Poll: Do you support the attempts to slut-shame Monica Lewinsky

criticize anyone around them.

for her part in the affair. Will shut those GOPers up who have been calling Bill Clinton a predator. She‘s setting the record up in a way that helps Hillary Clinton look very human. I don‘t know that is her intent. But people always say the scandal humanizes Hillary Clinton and I think they are right.

The quote I saw was, "I regret what happened...," which does not constitute acknowledging responsibility in my book.

I hate non-apology apologies, so it jumped out at me. I only read the VF online excerpt, though.

With that said, slut-shaming, indeed, any shaming of the consensual sexual life of others is wrong.

It's obvious she's trying to milk more time out of her 15 minutes of fame.

Get off the stage, Monica, reruns are boring.

Not that I care much. It's been too long.
This reminds me of high school...

Alright, I'm out of this conversation.

She wants to tell her side of the story before Hillary runs for President so that it is out there.

I think she feels like she has been beaten up by all sides up until now and doesn't want another round of that to start before she gets to say her piece.

Thanks.

I don't think it was necessary for her to do so. There is much to say against Hillary without putting up the specter of Monica out there.
This just guarantees that it is.

I hope she has had a career beyond the scandal of over a decade ago. It is understandable that she came out with this then, though, I think it would have been best left alone. Then again, I don't really care much about this, so I think this is as much as I am going to go with this.

I think with Beyoncé's new song, she probably felt that if she didn't start to try to redefine herself, she would continue to be defined by other people.

Sorry, you're probably right. I think it is Ms. Lewinsky's prerogative to do whatever she wants.
I don't think it my business any more, nor have I ever really.

That's what that nice Cheney woman, the "former second lady" per USA Toady, said:

“I really wonder if this isn’t an effort on the Clintons’ part to get that story out of the way,” Cheney, wife of former Vice President Dick Cheney, said during a Tuesday night interview on Fox News. “Would Vanity Fair publish anything about Monica Lewinsky that Hillary Clinton didn’t want in Vanity Fair?”

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/05/07/monica-lewinsky-lynne-cheney-hillary-clinton/

and even those who don't know it can dig up any of a thousand interviews she did, or check out the dozen books on the topic...

And calling justified criticisms of behavior I hope we can all agree is wrong no matter what the gender -- adultery -- "slut-shaming" is ignoring real shaming for behavior in women that is praised in men, and victim-blaming.

It takes two to tango, and personally her comparison of herself getting outed for having an affair with a married man to getting publicly outed as gay sickened me.

It's absolutely against my beliefs and I believe against the principles of Liberalism and Progressivism for me to tell other people the kinds of sex they can have as long as it is consensual and between adults.

If it is your value and principle that a person ought not to commit adultery, then you should not commit it, and you should make it clear to anyone who wants to be in a relationship with you that this an important boundary.

The marriage and consensual sex life of political figures is no ones business but the politicians and those with whom they are married or have sex.

I've never got this fascination and total uptight morality police style judgement of politicians sex lives. Over here we elect them to run the country, a job some do a piss poor job of, but people don't tend to give a shit who's screwing who. That's what daytime soap operas are for.

Something else I haven't liked seeing is the thing where all the moral judgement type stuff is being aimed at the woman involved. That's wrong. It takes two to tango, and it's no-one elses business but the two involved and their families.

didn't admit it caused harm to his supporters. Those who believed that nothing went on and it was just a RW Plot (like myself) where shown to be fools. And it dragged the country through a terrible time that we still haven't recovered from. Although Bill & Hillary have recovered very nicely. And, the legislation that was passed while Clinton was "under his cloud" has been harmful to the country. Whether he approved of the Legislation and would have signed it anyway...or he was under so much pressure because of Lewinsky affair that he didn't have to fight to try to stop it might be open to question...but, he hurt many people who supported him in his own Administration and out here in America who worked hard to get him elected.

It's all going to be covered up now...because Hillary is the anointed Candidate...but, many Democrats have not forgotten that a President openly having "consensual sex" in a room off the oval office and lying about it ...was not something we'd want to see repeated.

He is a charming, intelligent man. He could have been a wonderful President who might have turned the country around before the Bushes got back into control. But, he blew it and his Neo Lib policies turned out to not be what many of us hoped for and that along with his conduct made us laughing stock for RW.

