Letterman scandal

oldhat said:
How do you know she didn't already know? How do you know she didn't care?

How do you know she didn't have a boyfriend?

There are other marriages aside from the vanilla, monogamous 1950s husband-and-wife plus a kid arrangement.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm going to agree with this 100%. His wife of 6 months, who he has a 5 year old kid with, hmm. Not thinking that he's either particularly deceptive, or particularly vanilla here.

God I do not get why sexual mores are stuck in the frikkin 1950s when housewives were popping pills to keep from killing themselves. Yes, I will have a self-righteous twitter when some idiot who preaches family values gets caught smoking cock in a restrooom, but it's the hypocrisy I find so hysterical (and objectionable) not the action.

Maybe him and his wife enjoy sleeping with whoever, or swinging, or doing whatever the hell they want. Who cares? No skin off anybody's nose.

If that's the case I am annoyed that he's decided to do the self-recrimination thing, but I guess mainstream TV isn't ready for anything past Leave it to Beaver, no matter what we think happened in the past 40 years.
 
Last edited:
From what I have read so far it seems like a textbook example of how not to extort money. Seriously this guy was walking around with a 2 million dollar check? He didn't think that would raise any suspicion?
 
Will he be presenting his list of top 10 affairs?
And did the little bald guy at the piano get any action?
 
Personal Grudge said:
Do we really have any idea yet of when these affairs occurred?...
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. A lot of assumptions are being made here.
"All the affairs tooks place before Letterman's marriage, said Tom Keaney, spokesman for Letterman's production company,World Wide Pants." AP, Boston Herald
 
Last edited:
Personal Grudge said:
Do we really have any idea yet of when these affairs occurred? There are several assumptions here about his foul behavior when engaging in sex with his employees. Without any other information, we can all make assumptions.
Click to expand...



From CNN:


A representative for Letterman's company, Worldwide Pants, said, "All the relationships David Letterman was referencing when discussing the matter on the 'Late Show' predated his marriage to Regina" in March.
 
Policenaut said:
From what I have read so far it seems like a textbook example of how not to extort money. Seriously this guy was walking around with a 2 million dollar check? He didn't think that would raise any suspicion?
Click to expand...

Even more bewildering, particularly given the alleged extortionist's television job, is why it didn't occur to him to simply take the materials in his possession substantiating Letterman's "creepy" activities to the various tabloid TV programs that could conceivably have netted him more than the $2million he demanded of Letterman without committing any crimes.
 
Marc39 said:
Even more bewildering, particularly given the alleged extortionist's television job, is why it didn't occur to him to simply take the materials in his possession substantiating Letterman's "creepy" activities to the various tabloid TV programs that could conceivably have netted him more than the $2million he demanded of Letterman without committing any crimes.
Click to expand...

Which is why I'm sticking to my I-hate-you-because-you-stole-my girl" theory. Otherwise this makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Number Six said:
If Chris Rock said that and I was a woman in a relationship with him that I thought was monogamous, I'd immediately conclude that my monogamy assumption was wrong.
Click to expand...

Judging by the house Rock recently built for his family near me, monogamy may not be as important to others.
 
LibraryLady said:
However, this is a man who got married very recently to a woman he's lived with for about 20 years and with whom he has a 5 or 6 year old son. Does he really just think of women as receptacles? Or is he so driven by his libido that nothing else really matters?

We see a lot of this, I know. And I know that not all men are this type of pig. However, it just seems so damn wrong to me.
Click to expand...
I'm completely lost. There seems to be some presuppositions that I'm at a loss to understand. How does the lack of a formality such as marriage axiomatically turn a woman into a receptacle?

As a married man of 23 years I don't think marriage is sacrosanct or necessary in any way but I do like the benefits (rights granted by the state).

I would like to see marriage done away with and the rights (and responsibilities) enjoined by means of cohabitation.
 
RandFan said:
I'm completely lost. There seems to be some presuppositions that I'm at a loss to understand. How does the lack of a formality such as marriage axiomatically turn a woman into a receptacle?
Click to expand...
Not to mention that using this logic must mean the woman just thinks of David as a fun stick or something. Yet you will only find men deprecated in this fashion.
 
roger said:
Not to mention that using this logic must mean the woman just thinks of David as a fun stick or something. Yet you will only find men deprecated in this fashion.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I should note that for those women who are in a relationship where they (the women) pay the utilities and the man pays the mortgage (it is in his name) and the bills on furniture and real assets (are also in his name) then those women have reason to question the intentions of the man.

Of course this could work in the reverse and would also be applicable to gays and lesbians.

We are a long way from it at this time but I think civil agreements (legaly binding now) will be the norm in the future. Caveat emptor.

And yes Virginia, relationships are, in large part, financial ones whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Watch Peoples Court, Judge Judy or Divorce court for a week.
 
Gag, now the whole news discussion is about sexual harassment on the job. Seems the news media isn't going to wait and see if it is the least bit relevant to the current situation.

If you went by the new's standards on this, any male celeb who has sex with a woman is abusing his position of power. :rolleyes: Oh we're all just little girls who need protection.

Real workplace sexual harassment has to involve a bit more than just dating and having sex with coworkers.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
Gag, now the whole news discussion is about sexual harassment on the job. Seems the news media isn't going to wait and see if it is the least bit relevant to the current situation.

If you went by the new's standards on this, any male celeb who has sex with a woman is abusing his position of power. :rolleyes: Oh we're all just little girls who need protection.

Real workplace sexual harassment has to involve a bit more than just dating and having sex with coworkers.
Click to expand...

Sexual harrassment is the larger issue and the biggest potential exposure faced by Letterman and his production company, as well as by NBC.

The other high heel shoe hasn't dropped.
 
From recent news reports:
ll the affairs took place before Letterman’s marriage, said Tom Keaney, spokesman for Letterman’s production company, Worldwide Pants. Keaney also said Letterman “is not in violation” of the company’s harassment policy “and no one has ever raised a complaint against him.”

CBS issued a statement Friday: “We think it was appropriate for Dave to disclose the matter publicly as he has, and we are continuing to cooperate with authorities.”
Click to expand...


But of course everyone has to talk about the hypotheticals and right away. After all, it might turn out not having actually harassed women at work was one reason Letterman turned the blackmailer over to authorities right away.
 
skeptigirl said:
From recent news reports:


But of course everyone has to talk about the hypotheticals and right away. After all, it might turn out not having actually harassed women at work was one reason Letterman turned the blackmailer over to authorities right away.
Click to expand...

Harrassment is subjective. Letterman may not have openly suggested anyone's job might be jeopardized if they didn't do the nasty with him, however, it could have been inferred by his victims. Any women subordinate to Letterman could have felt vulnerable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom