| Chuck Stevens 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
|
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3lt540F14aoejU1@individual.net...
> I was stunned at this...
>
> Using that definition, what he said was true. (I owe him an apology;
always
> considered he simply lied. Now it turns out he was using MW as his
> authority...)
Hm. I always understood "engaging in sexual activity" or "having sex" with
someone as being quite a bit broader and less specific than "having sexual
relations" with someone. Both the Eighth and Ninth M-W New CollegiateS
simply have "coitus" as the sole definition for "sexual relations", and such
I have always understood it. I happen to think he did "have sex with that
woman", but did not "have sexual relations with that woman". Does that
mean he was faithful to his wife? Uh ... no ... I don't think so, not in
the sense I understand it. But I think he told the *precise* truth.
> But the general consensus is that "sexual relations" includes more than
<substitute the definition from "coitus"> ...
Well, that's where we differ. There are lots of euphemisms for various
specific sexual activities, and lots of euphemisms for sexual activity taken
as a category, and I have always understood the term "sexual relations" to
fall into the former category and not the latter.
> Could a rapist use authority to get off in this way? It is a frightening
> thought.
Might, if the law were written such that *only* forcing someone to engage in
"sexual relations" was forbidden, rather than a broader term.
> When meaning is restricted to authority only, and context is ignored,
> loopholes become apparent.
It's not a matter of authority, it's a matter of taking the trouble to use a
term in a way that is best understood by the broadest audience.
-Chuck Stevens
|