I never thought I would be
defending Bill Clinton, the ex-President, “Big Dog,” Come Back Kid,” or however
you want him called. But as predatory (and opportunistic) politician Rand Paul
just labeled him a (sexual) predator I thought I must defend him, at least in
the Monica Lewinsky case.
Paul would have us believe, as lots of people apparently do, that a sophisticated, powerful, and predatory President took advantage of an innocent young lady intern in the White House. It is true that he took advantage of an opportunity that was presented to him and that was deplorable. But an innocent young intern, hardly. I have neither the time nor inclination to go back and review the millions of words that were written about this, but as I recall, Monica Lewinsky could hardly be described as an innocent in this affair. First of all she was an adult (20) at the time so it was a consenting affair between two adults. She was clearly not innocent of sex, including oral sex, as she apparently told her friend (or friends) she was “taking her knee pads with her,” when going to Washington, a remark the meaning of which would have been quite obvious to them. There is also no doubt that she flirtatiously, provocatively, and deliberately invited the President’s interest, at least exposing her thong panties (and who knows what else).
If Rand Paul believes that 20 year-old young women from Southern California are innocents in the matter of sex he must be very poorly informed. It was reported, for example, that High School students were engaging in oral sex. In some cases, at least, a girl could perform oral sex on several boys or men and still claim (reasonably?) to be a virgin! I guess we might thank Hugh Hefner from converting what used to be called by a very derogatory term into the more respectable “oral sex.” No less an authority than Newt Gingrich himself is reported to have said he preferred oral sex because it was not really “cheating,” and Arnold, the Gropenfuhrer, is rumored to have said something very similar. In any case one would have to be naïve indeed to believe that Clinton was the only politician in Washington to have had sex in his office or with an intern. But in the Clinton/Lewinsky case describing Clinton as a predator would seem to be far from the truth, no matter what he might have been in other cases.
Lewinsky reportedly was disappointed that Clinton did not have “real sex” (intercourse) with her. This raises an interesting question. When Clinton said “it depends what the meaning of “is, is,” he might well have said it depends upon what the meaning of “sex” is. That is, if one interprets sex to be an act of intercourse between a male and a female, Clinton told the truth when he said “I did not have sex with that woman.” On the other hand if sex includes oral, anal, and even more esoteric practices then he did have sex with Monica (or she with him).
Can it be the case that when an older man, especially one in a position of power and authority, has sex with a woman, especially a younger women, he is invariably a “predator?” Was John Kennedy, for example, a known and dedicated womanizer, a predator? Remember it was only when the Clinton/Lewinsky matter became known through the unprecedented actions of the Republicans that the private lives of politicians became a subject of such scrutiny, a situation that should have probably been left as it was (the Starr report was an absolute obscenity). As Somerset Maugham once opined, “My own belief is that there is hardly anyone whose sexual life, if it were broadcast, would not fill the world at large with surprise and horror.”
Maugham was, of course, a homosexual, but while on this awkward and unpleasant topic let me pose a further question: if the concern is with oral, anal, and other esoteric sexual practices, rather than the more traditional heterosexual form, does it matter if the partners are of the same sex or not? Similarly, if the motive for apparently sexual behavior is not really sexual gratification, is it really sex? For example, there are seemingly homosexual behaviors in parts of New Guinea because it is believed that in order to properly mature and become an adult it is necessary to ingest semen. The young men and boys who are required to participate in these activities do not become homosexuals (except perhaps in very rare instances).
In any case, whatever
President Clinton’s behavior might have been in general, describing him as a
predator in the Lewinsky case is far from reality. Furthermore, although it
seems to be rarely mentioned, females can be, and often are, just as predatory
as males, and they possess powers that transcend those of mere males.
“It’s Only Kinky the First Time”
Bumper sticker
1 comment:
It appears ingesting semen simply wasn't enough for this Madang psycho:
'The leader of a vicious cannibal rape cult has been hacked to death in the jungles of Papua New Guinea after he escaped from prison and murdered a local woman.
Preacher Stephen Tari, whose 6,000-strong sect called him “the true Christ” and refereed to themselves as “flower girls” or “disciples”, had been serving a lengthy jail term after being convicted of a brutal rape three years ago.
The 40-year-old, who had previously been accused of raping, murdering and EATING three girls in front of their traumatized mothers, was one of 48 prisoners to break-out of a remote jungle prison six months ago.
The charismatic cult leader, who wore white robes and is said to have regularly drunk the blood of his “flower girls”, quickly returned to his home village of Gal after the escape, but could only manage six months before killing yet again.
After he killed one woman and attempted to murder another, the inhabitants of the village, which is in Madang province, are said to have finally snapped, surrounding Tari and one of his henchmen and hacking the pair to death.
It has not yet been established if the murdered woman was killed as part of a blood sacrifice, but it is considered likely as Tari was said to have been attempting to resurrect his cult following the spell in prison.-The Independent, Feb. 1, 2014
Post a Comment