'She was an adult at the time:' Hillary says her husband's affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, 22,..

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It doesn't matter if she was legally an adult, when you have the most powerful man in the world having office sex with with a lowly intern, then offering her a job afterwards, it is sexual harassment by definition, because of the huge power differential, and the quid pro quo.

Hillary is vile. Worst person ever.

She is a psychopath. By definition, a person devoid of conscience, etc.

 

[hurricanewatcher]

Two consenting adults can fuck themselves as much as they wish.

Sadly, it disgraced our nation and that is the real crime.

 

[buttercup]

I didnt say I dont think. I said I didnt have to think. I read Monicas words when she says she didnt feel pressured and that the relationship was consensual. Why would she tell a lie about it decades later? Basically what you are asking me to do is disbelieve the supposed victims own words and try to make it so Clinton pressured her.

She also said "I wouldn't cross these people for fear of my life." She didn't want to end up like Caity Mahoney. You are either extremely naïve or intellectually dishonest. I'm guessing the latter.

Whether she was starry-eyed for Clinton or not, the huge power differential and the quid pro quo make it textbook sexual harassment, by today's definition. And then there was all sorts of obstruction of justice, blatant bold face lies, and lying under oath. The fact that you would defend a criminal like him is very telling. Evidently politics is more important to you than truth and justice.

xxxxxxxxxxxx It cant be sexual harassment. She point blank said it was consensual and she didnt feel pressured. Are you not smart enough to figure out that she wanted the relationship so there is no way she was pressured by him to have sex? All this other stuff you are talking about has zilch to do with the point.

sex·u·al ha·rass·ment
noun
noun: sexual harassment

1. harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

Once again, you're showing your ignorance and shallow thinking. You're looking at this in a very simplistic way.

There are different types of sexual harassment, and different ideas on how it should be defined. There are many universities, corporations or businesses that have their own policies on sexual harassment, and in many places, when there is a significant power differential, even a "consensual" relationship is considered a form of sexual harassment.

Here's a quick example, from a university:

There are situations in which seemingly consenting relationships may constitute sexual harassment. When a professional power differential exists between members of the University of Maine System and a romantic or sexual relationship develops, there is a potential for abuse of that power, even in relationships of apparent mutual consent.

Guidelines Regarding Consenting Relationships - University of Maine System​

It comes down to the concept of consent. I'll post some excerpts from a blog post on this. But before I do that, I want to share some words, straight from the horse's mouth… Monica Lewinsky herself :

“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Ms Lewinsky writes. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.”

Monica Lewinsky says MeToo has made her rethink whether she could consent to relationship with Bill Clinton​

She also now calls it a "gross abuse of power.” Here's an article on differential-of-power:

Power can be expressed in a variety of ways, but in the differential-of-power scenario it exists when one person possesses the power to influence, either positively or negatively, another’s career, grade, public image, etc.

Simply stated, when one has the power to impact the life of another, either negatively or positively, the notion of a consensual relationship is diminished. Appropriate consent is inversely correlated with the differential-of-power; when the differential-of-power is greater, the ability for a consensual relationship is lesser.

Just as a person can legally be incapable of giving consent based on age, intoxication level, duress, or mental capacity, the ability to consent in a sexual relationship is lessened relative to the differential-of-power between the parties. Furthermore, the ability for consent may be negated entirely when one feels that they can be “made or broken” by the person from whom sexual advances are coming.

It is my belief that the sexual harassment that occurs within a differential-of-power is the least understood and acknowledged form.​

Differential-of-Power: Understanding Sexual Harassment​

The bottom line is, she was taken advantage of. He abused his power, and even if at the time it was seemingly consensual, his actions, both before and after, constitute sexual-harassment according to some modern definitions. Especially when you take into consideration the job offer she got afterwards, and by her own admission, the abuse came afterward, in how she was treated.

And that's not even getting into the obstruction of justice and lying under oath, and that's just the stuff we know about. I have zero doubt that there are tons more things that we don't know about, that were worse.

Stop being blind due to your extreme partisanship.

 

[buttercup]

Due to the power differential, she wasn't just an adult and didn't seduce him. How embarassing for a betrayed woman to have to find excuses for her cheating hubbie.

There is no such thing as a power differential which removes adult consent.

She can still seduce him.