Conduct is important. It's a clue to character. He could screw around with anyone he wants but to do it in the Oval Office was really ott. And, I wouldn't think much differently if the SS was sneaking him out at night to an apartment somewhere. The Country's needs are more important while you are serving the people....than indulging one's sexual needs in a way that can harm the people.

It's not our beeswax.

and pain and abuse through the whole Media Fiasco...and then find out that it was all true...

I don't think so.

He lied to everyone for so long when it might have been forgotten by now if he just fessed up like an adult and take responsibility right from the start.

I've forgotten the details, thankfully, and am not sure if he lied to Hillary and Chelsea for that whole time as well.

... idea that he committed perjury is highly suspect as his dalliance with Monica is not relevant to a case where he was alleged to have had non consensual contact with another woman.

and not almost a year if Bill had the courage to own up.

commit perjury the lie has to directly affect the outcome of the case. The case was dismissed on its merits.

However, Koko is right, we were out there claiming it was all Right Wing lies not just with Lewinsky but with Paula Jones also. Aside from which most of us felt that the private lives of politicians are no one's business, and still do.

There was fallout for the moral authoritarians also when Larry Flint uncovered their own affairs.

And as Koko said, some of the legislation he signed such as Welfare Reform and Deregulation, of the media, of the Big Banks eg, might have gotten more attention if everyone wasn't so busy trying to defend him.

But with all of that, the most disappointing thing about Clinton is not his affairs, it is his close ties to the Bush Family which no longer shocks us, but after fighting Bush supporters for years on his behalf, THAT felt like a betrayal to find out that they all were buddies after all, while the little people fought it out among themselves.

That taught me never, ever to defend a politician again when they have done something, especially regarding policies, that affects the LIVES of ordinary people.

I don't care if they have affairs, so long as it doesn't affect policy. As Koko says we don't really know if all this did affect him supporting policies that were in no way Progressive Democratic policies. Otoh, his close association with the Bush family leads me to believe those were his views. But we'll never know for sure.

The bottom line is if you don't want something to haunt your political career for the rest of your life, don't do it. Monica L. did what she did, but she could not have done it had she been told to 'get lost'.

Both share the blame for the affair, one of them had the responsibility of representing the millions who voted for him. You would think the thought might have occurred to him that he was being set up, but it apparently didn't.


I defended him because even after we learned it was true, the right wingers were so vicious it made what he did look trivial by comparison. But in retrospect, it is what he signed into legislation that has had such a lasting and negative effect on this country.

because insane GOP shitwits are in charge of the house of representatives.

If it's ever worked, let me know. Where a man who has sex out of the 'comfort zones' of society is shamed to the point of suicide, of not being able to get a job, of being spat at and called dirty names and whose chance for a normal life is pretty well over. Usually he's called a stud, or some such.

It's sort of that 'reverse racism' that gets thrown around. There is no such thing because you have to Change History for that to be.

and the answer was that the term can be used for both sexes.

is apparent, so it's use is incorrect when applied to a man's sexuality.

with Monica Lewinsky, they are and always have been trying to slut-shame him. They are definitely not congratulating him for being a "player."

So I think the term is appropriate in this context.

Right ...

Not every situation where a powerful man has sex with someone in his organization is abusing his authority or a breach of ethics.

We had two completely willing and into it adults here.

Let's look at the evidence

1) A 22 year old woman makes a legal offer to a much older man
2) The man is married
3) He is leader of a powerful country
4) He is not a sexual automaton
5) The woman is an unpaid intern there for work experience.

Who do you think had a duty to say "No"?

At no point did Monica suggest she was in any way pressured into this. In fact, she indicated she initiated some pretty serious flirtation, i.e. lifting up her skirt when she passed by his desk. And I do not fault her for acting on her attraction at all.

But she is not a victim. She was not forced or coerced in any way.

Neither had a 'duty to say no'. That is not for either of us to say.

have never said she was "forced or coerced" any more than certain groupies were forced or coerced (caveat; idealising a person can act as a form of coercion)

What I can say is that in that situation President Clinton had an absolute ethical responsibility to say no. When he agreed to the sexual activity he was betraying his marriage, his children, the Office of President.

I received did it say anything about adultery. Nor did the application to get that license. My husband and I CHOOSE to be monogamous.

Did yours?

I do agree with you that it takes two to tango. They were both responsible. But, it happened over 12 years ago. 12 Years Ago!!

This is not directed at you, moriah; but we are helping the republicans and conservatives throw anything we can at Hillary as the front runner for 2016 and to hinder our Democrats up for mid-term elections over something that is ancient history.

Text removed

But apparently I cared enough to vote.

We have a moral imperative to ridicule her for trivial shit that went on a whole lifetime ago, dammit!

She came back to affect the 2016 presidential race by dredging up The Clinton Penis.

I'm criticizing her because she made a clearly political move that had nothing to do with telling her story, but in fact is an attempt to bring up dirt from nearly 20 years ago. So yes, shame on her for trying to start all of this shit again.

Bit of a backhanded reference to her and I think that partly triggered this.

There's a small HuffPo piece on it. Actually, I like ML's point...



And WTH is Beyonce's problem? Bringing up the point, number one, and using a woman who isn't doing too well to do it? That's shameful, and a cheap shot.

Often appears at the White House. So...that's kind of interesting. The quote from the song is disgusting. Who would want to sing about something like that? Unless she's bringing it up.

Skinner, posted on thread yesterday that it's good to get the Lewinsky stuff out here early so that when Hillary runs it will already be old yesterdays news. I think he meant it's a good PR OP by the Clintons to get the dirty laundry re-aired so that people will ignore the RW as Hillary's candidacy and nomination progress.

That's why.

timing would you prefer? Do you really think that if she said nothing, the Republicans would never mention it? Would you like to have seen this come up say, the say after the nomination of Hillary?
And why do you question her motive? Based on what? 'Gut feelings'?

Nor is implying a motive the same thing as "Questioning motive and timing..."

No journalist?

She appears on British TV (she's done Graham Norton and she had a recurring role doing a segment called "Monica's Postcards", she had a show on Fox for a brief period, she had an HBO special, she sold handbags on HSN, she did an appearance on MTV with Tom Green, she was a Jenny Craig rep, she had that book--and the tour--with Andrew Morton; she's been "out" there, but it's just been judicious exposure.

I think she came back because Vanity Fair asked for the interview. And VF asked for the interview because they aren't unfriendly to Democrats. Getting this out NOW--and not next year--is a good thing. It's going to be rehashed, we know that already, better to beat it to death NOW and not next year.

She made a bad choice.

Still, though, she's not the one who promised fidelity to Hillary.

If it hadn't been Monica, it would have been someone else just like her.


People cheat on each other all the time. Not my problem unless I'm the one being cheated on.

Even the tiniest fig leaf of rhetorical victimization can serve as an effective shield to insulate ones self from your track record of misdeeds, malfeasance and shitty ethics.

"Slut shaming" can apparently even work as a get out of jail free card for someone who had a pivotal role in rendering the Federal Government nonfunctional, helped bring GW Bush to office (and consequently 9-11, a depression and two wars) through a narcissistic plan and preservation of the trophy as evidence.

Why? Hypoagency, that's why. She's not fully responsible for what she did, for how she subsequently acted and for whom she told.

She saved the dress for its insurance and extortive value, but lost control by making the mistake of including Linda Tripp in the group of people to whom she bragged, and Linda had her own agenda.

None of what she did deflects, excuses or mitigates what Clinton did, that's another topic, and a red herring at that. There's plenty of well-placed shame, blame and responsibility to go around.

She deserves no sympathy, and particularly not from democrats who can remember how fucked up the subsequent decade was.

Slut-shaming is criticism of sexually-active single women. There's a world of difference between that and criticism of what Lewinski did and its impact on the world in which our children will live. No one would care if she'd sought her trophies in Hollywood instead of DC. She's not a horrible person because she's sexually active. She's a horrible person because she's a horrible person.

Were it not for Monica Lewinsky, President Gore would have been replaced in 2008 by his Vice President [strike]Lieberman[/strike] Kerry.

The whole mess would not have happened if he had used one word

No.

?

but, Hey! whatever excites you

Interesting choice of words there....

And if you check my posting history, you'll see I use the term interchangeably with male subjects as well...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4915571

I have no problem with criticizing people for their reckless behavior, including consensual sex. He let his pecker do the thinking and it got us W.

SHE put herself back out there in the public eye, and now we face a situation where anyone who believes she shares any portion of the responsibility is "slut-shaming" her. Give me a fucking break.

So I'm a bad guy for not placing the entire thing strictly at Bill's feet. Fine. But I think it is much more offensive to take the view that she is just a helpless little girl who had no say over her own decision making. In general, I prefer to give women a bit more credit than that.

Throw out "Slut Shaming" so that all of us Feminists will go after the RW and Lewinsky and Bill become victims for "just having consensual sex" and it makes Hillary look better because she was so valiant to put up with the Lewisky saga, manage to come through it and have a wonderful political career, even valiantly patching things up with Bill for the good of the country and their future careers.

Marketing as a Pre-emptive Strike against the RW.

And I will ask others that claim it's only consensual sex in Clintons case and it's none of our business.

Should those agents have been fired, as they were, or should that also be filed under: Don't be so uptight about sex, both and all parties were consensual.

Now an argument in this case might be made that they were charged with protecting the President and hiring prostitutes and partying and whatever else they did, could have inadvertently endangered the CiC. The same can be said about Clinton - it isn't so much about his personal self but about the Office and the people of the country he could have inadvertently put into danger for his carelessness and giving the opposition ammunition.

It's generally not a good idea to go bedding anyone that asks, whether you are President or the SS commissioned to protect him - for obvious reasons.

This isn't at all like video store clerk Sam boinking Mrs. Page the librarian.

there are rules and regulations of their jobs that sometimes govern what happens to them.

When you are in the military overseas, the military sometimes designates entire areas of a country or city off limits. If you go into those areas and are caught, you are usually subject to harsh disciplinary measures. Do I think that is appropriate for non-military Americans in those countries? Of course not. You can be sure that it does not apply to the President.

I don't think those situations are applicable/translateable/make good examples. When you join the Secret Service or Armed Forces, you knowingly give up some of your civil liberties. Moreover, there is an on-duty/off-duty aspect to this. For example:

Do I think people should be fired if they have sex during their work shifts at work in the office? Yes. The Secret Service folks you mention are on the job the entire time they are on the President's advance team in a foreign country.

The President, on the other hand, works at his home. There is a natural mixing of work and private/home life that most other folks just don't have.

I don't think punishing someone for not being Victorian enough is something with which I want to be associated.

Calling the WH his home and office and therefore he can punch the clock to sign off whenever he brings in women to service him is kind of silly.

Just saying too, that calling someone an uptight Victorian if they disagree with how that whole ugly mess splayed out is pretty weak for an argument.

Sorry.

A few individuals may be calling Monica's names, but a few individuals are also calling Bill Clinton (to say nothing of Hillary) names as well. There's no orchestrated attempt to make this about "Monica." Beyond, of course, the fact that Monica came out and gave the interview to Vanity Fair. Clever Vanity Fair--they are friendly to the Democratic cause, and they're getting this out--and done--early. Good for them.

The right wing would LOVE to make it about Hillary, though. They'd love Monica to be the Invisible Woman on the debate stage; they want her to haunt any attempts by HRC's campaign to use Bill Clinton as a fundraiser/GOTV-er.

Two people misbehaved--they didn't maintain professional decorum in an office atmosphere.

One was senior in the work relationship, and married, and bore the most responsibility for the misconduct. The other also behaved inappropriately in the workplace by deliberately seeking out the relationship.

Two stupid people made a large mistake that cost the American people forty four million dollars because the Republicans wanted to politicize it.

That's what the bottom line is, here.

It's not about "sluts." It's about poor judgment. Trying to make it about "sluts" is a major fail and no one buys it anymore, at least if they have even a toe in this century. The idea of bringing up Monica in a "negative" way isn't about "shaming" her--it's to to throw dirt on Hillary.

So long as we have to drag it up, though, best to do it now, rather than next year! Get it all out there (again), make it old news (again), and turn the whole event into an "asked and answered" (again, again, and again) exercise.

Guess it's time to MOVE ON from all that....!

Yet AGAIN....

and tsking and shaking fingers and straightening out the cardigan. There was a condemnation of her because she apparently had an abortion.

This is sounding like a rape trial by more than a few.

That's hardly a preponderance of people engaging in a concerted effort to disparage this middle aged woman with a rather public and lurid history by mentioning sexual elements of her past.

There was "a condemnation" regarding her abortion? A single one? That's hardly a preponderance, either.

It's a few people expressing an opinion. Not all opinions have validity. By getting hyperbolic about them, you grant them more attention than they merit.

I think you are way off base with this remark:

This is sounding like a rape trial by more than a few.


Likening the expressing of a dumb-ass opinion about Monica's "worldliness" to a "rape trial" is the thing that is offensive, IMO.

Rape is a VERY serious thing. Your comment trivializes it by comparing a few stupid anonymous internet comments about the Bill-Monica dalliance to a courtroom procedure following a sexual assault.

It's just not the same.

whether they were married and how old they were, yes, it is very similar to some rape trials.

sorry if that offends you!

There were many agreeing that Monica was some kind of 'bad girl' all along, what with that sordid history of *gasp! having sex!!!, and poor bill got caught in her hooks. sorry if that offends you too!

There's no comparison between name calling about promiscuity and prosecution for rape.

Your attempt to convolute the two is a bridge way too far.

by tearing down the woman through digging into her sexual history, as if that has anything to do with being raped. We all know that's how the system works.

Monica's past being chucked up like it has anything to do with anything has the same kind of ugly flavour to it. It's just to make the women look and feel ashamed for having sex when it comes down to the he said/she said thing.

I'm really surprised some don't see this for what it is and, not accusing anyone specific here, tend to believe that it has something to do with Hillary and the support of her to run for first woman President. Otherwise good feminists seem to be losing perspective in this discussion and that is sad.

This is not about "tearing down" or "the system." This is a political move that benefits both the Democrats, by shaking all the cobwebs out and airing this business one more time early on, and Monica because it gives her an opportunity to monetize this VF essay and get a little cash in hand to keep on keeping on. She makes her money on her reputation, such as it is, and it keeps the bills paid.

She's put herself out there and given Vanity Fair an opportunity to showcase her POV; she is the AUTHOR of that article, those are HER words-- and as for feeling ashamed, that horse left the barn over a decade and a half ago-- Monica is the person who single-handedly changed the definition of sex for all the generations to come after her. She's PAST shame, in fact, that's what the article, that she wrote, is addressing, how she coped with all the crap thrown at her.

The only people obsessing about her previous sexual liaisons or crying about her victimization at this stage are old fuddy-duddies who haven't had any exposure to young people under the age of thirty.

It's a very simple tale. She had the hots for a powerful man, she put herself in his proximity, and he was a horny, humping little pig who would screw anything that moved, who didn't respect his marital vows and came THIS close to losing his job as a consequence. That's the story. Simple. BIG ooooops. Shouldn't-a done that!

You've got that twit Miley Cyrus cheerily calling all her audience attendees "sluts" on the London stage just this past week, like it's a badge of honor, the new "in" word. She runs around with stuffed toys and lollipops like a perv's delight, putting her butt in everyone's face and sticking her coated tongue out--by contrast, the middle-aged "Portly Pepperpot's" conduct in the WH appears positively demure--at least she didn't film it!

I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more of Miley's "S" word in future, like it or not. The minute anyone tries to get pompous about a topic, there will be a crew that takes it and runs in the other direction. Times are changing, word meanings are changing (that "b" word that everyone here on DU hates is part of the MORNING tv landscape, and only here is it VERBOTEN, but...whatever) and girls are now "allowed" to enjoy/initiate/set parameters for sex. They are no longer the presumptive victims, the poor pitiful Pearls.

Further, the point of any Oooh-la-la-ing over this ancient tale of lust, poetry books and pizza is not about "shaming" Monica, it's to do with EMBARRASSING Bill--no fool like an old fool, can't keep his weenie in his trousers, doesn't he go for the chubby ones, the usual schtick that they like to drag out to try to revive an old tale. It's also about trying to throw Hillary off her game, to insert Monica into the conversation, to say "Ha ha ha, Hillary can't keep her man!" "Look at Hillary, she stuck with a cheater, Bill doesn't lurrrrrrrv her!!!!"

It's all horse shit, covered in chocolate sauce, and plenty of fools will eat it up like ice cream.

The thing is, though, they'll be belly-full and burping up shit by the time the campaign season begins in earnest--they won't WANT any more Monica stories. That's why this rollout, uncomfy as it is, is a good thing now rather than later. It's like that slight flu-ish feeling one gets after the flu shot, which is better than getting the flu later, and being stuck in bed coughing up a lung for a week or more.

Fortunately for Bill, he has thick skin, he'll throw a little of "the Lord's forgiveness" schtick at them that neutralizes the whole attitude about HIS "sluttiness," and he'll move on, refusing to be cowed. Fortunately for Hillary, she knows how to make an asshole trying to deride her look like an asshole--ask Rick Lazio, he'll tell ya.

