Tom has a post below complaining about how NOW has destroyed corporate leaders for wanting to have sex with employees, consenual or otherwise.

First of all, there is a major difference between "consensual or otherwise." Consenual means there is absolutely no law broken or even any moral wrong commited (unless of course one of them happens to be in a committed relationship but that still is not the business of anyone else but the people concerned). People cannot be sued for falling in love or even being attracted to one another. Second, if it is an unwanted advance by one of the parties it is still not against the law or immoral as long as the rebuff is respected and no consequences from the rebuff arise for the person who rejected the advance. Someone cannot be sued for being attracted to someone else and telling the other person so. Last, if the advances continue and threats or actions against the person who is the subject of the advances are made in order to coerce or punish that person, then there are clear grounds for a sexual harrassment suit.

This is why Paaula Jones had no real grounds to sue Clinton. Assuming her charges are true, she was approached one time and rejected the approach. She did not lose her job nor suffer any repurcussions whatsoever from rejecting Clinton. In fact she received a promotion not long after based on her work record. Monica was not sexual harrassment because it was 100% consenual and thus what happened between her and Bill was completely IMMATERIAL to Paula Jones' baseless law suit.