Nonsense and of course workplace power differnetials effect whether someone has to say yes and the fact that they must do so even if they do not want to. Of course an adult can consent but due to the power differential the "consent" must be considered more carefully. Same applies in other power differentials such as with a priest or professor. An old man was seduced....I am laughing hysterically.

Thank you for restoring my faith in humanity.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Due to the power differential, she wasn't just an adult and didn't seduce him. How embarassing for a betrayed woman to have to find excuses for her cheating hubbie.

There is no such thing as a power differential which removes adult consent.

She can still seduce him.

Nonsense and of course workplace power differnetials effect whether someone has to say yes and the fact that they must do so even if they do not want to. Of course an adult can consent but due to the power differential the "consent" must be considered more carefully. Same applies in other power differentials such as with a priest or professor. An old man was seduced....I am laughing hysterically.

Wrong.

Power differential in and of themselves don't make one say yes. People still have agency and can say no.

Consent is not considered by others outside of who gave it. It is either given by an adult it it is not and power differential is irrelevant.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I didnt say I dont think. I said I didnt have to think. I read Monicas words when she says she didnt feel pressured and that the relationship was consensual. Why would she tell a lie about it decades later? Basically what you are asking me to do is disbelieve the supposed victims own words and try to make it so Clinton pressured her.

She also said "I wouldn't cross these people for fear of my life." She didn't want to end up like Caity Mahoney. You are either extremely naïve or intellectually dishonest. I'm guessing the latter.

Whether she was starry-eyed for Clinton or not, the huge power differential and the quid pro quo make it textbook sexual harassment, by today's definition. And then there was all sorts of obstruction of justice, blatant bold face lies, and lying under oath. The fact that you would defend a criminal like him is very telling. Evidently politics is more important to you than truth and justice.

xxxxxxxxxxxx It cant be sexual harassment. She point blank said it was consensual and she didnt feel pressured. Are you not smart enough to figure out that she wanted the relationship so there is no way she was pressured by him to have sex? All this other stuff you are talking about has zilch to do with the point.

sex·u·al ha·rass·ment
noun
noun: sexual harassment

1. harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

Once again, you're showing your ignorance and shallow thinking. You're looking at this in a very simplistic way.

There are different types of sexual harassment, and different ideas on how it should be defined. There are many universities, corporations or businesses that have their own policies on sexual harassment, and in many places, when there is a significant power differential, even a "consensual" relationship is considered a form of sexual harassment.

Here's a quick example, from a university:

There are situations in which seemingly consenting relationships may constitute sexual harassment. When a professional power differential exists between members of the University of Maine System and a romantic or sexual relationship develops, there is a potential for abuse of that power, even in relationships of apparent mutual consent.

Guidelines Regarding Consenting Relationships - University of Maine System​

It comes down to the concept of consent. I'll post some excerpts from a blog post on this. But before I do that, I want to share some words, straight from the horse's mouth… Monica Lewinsky herself :

“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Ms Lewinsky writes. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.”

Monica Lewinsky says MeToo has made her rethink whether she could consent to relationship with Bill Clinton​

She also now calls it a "gross abuse of power.” Here's an article on differential-of-power:

Power can be expressed in a variety of ways, but in the differential-of-power scenario it exists when one person possesses the power to influence, either positively or negatively, another’s career, grade, public image, etc.

Simply stated, when one has the power to impact the life of another, either negatively or positively, the notion of a consensual relationship is diminished. Appropriate consent is inversely correlated with the differential-of-power; when the differential-of-power is greater, the ability for a consensual relationship is lesser.

Just as a person can legally be incapable of giving consent based on age, intoxication level, duress, or mental capacity, the ability to consent in a sexual relationship is lessened relative to the differential-of-power between the parties. Furthermore, the ability for consent may be negated entirely when one feels that they can be “made or broken” by the person from whom sexual advances are coming.

It is my belief that the sexual harassment that occurs within a differential-of-power is the least understood and acknowledged form.​

Differential-of-Power: Understanding Sexual Harassment​

The bottom line is, she was taken advantage of. He abused his power, and even if at the time it was seemingly consensual, his actions, both before and after, constitute sexual-harassment according to some modern definitions. Especially when you take into consideration the job offer she got afterwards, and by her own admission, the abuse came afterward, in how she was treated.

And that's not even getting into the obstruction of justice and lying under oath, and that's just the stuff we know about. I have zero doubt that there are tons more things that we don't know about, that were worse.

Stop being blind due to your extreme partisanship.

Other definitions are horse shit.

