And for that reason, what Clinton did is worse, morally speaking anyway.

You are correct that the worst part of the Clinton \ Monica affair was that he had a position of power (duh) and she was just a worker bee, working at that same 'company'.

I became the youngest 'senior' manager (25) at my company and I abused my power (this was 20 years ago). At the time I wasn't fully aware of it (or so I like to believe??), and I never practiced sexual harassment but I did use my 'powers' to get dates.

Not as a defense but many of the women did make it clear to me they wanted a relationship. e.g. why go out with some guy in the same data entry job when you can go out with the IT manager.

But when one adds the position of power factor and the age factor to young women just entering the work force, one gets near the line of abuse.

I would hardly say that sex with a willing employee is morally worse than spending tax dollars to break the laws that the government created in the first place. What are we paying Spitzer for if even *he* doesn't follow the law?

And sexual harrassment does not mean "sleeping with the boss." Sexual harrassment is using your power to coerce an employee to sleep with you, or making unwanted advances, or creating a hostile environment. Just "shtupping" the boss does not count as sexual harrassment. However, it is unprofessional for a boss to "shtupp" his underling. And if he or she fires his or her employee after the fact, then he or she could be in a WORLD of trouble.

I noted that the behavior was NOT sexual harrassment but that the larger the age and power difference between the two the closer to 'abuse'. This abuse then gets very close to a hostile working environment if the women trys to end the affair (which was NOT the case with Clinton of course).

One could NOT have much more of a bigger difference in power than between Clinton and Monica.

Monica did indeed lose her job BTW.

Bill Clinton is Client Number One.

That guy never give up!

There was a difference in power between Monica and President Clinton, but a difference in power is not the only necessary requirement for sexual harassment. The advances were not unwelcome, there was no hostile environment created, and if she lost her job, it was not because Clinton fired her. She was moved to the Pentagon when it seemed as if their relationship was too intimate...but then I didn't realize that she was fired after that?

Bill Clinton, The President of the United States, had a lowly intern on her knees in his White House Office, and had her perform fellatio on him. On at least one occassion he gave her a "facial", opps, soiling her dress. He also performed a "sex" act upon her with a cigar. Clinton's activities had little to do with consensual sex, but rather a misoginist ritual of degrading someone with much less power then himself. And he did all of this in the same building his wife and young daughter resided. Once, on Easter Sunday, after attending church with his family.

A real gentleman, that one. Yeah, he would make a great First Lady.

Is it ok for an employee to take advantage of her boss?

mercadia:

I would hardly say that sex with a willing employee is morally worse than spending tax dollars to break the laws that the government created in the first place.

Spitzer spent government money on a hooker? Are you making that up?

Tax dollars PAY his salary. He's not paid by consumer dollars or corporate dollars. He is a CIVIL servant and a public figure. He spent 80,000 of New York tax payer dollars to break the law (laws that the government is set up to ENFORCE).

Do you think if Spitzer just had a mistress or significant other any of this would be happening? If that were true, I bet 7 out of 10 politicians would have to resign TOMORROW.

wayhey,

Is it ok? I have no idea. It depends on what you mean by "take advantage." But I'm assuming you mean "sleep with." And it also depends on what you mean by "ok."

And you and I both know that that is not illegal.

"Tax dollars PAY his salary. He's not paid by consumer dollars or corporate dollars."

As if that makes any difference as to whose money it is. Is it a scandal if a US postal worker buys some pot with his paycheque? Should we start thinking about who bought Clinton's cigars? Your accountability standards are ludicrous and aren't at all supported by law or right reason. When one entity pays another, the money becomes theirs with no extra conditions regardless of where it comes from. Besides, you have no idea where all of Spittzer's money comes from.

"Do you think if Spitzer just had a mistress or significant other any of this would be happening?"

Do you think Spitzer had the option of getting a mistress?

mercadia:

wayhey, Is it ok? I have no idea. It depends on what you mean by "take advantage." But I'm assuming you mean "sleep with." And it also depends on what you mean by "ok." And you and I both know that that is not illegal.

Agreed. I was defending Clinton vs. the OP in that post.