There is model of sex which speaks of a 'mystical union of two bodies made one.’ But as Esther Perel correctly asserts, 'sex is not something you do, it's somewhere you go.' The focus in this 'mystical' model on merging bodies, takes us away from the place(s) we may want to go in our thoughts, feelings, preferences and fantasies. And this desire - is individual, not shared.

Desire does a job of work for us (which is why it is individual.) The job is, for example, to counteract shame, and to deal with past emotional discomfort of other kinds too - which is why we sense an edginess to fantasy (Michael Bader's 'Arousal' explains this beautifully; as does Ester Perel when she says 'from tragedy to triumph').

So, far from co-creating an erotic experience, couples instead 'share' it. This is not as obvious as it sounds, because it contains a problematic: how do two people share their individual agendas in the erotic? How do two individuals share their ongoing 'work' of desire?

(It is for this reason, perhaps, that Lacan observes 'there is no sexual relation.')

It is neither helpful to reduce the erotic to the physical aspect of sex, not to claim that it's about a 'mystical' co-created experience. This is implied, for example, in the morally dubious term 'making love'. Where sex bends to the demands of love, sex can be used abusively - 'if you love me, you will want to have sex with me.' 

Instead, we can imagine a couple embracing two, shared, individual therapeutic programs of the erotic. This is a truly loving acceptance of a partner.