Monica Lewinski, slut or victim ?

[Cheesesteak]

@Monty

It seems to me that you do not understand the concept of power over a subordinate.

I would admit that it’s inappropriate for the president to have sex with a staffer, this whole affair is just filled with inappropriate choices, but it seems clear to me that Lewinsky did not at any time feel pressured by Clinton, by the Office of the President, to have sex.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@BigT

To me, it seems the problem is that you defended the word “slut,” which most of us know as a term used to attack women for enjoying sex. That made you come off as misogynist.

It appears the word you actually want is “cheater.” I definitely can agree with that term, as it takes two to cheat. As long as both of them knew that Hillary didn’t approve, they’re both cheaters.

Lets pretend the cheating never occurred for a moment and assume the action stopped after Monica bent over and lifted her skirt to show her bare ass and vagina as she gives Clinton something to think about as she leaves the Oval Office. After all. there is no statute against cheating.
But shouldn’t she be charged with indecent exposure and sexual assault? Indecent exposure is classified as a lewd act and defined as follows

" lewd act is any unlawful doing committed by an individual with the purpose of arousing sexual interest of himself or herself, or the person towards which the lewd act is directed. "

It is punishable by up to eight years in prison

So why does she get a pass ? Because she’s a woman ? Because she is of the weaker sex ?

[The_Librarian]

@Monty

It seems to me that you do not understand the concept of power over a subordinate.

It seems you don’t understand how sexual attraction works.

[Kovitlac]

@Kimera757

There’s that. She read a book by Gennifer Flowers to learn how to seduce Bill Clinton, so I don’t see her as a victim of his. Unfortunately for her, people treated affairs far more seriously those days (especially if the guy is a Democratic president and not a Republican speaker) and the woman usually gets treated far worse than the man.

Of course, after years of being out of the spotlight (she fled to the UK for a time), Lewinski is back and specifically talking about this. I don’t really know why. Maybe she developed an addiction to attention? Shouldn’t she be doing something else, so we can say “she’s the person who does this wonderful thing” instead of “it’s that woman again”?

If she’s speaking widely about the whole issue again, I wonder if it’s an attempt to ‘reclaim the narrative’ or something something, female empowerment. Something I’d totally be in support of if she were a victim of Bill’s, and that I think is a GOOD thing in general when it comes to victims.

She might be forgetting that she did wrong by this too, though. If she was indeed the pursuer, (and she seems to have said she was) even though I find what Bill did FAR more disgusting, she isn’t completely in the clear either. If I were her, I’d let the story die out as much as possible and be thankful for it.

[Limmin]

Perhaps she shouldn’t have signaled her interest, but the real issue is what did Bill do. He should have, as has been suggested by others in this thread, not followed up.

Flirting and signaling interest happens occasionally, I even see it directed at me from time to time, by women much younger than me. What do I do? Nothing.

To get involved has almost nothing but downsides, and I’m “smart” enough to know better. Bill should have known this too.

[Kron]

Jesus Christ, I expected this to be a zombie thread.

[Ludovic]

Zombie Jesus: masochist or victim?

[Gyrate]

My vote: She and Bill exercised phenomenally poor judgement in having the affair.

But Monica became a victim afterwards when everybody - the Clintons, the Republicans, the Democrats, the media and especially Linda Fucking Tripp - threw her under a long convoy of busses. She got screwed far more after the affair than she did during it.

[E-DUB]

@RTFirefly

I’ve got to concur with the sentiment of many in this thread that ‘slut’ is a misogynistic word.

A man who has sex with a lot of different women is a ‘stud,’ but a woman who has sex with a lot of different men is a ‘slut.’ The word used to describe male promiscuity is very positive, while the word used to describe female promiscuity is very denigrating.

The very different valuation of the same activity depending on gender should not be something that we are preserving here.

Perhaps a gender neutral term is in order. How about “slud”? But seriously, isn’t at least part of the perception
differential due to the fact that it’s demonstrably easier for a woman to “rack up” a large number of male partners than for a guy (presuming you’re not an NBA player or Rock Star) to do likewise (with females, I mean). Not making excuses or moral distinctions here, just pointing out what should be obvious.

[mhendo]

The Flying Dutchman: He doesn’t post often, but he does post stupid.

[JRDelirious]

@Gyrate

My vote: She and Bill exercised phenomenally poor judgement in having the affair.

But Monica became a victim afterwards when everybody - the Clintons, the Republicans, the Democrats, the media and especially Linda Fucking Tripp - threw her under a long convoy of busses. She got screwed far more after the affair than she did during it.

