An ex-"Late Show" intern unmasked herself Saturday as one of David Letterman's former flings - and sources revealed the randy funnyman keeps a bachelor pad atop the Ed Sullivan Theater.Ha ha. I love that quote. Get the fuck out of here. We're being offered a lot of money for this shit. Reporters! Trying to get the story for free!
"I was madly in love with him at the time," said Holly Hester. "I would have married him. He was hilarious."...
[There was a] year-long, secret romance... she said, until the funnyman called it off because of their age difference.
Outside what is believed to be Hester's country home in Sebastopol, Calif. - in ritzy Sonoma County - a middle-aged man lashed out at a Daily News reporter last night. "Get the f--- out of here. We're being offered a lot of money for this s---," he said.
An ex-"Late Show" staffer said Letterman kept a room insiders dubbed "the bunker" that was open only to his favorite young female underlings....And there you see why we speak of "sexual harassment" even when the employee getting the sex is eager to receive it. It hurts the rest of the employees. It skews the work assignments in a way that feels unfair.
A woman identified as a former paramour, Stephanie Birkitt, 34, remained in hiding Saturday. She was, until recently, dating Joe Halderman, who was arrested Thursday for allegedly threatening to go public with Letterman's dalliances unless he was paid $2 million.
A "Late Show" office worker in 1997, Birkitt quickly developed a role as Letterman's Girl Friday. She went on to appear in several skits as his comic foil. Behind the scenes, their relationship became intimate, sources said.
"The creepy relationship that Letterman maintained with Stephanie was obvious and not normal," an insider said. "She was able to do anything and everything ... It was pretty well known that Stephanie was the one that Letterman was having fun with."
But perhaps an exception should be made for a great late night talk show host. The funnyman's mood and ego need boosting. Just as he must have an office full of people who can write jokes and comic routines — who must share a lot of not-that-businesslike camaraderie — he needs pretty ladies to keep his senses well-honed. It's part of the structure of a business that revolves around a performer. The funnyman needs his supply of sex, and the paying career positions on the staff can be used to create a pool of potential sexual partners who will keep the old man bolstered up.
Perhaps, I said. Perhaps. Please discuss. And take into account the other examples we've seen lately of great men to whom the rules arguably do not apply: Roman Polanski (movie director might be allowed to rape), Harvard students (elite collegians might be allowed to stalk), Richard Prince (important artist might be allowed to display child pornography), Brian David Mitchell (man of God might be allowed to rape). And not so recently: Bill Clinton (Presidents of the United States might be allowed to have sex with subordinate employees).
Posts
147 comments:
Not a good few weeks for those who claim that they are above us.
How many of those women had sex with Letterman, because they were afraid they'd lose their jobs if they didn't.
How many of those women had sex with Letterman, because they thought it would enhance their jobs/pay if they did.
"Get the f--- out of here. We're being offered a lot of money for this s---," he said.
Get off my lawn!
A top banana doing what top bananas have always done.
They say Uncle Miltie was one of the great cocksmen of all time.
[There was a] year-long, secret romance... she said, until the funnyman called it off because of their age difference.
Because of their age difference, good lord! I'm remembering a coworker who was talking about how his wife was immature...what did you expect when you married a 20 year old and you are thirty something? Honestly people!
I am disgusted. Sex should be for the purpose of a married husband and wife in order to produce children.
So, now we know. The sexual harassment laws are really intended to punish conservative, Republican men.
Why not be blunt?
The real crime is being unfashionable. If you think that marriage is the right venue for rearing children, that the term "gay marriage" is a farcical joke and that religion is a tried and try way of ordering society, you deserve to be punished.
The real crime is failing to be hip.
Droit de seigneur
Is there a casting couch in there?
""Get the f--- out of here. We're being offered a lot of money for this s---," he said."
So she's being pimped out now by her husband? boyfriend? This woman does not make good choices, does she? Of course, if the middle aged man is her father, eeeew!
Sexual harassment law ought to prohibit sex being made a sudden condition of the job you signed on for.
As for promotion, lots of guys won't suck up the boss and are happy for it. The Althouse exception generalizes to buttering up the boss in general.
Such a hierarchical social failing is the suggested loophole in the Peter Principle, for one thing.
Stay with the job you like.
