I am appalled at the hypocrisy you all have shown during these Clinton escapades. It is clear that your agenda is abortion/killing of women's babies NOT protecting women from the onslaught of male advances in the workplace. To say that mutual consent makes it alright is a rationale of your feeble-mindness. For a man to use a position of power to further his sexual desires is abhorrent to me. Your hypocrisy is clear to me, free sex for all, just so we can get abortions on demand to get "rid of any inconvenience" that may result. You are not of any help to women although you all may pat yourselves on the back and think you are doing us some great service. - Cynthia

Per your note to FEMINIST.COM, I just wanted to clarify a few points:

1.) My agenda--and the agenda of everyone feminist I know--is not "abortion/killing of women's babies." In fact, a basic feminist agenda is to provide enough resources to women so they can make informed choices about their own lives.
2.) Because it was feminists who 1.) coined the terms "sexual assault", "domestic violence", "sexual harassment"; and 2.) who fought for laws that protected women who were confronted with those situations and then some....I do believe that "protecting women from the onslaught of male advances in the workplace" has been primary among feminists' agendas.
3.) Because Clinton's track record with affairs pre-dates his power as President, I would argue that this affair had little to do with his "power" and more to do with his sexual appetite--and clearly she has a both a sexual appetite and a desire for power, too. 4.) As per your hypocrisy point, personally, I actually think that Clinton purposely didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky so she wouldn't get pregnant and, therefore, she wouldn't have to "kill" her baby.
5.) I do believe that my work as a feminist has helped many women.

—Amy