She.gave consent and there was NO abuse and NO harrassment legal or otherwise.

Private companies can pass whatever polices they wish. Those definitions do not apply.

Thete was NO harrassment and no quid pro quo those are facts you cannot refute with your brain washed partisan crap.

Grow up and learn a few things moron

 

[Asclepias]

I didnt say I dont think. I said I didnt have to think. I read Monicas words when she says she didnt feel pressured and that the relationship was consensual. Why would she tell a lie about it decades later? Basically what you are asking me to do is disbelieve the supposed victims own words and try to make it so Clinton pressured her.

She also said "I wouldn't cross these people for fear of my life." She didn't want to end up like Caity Mahoney. You are either extremely naïve or intellectually dishonest. I'm guessing the latter.

Whether she was starry-eyed for Clinton or not, the huge power differential and the quid pro quo make it textbook sexual harassment, by today's definition. And then there was all sorts of obstruction of justice, blatant bold face lies, and lying under oath. The fact that you would defend a criminal like him is very telling. Evidently politics is more important to you than truth and justice.

xxxxxxxxxxxx It cant be sexual harassment. She point blank said it was consensual and she didnt feel pressured. Are you not smart enough to figure out that she wanted the relationship so there is no way she was pressured by him to have sex? All this other stuff you are talking about has zilch to do with the point.

sex·u·al ha·rass·ment
noun
noun: sexual harassment

1. harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

Once again, you're showing your ignorance and shallow thinking. You're looking at this in a very simplistic way.

There are different types of sexual harassment, and different ideas on how it should be defined. There are many universities, corporations or businesses that have their own policies on sexual harassment, and in many places, when there is a significant power differential, even a "consensual" relationship is considered a form of sexual harassment.

Here's a quick example, from a university:

There are situations in which seemingly consenting relationships may constitute sexual harassment. When a professional power differential exists between members of the University of Maine System and a romantic or sexual relationship develops, there is a potential for abuse of that power, even in relationships of apparent mutual consent.

Guidelines Regarding Consenting Relationships - University of Maine System​

It comes down to the concept of consent. I'll post some excerpts from a blog post on this. But before I do that, I want to share some words, straight from the horse's mouth… Monica Lewinsky herself :

“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Ms Lewinsky writes. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.”

Monica Lewinsky says MeToo has made her rethink whether she could consent to relationship with Bill Clinton​

She also now calls it a "gross abuse of power.” Here's an article on differential-of-power:

Power can be expressed in a variety of ways, but in the differential-of-power scenario it exists when one person possesses the power to influence, either positively or negatively, another’s career, grade, public image, etc.

Simply stated, when one has the power to impact the life of another, either negatively or positively, the notion of a consensual relationship is diminished. Appropriate consent is inversely correlated with the differential-of-power; when the differential-of-power is greater, the ability for a consensual relationship is lesser.

Just as a person can legally be incapable of giving consent based on age, intoxication level, duress, or mental capacity, the ability to consent in a sexual relationship is lessened relative to the differential-of-power between the parties. Furthermore, the ability for consent may be negated entirely when one feels that they can be “made or broken” by the person from whom sexual advances are coming.

It is my belief that the sexual harassment that occurs within a differential-of-power is the least understood and acknowledged form.​

Differential-of-Power: Understanding Sexual Harassment​

The bottom line is, she was taken advantage of. He abused his power, and even if at the time it was seemingly consensual, his actions, both before and after, constitute sexual-harassment according to some modern definitions. Especially when you take into consideration the job offer she got afterwards, and by her own admission, the abuse came afterward, in how she was treated.

And that's not even getting into the obstruction of justice and lying under oath, and that's just the stuff we know about. I have zero doubt that there are tons more things that we don't know about, that were worse.

Stop being blind due to your extreme partisanship.

You wrote that long ass wrong opinion when I already provided the definition of sexual harrassment?

What the university of main has as guidelines doesnt mean anything except at that school.


sex·u·al ha·rass·ment
noun
noun: sexual harassment

1. harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

 

[Hellokitty]

The thing is liberals came up with the new standard allowing the woman to redefine consent involving past sexual acts and Monica has said Bill abused his power by having a sexual relationship with her and she has suffered because of it.

If liberals want to portray women like Ford who can remember any details of sexual abuse and has nothing to show that her claim of sexual abuse has caused her trauma, they should believe Lewinsky.

