Jim, I am not apologizing for anyone. If I was in the poor slob's shoes (and I cannot phatom how I could have gotten there), I would try and look at any LEGAL way to squiggle around the "sexual relation" question, and if I could in any way classify those misdeeds as "Masturbation" and not "Sexual relation" I would until I was red in the face. It turns out that as you say, politically, masturbation in the company of another (male or female I presume) is considered a "sexual relation" and thus he will have to explain to congress his behavior.
Mind you, I have asked a number of time if anyone has any idea why he did not "go all the way", it certainly was not a question of "opportunity" if he really had a "sexual relation". I have a feeling that in some denominations, unless an intercourse is committed, it is not considered adultery or sexual relation (reminding me again of Carter sinning in his heart <VBG>), if that is the case, I surely can understand why he thought he was not committing adultery, nor did he think he was perjuring himself. I also wonder at the difference in the testimonies, Monica always has the breast fondling thing, but Clinton's does not, a peculiar differential, since I think that the breast "thing" was in the Jones definition of "sexual relationship" but not lips (mind you her lips on his stuff).
Thus maybe it is not "black and white" but a bunch of shades of "grays".
Zeev |
