Cultural Ambiguity and the Sexual Relationship

Cultural Ambiguity and the Sexual Relationship

The notion that a culture cannot wholly define a term it puts to use every day is perplexing, yet that seems to be the case in American culture. The term "sexual relationship" is one that is thrown around and used loosely by people of all ages in the United States. Truly the phrase has many connotations, but as to which is correct, there is little definition.

In order to ascertain some sort of definition it is logical to examine public debates involving this phrase. The most recent public debate requiring the definition of a "sexual relationship" involved the case concerning President William J. Clinton's relationship to White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The documentation 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 otherwise. 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 buttocks 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.htm#L11) 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 involve the clear-cut guidelines above, and as President Clinton suggested, involve only one person.

However, Ms. Lewinsky's view 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. This 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 are usually involved in a "sexual relationship" because it is difficult to have said relationship with only one person.