Re: [Marxism] Clinton and sex

[Einde O'Callaghan <einde@xxxxxx>]

Philip Ferguson wrote:

> Fred wrote:
>
> > To get Clinton to admit he had had sex, the Starr inquisitors had to
> > come up with a definition of having sex which embraces a quite
>
> gigantic
>
> > scope of human contact.
>
>
>
> Fred, are you seriously suggesting that oral sex, especially with the
> result of Clinton actually ejaculating, is not sex?
I think what Fred is trying to explain is taht in the culture Clinton
comes from "having sex" or "making out" meant genital/genital contact
and penetration. Everything else that those of us from other cultural
circles (e.g. Ireland or Britain) might consider to be sex came under
the the rubric "heavy petting".

Certainly in Ireland when I was a young teenager even holding hands with
a girl - called "company keeping" - was an "occasion of sin" as I
learned at the age of 5 in Christian Doctrine class - it was in the
Catechism we had to learn off by heart before we were allowed to take
First Communion. At the time I didn't even know what girls were for - so
to speak - let alone what company keeping entailed.

This sort of indoctrination tended to make any form of sexual pleasure
an occasion for guilt.

> Clinton was a sleazeball and a liar.
Agreed - but then this seems to be a necessary condition for being a
bourgeois politician in the US - and probably elsewhere too.

Einde O'Callaghan

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism