| Howard Brazee 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
|
On 10-Aug-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
> 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.
Interesting. My use of those words are just the opposite of yours. Which
means that definitions need to be agreed upon (even if people laugh at such when
the President did so).
>
> Might, if the law were written such that *only* forcing someone to engage in
> "sexual relations" was forbidden, rather than a broader term.
Speaking of language again - there's a common practice of expanding a word to
include what we want included. One word that becomes weakened this way is
"rape". Another is "terrorism".
> 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.
Don't assume that any particular individual or subgroup understands though.
|