I have always been struck by the fact that in the English language there is no verb for sexual behavior that is not cold or scientific (e.g. mating, copulating, conjugating, etc.) or crude. This is strange because verbs are by definition doing words and sex is the most doing-ist of all things you can do. This is in contrast to verbs like hugging, kissing, and dancing, which can easily be used in a neutral, everyday context.
If sex itself is normal, which in theory at least it is, why is there no normal language for it?
Sex itself is a noun and so to describe the action involved you have to add the verb to have so you are having sex. This, however, implies an element of possession, which is problematic if other people are involved. In the past tense, it sounds a bit weird. We had sex, which when used in other contexts – “We had a cat,” “We had a boomerang,” “We had insurance,” – all denote a sense of regret or loss. We certainly prefer having it over giving or receiving sex if both are supposed to be involved, as giving or receiving removes the burden of effort, which is perhaps done on occasion as a favor.
People have tried to corral in the word love. This could well be because we tend to love or could at least have the potential to love those we have sex with, or it could just be a reflection of a culture that likes to pretend that sex and love are synonymous because that is what is moral.
Unfortunately love is a complex verb with complex meanings and covers a range of feelings and sensations that cover the platonic as well as the romantic. In order to accommodate sex we have changed love into a noun, and decided it is something we make, like a sandwich or a cup of tea.
Perhaps we make it because our prudish roots are focused on making a child, or the liberated are making a shared experience, because that should be the purpose of sex. Given that men expel a small portion of their body during sex and women experience stretching, the secretion of fluids, and possible tearing, it might be more appropriate to say that we break love like breaking bread?
We always learned that a basic set up for using verbs is that the subject interacts with an object with a specific act of doing. But perhaps it is the perceived reciprocity of sex that is causing the problem. Who is the subject? Who is the object? Are both parties convinced that they are doing something to the other person? With an approaching orgasm do we transition from subject to object to just revel in the moment?
Maybe we don’t have the language because we’re still not sure what actually happens? With two active participants it seems more accurate to say that they are sexing at each other, but that sounds ridiculous (even though it probably does describe some sex).
A direct object implies a giving/receiving activity – but who is giving and who is receiving? Is part of the mystery of sex that nobody really knows, or one person does know and is not happy about it? Do we need two different verbs that would fit into the same rubric as the masseur was massaging me, and I was receiving a massage?
There is no verb for receiving a massage – again, it’s something to be had. Maybe when it comes to bodily pleasures we prefer to have them. Yet, this does not work for masturbation because we are not having it, we are doing it, until we orgasm and then we are having it. By contrast, maybe we should be doing sex until we orgasm, which we then have. The transition from doing to having would then create the understanding that something has to be done properly in order for things to be had.
Maybe it would be better to consider a word that is reflexive, because during sex whomever is the subject and whomever is the object are surely one-enough at this time that the combined coupling is both the subject and the object doing itself? This would remove the politics of who is doing the doing and who is receiving. Maybe it’s more about being present together in a way to create an experience, like planting a flower bed, or washing the dishes. Both together but separate, with the privilege of our own thoughts about the end result.
If there was an acceptable everyday verb for sexing each other, would that take the magic out of it, or would it help us reach the next level as humans by being more comfortable with a core part of who we are? A level beyond taboo and embarrassment, or is sex even sex without the potential for taboo and embarrassment?
So, what should we call this thing that we’re doing to each other?
Maybe it doesn’t matter, because it keeps each other guessing. Maybe a relationship should share moments devoid of words? Maybe there is no polite normal verb for doing this with another person because English speakers need it to be cold, scientific, or ridiculous or crude to get the most out of it. We want to be able to interpret our sex afterwards however we choose so we can continue to enjoy it and by keeping it crude it remains nobody else’s business but our own.