding" class="basics-link" hreflang="en">pair bonding</a>* (Meltzer and colleagues, 2017). 
Thus, cuddling, touching, and remaining emotionally present afterward are important indicators of making love rather than merely having sex. 
**Concluding Remarks** 
“*Patience is the art of hoping*.”—Luc de Clapiers 
Casual sex is often brief and impatient, while primarily focused on reaching orgasm. 
Because of this urgency, there is often little time or <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/motivation" title="Psychology Today looks at motivation" class="basics-link" hreflang="en">motivation</a> for reflection (Ben-Ze'ev, 2023). 
Making love, however, creates space for reflection—especially during afterglow, when the goal of orgasm has already been achieved. 
In these moments, partners may reflect on the present and future of their relationship and how their shared experiences help them bring out the best in one another. 
This does not mean that spontaneous or purely physical sex lacks value. 
The value of each type of sexual encounter depends on the circumstances, the nature of the relationship, and the emotional states of the partners. 
As in many aspects of life, *good things in love often come to those who can wait. 
* 
**<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/social-media" title="Psychology Today looks at Facebook" class="basics-link" hreflang="en">Facebook</a> image: Jacob Lund/Shutterstock** 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.5%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 3.7%Psychology Today: 3.8%Confirmation Bias12.5%This article: 2.4%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.8%Psychology Today: 0.5%Anchoring Bias2.4%This article: 4.6%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 1.0%Psychology Today: 2.7%Availability Heuristic4.6%This article: 8.9%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 1.9%Psychology Today: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic8.9%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 12.2%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 2.6%Psychology Today: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias12.2%This article: 2.4%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 1.9%Psychology Today: 2.7%Framing Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.9%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.2%Psychology Today: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 4.0%Psychology Today: 4.4%Optimism Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 1.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.3%Psychology Today: 4.1%Negativity Bias1.6%This article: 0.7%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.1%Psychology Today: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.7%This article: 3.8%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.8%Psychology Today: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error3.8%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.9%Psychology Today: 1.1%Halo Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 1.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.2%Psychology Today: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.6%Psychology Today: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.1%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 8.1%Psychology Today: 5.5%Appeal to Authority5.1%This article: 10.9%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 2.6%Psychology Today: 2.6%False Dilemma10.9%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.2%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 11.5%Psychology Today: 9.4%Hasty Generalization16.2%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.4%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.5%Psychology Today: 0.5%Bandwagon2.4%This article: 4.3%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 1.7%Psychology Today: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion4.3%This article: 4.7%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 1.0%Psychology Today: 0.9%Begging the Question4.7%This article: 19.6%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 4.9%Psychology Today: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.6%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 1.3%Psychology Today: 0.7%Composition/Division2.0%This article: 5.3%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 3.2%Psychology Today: 3.4%Anecdotal5.3%This article: 1.2%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.2%Psychology Today: 0.1%No True Scotsman1.2%This article: 6.6%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 1.8%Psychology Today: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.6%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.2%Psychology Today: 0.2%Middle Ground1.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 7.4%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 1.9%Psychology Today: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection7.4%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 1.7%Psychology Today: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.2%Psychology Today: 6.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.: 0.6%Psychology Today: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1196 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers10%attributed speech1,076writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJoyce Meyer • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageRumi • 9 words • 100.0% coverageRumi • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRumi • 13 words • 0.0% coverageElvis Presley • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Merton • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageLuc de Clapiers • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Elvis Presley

100%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words11% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Elvis Presley: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.