An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Chicago’s loss is Obama’s loss is America’s loss

David Letterman »

I Don’t Care Who Letterman Has Sex With

Posted by DALITSO NJOLINJO in Arts & Entertainment.
Oct 3rd, 2009 | Comments

I don’t know about you but I am a hypocrite. Everyday without fail I complain about things that other people do and in the next action do those very same things.

Let me give you an example. In my time I have been know to look down on smokers. Why? Well, it is a dirty habit for one and it is also a habit that kills – why would you do that to yourself. I make smokers feel uncomfortable if they are standing next to me queuing for a bus – damn it, they even allow smoking while queuing at Disneyland Paris (outrageous). How dare they, put my health at risk. I don’t want to die of lung cancer!

But with the very next action I commit, I manage to show the dirty hypocrite lurking shallowly within me by putting my health in danger (McDonald’s, not taking regular exercise and playing on my PlayStation that sort of thing). I know this is a weak case for being a hypocrite but it was the only one I could write without being controversial – but trust me, I’m a hypocrite.

My point is that, I am human, I make mistakes. I know the media love their sordid sex scandals and God knows that David Letterman has got it coming to him, but seriously – has he done anything wrong but have sex with another human being? Has that one action changed your life in anyway? Is your health and well being affected by the revelation that Letterman like most men is ruled by his penis?

I doubt that ethically (in terms of employment law) Letterman has done anything wrong so I am going to treat this whole situation like I have treated Ensign’s and Clinton’s and every other person’s personal issues – it’s none of my business.

Truth be told, I really don’t care who Letterman has sex with.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Leonidas

I don't care much either, although its fair game to joke about it like Letterman did for others. I think Dave has thrown enough intern jokes to receive a few.

superdestroyer

It is a different situaiton when the boss is having sex with individauls who are paid for their time. The real question is whether the women who had sex with Letterman benefitted financials or profressional whereas the women who did not sleep with him did not advance.

Having sex with subordinates gets too close to quid pro quo sex.

DLS

It's impossible to defend Letterman decently. Meanwhile, where are the feminists, when and where you have a possible, if not likely, instance of exploitation of women or women exploiting sex (choosing effectively to be sex objects)? Does a liberal celeb once again get a free, hypocritical pass?

StockBoySF

DLS, "Does a liberal celeb once again get a free, hypocritical pass?"

Not sure what you're referring to here (so many examples) when you say "once again"...

Are you referring to Whoopi's support of Polanski? Whoopi didn't get a free pass for her vile comments. Are you referring to politicians who have sex and are held to one standard, which seems to be different than Letterman? At least Letterman wasn't spending taxpayer dollars to bonk his mistress in South America. Nor is Letterman an elected official cheating on his wife calling for the resignation of other elected officials who are also cheating on their wives.

If women thought they had to have sex with Letterman to keep their jobs, or advance, then that's the only problem I have with it. And proving that women didn't feel that way is difficult. And if others knew about the affairs but choose not to engage in sex with Letterman, then whenever a decision is made against them, it's never clear whether that decision was made for legitimate business reasons, or whether it was because they weren't sleeping with Letterman. Otherwise I could care less who Letterman (or anyone else) sleeps with. But sex in the workplace is very dangerous territory.

ChrisWWW

DLS,
I forgot, have the "values voters" excommunicated Newt Gingrich, John Ensign, or Mark Sanford yet?

GreenDreams

I must have missed the part where Letterman was charged with sexual harassment. So the right is taking a stance against single people having sex with other single people who work with them? As SHOCKED as I am to learn that there is sex between co-workers, or even between boss and subordinate, I still just can't seem to muster any outrage about this. But it is really really unlikely to work to your advantage, conservatives, when every sexual act of this single man is matched by sordid affairs, patronizing prostitutes, including gay prostitutes and victimizing young interns by your side. And most of them on your side are NOT single men having consensual sex.

Again, any charges of sexual abuse, harassment, adultery, prostitution or sexual predator acts toward pages leveled against Letterman? Huh? This is a real losing argument for you, so please, keep it up.

superdestroyer

GD,

I guess you found a bigger bucket to carry for the Democrats. In the 1980's sexual harassment in the workplace was a huge issue and most companies developed rules about supervisors dating or having relations with subordinates. It exposes companies to too much liability. In addition, any risk manager will tell you that at places like universities, there biggest liability risk is sexual harassment.

Yet, when President Clinton got himself in trouble by having sex with a subordinate and then giving the subordinate a job, the left abandon the idea of workplace harassment. Given the left's defense of Roman Polanski, Kwame Kilpatrick, and virtually every member of the Kennedy clan, the left is back to promoting the ethnics of Mad Men.

archangel

You know DLS, to answer your call for feminists to speak up, I've never called myself a feminist, but I have published strong books for women, and stood up for women who are unsheltered.

