>
The author also talks about “term changing” (which literally means just that) and “redefinition” in which you accept the denotative meaning but alter the connotations. Heinrichs gives the example of redefinition with Bill Clinton’s manipulation of the meaning of sex, when inquired about his relations with Monica Lewinsky (who we hispanos get a kick out of calling Lenguinsky).
I agree with Heinrichs in that Clinton was able to muddle his way through the issue by manipulating terminology, nevertheless I do not believe that what the ex-president did would fall under the “redefinition” category. Clinton played with the popular understanding of sex, which in the minds of most people would constitute both the active and the passive parties involved in fellatio, and the legal definition of sex, which as used in the case was the following:
"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:
1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; 2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or 3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.
Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."
Because Clinton did not have any contact with any of the body parts listed above, then legally he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky. This rhetorical trickery deserves a category of its own. I propose that it be called “definition MMA (Mixed Martial Arts)” since it employs a mix of various definitions for maximum favorability.
No comments:
Post a Comment