 

[Asclepias]

The thing is liberals came up with the new standard allowing the woman to redefine consent involving past sexual acts and Monica has said Bill abused his power by having a sexual relationship with her and she has suffered because of it.

If liberals want to portray women like Ford who can remember any details of sexual abuse and has nothing to show that her claim of sexual abuse has caused her trauma, they should believe Lewinsky.

Lewinksy said herself the relationship was consensual and that she didnt feel pressured. Why dont you believe her?

 

[buttercup]

I didnt say I dont think. I said I didnt have to think. I read Monicas words when she says she didnt feel pressured and that the relationship was consensual. Why would she tell a lie about it decades later? Basically what you are asking me to do is disbelieve the supposed victims own words and try to make it so Clinton pressured her.

She also said "I wouldn't cross these people for fear of my life." She didn't want to end up like Caity Mahoney. You are either extremely naïve or intellectually dishonest. I'm guessing the latter.

Whether she was starry-eyed for Clinton or not, the huge power differential and the quid pro quo make it textbook sexual harassment, by today's definition. And then there was all sorts of obstruction of justice, blatant bold face lies, and lying under oath. The fact that you would defend a criminal like him is very telling. Evidently politics is more important to you than truth and justice.

xxxxxxxxxxxx It cant be sexual harassment. She point blank said it was consensual and she didnt feel pressured. Are you not smart enough to figure out that she wanted the relationship so there is no way she was pressured by him to have sex? All this other stuff you are talking about has zilch to do with the point.

sex·u·al ha·rass·ment
noun
noun: sexual harassment

1. harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

Once again, you're showing your ignorance and shallow thinking. You're looking at this in a very simplistic way.

There are different types of sexual harassment, and different ideas on how it should be defined. There are many universities, corporations or businesses that have their own policies on sexual harassment, and in many places, when there is a significant power differential, even a "consensual" relationship is considered a form of sexual harassment.

Here's a quick example, from a university:

There are situations in which seemingly consenting relationships may constitute sexual harassment. When a professional power differential exists between members of the University of Maine System and a romantic or sexual relationship develops, there is a potential for abuse of that power, even in relationships of apparent mutual consent.

Guidelines Regarding Consenting Relationships - University of Maine System​

It comes down to the concept of consent. I'll post some excerpts from a blog post on this. But before I do that, I want to share some words, straight from the horse's mouth… Monica Lewinsky herself :

“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Ms Lewinsky writes. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.”

Monica Lewinsky says MeToo has made her rethink whether she could consent to relationship with Bill Clinton​

She also now calls it a "gross abuse of power.” Here's an article on differential-of-power:

Power can be expressed in a variety of ways, but in the differential-of-power scenario it exists when one person possesses the power to influence, either positively or negatively, another’s career, grade, public image, etc.

Simply stated, when one has the power to impact the life of another, either negatively or positively, the notion of a consensual relationship is diminished. Appropriate consent is inversely correlated with the differential-of-power; when the differential-of-power is greater, the ability for a consensual relationship is lesser.

Just as a person can legally be incapable of giving consent based on age, intoxication level, duress, or mental capacity, the ability to consent in a sexual relationship is lessened relative to the differential-of-power between the parties. Furthermore, the ability for consent may be negated entirely when one feels that they can be “made or broken” by the person from whom sexual advances are coming.

It is my belief that the sexual harassment that occurs within a differential-of-power is the least understood and acknowledged form.​

Differential-of-Power: Understanding Sexual Harassment​

The bottom line is, she was taken advantage of. He abused his power, and even if at the time it was seemingly consensual, his actions, both before and after, constitute sexual-harassment according to some modern definitions. Especially when you take into consideration the job offer she got afterwards, and by her own admission, the abuse came afterward, in how she was treated.

And that's not even getting into the obstruction of justice and lying under oath, and that's just the stuff we know about. I have zero doubt that there are tons more things that we don't know about, that were worse.

Stop being blind due to your extreme partisanship.

You wrote that long ass wrong opinion when I already provided the definition of sexual harrassment?

What the university of main has as guidelines doesnt mean anything except at that school.


sex·u·al ha·rass·ment
noun
noun: sexual harassment

1. harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

lol. Your partisanship is so extreme that you literally close your eyes to anything that would go against your lame, ignorant preconceived notions. How pathetic is that.

And the funniest part is, you claim to be a liberal. But you're not bright enough to realize that your position here is actually the opposite of liberal, it’s outdated, misogynistic, shallow and simplistic.

