I see your point and I could accept Clinton's parsing of language if it wasn't so obviously self serving.
FYI: In the biblical context (or at least in context of the culture of that time) a virgin was simply an unmarried woman. Having not 'known' a man was just assumed.
Actually, the part that seemed absurdly self-serving was when he was suggesting that if he'd performed cunnilingus that would have been 'having sex', but receiving felatio was not; if he'd simply said that he thought the question referred solely to coital intercourse, he would have been just as fine under that definition. On the other hand, I'm loath to really complain that he didn't add more activities to the 'not really sex' column.
FYI: In the biblical context (or at least in context of the culture of that time) a virgin was simply an unmarried woman. Having not 'known' a man was just assumed.
If that were the case, why the explicit language regarding the "tokens of virginity"? Also, it is stated that a man who lies with an unmarried woman must take her as his wife unless her father refuses, but must pay the bride-price regardless. If a man refuses to let his daughter marry a man with whom she is known to have laid, that would not make the woman be a virgin despite her being unmarried.