Welcome to you. You have arrived at a plain text page in the 
          LoveAllPeople.org network of web pages. To visit our regular HTML
          web pages, please copy the link below, and paste it into your
          Internet Explorer or other browser. Blessings to you. - Rev. Bill McGinnis
  
     Link to copy => http://www.loveallpeople.org/chapellinks.html
   

THE TWO DEFINITIONS OF "SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP"

   The term "sexual relations" has only one dictionary definition
   commonly accepted by people who speak English. This definition is
   "COITUS," as shown below from the dictionary I always use, the
   "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary." (Other dictionaries say
   the same thing.) There is the definition of "sexual relations," right
   on page 1079:

            "sexual relations n pl (1950): COITUS"

   And coitus is defined as "physical union of male and female genitalia
   accompanied by rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation
   of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also
   INTERCOURSE." (page 258)
   
   However, the term "sexual relationship" seems to have two different
   definitions, neither one listed in dictionaries.
   
   Some people understand a "sexual relationship" to be only a
   relationship in which there are "sexual relations," as defined above
   to mean COITUS. So if a man and woman were having COITUS, their
   relationship would be a "sexual relationship." If they were not having
   COITUS their relationship would not be a "sexual relationship." Under
   this definition, if your daughter's boy friend fondled her until she
   had an orgasm, but they never had actual "sexual relations," this
   would not be a "sexual relationship," although the sexual element of
   orgasm was present. This is the defintion used by most teenagers, by
   most adults, and by President Clinton, in my opinion.
   
   Under this first definition, President Clinton's relationship with
   Monica Lewinsky was not a "sexual relationship," because there was no
   COITUS.
   
   However, some other people understand a "sexual relationship" in a
   much wider sense which includes any form of deliberate sexual contact
   or arousal whatsoever. For these people, if a man and a woman
   masturbated each other, this would be a sexual relationship. Or if
   only the woman gave the man an orgasm, this would be a sexual
   relationship. Or if a woman used a vibrator to give herself an orgasm,
   this would be a sexual relationship with her vibrator. Or if your
   daughter's boy friend fondled her to orgasm, this would be a sexual
   relationship. Or if he simply fondled her, but she did not have an
   orgasm, this would still be a sexual relationship because of the
   fondling.
   
   Using this wider definition of "sexual relationship," almost all
   dating relationships between all teenagers would thus be "sexual
   relationships," whether they had "real sex" or not. And under this
   wider definition, President Clinton had a "sexual relationship" with
   Monica Lewinsky.
   
   But consider this, all of you who prefer the wider definition: If
   Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was a "sexual
   relationship," then your daughter's relationships with most of the
   boys she dates are probably "sexual relationships" too. And your wife
   probably had "sexual relationships" with other men before she married
   you, even if she was a virgin bride to you.
   
   Do you really want to use this definition? Wouldn't you prefer to use
   the narrower definition, the definition which most people use and
   which President Clinton used when he truthfully told the Nation that
   he never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?


                                 <><


     Bill McGinnis  <><
     bmcgin@patriot.net
     http://www.patriot.net/users/bmcgin/clintondefense.html
     http://www.patriot.net/users/bmcgin/ministries.html