(no subject)

[curgoth]

I just had a random thought; the term "making love" is a bit disturbing.

Is having sex supposed to manufacture Love where none existed before?

I wonder if this is a hold-over from arranged marriages combined with no-sex-until-marriage.

The couple wouldn't know each other, so perhaps sex was meant to induce love between the two.

Comments

[thekat03.livejournal.com]

or maybe it has to do w/ one of the possible results of sex, the making of a little tiny squealing squishy person to love
*ponder*
eep...
/me does not want any little tiny squealing squishy persons running around at present

[night--watch.livejournal.com]

I always consider the act itself, undertaken in a loving (and loving does not always mean tender, of course ;) way, to physically improve the universe as a whole. I think that the sex act can be thought of as something wholly creative (hopefully not procreative in my case (or not yet, anyways, though there are arguments for that as well -- particularly in my case :)
I don't want to sound too hippy-"make Love not War"-ish, but I do believe that physically consumating love is a powerful statement to make -- spiritually, socially, and yes, politically. Particular if the specifics of the love you share are not condoned by this particular society, which is pretty damned restrictive on plain, boring, hetero-, missionary position sex.

Anyway, the term "making love" is, to me, a very positive idea.

[curgoth]

My complaint isn't so much with the love part of the statement; I agree with most of what you wrote.

My complaint is with the word "make".

Produce, manufacture. Create, where none was before. Instill, conjure.

If love wasn't there before, sex isn't going to "make" any.

If love was there already, sex may enhance the feelings of love, closeness, etc, (and I've found it does), but it still isn't "making" love.