Cultural Ambiguity and the Sexual Relationship :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers

ethnic Ambiguity and the Sexual Relationship The notion that a culture cannot entirely define a term it puts to use every day is perplexing, insofar that seems to be the case in American culture. The term sexual race is one that is thrown around and used loosely by good deal of all ages in the United States. Truly the phrase has m whatsoever connotations, precisely as to which is correct, there is little definition. In order to ascertain somewhat sort of definition it is logical to examine public debates involving this phrase. The most new-fangled public debate requiring the definition of a sexual alliance touch the case concerning electric chair William J. Clintons relationship to White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The funding of this case is summarized in a report commonly referred to as The Starr Report, in which President Clinton denies having had a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, even though she claims oppositewise. Clinton does so by standing behind the definition set forth in the Jones Deposition. A person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes -- (1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or hardlytocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person . . . . Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing. (www.house.gov/judiciary/6narrit.htmL11) Per this explicit definition, Clinton claimed that Ms. Lewinsky had sexual relations with him (e.g. oral sex) but he had not engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Therefore, one possibility for the definition of a sexual relationship could ask the clear-cut guidelines above, and as President Clinton suggested, involve only one person. However, Ms. Lewinskys take was slightly different. She claimed that, in fact, the two had a sexual relationship because President Clinton did engage in some of the acts mentioned above and lied about it. Thi s added information causes murkiness in the argument that one member of a partnership can engage in a sexual relationship without the other partner. Indeed, much of the argument tends to point towards the idea that two people atomic number 18 usually involved in a sexual relationship because it is voiceless to have said relationship with only one person.