The only scandalous thing the writer sees is that the girl charged $200 an hour. Maybe there is something wrong with Morris that caused him to have to pay a girl for sexual favors. Afterall, Washington, like Hollywood, is full of beautiful women, many of which love sex and anticipate it with joy, especially when confronted with money and power.

Why didn't Morris just stick with regular, everyday women and have his affairs? That is so common place every kid above five must expect it fo them, even though they may not know what an 'affair' is. For certain, by junior high, the concept is well-understoood.

If anyone really considers it important, walk down the street as the writer did, and ask each person met if they believe Washington abounds with illicit sex, with married men and women going outside their marriages for sex, and how many they think do so.

In the writer's very random sampling, the results were that 100 percent believed every person in Washington, except those near death, took advantage of sex and the availability of willing partners.

The writer certainly doesn't agree with Russ Getter who stated that "I think this hurts him [Clinton] quite a bit. What it does is add to the impression of a White House out of control."

Come on, get real. First of all, Clinton cannot follow his staff around. Second, it's not his place to do so or to order saintly behavior from his staff. Third, the writer, just as with everyone questioned, believes that if every person who had illicit sex while in Washington resigned, we would nearly, if not totally, empty the capitol of all personnel.

Sex outside of marriage scandalous? Not hardly. Not when one is bombarded by extra-marital sex on soaps, in sitcoms, movies, and in local life, e.g., single women who have become mothers. That's pre-marital sex but, morally speaking, it used to be on the same plane as extra-marital, a societal taboo.

If there is any effect at all, it will be because of people like Getter trying to shove it so down people's throats that they soon believe it to be a scandal. Shoot, in the 90's one can be looked at as a really strange person if they have NOT had at least one illicit affair.

Hell, let's call it what it is: Sexual encounters. Carnal knowledge. And, in Morris's case, it was a business arrangement. What if the service was sex? Maybe his wife didn't fulfill his needs. Maybe he didn't fulfill hers. At any rate, he felt it necessary to pay for sex.

How is that any different than receiving mental therapy? And, yes, good sex, whether pre-marital, extra-marital, or marital, does keep one happy and striving harder to be the best one can be. It puts a smile on your face.

The writer doesn't know if others ever consider the relativity of many of our mores and moral values. Did you know it was once scandalous for a women to show her ankles?

Did you know that it was also acceptable during the pre-Victorian age for women to show their breasts in court (such as in England)? Gowns were special designed to suit the purpose.

Can you imagine in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's the results of a well-built woman walking around the local pool in a thong bikini? Or, a mini-skirt prior to the late sixties? Gosh, one could see many women's crotches, the skirts were so short. But, it was alright simply because it was accepted at the time. Relative, you see, to the time.

The writer remembers when very young and into the sixties, that all divorced women were considered whores and really looked down on. 'Course, many married men looked at them as easy and not likely to talk so they chased them around.

Did you know that just three decades ago, one couldn't even use the word sex in mixed company? And, to say vagina, penis, breast, testes, etcetera, would have immediately got one expelled, not only from school, but from society.

We had to skip human reproduction (yeh, you couldn't use that phrase either or the word, pregnant.) because no one could use the necessary words to discribe the process.

Besides,it required talking about the, yech, nasty parts of the human body. Yes, some very strange people actually considered genitalia and nudity as nasty. Guess some of those people still exist but, thankfully, the writer has not been one of them and met very few women who were.

To creat scandal is to do something disgraceful. How, therefore, can any action that is accepted as the norm, be scandalous?

The writer doesn't consider anything less than getting caught on the Oval Office's desk doing the "big nasty" as scandalous. And, then, that would probably have to be by visiting foreign dignitaries. Wonder if that has happened?

So, Mr. Morris, the writer thinks you resigned prematurely. What most people out here are concerned about is whether or not you performed your job well. We know you must have been happy and enthusiastic at least once a week so did that enthusiasm bleed over into the performance of your job?

Apparently, it did as one Republican, Tony Blankley, a top aide to Gingrich, stated that "It's a little bit like losing Napoleon right before the battle - there aren't other Napo- leons sitting on the bench." Guess he could check at the local motels or hotels; there might be one there.

Hey, by the way, Tony, what does Newt do for entertainment? You don't think he has ever - you know - do you?

Special Addendem: To answer the last question, I later found out Gingrich (Newt) had committed the same acts. One of his was a woman named Anne Manning, a young campaign worker who was also married at the time of their carnal activities.

Gingrich also insisted on oral sex only. He did so in case he was ever asked if he had had sex with a woman outside of his marriage. By his alleged understanding of sex and sexual acts, he could say "No". Screwed up Washington politician reasoning.