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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> but it does not represent everyone else's morals
Yes, I'm sure you can find at least one person who doesn't agree. Maybe yourself. But how much do you want to bet that if you asked this question to 100 people, better than 90 of them would agree?
> For starters, the married person breaks a contract, whereas the unmarried person does not have a contract to break
I said moral, not legal. A few people only define right & wrong based on what they can legally get away with, I understand.