I don't know if that's a gender difference. It works for guys.
Bill Clinton (Presidents of the United States might be allowed to have sex with subordinate employees).
If memory serves, the full version was "Presidents of the United States might be allowed to have oral sex, which isn't really sex, with subordinate employees, because the economy and the stock market are doing really well."
I remember an attorney defending Slick Willy (actually, it was a cigar that was slick, not his willy, wasn't it?), telling me that she knew lots of women who didn't consider oral sex to be sex. Pig that I am, I asked for a list of names and telephone numbers.
I'm pretty sure my performance would improve if there were a lot of pretty ladies around and were available for after hours Dicktation! So, those rules shouldn't apply to me, too?
If memory serves, the full version was "Presidents of the United States might be allowed to have oral sex, which isn't really sex, with subordinate employees, because the economy and the stock market are doing really well."
Actually, I think the full full version was: "Presidents of the United States who have done so much to advance feminist interests..."
CBS simply must fire Letterman. They really don't have a choice ... and here's why.
Any decent attorney and any scorned woman looking for an easy payday will eventually come together to pillage the network unless they fire the guy. If they keep him on, especially if they keep him on with a rape room ... er, I mean love nest ... atop the Ed Sullivan theatre, they're just creating a hostile work environment.
In fact, all of the women who didn't succumb to David's advances (and there have to be a whole group who for one reason or another did not agree to have a sexual relationship with him) have a pretty good case to make that because they didn't submit to his sexual advances, they didn't get on-air skits.
Letterman is toast. He may not be toast today. And he may not be toast tomorrow.
But he is toast as soon as the lawyers and the former employees get together and realize what a gold mine David Letterman and CBS are.
It doesn't dawn on the blog proprietor that, by this silly logic, other commenters were unfairly used for their attentions and contributions to blog traffic while she flirted with and married her favorite one?
I guess it must be nice to have volunteers contributing to one's livelihood rather than paid employees. Otherwise she might have to apply the ambiguous conclusions of her analysis to herself.
I, myself, do not consider myself to be in a position to determine whether or not that is all "part of the structure of a business that revolves around a performer."
But since when did money alone become the sole determinant of whether other rewards are unfairly distributed? Just because the contribution to one's livelihood from owning a blog is indirect, the financial rewards "laundered", so to speak, through the contribution of blog traffic and audience participation to one's fame or livelihood, can we not attempt just as convoluted an analysis in the era of internet-mediated entertainment?
That's the problem with when you throw together fickle and innately jealous coworkers (or volunteers), fame, and the ambiguities of attraction and livelihood into the mix. There's no end to to where one can say that unfairness is at play.
Sexual harassment law has been and is serving its purpose. To propose that it has not been embellished to some mythical point where it would prevent rapists from having defenders is the most ridiculous stretch I've ever heard.
Just sayin'
I guess you'd have to ask Simon's take on all that to really know...
I just jerked off.
It was a pretty intense load. Four gulps shot from my hole. Distance, just above my defined muscular tit.
thank you.
I wonder if Letterman has ever had to make a financial settlement with any of the employees he once "loved"? That would be a good question to ask him or CBS.
wv = conman [I swear]
Susan Rice is on Meet The Press.
I would do her, she is a good looking women. Nice tits, firm ass, pretty face, looks like she swallows and would be good in bed.
My father, who served in the military, wants us out of Afghanistan. My father fought in Korea.
I am married and haven't cheated. It has been six months. I think I have turned over a new leaf. Even though I can't cum with him I don't have any desire of being with anyone else.
Bullshit re: Letterman's status as toast. You'd have to show that Birkett's on-air skits somehow advanced her career. They did not. She remained just as obscure and unwealthy as always.
The problem, my friends, is the fickle definition of "scorned". "Hasn't made insane amounts of wealth from a lawsuit" does not equal "scorned".
And juries will understand that.
I think that's why Letterman was as calm as he was when explaining this.
First, Worldwide Plants' maintaining a place for the corporation's most important asset to sleep is completely supportable, because comedians need to be rested to be fully sharp.
But second, people do tend to screw where they sleep.
