I was looking up a word the other day in my trusty dictionary when I made an amazing discovery. If you’re as immature as I am, whenever you see the word “sex,” you pause and see in what context it was used. So, as I was leafing through the “s” pages I stumbled upon all of the words that start with sex.

You’ll never believe what I found — “sexual relations.” Yes, sexual relations is in the dictionary. It’s in my copy of “Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.,” which I received for my high school graduation in 1996, before the whole Monica Lewinsky hullabaloo.

Lets see how your definition matches up to the dictionary.

Sexual relations n (1950): COITUS.

For those of you who still need help: coitus n (1855): physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract.

That doesn’t leave much to the imagination or much room for debate.

Throughout the entire Lewinsky scandal I never heard anyone bring up the actual definition of sexual relations. Everyone thought they knew what it meant and everyone had different definitions.

I was there too. We all sat around with people in cafeterias, dorm rooms, bars, schools and at work having grand intellectual debates about what sexual relations are.

How much clothing do you have to lose before it’s sexual relations? Is grinding sexual relations? Where’s the line between kissing and sexual relations? What if someone grabs your this while you massage their that?

The whole time we were one minute and a bookshelf away from a definitive answer. There had to be a lexicographer or English professor somewhere who was trying to enlighten us, but the media was having such a great time creating a circus they must have brushed them off. Talk about ratings compromising journalism.

Did President Clinton know the definition of sexual relations? Of course he did. You may think Clinton is a complete sleaze, but you can’t deny that he is a very, very intelligent man.

His sexual relations defense was an ingenious plan. He realized that next to no one knows the definition of sexual relations, but we would all think that we do.

Had he said “I did not engage in coitus with that woman,” some of us would be stumped and would be forced to look it up. He avoided lying, but he also managed to snow the entire American public.

Damn, that’s slick.

Now Clinton’s opponents are trying to have him disbarred in Arkansas due to misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

Clinton maintains that his answers were “not legally false,” which we now agree with since we used our dictionary. He admits they were “evasive,” “incomplete” and “misleading.” Are these three grounds for disbarment, or are these positive attributes for a defense attorney?

You should go to a criminal trial sometime and see defense attorneys in practice. I sat in the gallery for one such trial in which the defense attorney spent 20 minutes asking a 40-year-old man about how long it took him to put on his shoes and a sweatshirt.

He tried to make it sound like the guy was crippled and that it was some sort of major effort to put shoes on. Was this “misleading?” You bet.

The real motivation for disbarring Clinton is not ethics, but rather revenge. No one likes to get beat. It’s much easier to bury the definition of sexual relations than it is to come out and admit that we didn’t know what we were talking about.

We all say things like “you wouldn’t be so good if you weren’t a half inch taller than me” in an attempt to save face when we lose. The disbarment proceedings are entirely motivated by people who can’t bear to eat humble pie.

Parallels have been drawn to Richard Nixon. When he left office he relinquished his law license in California and tried to in New York. The New York Bar didn’t let him because they wanted the fun of taking it from him. Clinton could forfeit his license in Arkansas himself. After all, I don’t think anyone expects him to practice law there anyway.

However, there is a big difference between Nixon and Clinton’s situation. Nixon orchestrated a burglary, did extensive wiretapping and destroyed documents and tapes, not to mention that he made a name for himself by falsely accusing many people of being communists.

For Clinton there was not a clear-cut precedent for civil trials involving a sitting president. Clinton is entitled to make a strong defense, which he did an excellent job of to the dismay of his opponents. While the line between exploring presidential law and obstruction of justice may be thin, in this case it is too close to call.

Clinton’s die-hard adversaries need to admit defeat and let go of this issue. Getting burned is not fun, but when you get burned, especially with the skill that Clinton has burned us, you have to take your lumps and learn your lesson.

Bill Clinton flat out got the best of us. The sole reason he is so hated by some is that he got the best of us in such a way that there is no viable recourse. If Clinton should be disbarred for masterfully using the law, Shaquille O’Neal should be thrown out of the NBA and Kevin Spacey shouldn’t be allowed to act.

Think what you will of Clinton; I think he could be my lawyer any day.

---

Erik Hoversten is a senior in math from Eagan, Minn.