Again, there are different types of sexual harassment, not all are the standard kind that you are talking about. And again, the definition has evolved over time, and I don't even consider myself a feminist, but I at least know that from a broader feminist perspective, the concept of power differential comes into play.

This is not just the opinion of a few colleges or corporations. It is a deeper understanding of sexual harassment, it is (as the article you didn't read said) something that is not as well understood, but that is changing.

You also completely ignored that Monica Lewinsky herself, in her own words admitted that now she sees it differently. Let me repeat her words for you, since you literally close your eyes to everything I said:

“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Ms Lewinsky writes. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.”

Monica Lewinsky says MeToo has made her rethink whether she could consent to relationship with Bill Clinton

Nothing more pathetic than an extreme partisan who puts their misguided partisanship above everything, including truth, integrity and intellectual honesty.

 

[buttercup]

Lewinksy said herself the relationship was consensual and that she didnt feel pressured. Why dont you believe her?

“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Ms Lewinsky writes. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.”

 

[boedicca]

Due to the power differential, she wasn't just an adult and didn't seduce him. How embarassing for a betrayed woman to have to find excuses for her cheating hubbie.

There is no such thing as a power differential which removes adult consent.

She can still seduce him.

Nonsense and of course workplace power differnetials effect whether someone has to say yes and the fact that they must do so even if they do not want to. Of course an adult can consent but due to the power differential the "consent" must be considered more carefully. Same applies in other power differentials such as with a priest or professor. An old man was seduced....I am laughing hysterically.

Wrong.

Power differential in and of themselves don't make one say yes. People still have agency and can say no.

Consent is not considered by others outside of who gave it. It is either given by an adult it it is not and power differential is irrelevant.

B'loney. Power differentials mean that one person has far more control over the situation than the other.

Bill Clinton was over twice Lewinsky's age and President of the United States. He had himself serviced by her IN THE OVAL OFFICE. If a corporate CEO had done a similar thing, he'd be fired, and rightly so.

 

[Asclepias]

I didnt say I dont think. I said I didnt have to think. I read Monicas words when she says she didnt feel pressured and that the relationship was consensual. Why would she tell a lie about it decades later? Basically what you are asking me to do is disbelieve the supposed victims own words and try to make it so Clinton pressured her.

She also said "I wouldn't cross these people for fear of my life." She didn't want to end up like Caity Mahoney. You are either extremely naïve or intellectually dishonest. I'm guessing the latter.

Whether she was starry-eyed for Clinton or not, the huge power differential and the quid pro quo make it textbook sexual harassment, by today's definition. And then there was all sorts of obstruction of justice, blatant bold face lies, and lying under oath. The fact that you would defend a criminal like him is very telling. Evidently politics is more important to you than truth and justice.

xxxxxxxxxxxx It cant be sexual harassment. She point blank said it was consensual and she didnt feel pressured. Are you not smart enough to figure out that she wanted the relationship so there is no way she was pressured by him to have sex? All this other stuff you are talking about has zilch to do with the point.

sex·u·al ha·rass·ment
noun
noun: sexual harassment

1. harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

Once again, you're showing your ignorance and shallow thinking. You're looking at this in a very simplistic way.

There are different types of sexual harassment, and different ideas on how it should be defined. There are many universities, corporations or businesses that have their own policies on sexual harassment, and in many places, when there is a significant power differential, even a "consensual" relationship is considered a form of sexual harassment.

Here's a quick example, from a university:

There are situations in which seemingly consenting relationships may constitute sexual harassment. When a professional power differential exists between members of the University of Maine System and a romantic or sexual relationship develops, there is a potential for abuse of that power, even in relationships of apparent mutual consent.

Guidelines Regarding Consenting Relationships - University of Maine System​

It comes down to the concept of consent. I'll post some excerpts from a blog post on this. But before I do that, I want to share some words, straight from the horse's mouth… Monica Lewinsky herself :

“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Ms Lewinsky writes. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.”

Monica Lewinsky says MeToo has made her rethink whether she could consent to relationship with Bill Clinton​

She also now calls it a "gross abuse of power.” Here's an article on differential-of-power:

Power can be expressed in a variety of ways, but in the differential-of-power scenario it exists when one person possesses the power to influence, either positively or negatively, another’s career, grade, public image, etc.

