What sex is for

"Sex is not for anything!" - So I have always said. But then I came across this, in Simone Weil's 'Forms of the Implicit Love of God':

Carnal love in all its forms, from the highest, that is to say true marriage or platonic love, down to the worst, down to debauchery, has the beauty of the world as its object. The love we feel for the splendor of the heavens, the plains, the sea, and the mountains, for the silence of nature which is borne in upon us by thousands of tiny sounds, for the breath of the winds or the warmth of the sun, this love of which every human being has at least an inkling, is an incomplete, painful love, because it is felt for things incapable of responding, that is to say, for matter. Men want to turn this same love toward a being who is like themselves and capable of answering to their love, of saying yes, of surrendering. When the feeling for beauty happens to be associated with the sight of some human being, the transference of love is made possible, at any rate in an illusory manner. But it is all the beauty of the world, it is universal beauty, for which we yearn.
This kind of transference is what all love literature expresses, from the most ancient and well-worn metaphors and comparisons to the subtle analyses of Proust.

Every biography has Weil a resolute virgin when she died at the age of thirty-four, in 1943. Yet she read enough to know what sex is for - 'to turn this same love toward a being who is like themselves and capable of answering to their love, of saying yes, of surrendering'. Weil saw God everywhere (and why not? God is everwhere!) and so she saw love of God implicit in love of any sort. Why not carnal love, then?

My love for D is carnal love, but it is certainly love. We are saying yes, surrendering.