This is incorrect. The definition of sexual contact was explained, and it included oral sex and fondling.
Regards,
Shodan
But there’s a flip side to that; even if we can ascertain that a given relationship was an enthusiastic-on-both-sides one despite the boss having power – which really doesn’t seem like something we want to be doing – then we’re setting up a situation where folks are looking at their suddenly-just-got-promoted co-worker and thinking, wait, should I be offering to go down on the boss? I mean, I sure want to get promoted, and I sure can’t afford to get fired, and I now know exactly one thing about office politics.
IIRC, the definitions generally focused on what he would have done to her. Her performing oral sex on him was not on the list; I recall seeing the list of what constituted “sexual relations” and specifically her performing fellatio was not on it. (Presumably Ken Starr, or his wife, had a more limited imagination).
(Discussion after watching the nightly news:
“Hey dad… what’s ‘oral sex’?”
“It’s a myth. Go ask your mother… she’ll tell you so.” )
Of course its sexual harassment. Basically, it hurt every female who applied at Revlon (or any other job) and did not get a $100,000 a year job at the age of 22 because of who they didn’t sleep with, whether Monica felt used or not. The woman who sleeps her way to the top is depriving honest women of the opportunities that would otherwise be open on merit.
Finally, yes, Bill was less than accurate under oath when deposed. When it all came out he paid a $800,000 settlement in the lawsuit to Paula Jones. So his possibly impeachable offense was lying to avoid a $8000,000 payout. And should it have been a discussion? Well, that was the crux of the lawsuit was his behavior.
OK, I’ll bite (heh). Cite on Bush?
ETA: As mentioned above, thread is not about relative skeeviness and their differing legal ramifications, barring non-consensual relations.
This is not true. It is fraternization, which is both a bad idea and against many workplace policies, but it isn’t assault or rape, or even against the law in any jurisdiction I’m aware of.
I don’t believe there is any definition in which acts between two consenting adults are considered assault, and the only thing remotely similar is statutory rape, which only applies to consensual sex with minors. Consensual sexual acts with an adult subordinate is neither, though again, it is a bad idea, as this and many other cases illustrate.
IIRC, the questions the asked him were also not closed as they should have been. “Are you having an affair”. “No” (the affair was over by then).
If the description focused on what he did to her, then presumably copping a feel and sticking a cigar up her hoo-hah is included.
That notwithstanding, since the judge found that Bill had made false and misleading statements under oath, legally it is clear that he lied, and his attempts at weaseling were ineffectual.
Regards,
Shodan
Here’s a write-up I found:
Well, Bill was less than fully forthcoming (he-he) so in the end, it was more likely on the preponderance of evidence that he had sexually harassed Paula Jones… to the tune of $800,000 IIRC.
As for asking “are you having an affair?” is the exactly imprecise nature of the question. Was he? no. She was blowing him, he was not banging her. I would assume affair means full-on intercourse, and I bet the majority would too. The menu of options was meant to be explicit enough to exclude word weaseling while avoiding running down the entire checklist in detail. Obviously, the list was not complete.
Not sure where the cigar episode fits in, unless he never physically touched her - just the cigar did. Or… he lied.
IMHO he got what he deserved- the ignominy of being impeached (tried) for his behavior, but not serious enough misbehavior to warrant removal from office.
I seem to recall that some of the definitions also said something about “…for purposes of sexual gratification of another”, and what Clinton was doing, he was doing for his own sexual gratification.
:: post snipped ::
The problem with the Clinton/Lewinsky thing is that since Clinton was President the whole thing opens up a giant can of worms.
For example, what happens if another countries intelligence service found out about the affair? And decided to use it?
Foreign Minister: Hi Mr. President. How are you? And your wife?
President Clinton: Fine. What can I do for you?
FM: Well, the arms deal you signed with <insert country here> concerns my country. It is not in either of our best interests for the deal to go through.
President Clinton: Well, this is the policy of the Unite States.
FM: I see. Does your wife agree? How about Ms. Lewinsky?
President Clinton: <Oh shit, why’d he bring up Lewinsky?!?!?> Umm. Yes my wife agrees. I am not sure why Ms. Lewinsky’s opinion would matter.
FM: Well, I just thought that since you and Ms. Lewinsky are so close… that you might rely on her oral…arguments. I think the general public might wish to hear, in great detail, about Ms. Lewinsky and her views.
President Clinton: <oh, fuck> Ummm…
Of course, you can replace the foreign minister in the above example with a bunch of other people. Other politicians, business leaders, political consultants, etc.
Slee
By that logic we should be investigating and exposing the private life of all government officials. Because if a foreign power found out about it, they might use it …
Foreign Minister: Hi Mr. President. How are you? And your wife?
President: Fine. What can I do for you?
FM: Well, the arms deal you signed with <insert country here> concerns my country. It is not in either of our best interests for the deal to go through.
President: Well, this is the policy of the Unite States.
FM: I see. But this would put our country at a severe disadvantage. We would be in bondage. I know you’re familiar with that, no? Some people find it pleasurable to view bondage, but our country would find it troubling to be in that position …
Yes. Character matters. If you have politicians doing skeevy things it opens up the door to all sorts of unpleasant potential consequences. I am not sure why people have such a hard time with that, though that is more GD than GQ.
And politicians get into the business by choice, if we dug a bit deeper maybe we could weed out all the less than honest folks (from both sides) before they get into power.
Though for Trump, I don’t think he really cares.
Slee
Yes, it’s not like enemy agencies look for blackmailable material.
What do you think happens when people apply for a security clearance? They ask about all sorts of potentially embarrassing things, including your sex life. If you have secrets that could get you blackmailed, you don’t get the clearance. Undisclosed extramarital affairs are right out.
(if you’re open and honest about it – e.g. you have an open marriage and your mother knows you’re a furry, etc. – that’s fine)
When I had my interview for a clearance they told our entire group outright beforehand to answer truthfully since the interviewers already know.
I even asked a rather dumb question about it on the Dope, and of course they found out.
Back in the day both sides barred homosexuals from employment in the spy game; the Cheka/KGB with rather more success than the British in the '50s & '60s evidently.
Plus the communists had additional reasons since they feared cliques arising.
As for old Bill, I wasn’t paying attention at the time, and the whole thing seemed petty and inconsequential beyond belief — although my admiration rose at his truly impressive level of weaseling — but for some reason I have always imagined the relentless Mr. Starr as having a beard at the time.
This appears to be wrong; maybe I was mixing Salem with Texas.
Closeted Homosexuals yes. Not so much the out ones, and the British upper class (which provided most M16 men in those days) tended to have more than average out homo’s
Dunno, screaming queens were considered amusing but unreliable anyway. It may say more to the lack of perspicuity of the Empire chaps that they didn’t see anything amiss with John Vassall and Antony Blunt, when the average lorry driver could have probably put his finger on it.
Maybe you guys need to revisit your definition of sexual harassment if you genuinely believe the presence of consent doesn’t negate it. And md2000, the woman who’s sleeping her way to the top (willingly or not) isn’t “depriving honest women of opportunities”, the boss choosing to reward his female employees based on their willingness to have sex with him is doing that. Ironic that you’re painting Monica as a victim yet you’re literally victim blaming her.
I didn’t say she was doing harassing and was to blame, I was making the same point you were - that when opportunities are awarded on the basis of “favours” then it debases and victimizes the entire workforce. Maybe the Revlon job would have gone to a man? Maybe it was a made up bullshit job (my vote) so the shareholders were getting screwed. And yet, the incident that produced it did not even happen at Revlon… Ripples in a pond.