Simply stated, when one has the power to impact the life of another, either negatively or positively, the notion of a consensual relationship is diminished. Appropriate consent is inversely correlated with the differential-of-power; when the differential-of-power is greater, the ability for a consensual relationship is lesser.

Just as a person can legally be incapable of giving consent based on age, intoxication level, duress, or mental capacity, the ability to consent in a sexual relationship is lessened relative to the differential-of-power between the parties. Furthermore, the ability for consent may be negated entirely when one feels that they can be “made or broken” by the person from whom sexual advances are coming.

It is my belief that the sexual harassment that occurs within a differential-of-power is the least understood and acknowledged form.​

Differential-of-Power: Understanding Sexual Harassment​

The bottom line is, she was taken advantage of. He abused his power, and even if at the time it was seemingly consensual, his actions, both before and after, constitute sexual-harassment according to some modern definitions. Especially when you take into consideration the job offer she got afterwards, and by her own admission, the abuse came afterward, in how she was treated.

And that's not even getting into the obstruction of justice and lying under oath, and that's just the stuff we know about. I have zero doubt that there are tons more things that we don't know about, that were worse.

Stop being blind due to your extreme partisanship.

You wrote that long ass wrong opinion when I already provided the definition of sexual harrassment?

What the university of main has as guidelines doesnt mean anything except at that school.


sex·u·al ha·rass·ment
noun
noun: sexual harassment

1. harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

lol. Your partisanship is so extreme that you literally close your eyes to anything that would go against your lame, ignorant preconceived notions. How pathetic is that.

And the funniest part is, you claim to be a liberal. But you're not bright enough to realize that your position here is actually the opposite of liberal, it’s outdated, misogynistic, shallow and simplistic.

Again, there are different types of sexual harassment, not all are the standard kind that you are talking about. And again, the definition has evolved over time, and I don't even consider myself a feminist, but I at least know that from a broader feminist perspective, the concept of power differential comes into play.

This is not just the opinion of a few colleges or corporations. It is a deeper understanding of sexual harassment, it is (as the article you didn't read said) something that is not as well understood, but that is changing.

You also completely ignored that Monica Lewinsky herself, in her own words admitted that now she sees it differently. Let me repeat her words for you, since you literally close your eyes to everything I said:

“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Ms Lewinsky writes. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.”

Monica Lewinsky says MeToo has made her rethink whether she could consent to relationship with Bill Clinton

Nothing more pathetic than an extreme partisan who puts their misguided partisanship above everything, including truth, integrity and intellectual honesty.

You sound like an idiot. I cant stand Clinton. Has nothing to do with partisanship.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I didnt say I dont think. I said I didnt have to think. I read Monicas words when she says she didnt feel pressured and that the relationship was consensual. Why would she tell a lie about it decades later? Basically what you are asking me to do is disbelieve the supposed victims own words and try to make it so Clinton pressured her.

She also said "I wouldn't cross these people for fear of my life." She didn't want to end up like Caity Mahoney. You are either extremely naïve or intellectually dishonest. I'm guessing the latter.

Whether she was starry-eyed for Clinton or not, the huge power differential and the quid pro quo make it textbook sexual harassment, by today's definition. And then there was all sorts of obstruction of justice, blatant bold face lies, and lying under oath. The fact that you would defend a criminal like him is very telling. Evidently politics is more important to you than truth and justice.

xxxxxxxxxxxx It cant be sexual harassment. She point blank said it was consensual and she didnt feel pressured. Are you not smart enough to figure out that she wanted the relationship so there is no way she was pressured by him to have sex? All this other stuff you are talking about has zilch to do with the point.

sex·u·al ha·rass·ment
noun
noun: sexual harassment

1. harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

Once again, you're showing your ignorance and shallow thinking. You're looking at this in a very simplistic way.

There are different types of sexual harassment, and different ideas on how it should be defined. There are many universities, corporations or businesses that have their own policies on sexual harassment, and in many places, when there is a significant power differential, even a "consensual" relationship is considered a form of sexual harassment.

Here's a quick example, from a university:

There are situations in which seemingly consenting relationships may constitute sexual harassment. When a professional power differential exists between members of the University of Maine System and a romantic or sexual relationship develops, there is a potential for abuse of that power, even in relationships of apparent mutual consent.

Guidelines Regarding Consenting Relationships - University of Maine System​

It comes down to the concept of consent. I'll post some excerpts from a blog post on this. But before I do that, I want to share some words, straight from the horse's mouth… Monica Lewinsky herself :

“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Ms Lewinsky writes. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.”

