Consider these clauses:
(1) make love to me
(2) have sex with me
Native speakers will know instinctively that (1) and (2) are native-like but hard pressed to give you an answer as to why. The best way to see how they work is to play with them and see how they differ. Consider swapping the prepositions:
(1a) make love with me
(2a) have sex to me
Native speakers will feel these are less native-like. I would even say (2a) is less native-like than (1a). So the question is why does (1a) here feel more natural compared to (2a).
The reason lies in the other words and how they conceptualised. 'Love' is more object-like than is 'sex'. You give love (and we do say 'I give you all my love') but not sex (compare: 'I give you my sex'). Sex is more an act so it is not giveable as such.
This is why it is more natural to use 'make' and 'have' respectively with 'love' and 'sex'. Again, consider the alternative constructions:
(1b) have love to me
(2b) make sex with me
(1c) have love with me
(2c) make sex to me
In (-b) I have swapped the verbs. And in (-c) I have swapped the nouns. Once again these alternatives don't feel native-like. How 'love' and 'sex' are conceptualised are different even though they are nouns, and it is reflected in the words that go with them, in short, their collocations.
Answer (1 of 12): It isn't, necessarily, though the first use is more common. But I knew a guy in college who insisted on using the latter construction because he wasn't interested in just sex; he wanted to be in love with the object of his affection and treat her in the most loving, tender way h...
www.quora.com