Sex beast or naughty boy?

He's done it again. The Comeback Kid has beaten the rap, and American feminists don't seem to mind. But hang on, isn't sexual harassment what we've all been fighting against since the Dark Ages of the Seventies? Caroline Millar interviews British women about the strange case of the forgiven President

It was so unexpected that Bill Clinton thought it was an April Fool. When Arkansas judge Susan Webber Wright threw out Paula Jones's sexual harassment charge against him this week, even Slick Willy found it hard to credit his luck. Judge Wright ruled that if Clinton had asked Paula Jones to give him oral sex, his behaviour, although boorish and offensive, was not sufficient to answer a charge of sexual harassment.

But although the court case has been thrown out, independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr continues his investigation, and the women who have stories to tell queue up to fill the pages of the US press. Bill Clinton's sexual conduct remains at issue. And his very popularity raises a dilemma with many women. Should we class his alleged misdemeanours as criminal sexual harassment? Or should a mature feminist outlook be more tolerant of minor male peccadilloes? And women like me, who can't help but like the guy, need also to wonder why we make so many excuses for him.

But picture this: you turn up for work one morning, your boss - not the President of the United States, your boss at your place of work - asks you into his office. His flies are undone, his penis is out. He asks you to touch it. What would you do? How would you feel? Most of us would probably never want to be in the same room with him ever again.

So how come the President is getting off so lightly? What seems strange is that many women in the US are not scandalised or disgusted by Clinton's behaviour - indeed they appear to be amused, or even forgiving of it. The American feminist movement has been notoriously slow to condemn him, and last month the writer Katie Roiphe even argued, "this virile President is suddenly fulfilling the forbidden fantasy of the old-fashioned aggressive male. I think women are finding this appealing."

Five years ago, with political correctness in full swing, we would have condemned Bill Clinton as a common criminal. Maybe nowadays we are a little easier in our feminism, and more able to be tolerant towards a man who would once have been described as having "wandering hands". Or has the whole affair exposed a puzzling ambivalence in women's attitudes towards an attractive but sexually predatory man?

In the UK, women seem less disposed than their American counterparts to fancy the Commander-in-Chief. "A lot of people think he has charisma, but I don't agree," says student Rachael Hulley (19). "If he did ask Paula Jones to give him oral sex, and she had given him no indication she was willing to do it, then that should be taken as sexual harassment. I don't think it is right that someone in his position should get off."

Rachel Corson (31), the owner of a health food shop, is blunt in her condemnation. "The President doesn't do anything for me quite honestly, but there's a whole issue here of sex and power, and how that power can be abused. It's like the woman involved is the child, and the President is the parent. Maybe she will have made some flirtatious remark, but there's a fine line between flirtation and actually wanting to win the approval of somebody. People like the President are preying on people who are already conditioned to want the approval of their superiors at work anyway."

But Barbara Allport, the owner of a secretarial business, is more tolerant. "I do agree that men like that are a nuisance. At one time I worked for a boss who used to come along and be caressing my arm and I'd feel really embarrassed, but he was the boss, and I had to laugh it off. But I think they've taken the whole thing with Bill Clinton out of proportion, and I think there's lots coming out now that perhaps never happened, or the women were willing partners."

There may be a generational divide among women's attitudes towards Clinton. At 55, Allport was brought up when women were told to avoid, rather than lay charges against, men who were sexual predators. Like me, a decade later, she was taught that unless there was force involved, the right response to unwanted sexual attention was to brush it off. I even found there was a kind of thrill involved in fending off a man, like a non-violent form of bull-fighting. You knew the man was physically stronger than you were - but the game was to get out of the situation by dint your wits. It was only exciting, of course, so long as it remained a game.

Even in the 1990s, women are still having to deal with unwanted sexual advances. Janet Watkinson (38), a hairdresser, says: "I have heard of it happening from the women that come in, but they seem to deal with it. I think most women can handle it." Some younger women are cautiously tolerant towards what may be bad behaviour, but isn't necessarily a crime. Alex Kent (22), a medical student, says: "I think it's been made very easy to call this kind of thing sexual harassment, and maybe it's been taken to extremes. I wouldn't want to judge Clinton, I think so much depends on the characters and the situations involved." And Jenny Pearson (20), also a student, felt that too much importance had been placed on the whole affair. While she would be willing to excuse some bad behaviour in most men, she argues, "Clinton should check his behaviour because he is in such a powerful position."

Journalist Jo Milner (32) agrees. She remembers an ex-boss who was all too ready to exploit her "lowly" position as "editorial dogsbody". "For the first six months, he persisted in what I can only describe as a kind of psychological sexual harassment. He was a very charming, flirtatious man, but with me, he went over the top, and I just didn't feel like flirting back. He would constantly comment on my appearance, make suggestive remarks about my boyfriend and what we might be getting up to in bed, or just stand over my desk and stare at me for ages, trying to intimidate me. Of course, because I was so embarrassed, I would blush and become tongue- tied, which delighted him no end. Eventually, when he saw he wasn't getting the right reactions from me, he ignored me completely, dismissed me as not 'one of us', because I couldn't take a joke. I never felt comfortable working there."

So, of course there are men who constantly inflict unwanted and aggressive sexual attentions in an attempt to demean the women they work with. No one would condone this kind of persecution. But Clinton actually seems to like women and, for me, his sexual overtures seem almost endearing. It's as if he can't help it, like a small boy in a sweetie shop.

Certainly some women were amused rather than horrified by Clinton's escapades. Diana Williams (39), a housewife and mother, said: "Oh yes, I would have liked to have seen him in court, if only for the laughs. Imagine them asking about his penis, 'Have you got a bend in it?' But I think a lot of the women were actually flattered by his attention at first, then when it all started coming out they just jumped on the bandwagon."

Being tolerant means women have to be terribly careful that they don't buy into the sexual predator's excuse - that pestering women sexually is all good, harmless fun. Ceri England (34), a part-time wine-bar waitress, student and mother, says: "If it had been me, I probably wouldn't have pushed it as far as going to court. But then I really don't think men should be allowed to get away with this kind of behaviour, so maybe a few court cases would make them think more carefully about doing it."

And Clinton's charm shouldn't cloud the debate on what is acceptable sexual behaviour. When women like me seek to excuse Clinton, the fact that he's attractive could possibly have some influence. Of course, it's the power - but it's also the fact that he has nice hair, speaks well, and doesn't look as though he has bad breath. There are certainly worst things than being in a clinch with Bill.

But what we have to remember, says England, is that no man, however attractive, should treat women as Clinton appears to have done: "Our sons need to learn that women aren't there to be used."