http://hejjhog.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] hejjhog.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] fpb 2010-01-09 04:18 pm (UTC)

Well, you made me look it up, and from what I gather the issue was that he lied under oath in regards to having sexual relations with Lewinsky, which he defined as penetrative sex, while the court included oral sex in this.

*I am not saying having sex with someone other than your wife without her consent is in any way morally justifiable!*

Now, maybe you'll disagree with me, and maybe I'm wrong, BUT let me ask you this:
Is it better (more moral) to lie in regards to having had oral sex to the nation or to risk a public scandal that will forever affect not only how you are perceived, but also your wife and daughter?

(it's sex, for what it's worth, not a war against terror or weapons of mass destruction where there are none, no lives lost, no hurt, economic or personal, rendered)

(many men cheat; I do not view this as good in any way. However, it is between a man and his wife, how they choose to handle this. When such things start getting discussed outside of the family unit, I think it's wrong. There's a reason for private things to be kept private.)

And, yes, I admit that my view may be biased by the fact that I live in Russia, where there is a very different overall attitude to such issues. Also, it may be that many of our problems could have been prevented if we took such a drastic stance on the matter. But one cannot change the worldview and culture of a nation, fortunately or not.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting