I know that some folk have tried to rationalize Bill Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky as being consensual, and therefore less problematic.
I guess I’d say two things.
1. If you read the US legal code definition of sexual harassment, there is no possible way to claim that Clinton didn’t engage in sexual harassment.
2. Monica Lewinsky herself disagrees with you.
But why would anyone listen to Monica? Or anyone else the Clintons abused and discarded.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Before it even starts.
I’ve been clear since the 90’s that I believe that a person who chooses to violate their wedding vows, gives me no reason to believe that they will hold their oath of office in higher regard. I’m on record as saying that Trumps infidelities and promiscuity are part of the reason I couldn’t support him.
This isn’t about anything but those folk who try to give Bill a pass because they’ve convinced themselves that the dalliance with Monica was “consensual”, and further that POTUS having consensual sex with an intern is something that can be rationalized away.
I'm in agreement with you with a singular exception. How do you know that Monica Lewinsky considers what Bill did while in the White House was sexual harassment? The news is all atwitter (small joke there) about her tweet, but she didn't state the reason for her "MeToo". She just said that she had been harassed.
You're right. Still no pass for Bill. All sexual harassment rules explicitly forbid boss-to-subordinate relations because it is classified as sexual harassment. Besides, I think Bill had quite a few sexual harassment charges against him besides Monica.
So ... almost entirely I agree.
I’m assuming that she’s referring to her experience with Bill.
I’m assuming that the only reason for her to tweet is to imply that she’s referring to Bill. If she contradicts this in the future, I’ll gladly retract my post.
I've sort of ignored this, given you tenuous connections with understanding reality, but...
1. If you read the US legal code definition of sexual harassment, there is no possible way to claim that Clinton didn’t engage in sexual harassment.
Legal definition of sexual harassment:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment.
Or, from EEOC:
Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm
Both these definitions include/specify UNWANTED.
I know that some folk have tried to rationalize Bill Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky as being consensual... I'd say two things...
2. Monica Lewinsky herself disagrees with you.
What Lewinsky herself has said many times, and at least as recently as 2014...
“Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point:
it was a consensual relationship..."
YOU say that Lewinsky says it was not consensual. Lewinsky is "firm on the point: It was a consensual relationship..."
Who do you think is right?
You say that the legal code says that Clinton engaged in sexual harassment, but since it was consensual (i.e., not unwanted), then the legal code does not say what you think it says.
Who do you think is right?
Delete away and deny reality. It only harms you (well, and those foolish enough to take your words literally).
I said "Unwanted" but meant Unwelcome, but that point is still the same.
I feel compelled to point out that you somehow think “took advantage of me” and “consensual” aren’t contradictory. Also that your comment ignored her recent participation in the #metoo campaign.
She said clearly that the sex was consensual. Again I ask you: Who do you think is right, you or her?
Do you not worry about your presumption in telling people that they are wrong about their own ideas, even though it's THEIR ideas?
If you read what Lewinsky has said, she says the taking advantage and abuse that she talks of experiencing is all following the CONSENSUAL (she insists) affair. The point is, you are saying she says it wasn't consensual, SHE DISAGREES with you. In other words, you are stating a false claim, according to the source.
And you are factually wrong about the legal codes and there being "no possible way..."
You made two fact claims, they are both now demonstrated to be mistaken. I'm hoping you won't be so arrogant as to insist you're right in the face of, you know, data.
You are free to agree with me and Lewinsky and say that it was all distasteful as hell, you can agree with me and say that Clinton made a huge mistake, you can agree with me that he probably should have stepped down for lying to Congress, but you can't say your claims are correct, not in the face of contradicting data.
As an aside, will you call for Trump to step down if and when it becomes clear he lied to the FBI or under testimony? Will you call for all his team who are revealed to have lied to the FBI or under testimony to resign and otherwise be held accountable?
The difference between the Clinton investigation and the Trump investigation is that it became pretty clear that Clinton was not found guilty of anything beyond lying about a consensual and ill-advised affair, whereas it is becoming clearer that the Trump team has engaged in lying about some more serious crimes and activities.
I hope conservatives will be consistent and as harsh on these lies about actual crimes and misdemeanors as they were about lies about blow jobs.
She also says clearly that Clinton “took advantage” of her. I guess you just decide to cherry pick what you think helps you and pretend that “took advantage and consensual” aren’t inherently contradictory.
If and when any public officials are convicted of Perjury (as was Clinton) I will call for them to step down.
What you don’t seem to comprehend, is that, in the legal system the subject of the lie is immaterial. It’s the lying under oath (where you swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but...), that you run into problems. Which is what Clinton did, he lied about the sex, and he lied about telling the Truth.
The difference between us is that I’m willing to let the legal system take its course before I call for someone’s head, and am not trying to make excuses for anyone’s actions. Nor am I ignoring Lewinski’s more recent public comments or her inherent contradictions.
So, yes, you DO think you know better than Lewinsky herself what happened and
No, you are NOT worried about the hubris of that sort of thing and
No, you aren't going to retract your proven false claims?
Got it. No point in my continuing with this conversation, I can't help you.
Not at all, I’m simply looking at the entirety of what she’s said and understanding that “consensual” and “took advantage of” are inherently contradictory.
I’m also simply acknowledging the fact that Clinton was not found guilty of lying about sex, but of lying about telling the Truth.
Your right, cherry picking and ignoring isn’t helpful.
Would it help to point out that there IS or at least CAN be a distinction between consensual and taking advantage of, that they are NOT inherently contradictory?
If an adult woman willingly, maybe even enthusiastically agrees to engage in sex with an adult male, it IS CONSENSUAL.
Do you understand that?
If it's not consensual, it's rape. That is not what happened in this case. It was, she quite emphatically declares CONSENSUAL.
Now, if she were a young and impressionable adult in a lesser role, meeting up with a more powerful and older man, he may have taken advantage of the power mismatch, but he did not force it... THAT may well be taking advantage of her, but it would remain consensual.
But go ahead and keep insisting that you know best, better even than the person involved. That makes you look very reasonable. That's why the fundamentalist christian sects are so respected out there, because insisting that they know best demonstrates the humility of Christ so very well.
Damn.
And now, I'm done. Again, I can explain reality to you 100 times and more, but I can never understand reality FOR you.
Of course she wasn’t a young and impressionable intern and the person who “took advantage” of her wasn’t older and more powerful than she. But we don’t really “know” if that power mismatch had anything to do with the situation, so let’s just assume that it didn’t.
But thanks for the assertion that the most powerful man in the free world taking advantage of an intern, is consensual. That definitely makes it true.
Ok, go ahead and keep insisting that I’ve said something I haven’t said, and keep ignoring the larger and more recent co text if it helps you keep making excuses for Bill.
Of course, I do understand “reality” and perjury and context, but thanks for your opinions.
Post a Comment