The language of sex

It is fruitful, then, to undergo a brief analysis of the recent history of the language of sex. This analysis, unable to touch on all of the slang terms that have developed over the last several decades, will consider a few general themes and trends by reference to some of the most notable words and phrases that our culture has used for sexual activity.

Let’s start with the most basic, descriptive phrase: “to have sex.” In the past tense, with a plural subject, this reads, “We had sex” and, with a singular subject, “I had sex with him/her.” The most notable facet of this construction is that it connotes the active and equal participation of both parties. When the plural subject is used, sex is explicitly communal; it is a single act in which two persons necessarily participate. And even when the singular subject is used, the preposition “with” implies that sex is a shared experience, and that it cannot be otherwise. This, it seems, is the most straightforward linguistic understanding of sex.

Perhaps the most famous phrase used to replace the utilitarian “to have sex” is the expression “to make love,” often erroneously derided as a prudish and old-fashioned euphemism. There are three important aspects, it seems, of the sentence (using the plural subject) “We made love.” First, like above, it connotes a shared endeavor. Second, this endeavor is defined not simply as a biological function, but as a process of creation (“to make”). Third, the thing that is created, the thing that is both the motivation for and the result of the sexual act, is “love.” Sex, then, is both a shared expression and a shared generation of love.

The use of the singular subject adds, however, another layer to the analysis. It is not uncommon to say “I made love with him/her,” which reverts back to the above discussion. A subtle but significant shift occurs, however, when the sentence is rendered “I made love to him/her.” The replacement of “with” by “to” alters the nature of the act being described from one of active participation to one of passive participation. This completely undermines the point of the phrase “make love”: Rather than a shared experience in which two people participate in an interpersonal bond, sex becomes the act of a single individual; the other person is not an intrinsic part of the act but is merely incidental.

This subtle shift brings us to the most recent development in the language of sex: the increasingly common use of vulgarity and profanity, most notably “f—.” The most common constructions (significantly) use the singular subject: “I f—d him/her” or “I would f— him/her.” The word “f—” is explicitly, even aggressively, carnal. Its use actively renounces any emotional or intellectual element to sex: It is purely physical; it is animalistic. The word "f—," unlike, for instance, “love,” (but quite like “d—” or “c—”), is phonetically harsh and ugly. Grammatically, the construction reduces the partner to something even less than a passive participant; he or she is, quite literally, the (direct) object of the action.

The word “f—” and its various slang alternatives refer without shame to an individual activity that is performed on an object. It is grammatically and thematically identical to, “The dog humped the plush toy.” It posits the same subject-to-object relationship as, “I drove the car.” Worse, and significant for the recent campus brouhaha over consent in sexual encounters, the word “f—” is, in both its phonetics and its vulgar animalism, inherently violent. It ascribes no dignity, no feeling, no humanness to the partner (who cannot even be called a participant) who is the object of carnal urges. And objects, like the toy or the car, don’t need to (and can’t) consent.

The way that we talk about important aspects of our lives is, as I’ve previously noted, inextricably bound up with the way we think about them, and the way we act on them. Despite desperate protestations that casual sex is not objectifying, the common and, importantly, socially acceptable language that we use to describe the act of sex itself accomplishes just that. That is, the claim that campus sexual culture is not objectifying is belied by precisely the language the culture accepts to describe sex. A prerequisite, then, for a safer, more respectful and — to use a word far dirtier than “f—” when talking about sex — more moral campus culture is a shift away from language that demeans a beautiful, shared aspect of human experience and those persons who participate in it.

Brandon McGinley is a senior politics major from Pittsburgh, Pa. He can be reached at bmcginle@princeton.edu.