Monica Lewinsky says MeToo has made her rethink whether she could consent to relationship with Bill Clinton​

She also now calls it a "gross abuse of power.” Here's an article on differential-of-power:

Power can be expressed in a variety of ways, but in the differential-of-power scenario it exists when one person possesses the power to influence, either positively or negatively, another’s career, grade, public image, etc.

Simply stated, when one has the power to impact the life of another, either negatively or positively, the notion of a consensual relationship is diminished. Appropriate consent is inversely correlated with the differential-of-power; when the differential-of-power is greater, the ability for a consensual relationship is lesser.

Just as a person can legally be incapable of giving consent based on age, intoxication level, duress, or mental capacity, the ability to consent in a sexual relationship is lessened relative to the differential-of-power between the parties. Furthermore, the ability for consent may be negated entirely when one feels that they can be “made or broken” by the person from whom sexual advances are coming.

It is my belief that the sexual harassment that occurs within a differential-of-power is the least understood and acknowledged form.​

Differential-of-Power: Understanding Sexual Harassment​

The bottom line is, she was taken advantage of. He abused his power, and even if at the time it was seemingly consensual, his actions, both before and after, constitute sexual-harassment according to some modern definitions. Especially when you take into consideration the job offer she got afterwards, and by her own admission, the abuse came afterward, in how she was treated.

And that's not even getting into the obstruction of justice and lying under oath, and that's just the stuff we know about. I have zero doubt that there are tons more things that we don't know about, that were worse.

Stop being blind due to your extreme partisanship.

You wrote that long ass wrong opinion when I already provided the definition of sexual harrassment?

What the university of main has as guidelines doesnt mean anything except at that school.


sex·u·al ha·rass·ment
noun
noun: sexual harassment

1. harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

lol. Your partisanship is so extreme that you literally close your eyes to anything that would go against your lame, ignorant preconceived notions. How pathetic is that.

And the funniest part is, you claim to be a liberal. But you're not bright enough to realize that your position here is actually the opposite of liberal, it’s outdated, misogynistic, shallow and simplistic.

Again, there are different types of sexual harassment, not all are the standard kind that you are talking about. And again, the definition has evolved over time, and I don't even consider myself a feminist, but I at least know that from a broader feminist perspective, the concept of power differential comes into play.

This is not just the opinion of a few colleges or corporations. It is a deeper understanding of sexual harassment, it is (as the article you didn't read said) something that is not as well understood, but that is changing.

You also completely ignored that Monica Lewinsky herself, in her own words admitted that now she sees it differently. Let me repeat her words for you, since you literally close your eyes to everything I said:

“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Ms Lewinsky writes. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.”

Monica Lewinsky says MeToo has made her rethink whether she could consent to relationship with Bill Clinton

Nothing more pathetic than an extreme partisan who puts their misguided partisanship above everything, including truth, integrity and intellectual honesty.

You are the extreme partisan here.
There was no harrassment here and consent cannot be retroactively revoked.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Due to the power differential, she wasn't just an adult and didn't seduce him. How embarassing for a betrayed woman to have to find excuses for her cheating hubbie.

There is no such thing as a power differential which removes adult consent.

She can still seduce him.

Nonsense and of course workplace power differnetials effect whether someone has to say yes and the fact that they must do so even if they do not want to. Of course an adult can consent but due to the power differential the "consent" must be considered more carefully. Same applies in other power differentials such as with a priest or professor. An old man was seduced....I am laughing hysterically.

Wrong.

Power differential in and of themselves don't make one say yes. People still have agency and can say no.

Consent is not considered by others outside of who gave it. It is either given by an adult it it is not and power differential is irrelevant.

B'loney. Power differentials mean that one person has far more control over the situation than the other.

Bill Clinton was over twice Lewinsky's age and President of the United States. He had himself serviced by her IN THE OVAL OFFICE. If a corporate CEO had done a similar thing, he'd be fired, and rightly so.

Wrong

Power differential means one COULD have more control it does not mean they exercise it.

Private companies setting their own rules does not change fact.

A power differential in and of itself does not negated consent

 

[Asclepias]

Lewinksy said herself the relationship was consensual and that she didnt feel pressured. Why dont you believe her?

“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Ms Lewinsky writes. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.”

You forgot to add this....

