No.
It’s sexual activity. It’s sexual relations. It’s not sex.
Right there with you. This is exactly my view.
(See why we’re confused so often in public?)
I doubt it was illegal. I’m virtually certain it was sexual. I believe it’s not “having sex.”
:rolleyes: Bricker, are you willing to accept the fact that many posters here are using the term “to have sex”, especially in a same-sex context, to include sexual activities involving direct stimulation of the genitals but not involving the penetration of a bodily orifice by a penis, and stop nitpicking the definition of the term?
Not without a little more evidence that this is standard usage. I reject it completely for opposite-sex relationships.
“Did you have sex with her?”
“No, she just gave me a handjob.”
I’ll admit that for same-sex relationships, as you suggest, the convention may be different… but we have my brother from another mother Sampiro, by all accounts someone who is at least passing familiar with same-sex conventions, saying exactly what I’m saying.
Hey, Sampiro - what’s your opinion on showtunes?
There’s a difference between “sex” and “sexual relations?”
So Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman, then? He did not commit perjury?
Does a handjob count as adultery?
How are you defining sex? It sounds like, by your definition, gay sex isn’t even possible.
So basically your definition is completely arbitrary and personal.
:rolleyes: again. Plenty of people would make exactly the same sort of distinction between “having sex” and, say, fellatio:
“Did you have sex with her?”
“No, she just gave me a blowjob.”
“To have sex” is an imprecise expression whose specific meaning depends largely on context. Clearly, when people in this thread are saying things like “Rekers claimed he didn’t have sex with his rentboy, but it turns out he did”, they aren’t making a specific claim about Rekers’ engaging in penetrative versus non-penetrative sex; they’re just making the point that Rekers was lying about the sexual nature of the relationship.
When you come into that conversation with the observation that you think the two “didn’t have sex”, without clarifying that you mean specifically penetrative sex, you aren’t making any useful point, you’re just confusing the issue with pointless nitpicking. Which seems to be what you live for.
I made this same argument a few hundred times during the Bill Clinton years, only substitute “handjob” with “blowjob”. I was repeatedly told I was crazy.
In any event, it doesn’t really matter if they had according-to-Hoyle “sex”. The question is whether he participated in behavior unbecoming someone who claims to have left homosexuality behind, and I think “the long stroke” counts.
Exactly. What difference does it make what KIND of sex they had? Reker denied that the relationship was sexual. That was a lie.
It’s my understanding that (contrary to popular belief) most gay sex does not involve anal sex, so I can’t see how that is any kind of significant point at all.
He did.
He did.
No.
Sampiro said it perfectly.
No, it doesn’t.
And you were.
The distinction between this discussion and the Clinton experience is that Clinton had a detailed definition of what constituted “sex,” for the purposes his his deposition, and he lied under that definition.
Of course it does.
This whole discussion about what’s sex and what’s not sex should give Rekers some sense of relief; all he has to do is to announce: “I’m not gay. I just got handjobs from a Rentboy,” and this whole kerfuffle will just fade away.
Agreed. Which is why I said:
And it sounds to me like Reker is gayer than 7 guys blowing 8 guys, so what fucking difference does it make?
Well, my whole line of commentary was intended to explore the mental gymnastic that Reker must be engaging in to deny that he’s gayer than… what you said.
I would qualify it as adulterous, more than adultery if that makes sense, the same as with a French kiss or cyber sex or heavy petting. It’s less than full fledged adultery but more like Adultery Helper perhaps- the seasonings are all there but the meat’s not in the pot just yet. Personally I would consider a French kiss or cybersex to be adulterous and a handjob, on a scale in which peck on the cheek is 1 and penetration is 10, to be around a 5 (7 required for adultery). If a partner gave/received a handjob, voluntarily obviously, from another person, it would be a very serious matter and a reasonable relationship ender, but I can see how in a closet case’s strained logic would tell him it’s not technically being unfaithful to his wife, which is what I think Bricker is saying- not that it isn’t gay or isn’t a sexual act, just that it’s not intercourse.
Absolutely. It was definitely sexual, no question about it. If all he had done was watch the kid jack off, that would be sexual and specifically homosexual. Contact isn’t required for something to be sexual.
Again, I endorse this statement. It’s adulterous in nature. It’s not adultery.
Speaking more explicitly, I consider intercourse- between gay men or a straight couple- to begin when there is orificial insertion of the penis.
I think the impeachment of Clinton was an outrage but I’d think the same thing if they’d had two kids together- it was nobody’s damned business as far as the presidency was concerned. BUT, Clinton did have sex with Monica Lewinsky- no question about that in my definition of the term- and the only way to say he didn’t was to do technical word play which is what he did. He did not commit perjury in fact but he did in spirit, though I think the outrage is he never should have been questioned on a consentual sex act to begin with.