In "Sans Rendez-vous" this Tuesday, the sex therapist and psychoanalyst Catherine Blanc responds to Sophie, a listener who does not let her sex friend sleep at home after having made love.

A situation which is not dramatic for the specialist, provided that this man is not considered as a product. 

Is sex really the height of intimacy between two people?

This is the question that is tackled in filigree this Tuesday in "Without Rendez-vous" Catherine Blanc, sexologist and psychoanalyst by responding to Sophie.

This listener confides that she does not let her sex friend sleep at her place after having made love, and wonders if she is not wild.

But for the specialist, it is that the latter places the intimacy of sleep above sexual intimacy.

There is nothing dramatic about this situation, as long as this man is not seen as a product. 

Sophie's question 

I've been around a boy for a few weeks and it's exclusively sexual for now.

Every time we have had sex, I suggest that he go home because I refuse to let him sleep at my house.

I seem to sound like a savage, but I prefer to sleep alone.

What do you think ? 

>> Find all sex questions in replay and podcast here

Catherine Blanc's response 

Maybe for Sophie, letting this man sleep at her place is a form of commitment.

Something she clearly does not want in this relationship.

She does not want to share this moment and that therefore naturally raises the question of the confidence that she has in general in the man she brings to her home.

When it comes to sexuality, she has the feeling of being in control, whereas when it comes to falling asleep, or being disturbed by the presence of the other during the night, things are a little more complex for her. 

Accepting that this man sleep in his bed would then amount to letting him penetrate his daily interior, an intimacy which is clearly placed by Sophie above that of her bodily intimacy. 

Is it that bad after all? 

We could say that Sophie and this man agree on this point.

Besides, maybe he doesn't want to stay cuddling her, watching her in the morning when she wakes up, or sharing breakfast with her.

It is even possible that he is happy with this situation.

For her part, Sophie may also send him away because she would not like to be refused to stay.  

In any case, this situation raises the question of consumption: I find it interesting to think that we can make love to make love.

But we must be careful not to be in the consumption of the other.

The other is not a product and we can create links, like taking the time to look at each other, to talk to each other, to fall asleep in the arms of the other ... 

But Sophie wonders if she's wild, so she says to herself that it's not good, right? 

We have the right to be wild, but we have to ask ourselves where we are going.

It's true that it's not easy to share your bed, your nocturnal movements ... you have to get used to it.

Besides, remember the first time you had to share your bed with your current partner, it took a while to adapt.

Because the idea may be romantic, in fact it is not necessarily comfortable.

You never sleep as well as alone, but once you have learned the codes with the other, it's good to be gentle with a partner. 

So it's more intimate to sleep together than to have sex?

I believe that for some, yes sleeping together, saying their love or their tenderness is much more intimate than sexuality.

We are in a time when we have removed intimacy from sexuality, we talk about it as we can evoke everyday things.

And there are more intimate things, like sleep, which we find difficult to share.