Third, why classify Lettermen with criminals? Why not classify Letterman with Wilt Chamberlain, but one who fell 19,950 short of the Stilt's record? Letterman raped no one -- in theory even an old crock can seduce a young woman. And Bill Clinton was doubly different, violating his marriage vows, with women provided to him at taxpayer expense. The single Letterman confined his attentions to one woman at a time, for a considerable time each time.
I admit the power imbalance is disturbing, as well as the effect on the morale of the other workers. But guys are partial to cute young women, even if they're not sleeping with them and even if they never would sleep with them. And (misguided, easily impressed, wrinkle-chasing) women would want to sleep with David Letterman even if they weren't on his payroll.
So I don't think it's so terrible.
Christy said...
""Get the f--- out of here. We're being offered a lot of money for this s---," he said."
So she's being pimped out now by her husband? boyfriend? This woman does not make good choices, does she? Of course, if the middle aged man is her father, eeeew!
Sounds more like he's her lawyer.
(wv: pretrat. Get the pretrat out of here...)
have a pretty good case to make that because they didn't submit to his sexual advances, they didn't get on-air skits
If that's true, this was sexual harrassment, by definition.
FYI-fellow republicans. I am sick of Obama and I voted for him.
I just don't want to see him giving a speech every day.
I would prefer that he actually sit at his office and do some work.
It is Apple Picking Season. I am all about spiced apple cider, red sweaters, athletic fit, by FCUK, Maine State Fairs and gords and hay and other shit like that. Words like "peeping", "cornucopia", "horn", and "foliage" are in my vocabulary currently.
Again, thank you so much.
the thank you connotes the impact of my amazing comments to advance and heighten the comment section of this amazing, thought provoking, and republican blog.
Thank you.
Titus, congratulations!
I understand why you would lose interest in commenting while on your honeymoon. Only the professor's loyalty to her fans kept her online.
I am neither rich nor famous, but if I were either the opportunities to have sex with young, attractive women would far exceed what they are for a middle income, middle aged general manager in a small business.
This is so unsurprising that I am always somewhat amazed at the amount of commentary these stories generate.
Rich celebrities have young paramours!!! Who knew?
I admit the power imbalance is disturbing...
Right. So the obvious answer is to "fight tha power!"
Or else, people could just stop this obsession with money, fame and the like as a way to assess their success or self-esteem.
My contribution here can not be understated.
Although, I haven't posted recently I am still always mentioned, discussed, hated, loved, admired, questioned, and obviously wanted.
Not many commenters can say this and for that I am one of the most important commenters who has ever been here.
I am also pretty hot, make good money, was educated at good colleges and have a fabulous loft.
YET, I am so Midswest. Very down to earth, somewhat slow at times, nice, friendly, love fried fish and supper clubs, enjoy fishing and looking at deer.
I really am a dichtomy wrapped up in smegma insulated by a dairy farm.
At least he wasn't 'knocking up' Sarah Palin's 14-year old daughter.
Word verification: "matrigas."
Heh.
CBS simply must fire Letterman.
Letterman doesn't work for CBS. Letterman works for a company that produces a show that CBS pays to air. It would be like finding out that [famous brand name] jeans sold by Macy's were made by children in a third world country. The connection to Macy's is too attenuated.
Welcome back Titus, so glad to hear from you. I have a quick question:
Do I start Matt Schaub or Carson Palmer in fantasy foorball today?
Schaub is younger and hotter, but Palmer is known for the best glutes in the league.
I make pretty good money and am at a fairly high level at my company but have no interest in "hitting" upon underlings.
Actually I want to have as little contact with them as possible. I have no interest in their personal lives.
That is not to say that I am very professional and friendly with them at work.
And I don't want them to know anything about me. The less they know the better.
I don't want any type of personal relationships with coworkers. I don't even attend Christmas parties with my employer. No summer outings, no birthdays, no anything. No thanks.
Thank you.
Palmer Beta defintely Palmer.
By the way go UW Football Team. 5-0. Fabulous.
Did I mention I am married?
Althouse, can I get some sort of acknowledgement?
I haven't been around for awhile and I am so fabulous I deserve some cudos Mary. Now punch it Marge. I deserve a tag or even a separate posting with perhaps a pool? I totally love the pools taken about me.
Says Ann: But perhaps an exception should be made for a great late night talk show host. The funnyman's mood and ego need boosting.
Yeah, right. "Perhaps" there should be a sufficient supply of young women fulfilling their God-given role to service the funnyman.