And Monica? She has had an opportunity to make a few bucks now, add a bit of mature nuance to her "persona," and she can follow this effort on with a few of those Euro paid interviews, or US ones that can be sold abroad where she gets a chunk of the profits, so she won't need to cheapen her brand/take it too far in the heat of campaign season. It's all about timing. And it sure as hell beats working for a living.

Sounds like a win-win-win to me.

Your thinking is so much like mine, from post #37 to #95:

(#37) It's not about "sluts." It's about poor judgment. Trying to make it about "sluts" is a major fail and no one buys it anymore, at least if they have even a toe in this century. The idea of bringing up Monica in a "negative" way isn't about "shaming" her--it's to to throw dirt on Hillary.

(#76) How many posters are saying this stuff? Two? Three? Even five?

It's a few people expressing an opinion. Not all opinions have validity. By getting hyperbolic about them, you grant them more attention than they merit.

(#95) Further, the point of any Oooh-la-la-ing over this ancient tale of lust, poetry books and pizza is not about "shaming" Monica, it's to do with EMBARRASSING Bill--no fool like an old fool, can't keep his weenie in his trousers, doesn't he go for the chubby ones, the usual schtick that they like to drag out to try to revive an old tale. It's also about trying to throw Hillary off her game, to insert Monica into the conversation, to say "Ha ha ha, Hillary can't keep her man!" "Look at Hillary, she stuck with a cheater, Bill doesn't lurrrrrrrv her!!!!"

It's all horse shit, covered in chocolate sauce, and plenty of fools will eat it up like ice cream.

When they start burping, it's Katy bar the door!!!!

I don't care what she did, I don't care what he did. Consenting adults, not my business.

Most of our Presidents have done the same, including Ike, Kennedy and FDR.


I do blame the hypocrites in the GOP for making a political issue of private matters that they indulge in also.

where the purpose of the 'poll' is to make a partisan point.

Who do you say is "slut-shaming" her? Be specific.

who recorded Monica and outed all the details. Where's Monica's outrage over that?

This was all a dog and pony show courtesy of Linda Tripp. What does Hilary have to do with anything? Everyone wants to make it about an "affair" and how Hilary reacted to it, but Monica should be made to address Linda Tripp's betrayal and behavior every bit as much as they (the press? the GOP?) want to focus on Hilary.

That was the best thing that ever happened to Linda Tripp. Tripp was an unremarkable and bitter person who latched onto this to promote herself into the limelight and she milked it for all it was worth.

If her name is brought up again, out she will come to try to milk it some more.

Better not to mention her and not give her another 15 minutes, although you are right. A lot of this is her fault. I'm so glad Clinton fired her as he left office. That was cathartic.

I think we should get over it and move on.

The self-appointed keepers of all matters of virtue show up with the woman taken in sin yet no where is the man she was lying with; he gets a free ride, so to speak.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Bill Clinton. Getting a blow job from an air head intern is pretty close to the bottom of the list IMO.

If we could rescind health care reform and reinstate Glass-Steagall, I'd blow him myself.

100% not!

Other then this thread, I haven't paid any attention to recent Monica posts. I don't know why she's back in the news and don't care.

It was not the country's business when Ken Starr spent $40 million on a witch hunt into a consensual relationship.

It's between Bill, Hillary and Monica. It's not anyone else's damn business.

Monica's mistake was blabbing to Linda Tripp who I guess wanted her 15 minutes of fame.

The House brought impeachment charges, and America yawned. America had better things to do.

I saw Bill Clinton 3 times campaigning in 1992, when he was new on the national scene, and he has so much charisma he's a force of nature. I could watch him give a speech and be turned into a gobsmacked idiot who could barely speak. It probably happened to several million other people, especially women. Once in a great while you meet someone who has massive amounts of charisma, and is usually a performer of some kind. And you just want to bask in their glow. I can see exactly why Monica would succumb, because Bill has women following him around.

The Repubs are so negative and nasty, they were convinced that he was a sexual harasser. I wouldn't even speak to those nasty Republicans. The idea of flirting with them is repulsive because they are hateful people on the inside.

sounds like a better plan to me.

I always thought slut-shaming was demonising the expression of female sexuality. As far as I can tell, Monica isn't being attacked for having sex, she's being attacked for having an affair with a married man (and because Republicans are desperate). Am I missing something?

That is the issue. Plus, it's not like President Clinton was an unwilling participant in the affair, yet...