Agreed.

And of the two people making the original bad decision, ONE was supposed to be in a position where exercise of good decisionmaking judgement is expected and demanded (or at least was supposed to be, barely a quarter century ago…) and ostensibly had the intelligence and the life experiences to see what could possibly go wrong. That he still went ahead, was on him.

[D_Odds]

@Gyrate

My vote: She and Bill exercised phenomenally poor judgement in having the affair.

But Monica became a victim afterwards when everybody - the Clintons, the Republicans, the Democrats, the media and especially Linda Fucking Tripp - threw her under a long convoy of busses. She got screwed far more after the affair than she did during it.

Depending on one’s interpretation of “screw”, my understanding is that she wasn’t technically screwed during the affair.

[Chronos]

Indecent exposure is only a crime if someone saw it who didn’t want to. If she had flashed Clinton, and he didn’t follow up on it, but also didn’t mind, then no crime was committed. If she had flashed Clinton, and he did mind, but said nothing about it to anyone, then a crime would have been committed, but would be unenforceable.

And again, why do we even care about a crime that some random staffer may or may not have committed? There are millions of others who commit similar crimes without anyone caring.

[Chronos]

Indecent exposure is only a crime if someone saw it who didn’t want to. If she had flashed Clinton, and he didn’t follow up on it, but also didn’t mind, then no crime was committed. If she had flashed Clinton, and he did mind, but said nothing about it to anyone, then a crime would have been committed, but would be unenforceable.

And again, why do we even care about a crime that some random staffer may or may not have committed? There are millions of others who commit similar crimes without anyone caring.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Chronos

Indecent exposure is only a crime if someone saw it who didn’t want to. If she had flashed Clinton, and he didn’t follow up on it, but also didn’t mind, then no crime was committed. If she had flashed Clinton, and he did mind, but said nothing about it to anyone, then a crime would have been committed, but would be unenforceable.

I know this is only the pit, but I wouldn’t mind if you could provide a cite for the assertion that a statutory crime becomes null and void if the victim declines to come forward right away and make a charge. Keep in mind i’m thinking of all the late revelations of sexual abuse victims who had remained silent for years and the only issue is the statute of limitations.

[Shodan]

Because showing your bare ass to your married boss, in the workplace, and then having an affair with him is a bad idea. It sexualizes the workplace. It undercuts women who don’t get ahead by flashing the boss or sucking his dick. It distracts. It’s a bad idea.

There is a reason that responsible people don’t allow this kind of thing, and it’s not because they’re prudes. It’s because the inability to keep it in your pants is a serious impediment to business.

We aren’t paying the White House staff to be your personal harem. If you aren’t getting it from Hillary, you still have to keep your hands off the staff.

Regards,
Shodan

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Shodan

We aren’t paying the White House staff to be your personal harem. If you aren’t getting it from Hillary, you still have to keep your hands off the staff.

Regards,
Shodan

There is no reason to assume that Clinton wasn’t getting any from Hillary

There is reason to assume that Bill never put his hands on Monica. Hence the cigar.

[Shodan]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

There is no reason to assume that Clinton wasn’t getting any from Hillary

There is reason to assume that Bill never put his hands on Monica. Hence the cigar.

I wouldn’t necessarily assume that. But that’s kind of beside the point. What Clinton did was wrong and stupid, no matter what his relationship with Hillary was like.

Regards,
Shodan

[eschereal]

@pool

Could she be a victim of her sluttiness?

Is Bill Clinton a manwhore?

Are you a shitstain? Because, you seem to be presenting that impression.

[bengangmo]

@Shodan

Because showing your bare ass to your married boss, in the workplace, and then having an affair with him is a bad idea. It sexualizes the workplace. It undercuts women who don’t get ahead by flashing the boss or sucking his dick. It distracts. It’s a bad idea.

There is a reason that responsible people don’t allow this kind of thing, and it’s not because they’re prudes. It’s because the inability to keep it in your pants is a serious impediment to business.

We aren’t paying the White House staff to be your personal harem. If you aren’t getting it from Hillary, you still have to keep your hands off the staff.

Regards,
Shodan

This pretty much sums it up.
“Slut” IS a nasty word, it’s a pejorative and meant to be nasty.
But then - a person that uses sex to get ahead in the work place, who has the loose morals of chasing a married boss (note - the boss is just as bad / worse) deserves a nasty pejorative.
And it doesn’t need to by misogynistic - it can equally be applied to male or female - or if you want to draw a distinction I see nothing at all wrong with the term “man slut” to describe a male who engages in the same behaviour.