Yes, let's turn it around, as Ron suggests. Should not all men have access to young and adoring sex partners so that they may too reach their full potential?
I know a trial lawyer who had the same setup as Letterman. I think we should give him a pass, too. After all he did good by winning his cases, no? And he's a Democrat, so he is double good.
Yes, it's sexual harassment when an unattractive Republican does it. It's gauzy and romantic and kinda quirky when a Dem does it.
"I don't want any type of personal relationships with coworkers. I don't even attend Christmas parties with my employer. No summer outings, no birthdays, no anything. No thanks."
The ultimate vision of man as an inhuman "work-machine" with no personal interests in anyone with whom his financial relationships are more "formal".
But, don't you see, sex is a special case -- utterly disturbing in the implications it has on issues of POWER!
(Inserts evil-sounding laugh here).
Palmer it is.
Thank you.
So let's get philosophical about this... does the power corrupt the sexual relationship or does the sexual relationship corrupt the power?
I thought power corrupts, regardless.
Maybe you guys are just have corrupted forms of sex.
First: Titus, congratulations and welcome back. Please be gentle with the descriptions of fluid spewing and loaf pinching, as it might take some of us a while to become accustomed to it once again.
Second: Well, since FLS doesn't think that what Letterman did was so bad, and MUL thinks that it's no worse than what Althouse did by marrying one (1) unpaid non-employee, then I guess that gives me free reign:
As the manager of a small manufacturing facility, my day-to-day mental performance is pretty important, so I'm going to convert our QC room over to a "bachelor pad", and I'm going to hire several cute young women half my age to serve as my personal concubines.
EEOC be damned. I'm sure FLS and MUL will agree with me that this should be perfectly legal, and that it shouldn't make me subject to a lawsuit.
Right, guys?
None of these people should be given a free pass. Regarding Letterman, he should be fired. As Ann pointed out, even an atmosphere where subordinate employees are "eager to please" creates favoritism and inequality among employees, favoring some over others. It sickened me this fall to return to law school to hear all the stories of my female friends and colleagues being sexually harassed in their summer associate positions (all instances I heard were at firms, small and large). It was especially tragic given the state of economy and the unique amount of pressure this summer on summer associates to acquiesce to senior associates and partners (who know this and exploit it) in order to secure a job come fall.
Right, guys?
Not really, Pasta-guy. I'm not familiar with all the "ins-and-outs" of the law, including sexual harassment law. And in general I think it's not a good idea for co-workers to get involved - especially if one reports to the other.
On the other hand, I think the obsession with seeing and legitimizing money, wealth and the like as forms of "power", and the reflexive need to throw one's understanding of sexual dynamics into their analysis of "power" is just ridiculous and has gotten out of hand.
The laws won't change because they necessarily reflect our culture. And as uptight Americans with an immature and insecure understanding of sex (and relationships), we will continue to require the laws that you feel hamstring you so.
Letterman works for a company that produces a show that CBS pays to air."
That's a tenous defense, at best.
Letterman works in a building owned by CBS. Letterman's sexual harassment room is atop the Ed Sullivan Theatre.
The workplace is owned by CBS (not Worldwide Pants). Everything Letterman does inside that building must be approved by CBS. If he was raping pages in there (and so far, no evidence of raping young pages has emerged) CBS would certainly fire him.
Any decent lawyer could easily breach CBS's lame defense that Letterman doesn't "work for them."
CBS could fire him tomorrow by evicting him from the Ed Sullivan Theatre and activating the moral turpitude clause in its contract with Worldwide Pants.
Any word on what Andy Williams thinks about David Letterman?
As the manager of a small manufacturing facility, my day-to
Stop right there. Managers are a dime-a-dozen. If you left now, they could get another in two weeks. In contrast, to do the David Letterman show you pretty much need David Letterman.
I want a fucking tag and I want it now Betty.
Let's move it.
I think I am over the loaf descriptions. No more loaf descriptions for now.
Titus, although I wouldn't take it that far, I tend to agree with you. As litigious as society is these days, you can't be too careful. I take extreme care at work to avoid even the possible appearance of impropriety.
In a less litigious and more ideal society, we wouldn't have to be HYPER-vigilant; but anti-harrassment laws do, of course, have their place, and what Letterman (or anyone who boinks the help) did was very, very wrong.
