It seems not a single day goes by without hearing about a public figure being accused of sexual harassment. Harvey Weinstein was the start. His alleged sexual harassment against multiple female actresses throughout the entertainment industry span decades.

Weinstein has opened up the floodgates. The allegations have gone as far up as the highest levels of our government with U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore (R-AL).

Through all of these allegations, I've noticed very disturbing trends in the reactions exhibited by the public and the colleagues of the accused. These trends have most prominently been exhibited in the world of politics. There have been several arguments put forth by Democrats, Republicans and the general public in accusation and defense of these public servants. The variation of these standards is where I see the problem.

Some have argued for a "zero-tolerance" approach. I agree with Olivia Goldhill when she states, "Zero tolerance sounds like a great idea, in theory. In practice, this simplistic approach ignores the unfortunate reality that a spectrum of acts can be classed as sexual harassment."

I find the approach of zero-tolerance ineffective. While Merriam-Webster defines sexual harassment as an "uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature," the definition is still subjective. What is considered sexual or unwanted behavior for one may not be for someone else.

If this is the standard we want to hold our public representatives to, then every accusation should be met with immediate termination or resignation. I don't find this a realistic approach. It will result in the continued broadening of the definition to be used as a weapon against political opponents.

It will eventually leave no one safe from the threat of sexual harassment allegations. The presence of the accusation will be the determinate, not the nature or the credibility of the accusation itself.

Another disturbing argument I see is the logical fallacy being used by both political parties and the general public: This person did not lose his job because of sexual harassment; therefore that person should not lose their job because of sexual harassment either

It seems the go-to guy for this argument is Bill Clinton. For those who warrant reminding, Clinton had sexual relations with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. He initially lied about the affair before indisputable evidence confirmed otherwise. Clinton was impeached on the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, but was acquitted of all charges by the Senate.

While the relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky was consensual, the fact that Clinton was essentially Lewinsky's boss could still be interpreted as sexual harassment. It could have easily initiated a quid pro quo environment. Lewinsky herself said that Clinton had taken advantage of her.

This argument is bad for both Democrats and Republicans. It puts party power and loyalty over both the voter and accuser. Lewinsky's political career was ruined because of the affair. The same can't be said of Clinton.

It seems the actions of politicians can be justified depending on whether or not they have an R or D next to their names. Nancy Pelosi, when questioned about the accusations made against John Conyers, defended the Democratic representative. She argued an innocent until proven guilty approach because of Conyers's "icon" status and his work towards protecting women. This was a response to evidence that Conyer's office paid a former staffer $27,000 after she accused him of firing her for resisting his repeated sexual advances.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently retracted his call for Moore to drop out of the race after polling in Alabama placed Moore neck-and-neck with Democratic contender Doug Jones. Moore may still face the Senate Ethics Committee to see if he'll be able to keep his seat if elected. McConnell said the voters are now the judge and jury in regards to the accusations against Moore and whether or not they are credible.

Should these arguments come as any surprise to those familiar with American politics? I don't think so. There's a reason why Matt Lauer was fired two days after allegations were made against him but Conyers is still clinging to his House seat. Lauer was hired by a corporation under contract that had no specific obligation to the voters of a particular district or state. Their obligation is to viewers and the backlash they would experience from them and the companies that pay for advertisements on the network.

Politicians who are running for election are at the mercy of voters. Once they are elected, they are subject to ethics rules and regulations we can all see are clearly lacking. Many Democrats have called for Conyers to resign, but have remained silent on Franken to do the same. This is because Democrats can't afford to hold Franken and his Senate seat to the same standards as Conyers and his House seat because it's not as valuable to the party.

Conyers's attorney aptly points out this double standard, arguing Franken has five accusers to Conyers's four, but is not facing the same level of condemnation from Democrats.

This raises the questions: What standards are we and the government going to hold our politicians to when accusations of sexual harassment come to light? Are we going make it a "zero-policy" issue? Are we going to leave it up to the voters if they are up for election/reelection? Do we determine the credibility of the accusers and then put procedures in place to remove politicians based on investigative findings? Is public money going to be used for these said investigations or payouts?

I don't know what the standard should be. I do know whatever the best standard may be should be applied to all politicians equally. What I'm currently seeing in American politics is an entire plethora of standards that aren't being equally applied.

Is that right? Does party loyalty and power come before the dignity of sexual harassment victims? If a student is sexually harassed by a tenured professor at a university, should the university defend the professor because of their past work before determining the credibility of the accusation? Should we be applying the same standards in our politics?

This is a discussion that is beginning to take place in Washington. Let's hope it results in something that lasts.