Did We Really Miss It?: The Perverted TV Host Scandal

[lisab]

Something else that really has to be taken into consideration is that almost all men have sex with their staff.

Hmmm...I've worked for men nearly all my life (I had a female boss for about a year), and I've never had sex with any of my bosses.

Come to think of it, none of my female coworkers have ever told me they have, either.

OK, full disclosure regarding those two comments...yes I've been approached, i.e. bosses have wanted the relationship to become more than an employee-boss situation but thank goodness I've had the sense to run away from those situations. And since I'm in a male dominated field, I don't have a lot of female coworkers, so it's a very small sample size.

 

[GeorginaS]

Something else that really has to be taken into consideration is that almost all men have sex with their staff.

Are we being pun(ny)?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are we being pun(ny)?

GeorginaS wins the golden peanut award!

Quick definitions (staff)

▸ noun: a strong rod or stick with a specialized utilitarian purpose [etc etc etc]

 

[edward]

Are we being pun(ny)?

Or a bit of double entendre. Ivan is sneaky that way

 

[lisab]

Ahahahaha...

 

[GeorginaS]

I adore golden peanuts.

 

[WhoWee]

Something else that really has to be taken into consideration is that almost all men have sex with their staff.

 

[GeorginaS]

Read the posts subsequent to the post that contains that line.

 

[techmologist]

I would have felt better about the whole thing if Letterman had gotten choked up, said how sorry he is for letting us all down...for letting himself down. All this while standing beside his spiritual adviser, Rod Parsley.

 

[JasonRox]

I didn't know anything about this.

I've got to applaud him for his cahones.


I find this interesting:

"I have had sex with women who worked on this show," Letterman told the audience matter-of-factly. "And would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps it would. Especially for the women."

Erin Matson, action vice president for the National Organization for Women, called Letterman's jocularity offensive.

"That plays into same old sex stereotypes that men can do whatever but women should be ashamed of their sexuality," she said.

Ms. Matson seems to think that Mr. Letterman felt the women would be ashamed that they had sex.

She seems to completely miss the far more likely meaning that Mr. Letterman felt the women would be ashamed that they had sex with him.

Letterman was obviously being self-deprecatory for the humour value.

Actually, I think you're missing the point and the National Organization for Women.

A man can have sex with an ugly girl and hardly be embarrased. The other way around is different. Regardless of which way you look at it, the comments he made were not necessary.

 

[JasonRox]

<rolls me eyes at you>

Hmmm... do not miss your comments at all.

 

[Chi Meson]

Actually, I think you're missing the point and the National Organization for Women.

A man can have sex with an ugly girl and hardly be embarrased. The other way around is different. Regardless of which way you look at it, the comments he made were not necessary.

One can argue whether or not anything he says is necessary.

NOW has plenty to be annoyed with concerning Mr. Letterman. I really can't say that this comment was his lamest joke nor his greatest sin.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually, I think you're missing the point and the National Organization for Women.

A man can have sex with an ugly girl and hardly be embarrased. The other way around is different. Regardless of which way you look at it, the comments he made were not necessary.

<rolls my eyes at you, again>

 

[DaveC426913]

Actually, I think you're missing the point and the National Organization for Women.

A man can have sex with an ugly girl and hardly be embarrased. The other way around is different. Regardless of which way you look at it, the comments he made were not necessary.

The point is, one of those ways is innocent, and it is more likely. We give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[GeorginaS]

The point is, one of those ways is innocent, and it is more likely. We give him the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, if you actually listen to his comment/joke in context, his meaning is more than clear. He's being self-deprecating. Witness his, “I know what you’re saying: ‘Oh, Dave had sex!’” comment. He took shots at himself the entire way.

Sometimes people look for offense.

And, for all of the dissecting of this so far, it doesn't sound as if any of it was coerced or power plays or anyone's jobs were contingent upon having sex with Letterman. It isn't always (particularly when you're dealing with celebrity situations) a circumstance where a woman is unwilling but feels she has no choice and is therefore being exploited. An exploitation situation would have me perturbed. I don't hear any signs of that.

 

[Chinieba]

How did everyone not know?!

It was clear that he was perverted on his show. Whenever he had female guests, he would stare down at them all the time. The very reason why I never watched him in the first. Is everyone that oblivious?

My opinion of course stays the same regardless of this "scandal" that is going on.

For those of you who watched the show, did you really not notice?

I don't notice that ,
as I don't understand what he/they is/are talking about.
I hear everyone in the tv laugh then I laugh too
if they suddenly keep silent then I show a little surprise on my face as if I understand the "feel" of what is going on. True.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't notice that ,
as I don't understand what he/they is/are talking about.
I hear everyone in the tv laugh then I laugh too
if they suddenly keep silent then I show a little surprise on my face as if I understand the "feel" of what is going on. True.

Asperger's?

 

[JasonRox]

Yes, if you actually listen to his comment/joke in context, his meaning is more than clear. He's being self-deprecating. Witness his, “I know what you’re saying: ‘Oh, Dave had sex!’” comment. He took shots at himself the entire way.

Sometimes people look for offense.

And, for all of the dissecting of this so far, it doesn't sound as if any of it was coerced or power plays or anyone's jobs were contingent upon having sex with Letterman. It isn't always (particularly when you're dealing with celebrity situations) a circumstance where a woman is unwilling but feels she has no choice and is therefore being exploited. An exploitation situation would have me perturbed. I don't hear any signs of that.

I know he's being clear.

Yes, self-depreciating. But then he's implying that a girl should be embarassed to sleep with an ugly old man and that it's something that can ruin her reputation! That's obvious.

The point is that this is also a double standard. A guy can sleep with old an bag and nothing really happens.

Self-depreciating himself or not, he should have left that out. He didn't contribute to anything by saying that.

 

[Proton Soup]

I know he's being clear.

Yes, self-depreciating. But then he's implying that a girl should be embarassed to sleep with an ugly old man and that it's something that can ruin her reputation! That's obvious.

The point is that this is also a double standard. A guy can sleep with old an bag and nothing really happens.

Self-depreciating himself or not, he should have left that out. He didn't contribute to anything by saying that.

of course there are double standards, men and women are different.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I know he's being clear.

Yes, self-depreciating. But then he's implying that a girl should be embarassed to sleep with an ugly old man and that it's something that can ruin her reputation! That's obvious.

The point is that this is also a double standard. A guy can sleep with old an bag and nothing really happens.

Self-depreciating himself or not, he should have left that out. He didn't contribute to anything by saying that.

Ummm, no. That a guy can sleep with an old bag and nothing happens is a matter of opinion, at least in my world. And I don't believe that he said a guy can sleep with an old bag and nothing happens, so your statement is putting words in Lettermans mouth.

 

[DaveC426913]

I know he's being clear.

Yes, self-depreciating. But then he's implying that a girl should be embarassed to sleep with an ugly old man and that it's something that can ruin her reputation! That's obvious.

No. He's saying that a girl should be embarassed to sleep with this ugly old man.

Completely different.

The point is that this is also a double standard. A guy can sleep with old an bag and nothing really happens.

Self-depreciating himself or not, he should have left that out. He didn't contribute to anything by saying that.

It is not a double standard because it is not a standard. A standard implies it can be generalized. This is not general.

The reason it is self-deprecating is because he is talking specifically about himself. "These women should be embarrassed that they were caught sleeping with me."