I'm surprised that you don't agree, MUL. Is this not such a big deal because Letterman has become a leftist shill? Or is there a cute intern working under you that you have your eye on?
If you see "worked with David Letterman" on a woman's resume now, you have to think "Prostitute!".
MUL, I don't actually want a harem; I think that laws that prevent workplace harassment are needed, and good; as the father of two young daughters, I want them to be protected from lechers like Letterman.
I'm not sure why you're putting scare-quotes around "power" like that. Letterman was her boss, of course he held a position of power over her, and that's why what he did was wrong. I'm puzzled by your defense, albeit a lukewarm defense.
Letterman works in a building owned by CBS.
The Marriotts are on the hook for a lot of sexual immorality, in that case.
To fix this problem at the Federal level, I propose the Federal Concubine Kollective as a stimulus package for overworked, underfellated business men. Slogan: "The FCK -- all that's missing is U!"
FLS -- that sort of hurts. But I'm also involved pretty deeply in engineering, and these are some pretty nichey products and techniques, so I'm not sure that I'm so dispensable.
Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that I'm an indispensable and invaluable asset; so can I have my harem of concubines?
I'm surprised that you don't agree, MUL. Is this not such a big deal because Letterman has become a leftist shill? Or is there a cute intern working under you that you have your eye on?
You've got it backwards, Pasta. I don't really care, but to the extent that anyone's going to get their panties in a bunch about this nonsense, they should realize that the law reflects the immature culture, and not vice versa. That's my point.
As far as Letterman's culpability or lack thereof goes, FLS seems more than capable of providing the legal analysis.
But Letterman's politics have nothing to do with my take on this. They might, however, have everything to do with yours and Althouse's and every other commenter's take on it.
I, after all, am not the one who has been spending the better part of a year bitching and moaning about how horrible it is that an entertainer/comedian touched on a political issue - i.e. anything having to do with the sacred cow of Sarah Palin. Let's be a little bit more transparent in what's obviously motivating whom politically, shall we?
If a motel was used extensively for prostitution and drug deals, I'm pretty sure it could get shut down as a public nuisance.
Sorry, I was just thinking about the Marriott example.
Ron -- good idea. Maybe we can get Barney Frank to sponsor the legislation.
"...bitching and moaning about how horrible it is that an entertainer/comedian touched on a political issue - i.e. anything having to do with the sacred cow of Sarah Palin."
Do you still not get that we were bitching and moaning about his disgusting comments about her 14-year-old daughter, who didn't ask for or deserve any of that? Of course you do, but that doesn't make the specious point you want to make.
montana urban legend said...
It doesn't dawn on the blog proprietor that, by this silly logic, other commenters were unfairly used for their attentions and contributions to blog traffic while she flirted with and married her favorite one?
montana urban legend has an excellent point.
Furthermore:
1. The affair was kept secret.
2. Blogger knew or should have known about the relationship between "the blog proprietor" and the innocent commenter she lured, exploited, and victimized.
3. The power differential between the two parties is massive.
4. Submission to the conduct was made both explicitly and implicitly a term or condition of the commenter/victim's employment, and submission to or rejection of the conduct by the commenter/victim was used as a basis for employment decisions affecting such (former farmer) commenter/victim.
Hmm... I oughta be offered a lot of money for this s---.
I'm not sure why you're putting scare-quotes around "power" like that. Letterman was her boss, of course he held a position of power over her, and that's why what he did was wrong. I'm puzzled by your defense, albeit a lukewarm defense.
You should check out my link to the Public Enemy video, then.
Maybe the sexual harassment laws are good, on balance, then.
I guess I, like others here, note that laws are intended for the sake of rebuking the criminal. That wholly decent and ethical people wouldn't need laws.
So the problem, in my view, is this emphasis on money or economic hierarchies (boss-employee relationship) as a stronger form of power than ethics, etiquette and discretion.
You see, I cringe whenever I hear the term "power" applied in a context of some supposed need to equalize the balance between the sexes much the same way you and your buddies cringe when you hear the term "power" applied in the context of some supposed need to equalize the balance between economic classes and people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds.
"The Marriotts are on the hook for a lot of sexual immorality, in that case."
