[seriousquestion]

This is one of those cases where the news cycle and court of public opinion spiraled out of control, never to be corrected. Imagine how surreal and frustrating that must be? And she makes a good point about how these things get named:

Who had the power in the relationship between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? The president or the intern? It matters what you call a thing. Calling that event the “Lewinsky Scandal” fails to acknowledge the vast power differential, and I’m glad that more people are now referring to it as “the Clinton Affair” which names it after the person with the most agency in that series of events.

[prepend]

I think saying “the Clinton Affair” is not specific enough so the press calling it “Lewinsky Scandal” is more understandable and has nothing to do with agency, I think.

There are multiple Clinton affairs and multiple scandals so any headline using those terms wouldn’t make sense. “Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal” would make more sense and be clear.

[Alex3917]

It's named after the one who told other people about the relationship. That's about as fair as you can get.

[iratewizard]

I think the big difference with the Lewinsky scandal is two things: everyone knows who Clinton is, so "the Clinton Affair" is not as precise; and Monica Lewinsky was not an innocent victim.

[xivzgrev]

At least could call it the Clinton Lewinsky affair. Calling it just the Lewinsky affair puts it all on her.

[stjohnswarts]

Lewinsky was abused by a man in power. In a corporate environment she could have easily sued. If they would have met in a bar then the situation would have been different. You are incorrect.

[himinlomax]

From what I remember about her (and that was 20 years ago), it seems to me she wouldn't have necessarily considered herself abused or victimized without the media and political circus that followed.

[stjohnswarts]

It really doesn't matter what she thought in context of the situation. The fact remains her boss, the President of the United States of America, the most powerful person on the planet, used his position on his employee to get sex.

[iratewizard]

You weren't there. You can barely claim having a 3rd hand account of the situation. You're a fool who forms strong opinions around assumptions and political spin. You are incorrect.

[stjohnswarts]

I actually can claim what I said because of the facts of the case. No one can deny she was his intern, no one can deny that he was the President, no one can deny that he shouldn't have done it given his position of power over her future. You are the one who is incorrect.

[baobabKoodaa]

You said: "Lewinsky was abused".

"she was his intern" does not mean "was abused".

"he was the President" does not mean "was abused".

"he shouldn't have done it given his position of power over her future" does not mean "was abused".

If you have a specific claim as to why you think Lewinsky was abused, perhaps you should state that claim. (Of course, you don't actually have one.)

[bahmboo]

What was she guilty of?

[dylan604]

Adultery? History tends to always blame the woman and shrugs at the man even though it takes two to tango.

[horsemans]

Lewinsky has never been married. Clinton was the adulterer.

[rootusrootus]

Depends on who is defining the term, and in case of law, jurisdiction. Some places define both parties as guilty of adultery. Some only do so contingent on whether it was the man that was married, or the woman (e.g. Utah).

Morally, it is fairly unambiguous. If the unmarried partner knew they were banging a married person, they are just as responsible.

[baobabKoodaa]

> Morally, it is fairly unambiguous. If the unmarried partner knew they were banging a married person, they are just as responsible.

Perhaps that's your moral view, but it does not represent everyone else's morals, so I don't know why you're claiming it to be "unambiguous". There's plenty of people who would say that the unmarried person in an affair shares less of the blame than the married person in the affair. For starters, the married person breaks a contract, whereas the unmarried person does not have a contract to break.