Technically it’s more accurate to say “we have love” and “we make sex” than the more common opposites.
“Having” sex is wrapped up the no-sex-class paradigm where sex is this not-intrinsic-to-us thing we just happen to have happen to us. Have happen to the 51% of us who happen to be female… at the hands of the 49% of us who “have” ostensibly pre-conscious and inescapable urges “happen” to them.
Instead of sex is something we actively do. Or don’t do. Not something that we passively have (whether we like it or not.) Or don’t have (whether we like it or not.) Sure, maybe saying it’s something we “have” gives us plausible deniability… but it’s way more honest, to ourselves, each other, and society in general, to say we make it.
Love, meanwhile, especially in the construction “making love” is something that’s supposed to magically be created by… fucking? Yeah, like that’s how love happens.
I mean, honestly!
Submitted by 2602 (not verified) on Sun, 2009-01-04 20:30.
I think the applications can be utilized to and fro, for both. I mean... right now I do not have sex in my life, much to my chagrin. Oh, I can make it by my own hand, sure, but it's not the same. ;-)
Love, alas, I have it but have not made it manifest as I wish it to be so.
Double-edged swords, both of them, both ways. I like the perspective you've placed, though. Is making me think. That's always a good thing.
[Love's funny that way -- a lot of the time we have it and then think "is this it?" And we don't realize how much we've got till something happens and we lose it. Thanks for your kind words, Caz. --fl]
Submitted by 2602 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-01-05 13:56.
Hmm. The few times I have heard the term "make sex" have been from English-language learners, for whom the cultural implications of the phrase "having sex" are presumably lost on. They're just following basic language rules.
Another thought-provoking post.
[Interesting, Holly. I love it when grammar reinforces my suspicions. :-) Thanks! --fl]