Maybe What’s Wrong Is Really Right

Everything I hear and read about the impeachment starts out with a sentence like, “Nobody denies that what the president did was wrong.”

Here comes Nobody. I deny that what the president did was wrong.

To say Clinton did wrong requires a set of assumptions. The underlying one is: Sex is bad. That’s followed by: Sex outside of marriage is really bad. Which is founded on the idea that the primary purpose of marriage is sexual exclusivity and that sexual exclusivity is the most significant measure of a marriage. We go on to say, adamantly, that sex across various social dividing lines--rank, employment level, age--is especially wrong. Then, that people should tell the truth about sex even though it will cost them immense and unforeseeable amounts of trouble. Finally, that the American actually people wanted Clinton to tell the truth about his sex life.

All of this should be questioned.

First, sex is good. And if it’s bad, it’s because something else is wrong.

When we were children, we were told that sex is only for marriage and that marriage is only for sex. The adult reality is that married people frequently don’t want to or can’t have sex with each other. If, in theory, we can agree that having sex is better than not having sex, what do we do about that?

Actually there are better and more noble reasons for marriage. The Clinton marriage appears to be a splendid example of that. They’re perfect partners; united in purpose and united in support of each other, they inspire one another to think and achieve and grow. Outside of the rather trivial and silly area of sex, they have given each other a total, long-lasting loyalty. In addition, they have raised a child who is so well-adjusted that she has survived this scandal without once cracking in public. It may very well be a marriage without sex; who knows? But those other values make it seem to me to be an excellent marriage and one to emulate.

Not long ago, homosexuality, interracial sex and dispensing birth control information all were criminal acts. Now the point where sex and politics meet is the belief that sex between a social superior (if male) and a social inferior (if female) must be assumed to be coercive and an abuse. To say that assumes sex to be bad, animal, masculine behavior in which a good woman would engage only if forced to do so. It is Victorianism in feminist drag, and it has made such relationships civil offenses so severe as to destroy careers, incomes and social lives. Specifically, it is only because of this anti-sexuality disguised as the protection of rights that a situation was created in which Clinton could be called to testify under oath about intimate acts.

Which leads us to the question: Should people tell the truth about their sex lives? When Monica Lewinsky told Clinton she had been subpoenaed, should he have said, “Monica, the American people need to know more about good sex. Go and tell them all the details!”? Some people claim that if Clinton had done that, it would have been the end of it. Wrong. What has now come to pass would simply have come sooner.

When you are caught having sex, it is permissible to lie. In the immortal words of Richard Pryor, the thing to say is, “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” We (whoever we are) did not want Clinton to tell the explicit truth about his sex life. When Bill and Hillary went on “60 Minutes,” he made two things clear: that he had sex outside of marriage and that in public he would uphold the institution of marriage.

I think most people understood that. His contract with the American people, verified by their votes, was, therefore, to lie about his sex life. As human beings, what we’re seeking is a little satisfaction (sex) without destroying the institutional restraints that hold back chaos, which is why even now the president cannot defend his actions. He can only try to minimize and apologize for them.

Clinton did nothing wrong. He can’t say so, so it’s up to us to say so.