<<There is no way that I believe Clinton did not take advantage of his position in the Monika thing. This was not sex between two equals. In his mind he knew this woman was after him because he was the President. He encouraged her to continue for his personal gain. It was in a work environment.>>
How do you know that Monica didn't take advantage of him by misusing her youth? Women in their 20's are notoriously attractive to men in their late 40's. It's a known fact. <g> Pictures of Monica when their relationship first got going made her look pretty fetching at that time (thinking of that beret video). Besides, she probably had heard that that Clinton had had certain problems resisting young women, but was now trying. It was like pushing drinks on someone you know to be a reforming alcoholic? How immoral can you get? Maybe if she had just stood back he could have made it. But no, she took unfair advantage to lure him into an affair. An affair that was much more dangerous for him than for her. She had no Presidency to possibly loose. To satisfy her unnatural power groupie sexual hungers. How selfish can you get!! And that little marriage and country wrecking vamp knew he was married, and used her youthful wiles against him nonetheless. Surely she is a devil. Perhaps our Bill had barely a chance.
Absurd? Of course. But so is the reverse. The sinfulness of his using the attractiveness of his fame and power. Both were adults. And neither coerced the other. They were each responsible for their acts.
And no doubt each fulfilled some appetite of the other. Wrongfully. In each case.
The radical Feminist ideology that would hold that any relationship which is not sufficiently "equal" in someone else's eyes is impermissible even though both parties want it, is I think deeply troubling. And ultimately treats some grown women like children. You know, the ones that are attracted by the "wrong" things. The "unequal" things. No way to forge the new communist I mean feminist woman.
Since Bill Gates has more power than virtually anybody other than the head of a [very big] country, was he allowed to date ANYONE? Before some of those dates led to marriage? Perhaps only Princess Di? What if she wasn't interested? Guess he's in the soup, right? Is his marriage now ok? Since he married an employee, should we jail him? Can she still work at Microsoft, where he met her? Only if he makes her 2nd in command, to even up that power problem? Wait, would that be sexual harassment, rewarding her for her sexual relationship with him? Can you sexually harass your wife? What if you're only doing it to make her more equal? But if he pressures her to quit Microsoft to remain in the clear, isn't that punishing her for her relationship, and a clear case of harassment? Does it all depend on whether or not Washington is a community property state? Boy this stuff gets confusing. <g>
And perhaps ridiculous?
And yes, I think the far edges of sexual harassment law definitely go too far, are dangerous, and threaten a sex police. The far edges only. What some push for, and a few have a few times achieved. On the other hand we do need sexual harassment laws. Certainly there is odious and unarguable sexual harassment out there. Probably a lot of it. Crude and coercive behavior must be stopped. There is just a real danger of going too far.
Now don't get me wrong. I do think Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was reprehensible. Not itself impeachable but reprehensible. First, because he is married. Second, because he was and is the President, and should not do anything which people would feel demeaned his office, and could throw the country into turmoil. Her youth is a factor here, largely for appearance reasons. Thirdly, because the affair was especially reckless in view of the fact that enemies were clearly out to get him, and some were pursuing this very sort of trail to weaken, or even remove him. And lastly, because it seems quite clear that he had no intentions other than temporary ones. The last is the least, but especially for the President has to be a factor. So yes, it was clearly reprehensible.
Doug |
