A number of intrepid journalists have recently spread to the masses their revelation that the Clinton scandal is really about sex, and not the perjury for which he has been charged. The evidence to support this position? Rock solid.

The explanation lies in that we are all sexual beings, but not all of us are interested in politics.

Most of us aren’t lawyers, either, nor do we plan to become them anytime soon. Which means we don’t care about the partisan politics involved — partisan politics ceased being news a long before most of us were born — or the mumbo jumbo behind the legal definition of perjury.

This scandal would not exist if it were not for the sex involved.

If you don’t believe me, replace everything in every trial, testimony, Starr report and CNN discussion relating to sex with language relating to, say, golf.

“Mr. President, did you or did you not lie about your golf score under oath? Isn’t it true that you told the jury you shot a 78 when in fact your score was an 85?”

“It’s not clear whether Clinton simply hinted to his caddy to lie about his score, or whether he specifically told her to do so. Either way, something was hidden…”

“In testimony this afternoon, an agitated and irritable President Clinton underwent a lengthy battery of difficult questions, prompting the president to respond to prosecutors’ questions with such non-answers as ‘That depends on how you define ‘Mulligan.'”

“In what appears to be a deliberate attempt by Republican representatives to turn public opinion against the popular but embattled president, the House voted earlier today to release the Starr Report, which contains intimate details of, among other things, Clinton’s triple-bogey on the eleventh hole.”

“The secret service has been ordered to testify about what they saw during the president’s controversial round of golf….” Golf, after all, has about as much relevance to the Whitewater investigation — the initial subject of Starr’s investigation — as sex with Monica does, if you think about it.

Republicans have been swift to point out during this scandal that the real issue here is not about the immorality of sex but about the immorality of perjury.

But I doubt any of them would ever bother impeaching a president for lying under oath about his performance on the links.

What’s really being prosecuted is sexual conduct.

The sexual nature of this scandal has allowed phrases and descriptions previously unheard and unpublished in mainstream news media to be used liberally.

The publication of the Starr report in virtually every major newspaper and news-providing Web site in the nation has put the language of sex into places it once was forbidden, places we never thought such terms would appear.

While many bemoan the media’s (and the public’s) obsession with sex, I don’t really see much of a problem with it.

Sex is, after all, a natural part of life. Whether we talk about it in public, sex is an integral part of every person’s life.

With very few exceptions, each one of us owes our existence to people who engaged in sexual intercourse.

Millions of people around the globe are “doing it” at this very moment, whether you know it or not.

We all have hormones. We are all sexual beings.

We can try to hide our nature behind the Puritan screen which calls for sweeping such things under the table, but just because we fail to acknowledge it doesn’t make it any less true. Like it or not, we are a part of the animal kingdom.

We are biologically driven to perpetuate the species, and this means we are forever tied to our sexuality.

The prevalence of sex in the national media is actually an improvement over what dominated it before: violence.

When you think about it, which is less natural, murder or sex?

Which is more “harmful” for a child to see: people being shot to death, or people having sex?

Think about it… would you prefer your child to have kids when he or she grows up, or would you prefer your child to have a rap sheet?

I still haven’t figured out why it’s acceptable to show people slice one another apart with switchblades, engage in domestic violence or blow up office buildings, but it’s not acceptable to so much as show a glimpse of, say, a bare breast.

What makes nudity so much worse than violence?

Very few people are ever in a situation in which taking the life of a fellow human being is morally acceptable.

In fact, if you ask some people, killing is wrong under any circumstance.

On the other hand, I’ve never met anyone who felt having sex is wrong under any circumstance.

Some say sex is only OK when married. Others don’t think wedlock is as important a factor as being in love.

Others provide an even wider window for sex’s acceptability.

The distinction here is that sex is not an inherently immoral act, but violence — especially murder — pretty much is. For years we have confused sexual repression with the repression of dialogue on sexuality.

Encouraging an end to the oppressive public attitude toward the discussion of sex is a far cry from advocating a liberalization of actual sexual behavior, and this is a distinction we must keep in mind.

The Clinton scandal has given all of us a fantastic window to bridge the gap between who we are and what we talk about.

Among the benefits of open atmosphere toward sexual conversation, we’ll find, is that our kids won’t need to be embarrassed asking questions.

They’ll understand sex better, know the consequences, the reasons, the interpersonal dynamics, much better — without having to learn by experience.

---

Ben Byrne is a senior in graphic design from Edina, Minn. Lutefisk, lefsa, you betcha!