But usually the recipient pays. In this case, the boyfriend of the giver's mother paid. And the recipient claimed that while the giver was having sex the recipient wasn't, even though there's physical evidence of the recipient's moment of jouissance. This is unorthodox in so many ways.
GN:
Well at first blush, maybe. But I think the point is that you have to consider the principle of the margined investment. The mother's boyfriend was leveraging a fairly healthy cash position by maneuvering a BJ into position as an auxiliary payment. The giver of the BJ was investing in a post-2nd term marriage (best case) or a job "without having to work for it" (as the fallback); and then there was the White House line on the resume; and in the case of disaster, millions for rights to the book story "I did the BJ my way", and 500k for a fashion show which, well, Monica will weigh more than the next ten runway models that follow her out. I don't know whether she can sue for recovery of lost book sales due to preemption by the publication without copyright protection of all the juiciest part of the material. Moreover Clinton pays; he just doesn't pay the giver. Whether it was actually sex or not is, I think, more open to debate than people think. A little sperm here or there, what does that prove? That genetic material moved through some tubes. That's not sex as I understand it. Sex is hot and heavy. True gratification cannot be taken unless it is given. In that sense it was not sex, and Clinton was right to deny it. -- Gregory P. Nowell Associate Professor Department of Political Science, Milne 100 State University of New York 135 Western Ave. Albany, New York 12222
Fax 518-442-5298