"Sexual immorality" as you put it, isn't illegal.
If the Mariott's were knowingly allowing hookers to work out of their hotels, they of course they would be legally culpable - as is CBS now that it knows that David Letterman is using their property to violate the law along with violating his employees.
CBS can't build David Letterman a sexual harrassment room in the penthouse of the Ed Sullivan Theatre and think they're going to get away with that in a city with a lawyer-to-scumbag ratio of about 3-1.
You'd have to look at the contract between CBS and Worldwide Pants to see if "having sex with a subordinate" would let CBS get out of the contract. But would they want to? Right now, Letterman is the king of late night. Are viewers switching to Conan, out of shock and disgust?
Let us say that having sex with a subordinate constitutes sexual harassment. Who has been harmed? Where are the plaintiffs? The only one who has stepped forward (so to speak) is an extortionist.
MUL: No, Letterman's politics have nothing to do with my disgust at his behavior. I'd be disgusted with anyone who used their position over someone to have sex with them.
And let's not kid ourselves -- had this girl not worked for Letterman, or had some idea that she could advance her career through him, she wouldn't have given that gap-toothed mummy the time of day.
Now, there are a few aggravating circumstances that make this even more disgusting: Take, for example, the way that he would occasionally put this young woman, Stephanie, in ridiculous, even humiliating, situations -- wearing some absurd costume, so that she could be the brunt of his wry humor. Or the age difference. Or his supposedly liberal political leanings -- if a puritanical conservative's diddlings are more offensive because of his hypocrisy, then this is certainly also true of harassment by a liberal.
So if anti-harassment laws reflect our immature culture, who's immature? Us, for being offended by Letterman's actions? The intern Stephanie, for falling prey to his harassment? Or the gap-toothed mummy, chasing after women half his age with his engorged bratwurst in his hand?
Let us say that having sex with a subordinate constitutes sexual harassment. Who has been harmed? Where are the plaintiffs?
Well, in my case, we could begin with L.E. Lee. Where are HIS cadillac health benefits?
Do you still not get that we were bitching and moaning about his disgusting comments about her 14-year-old daughter, who didn't ask for or deserve any of that? Of course you do, but that doesn't make the specious point you want to make.
This was already addressed months back. And it's not really relevant to anything seeing as how some people have already decided that they want Letterman's hide. But here goes:
1. There's an issue of free speech and the extent to which people want to rely on boycotts rather than the market to decide these things.
2. Letterman was (albeit clumsily) attempting to draw attention to the fact (often ignored by the right) that people who want to promote sexual ignorance often end up promoting the consequences of sexual ignorance - i.e. pregnancy, and other consequences resulting from Bristol's inability to make mature decisions about her own relationships.
3. It was not clear which daughter (the underage one or the older one) Letterman intended to reference. Of course, some people were more than ready to assume that Letterman was condoning pedophilia/pederasty (allow Cedarford and others to clarify the difference. I, myself, wouldn't know), and that seemed like a massive stretch.
meade, noted.
I suggest L.E. Lee and all who are similarly situated work to establish the traditional, God-ordained type of marriage in the state of Wisconsin -- polyandry.
Meade -- let me know if you need a witness in your suit. You're an inspiration to us all, like Erin Brockovich, but with smaller boobs. Speak truth to power, Meade.
MUL, I still don't get it. I'm going to go back and re-read your comments; sometimes they're a little complex and I must be misreading something.
I don't see how this is about equalizing power between genders; he's her boss, and it wouldn't matter if Letterman were female and the employee were male. Just as it didn't matter that Barney Frank was male, and his interns were male.
Now, there are a few aggravating circumstances that make this even more disgusting: Take, for example, the way that he would occasionally put this young woman, Stephanie, in ridiculous, even humiliating, situations -- wearing some absurd costume, so that she could be the brunt of his wry humor.
You're giving me the impression that you believe Letterman would never, ever deign to become the brunt of his own self-deprecating humor. That he only puts down others and not himself. I'm not buying it. It's part of what people like, actually - the Midwestern folksiness.
So if anti-harassment laws reflect our immature culture, who's immature? Us, for being offended by Letterman's actions? The intern Stephanie, for falling prey to his harassment? Or the gap-toothed mummy, chasing after women half his age with his engorged bratwurst in his hand?