I'd say that the power differential you point out is definitely an issue. So is possibly submitting to the attention of a boss whom you find repulsive, but fear to say nobecause you're afraid to lose your job.

There are many people to choose from if one wants to have 'sex.' That old saying from my years as a military wife, Ive heard over and over: Dont sh-- it your own messkit... would seem to apply to sexual relations with those not only close in, but who may not have equal power to say no and not lose a thing.

You'll remember my post at TMV on Mr. Letterman calling out Palin's young daughter, and perhaps some of the very harsh comments to me about my own miserable excuse for being.... that I'd dare to point out Mr. Letterman ought leave the young and powerless alone?

That. Here too.

And incidentally, may I say something about this um, time-honored opinion which has nevert aptly describes the variety of many men's wondrous prowess and development as sexual beings... "...that Letterman like most men is ruled by his penis." I'd have to disagree. Not ruled. Affected by. Choices made. Thought, heart, soul, body. Not one only rules. In those developed in their talents: All.

Just saying.

dr.e

GreenDreams

SD your comment makes no sense, as usual. I'm not carrying water for the Democrats if I think this is a silly flap over a *late night comedian* (not Democratic politician or even left-leaning news personality). I'm also not condoning true "sexual harassment". But as far as I know, Letterman has not been charged with any such thing. Maybe the women he dated actually like him. I'm not interested in this enough to dig into it, but what a huge stretch to think that Americans are supposed to be shocked that a rich, famous single celebrity has had sex with women, some of whom may work with him. And I don't want to shock you, so maybe I shouldn't mention that by far the number one place people today meet their mates is at work. Oh the horror.

JeffersonDavis

I agree, superdestroyer......

According to my workplace and according to military code; anytime a superior and subordinate are involved in sexual relations (within the same chain-of-command or department) it is sexual misconduct at minimum, fratenization at best, and sexual harrassment at worst. It effects department or unit cohesion negatively.
I'm sure you'll find some sort of financial or occupational favoritism with those Letterman had sex with. If so, he broke the law. The same was the case with Bill Clinton. At that time, Bill Clinton demanded the resignation of the SMAJ of the Air Force for the same reason, yet refused to do it himself.

superdestroyer

GD,

I love the water carrying. The women did not work with Letterman. They worked for him. Thus, promotions, success, or even keeping your job could have depended of their willingness to have sex with him. Progressives used to believe such conditions were sexual harassment but when Bill Clinton got caught they changed their minds and decided that sex with subordinates was OK but so long as they did not explicitly say that their promotion depended upon it.

I guess it goes along with Hollywood arguing that it is really not statutory rape if the person doing it is famous.

GreenDreams

SD, if there was any coercion, it's a problem. Sorry, but you're much more into this than I am. WHAT women did he "harass?" Have any filed complaints or charges? Will any testify against him in court? And of course even if he actually had sex with his Secretary, I know that happens among Republican entertainers, politicians, businessmen and military personnel too. So your attempt to make this a political issue is, in a word, pathetic. Not excusing it if it was coerced. But I'm also not condemning it if it wasn't. I happen to know both men and women who have crossed that line. It's actually quite common and I know that must come as a shock to you. Often it's disaster, sometimes it becomes a beautiful love, but neither you nor anyone else will EVER stop it from happening.

superdestroyer

GD,

The Democratic Party was pushing for it to end during the late 1980's. That is when liberal activist lawyers created terms such as hostile work environment. Yet, when Clinton got caught having sex with a intern, the left abandon the idea of hostile work environment or quid pro quo sex and starting talking about consenting adults and lying about sex is OK. Keep repeating to yourself that sexual harassment is OK is our b. is the one doing it. I guess that bucket just keeps getting heavier.

GreenDreams

SD, I'm going to assume from your nonanswer that no charges or complaints have been filed. If that's the case, it's just consensual adult sex. Rave on, bro.

roro80

Hey GD -- This is going to be the weirdest thing ever, but I actually agree with superdestroyer on this one. I do think that when the big boss presses women for sex -- even if that level of sexual pressure would be fully appropriate in other situations -- there is a clear power imbalance that may make some women feel that they cannot say no. In the entertainment business, as in so many others, women are not well represented in the non-actor space. I don't find it ethical for people in power to sleep with people whose careers are directly affected by their decisions.

roro80

Exactly how many feminist websites do regularly read, DLS? Because I regularly read 3, and in each case, there was condemnation of Letterman's behavior and of the weirdness of the giggly audience reaction to his big announcement. Those same three websites also condemned him for the inappropriate joke about Sarah Palin's daughter a while back. So are you just talking out your rear end, trying to "catch" the evil feminists in some intellectual dishonesty that doesn't exist in this case, or do you actually have a point?

blog comments powered by Disqus