The only shitstains are in your Mom’s panties.
I have a better idea: Why not ask for a cite from someone who said that? Though I didn’t see anyone making that claim in this thread, so I’m not sure why you brought it up.
In 2018 she called it a gross abuse of power. If that’s not pressure, then what is?
Trying to revive her 15 minutes of fame.
Yeah…this. I was in high school (right outside of DC) when this scandal broke; I followed it closely. I didn’t have a strong opinion on Lewinsky at the time, but I sure do now. She totally got a raw deal.
I’m now 46 years old, and I’ve managed several young, attractive female interns. One hit on me, taking my hand and placing it on her breast. I pulled my hand away and said, “Maybe that’s not such a good idea.” I was totally attracted to her, and I felt a weird thrill when she placed my hand on her breast. But I had power over her, so it was a nonstarter.
You know what? It was pretty easy to say no. I concede the memory of it fueled a few fantasies, but that’s where it ended. Among consenting adults, I’d argue that the duty to decline lies with the person with the most power. I mean, maybe not on a Tinder date, but certainly in the workplace.
John Oliver conducted an astounding, humanizing interview with Lewinsky:
I was greatly impressed; that woman went through hell and handled it with more aplomb and grace than I could muster.
To paraphrase Oliver: imagine being branded for eternity with the dumbest thing you ever did. Not the dumbest thing you ever got caught for—the dumbest thing you ever did. Sure, Lewinsky and Clinton were both consenting adults, but they absolutely did not have comparable power. Now that I’m a middle-aged white guy who has had power over attractive young women, I’ll double down on that.
Meh, you don’t need a specific sexually loaded pejorative. Reckless, irresponsible, stupid, unprofessional, they all work fine for those involved here. And there would be more words to throw at those who later just used her as something with which to hit at Clinton.
Yup. That is what is the standard and the expectation and as you noticed it’s easy to do. Even if only because you don’t want the troubles that may arise.
And to harken back to that earlier time’s ways of thinking, for many dudes contemporary to the scandal it was something of a head scratcher, too: “Oh, come on, Bill… you are the President! You could pick up the phone to Hef and find yourself up to your eyeballs in The Finest In The Land, quietly delivered to the service door of AF1! But you go for some intern at the office, IN the office, like some sort of retail store manager? Oh please…”
How the hell do you know she hasn’t? That’s between the two of them. And really, the one who REALLY victimized Hilllary wasn’t Monica, it was Bill. Was Monica blameless? No, of course not. But Bill was the one married to Hillary, and thus he was the one who really fucked up.
Funny, you’re such a big fan of Hillary, but you haven’t really said much about him. Why is it always The Other Woman who takes the brunt? You know what they say about it taking two to tango.
What are you, 12?
Yes, because clearly she longs for those glory days when the entire country considered her to be a stupid whore.
You were still in high school at 24?
The Whitewater investigation (by the NY Times) began during Clinton’s 1992 campaign; Ken Starr was appointed in 1994. 1992 was 28 years ago. So - 18 years old at the very beginning of it.
The only person who isn’t a victim is Bill(to much stress) Clinton. Lewinski made a very poor choice, and paid for it. I don’t understand why it’s coming back up after so much time. Is it the HULU doc? Bad timing , No?
What made it unlawful?
Jeez, guys. “Lewinsky.” The woman is pretty famous.
Anyway… calling a woman a “slut” is gross whatever the circumstances.
First off, what the fuck does this have to do with the post you quoted from me? My post was about why a poster was being perceived as misogynistic due to defending a slur. I pointed out that, if he wants a negative word for someone who acts as he described Lewinksi as acting, a better term is “cheater,” rather than a word used to attack women for liking sex.
But, fine. I’ll answer your question, because I don’t want it to look like I’m trying to avoid answering it, and because the answer is simple.
Indecent exposure laws are puritanical, anti-sex nonsense that come from our nations repression about sex. So I don’t think anyone should be convicted under them. What is possible to convict under would be some sort of subset of sexual harassment.
However, sexual harassment requires that the the contact be unwanted, or that the person would reasonably know it was unwanted. Monica had every reason to think that known philanderer Bill would be okay with her flashing him, and Bill was in fact perfectly okay with it.
This seems to be pretty close to the opinions of most of society, as evidenced by the fact that, despite it being technically possible, no one actually tried to convict her under that law. It seems that people don’t want flashing punished unless it is unwanted.
Now, to be clear, I would not be okay with calling someone who actually sexually harassed another person a “slut.” The above answer is entirely orthogonal to the post you quoted, where I explain why “slut” is a bad term to use.
“Lewinsky stated that she had nine sexual encounters in the Oval Office with President Bill Clinton between November 1995 and March 1997. According to her testimony, these involved fellatio and other sexual acts, but not sexual intercourse.”
So she was between 21 and 23. Fresh out of college.
She was 18 when Clinton took office.
If your 50 year old boss (who is also the most powerful man in the world) has an affair with the fresh out of college intern, do we call the intern a slut? Or do we scold the man for abusing his position?
No, because no such word needs to exist at all. We don’t need a derogatory word for people who enjoy sex or have had multiple partners. We don’t even need it for someone who dresses too sexually, either.
The entire concept is part of a puritanical mindset about sex–where sex is a bad thing. The solution is not applying it to men as well, but getting rid of the concept altogether.
If people have issues with what Monica Lewisnky did, then there are plenty of terms that fit. But a term about her being “too much” into sex is not appropriate.
Do you think that maybe Hillary Clinton had anything to do with society’s reaction?
Maybe, but I’m not sure how this would change my point at all.
No, it’s because you’re a fucking moron.
Indecent exposure has to be in public, idiot. The fucking oval office isn’t fucking public you fucking imbecile.
Sexual assault has to be unwanted contact. Since Clinton willingly conducted an affair with Lewinsky, it wasn’t unwanted, you worthless ignoramus.
Do you want me to post a link to the relevant DC law, 22-1312 Lewd, indecent or obscene acts? Fuck off.
“Anything”, yes. “A significant portion of it”, no. For that, the media get the lion’s share of the blame, followed by Linda Tripp and the Republicans. Hillary and Bill certainly threw Monica under the bus without a moment’s hesitation as previously noted, but they had to stand in line to do so.
First of all, I don’t know or care what type of relationship agreement the Clintons have. If Hillary was okay with Bill’s affairs, who is anyone to argue. What century do you live in.
Second of all, if Monica had said “no,” I’m sure Bill could have moved on and found someone else. He was the President of the United States and as Henry Kissinger put it “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”
Both were adults, and neither one is a slut or a victim.