No need to slice and dice. It pertains to the culture as a whole, of which we are all a part.
And then, of course, there is Titus.
His damages only begin with the humiliation of no longer being able to wax poetically about loaves.
Evidence has it the poor victimized co-plaintiff has discolored balls and dried cum on his eyebrow! ON HIS EYEBROW!!!
Someone needs to pay for that!
I don't see how this is about equalizing power between genders; he's her boss, and it wouldn't matter if Letterman were female and the employee were male. Just as it didn't matter that Barney Frank was male, and his interns were male.
If that's the case, then why do you preface your thoughts with stuff like this:
"MUL, I don't actually want a harem; I think that laws that prevent workplace harassment are needed, and good; as the father of two young daughters, I want them to be protected from lechers like Letterman."
There's a sexual bias that you just revealed. Tell me that you wouldn't have felt the need to specifically reference any sons you might have had, and then I might be a little less uncomfortable in my assumption.
This was already addressed months back.
Yes, it was. Inexplicably, you brought it up again.
1. There's an issue of free speech and the extent to which people want to rely on boycotts rather than the market to decide these things.
Yes, there is. There's also the issue of free speech regarding people who choose to bitch and moan about this jerk making offensive comments about an innocent girl.
2. Letterman was (albeit clumsily) attempting to draw attention to the fact (often ignored by the right) that people who want to promote sexual ignorance often end up promoting the consequences of sexual ignorance - i.e. pregnancy, and other consequences resulting from Bristol's inability to make mature decisions about her own relationships.
No, Letterman was playing to his godforsaken audience. How you got from his comment about Willow being knocked up at half-time, or whatever it was, to the thesis statement you just presented is beyond me.
3. It was not clear which daughter (the underage one or the older one) Letterman intended to reference. Of course, some people were more than ready to assume that Letterman was condoning pedophilia/pederasty (allow Cedarford and others to clarify the difference. I, myself, wouldn't know), and that seemed like a massive stretch.
Willow, not Bristol, was with Palin at the game that Letterman's ugly insinuation referred to. End of story. Even had the comment been about Bristol, it would have been ugly as hell.
Do you really think rehashing all of this will be a win for you?
"No, Letterman's politics have nothing to do with my disgust at his behavior."
But now that you mention it, what if this were Don Imus?
The silence of the media is deafening. Letterman's historically leftist politics (for example, the day-after-day hounding of John McCain for refusing to do his show), will stand him in good stead now that we know he's using the Ed Sullivan Theatre as his own personal harassment den of iniquity.
I have no doubt that if Don Imus was expecting (requiring?) employees to give him blowjobs or otherwise succumb to his sexual peccadilloes in order to advance at work the traditional media outlets would be in a multi-media firestorm of indignation at this point.
But since it's Letterman ...
Crickets.
In the same way that they're protecting child-rapist Roman Polanski, they'll circle the wagons around their pal David "Do Me or Else" Letterman.
Fine then. They called for Imus' head just because of a silly little joke he told. And that was just as fatuous.
But as long as you're going to make the point that politics is being used to color the discussion of Letterman's or Imus' transgressions by the big media, let's admit that that frame of reference is also being used here and wherever else Letterman is hated... (I dunno, Pajamas media? Other right-wing outlets... I don't read that stuff so I wouldn't know. Good thing I have the largely benign blog here as a window on what's playing in the minds of the political/cultural right these days).
MUL
There's an issue of free speech and the extent to which people want to rely on boycotts rather than the market to decide these things.
1. Boycotts, and the threat of boycotts, are part and parcel of the free market, genius.
2. This "issue of free speech" term you use: It does not mean what you seem to think it means.
My comments stand and they are rational enough to anyone not willing to assume that Letterman knows or cares about anything related to the Palin family and its Brady Bunch-level of complexity beyond what her defenders here know in very familiar detail.
Do you really think rehashing all of this will be a win for you?
Who's choosing to rehash it?
I don't think anyone really cares outside of the "cultural warrior" right-wing bubble.
Keep making Letterman your scapegoat. Nobody cares. The culture war on/against Hollywood is an invention of the right at this point. Maybe things were different in the days before cable television. Nobody else really cares.
Meade: Hmm... I oughta be offered a lot of money for this s---.
