No, what I'm saying is there is no comparison between the Clinton affair and tailhook. Tailhook involved a bunch of rowdy drunken sailors and marines acting like complete idiots. It doesn't excuse their actions but I don't find it in the same league as an employer/boss using his position of power to engage in sexual relations (consentual or not) with a subordinate.
I personally don't care if any president has an affair, solicits prostitutes, or has a porn habit. I'm not making a moral judgement. It's improper to have sex with the help. The subordinate will always be in a position where they may submit to sexual advances out of fear or just the awe of the position.
I mean really, if the president of the US or the president of a fortune 500 hundred company each invited 20 low level staff workers into their office (separately of course) and then expressed a desire to have a quick sexual encounter on the presidents desk, what are the odds that one of them would say yes? Does that really make it consensual?
I don't know what happened between Clinton and Lewinsky that led up to their eventual sexual relationship. Lewinsky may not even consider herself a victim or possibly chose not to assume the role of victim because of the stigma that goes with it. She can state that it was a mutual affair and therefore her public persona is enhanced.
If she says she was coerced or in anyway indicates that she is a victim then she gets put on trial. Her whole background is investigated and she is made out to look like a tramp (ala the Kobe Bryant case). As a presidential mistress, despite the fat jokes, she grabs a certain amount of prestige and power.
That's why people who abuse their power (especially elected officials) should be punished. Clinton, as the person in a position of power should have known the power that he wielded over a young intern and not engaged in sexual activity with her.