As the judge said, keep sex out of it

To the ordinary spouse seeking a divorce 'sexual relations' meant the full works and nothing less

OF COURSE there are differences between American English and the real English we speak over here. I remember vividly asking a hotel receptionist (or was he a "bell hop" or something) in New York to knock me up at 7am. He looked deeply shocked and suggested I should make the offer to a particular female receptionist to discuss terms.

This confusion between the two versions of the English language was further demonstrated when it was reported in the States that 60 per cent of the public were in favour of the President "carrying on"!

However, despite these differences, I am sure "sexual relations" means to the ordinary participant in all the English-speaking countries sexual intercourse and no less and no more.

Before the days of enlightenment, to get a divorce you had to prove your spouse had committed a matrimonial offence: adultery, cruelty or desertion. Whether or not the wife got financial support from her husband depended upon her winning the divorce case.

They were exciting times. Enquiry agents climbing up the ivy with a pair of binoculars, the minute examination of hotel regulars by handwriting experts, the examination of the bed sheets by forensic scientists. I recall one enquiry agent who had invented a device which resembled an ancient bed warmer which when inserted into a recently vacated bed would reveal whether one or two persons had been the occupants.

The great mass of divorces were undefended but the petitioner for divorce had to give evidence of a matrimonial offence. As to adultery, if you had not got a confession statement taken by an enquiry agent carrying one of those small portable typewriters from which they were never separated, then the evidence must prove inclination and opportunity.

Throughout this period, to the ordinary spouse seeking a divorce "sexual relations" meant the full works and nothing less. For some reason the ordinary person did not like using the term "sexual intercourse". It did not come naturally.

Of course there were other terms in common use to describe the full works: "making love" is generally accepted as denoting sexual intercourse. I recall the News of the World used to use that delicate word "intimacy" to describe it.

I once had a problem with a farmer in an undefended divorce case who came home unexpectedly after milking to find his wife having sex (another description in common use) on the kitchen table with the grain-feed lorry driver. When giving evidence he said: "I came home early and found my missus on the job on the kitchen table."

This caused the elderly judge to remove his spectacles and ask: "What job was that?

"You know - " said the farmer, "the job."

I decided to intervene to prevent the case going into a second day. "Do you mean sexual intercourse?" I said hopefully.

This provoked a rebuke from the judge, who said I had no business asking a question which suggested the answer to the witness. It certainly did, but it did save a lot of time.

If you think about it, using "sexual relations" to describe sexual intercourse is logically correct. To substantiate this contention I shall have to use coded grown-up language or else the Daily Mail will condemn this journal as pornographic (which might increase the circulation still further, I suppose).

Does a full-blown teenage slobbery kiss constitute "sexual relations"? Are youngsters viewing the difference behind the Nissen hut having sexual relations? Must it involve removing clothing, or is it covered by what grandma used to call "being rude"?

There are obviously many borderline cases if you try to use "sexual relations" to denote every activity with a sexual intent. Placing a hand on a girl's knee would presumably constitute "sexual relations" if the perpetrator has sex on his mind.

How is the anxious OAP seeking a prescription for Viagra to answer the prying question of his GP? Does he admit to having sexual relations currently or not? Will this reduce his chances of getting it (if you'll excuse the expression)?

At the very least "sexual relations" is not clear-cut. I remember the newly wed husband complaining that his honeymoon was a disappointment as he had waited all night for his sexual relations to arrive but they did not come (if you'll excuse the expression).

So I contend that the President was correct. "Sexual relations" means sexual intercourse. What on earth President Clinton's sexual relations have to do with his ability to be an excellent president, only some Republicans apparently can tell, but most lawyers would agree with his definition of the term.