>I agree that with Doug and others that Monica is not an "innocent". However,
>I do think that she wanted a more symmetric sexual relationship. It seems to
>me that Clinton's denial of a more symmentrical sexual relationship, plus
>the obviously asymmetrical power relationship existing between the two,
>could be considered grounds for sexual harrassment.
>
>Jeff
In other words, a new meaning to quid pro quo:
Not sex or you're fired. Not sex in exchange for a job or promotion.
But rather, receipt of promotion/ job *AND* an emotional involvement (more than a sexual relationship) in exchange for sex. Now that's (not) a new one.