What is constitutes sexual relations - hearkening, perhaps, to Bill Clinton's (What is is?) impeachment.?

Question

As Bill Clinton tried to say, oral sex is not sexual relations.
Trying to say only penetration intercourse is.

What I want to know is do you agree with him?

Or do the following actions constitute sexual relationships: those involving the use of mouths, fingers, toys, other body parts etc. and activity where the gentialia are involved and climax occurs.

Basically, is it sex if you don't have vaginal penetration.

Help to settle our debate over sementics and word meanings in reality and practice.

But don't be stupid.
Keep your answers focused on the main question &
not in the gutter. Don't focus on the sex or rauchy.

Thanks in advance for being cool with this question.

Answer 1

I can get totally general on this one.

A super-general definition of "sexual relations" would be any consensual activity between sentient beings that leads to sexual gratification for one or more beings, but this does not necessitate that climax would have to be achieved.

This would include cyber, phone, handjobs, oral, etc.

The problematic aspect of this definition lies in this example: say an "unusual person" gets-off on watching other people run laps on a field. Say a runner doesn't really care either way and runs for this unusual person. By this super-general definition, these two have a "sexual relation".

Answer 2

As a 65 year old male, in the 50's when I was growing up, anything that involved contact and a sexual reaction was sexual relations. (No contact but sexual reaction, as the first answer pushes to, was not relations but was sexual behavior or response.)
As I understand what I am told, today kids 11-19 believe that anything short of intercourse is not sexual relations and even after intercourse it is possible to claim to have not done "it."
As to Bill Clinton, the whole frufra had nothing to do with "rape" as she was of age and, I believe, offerred the "service". The stink was over having sex with a woman in his "chain of command" while he was married and then apparently lying about it by depending on a very narrow definition of "sex" i.e. intercourse. But what made him look foolish was that his lawyers had insisted that the lawyers on the other side come up with a very exact definition of what sex was, so that he could answer exactly what was being asked by saying "no" but then he extended the lawyering beyond voters' common interpretation.
The problem you will have in trying to "settle our debate ... over meanings" is that we now have people getting hysterical over sexual attitudes that were common 20 years ago and using laws to enforce abursive punishments on anyone labelled a "sex offender" whether that was raping a 6 year old or an 18.01 year old having consensual sex with his 16.99 year old (in other words, 1.02 years younger) girl friend before they get married, neither being allowed to live within 2000 feet of a (long list) so that about one block per city is available.
To these people, you will never be able to talk about ****ing no matter whether it is termed in Anglo-Saxon 4 letter words or longer Latin based words. They believe talking about s*x causes people to go wild and s*x education increases the pregnancy rate.
* The asterisks are entirely mine and not installed by Yahoo as they certainly do.

Answer 3

If your 12 year old daughter gave me oral sex would you call that "sexual relations"?
Don't be rediculous!
Of course, oral sex is "sexual relations" regardless of penetration or orgasm.
William Jefferson Clinton is a rapist and should be in prison!