"An intimacy I wanted—with a 22-year-old’s limited understanding of the consequences."

 

[buttercup]

Lewinksy said herself the relationship was consensual and that she didnt feel pressured. Why dont you believe her?

“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Ms Lewinsky writes. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.”

You forgot to add this....

"An intimacy I wanted—with a 22-year-old’s limited understanding of the consequences."

It doesn't matter. You really don't get this, do you? At first I thought you were just ignoring what you don't want to see, but now I think you simply cannot wrap your mind around this.

 

[boedicca]

Due to the power differential, she wasn't just an adult and didn't seduce him. How embarassing for a betrayed woman to have to find excuses for her cheating hubbie.

There is no such thing as a power differential which removes adult consent.

She can still seduce him.

Nonsense and of course workplace power differnetials effect whether someone has to say yes and the fact that they must do so even if they do not want to. Of course an adult can consent but due to the power differential the "consent" must be considered more carefully. Same applies in other power differentials such as with a priest or professor. An old man was seduced....I am laughing hysterically.

Wrong.

Power differential in and of themselves don't make one say yes. People still have agency and can say no.

Consent is not considered by others outside of who gave it. It is either given by an adult it it is not and power differential is irrelevant.

B'loney. Power differentials mean that one person has far more control over the situation than the other.

Bill Clinton was over twice Lewinsky's age and President of the United States. He had himself serviced by her IN THE OVAL OFFICE. If a corporate CEO had done a similar thing, he'd be fired, and rightly so.

Wrong

Power differential means one COULD have more control it does not mean they exercise it.

Private companies setting their own rules does not change fact.

A power differential in and of itself does not negated consent

If you think a 22 year old intern had more power than the President, then you are absolutely unacquainted with Reality.

 

[Yarddog]

Lewinksy said herself the relationship was consensual and that she didnt feel pressured. Why dont you believe her?

“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Ms Lewinsky writes. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.”

You forgot to add this....

"An intimacy I wanted—with a 22-year-old’s limited understanding of the consequences."

Right, and Clinton was very well aware of the 22 year old's limited understanding and most likely experience. Clinton himself being very experienced by this time, and fully aware of his power of office.... and obviously was using leverage over Lewinski. It's like Bodecia said, CEO's in private Industry get canned for this. Even more so in the military. It doesnt matter if an enlisted female soldier is 22 , if she has an affair with an officer..... how is that looked at in the military. POTUS has much more power and influence than any military officer

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Is this low life BITCH seriously DERANGED or not...equating her husbands blow jobs and cigar insertions of a stogie into a young womans vagina IN THE OVAL OFFICE on a par with a tryst with a porn star as a private citizen?!!

Clinton says her husband's affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, 22, was NOT an abuse of power and was right not to resign

Hillary Clinton has denied that her husband Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was an abuse of power

Ex-Secretary of State said on Sunday that Lewinsky 'was an adult' at the time

Hillary also said she believed Bill was right not to resign as President in the wake of the scandal

She went on to question where the investigation was into President Trump's allegations of sexual misconduct

Clinton says her husband's affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, 22, was NOT an abuse of power and was right not to resign

Hillary Clinton says her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky when she was a White House intern wasn't an abuse of power because the 22-year-old 'was an adult' at the time.

Speaking on CBS Sunday, Hillary also said she believed Bill was right not to resign as President in the wake of the scandal after he was impeached for lying about the affair.

When asked if her husband should have stepped down, Hillary responded: 'Absolutely not.'

Hillary Clinton has denied that her husband Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was an abuse of power Ex-Secretary of State said on Sunday that Lewinsky 'was an adult' at the time Hillary also said she believed Bill was right not to resign as President in the wake of the scandal She went on to question where the investigation was into President Trump's allegations of sexual misconduct

Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

VINTAGE TIME COVER The Clintons leave the WH
arm-in-arm after Bill got lewinskied. Plotting to exploit
Bill's BJ for votes, the Clintons' political apparatus never faltered.
That smirk on Hillary's face tells the story.

Hillary later went on network TV all decked out in virginal pearls,
denying everything, blaming Billy's B/J on "an invention of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!!

Bill later admitted to it, was impeached, and disbarred.
He also had to pay Paula Jones $850,000 dollars in an OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT!!!

The only reason he got caught was she saved the evidence, real evidence. Otherwise Hilly would have taken care of business as usual and I think you know what I am driving at.