On “Making Love”

I woke up this morning with this thought:  When we use the phrase “making love”, what does that really mean?  In fact, it doesn’t make sense to me anymore.

I’ve always been a bit let down by the ability of that phrase to accurately reflect what it really IS.  I mean, it’s useful, yes, to get the point across.  Different from fucking (or is it?). The urban dictionary gives this definition of making love: “Sexual intercourse between two people who love each other. Practiced by same sex couples or different sex couples.”  Not INaccurate, yet not very inclusive either.

I’m developing a different point of view, based on my recent experiences and understanding of what love actually is.

First of all, is it really possible to “make” love?  Isn’t “love” really the essence of who we are?  We are all pure positive energy.  That’s love.  How can we “make” ourselves?

Wouldn’t it be more accurate, in a way, to say “be love”, or “be who we really are, together”, “be in our essence, together”?

Or, and I know this is getting very deep, 😉 can’t we “be love” with ourselves?

And why does it have to be “sexual intercourse”?  I’ve most certainly “made love” with all of my clothes on, with no actual  physical contact at all.

And I’ve “made love” with more than one person at a time, like physically, in the same time and space- with more than one person.  With and without clothes on.  With and without words.

I know, you may be thinking: “What is she talking about?  It’s all semantics”.  In a way, it doesn’t really matter what we call it.  I agree.

Yet, isn’t it time we start to broaden our perspective of what love and loving really are?

Some of my readers are non-monogamous, some aren’t.  Doesn’t matter.  This applies to everyone.  In this sense, the existence of monogamy in the traditional way of seeing it becomes a sort of misnomer.   Even in partnerships where there is a clear desire and agreement to be sexually and romantically monogamous, and both parties are in complete integrity about this, there’s still a way in which we may “make love” to many others.

Last weekend I engaged in a sacred sharing of words, time, presence, and eventually touch- though not sexual touch- with another woman and a man.  We all did our best to really hear and see each other, and to validate each other.  And to have compassion for both ourselves and each other.  It was beautiful.  It was a form of making/being love together.  We were each connecting in with our high selves and with that of each other.  It was, simply, love.  And I loved it.
When there is someone you adore, who adores  you back, and you meet each other in that space of timelessness, understanding, knowing, is that not a form of making love- or being love- together?  Even if one or both of you are in a monogamous relationship with someone else?  That part is irrelevant.

And this “someone” may be your best friend, or a complete “stranger” on the street that you share a moment with.  After all, we’re truly all in love with each other anyway.  We are all one.


2 Replies to "On "Making Love""

  • Lou
    May 19, 2016 (3:27 am)

    Maria, those last five sentences ring so true for me. They help to validate all the beautiful connections and moments I have had with people over the years and puts those moments in their rightful beautiful place. Thank you. I needed to be reminded.

  • Tony Bogardus
    May 28, 2016 (4:09 am)

    I love ‘making love,’ but have also never been crazy about the term, and I think you put your finger on it when you pointed out the semantic shortcomings of the word, ‘make.’ Your alternatives are excellent, and I offer up another – ‘share love.’ It goes along with everything you are discussing here, including your description of ‘sharing’ words, time, presence and touch with the two other people a couple of weekends ago. In a sense, you shared not only those things that you listed, but you also ‘shared love.’

    I can’t wait to ‘share love’ with my lover in July, and I am going to do some more thinking about changing ‘make love’ to ‘share love’ or ‘be love’….It is semantics, but not JUST semantics. It’s fun, delightful, fascinating semantics.

    Thanks for ‘sharing’! Haha