More than you may realize.
I'm assuming the blog proprietor has made more than a few posts on university-owned property, thus you can reach into the university's deep pockets as well.
The potential for a large cash settlement looks rather promising.
Good luck.
Yes, it was. Inexplicably, you brought it up again.
I didn't bring it up "inexplicably". I referenced it as the the point where your (and others') interest in Letterman as a political issue began.
anyone not willing to assume that Letterman knows or cares about anything related to the Palin family and its Brady Bunch-level of complexity
For God's sake. Sarah and Todd Palin have five children together, of whom Bristol and Willow are two. If this is too complex for Letterman he needs to go back to kindergarten. Seriously, MUL.
"Boycotts, and the threat of boycotts, are part and parcel of the free market, genius."
Actually, I think that encouraging consumers to make their own, individual choices is a freer and more ingenious way to go than by intimidating producers, and using social pressure to encourage mass movements on the part of consumers.
It all depends upon which side of an issue you're on. Ranchers thought that Oprah Winfrey's comments lessened the amount of freedom among consumers of beef to "make wise, informed decisions", etc., etc.
Okay. So it's explicable that YOU brought up the Willow comment, but it's inexplicable that someone else took issue with what you said.
Wait, so now you're implying that the Brady Bunch is that more complex a family than the Palins? Carol and Mike Brady had six kids, which is only one kid more than the Palins.
But like the Bradys, the Palins do seem to act like they're on a sitcom. So I guess your willingness to engage my analogy still works on that level.
Actually, I think that encouraging consumers to make their own, individual choices is a freer and more ingenious way to go than by intimidating producers, and using social pressure to encourage mass movements on the part of consumers.
You hear that, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King?
It all depends upon which side of an issue you're on.
Can't believe you actually admit that.
Okay. So it's explicable that YOU brought up the Willow comment, but it's inexplicable that someone else took issue with what you said.
Goodness gracious! Is there a lot of confusion here! The whole point is that Letterman became a bugbear for the socially conservative right wing. If you disagree with that, then there's a point to be made. If you don't, it shouldn't matter to you how or why he became their newest lightning rod.
Wait, so now you're implying that the Brady Bunch is that more complex a family than the Palins? Carol and Mike Brady had six kids, which is only one kid more than the Palins.
MUL, first of all, not that it matters except to point up your lack of either intelligence, memory, or understanding - Carol had three daughters from a previous marriage, Mike had three sons ditto. This is not the same as Todd and Sarah having five children together. But even the Brady Bunch isn't complex - I just described their arrangement in one sentence. You're the one saying that even this simple family structure is just tooooo complex for Letterman to get.
But like the Bradys, the Palins do seem to act like they're on a sitcom.
Please give me examples of how the Palins have acted like the sitcom Bradys and not like a normal American family. I have a feeling we're about to have a revelation as to what you see as normal.
"It all depends upon which side of an issue you're on."
Can't believe you actually admit that.
I sure can. It's because I don't think that economics is a form of theology, unlike some.
Truth is more important to me than what sort of propaganda is put out there in an effort to influence the means of production or preserve a certain form of it. I don't see the big problem in that. Sorry for causing apoplexy.
Oh, I'm not apoplectic. I'm just surprised/not surprised at a lefty admitting he has no principles.
You're the one saying that even this simple family structure is just tooooo complex for Letterman to get.
Not too complex to get. Too large and unimportant (which is different from being self-important) to have an intimate sense of recall for exactly which kid is which.
I have a feeling we're about to have a revelation as to what you see as normal.
I have a wedding I need to get ready for. I won't get into details regarding whether or not the spouses will now have a "blended" family. But I can see the salient or interesting issues have been addressed. Hope you have a nice day!
I'm just surprised/not surprised at a lefty admitting he has no principles.
I'd say not letting any "principle" get in the way of my intelligence is a pretty important principle.
I'm not a "lefty".
And I refuse to have any "rightie" think they can conveniently define me or my "principles" for me. But keep on assuming you have your finger on the pulse of what everyone who disagrees with you actually thinks. That must be a winning "principle", right? It's certainly not a smart strategy.
wv: humbo
CBS is missing an opportunity for a reality show spin-off: Mr. Smirky's Love Nest (hosted by Paul "Gollum" Schaefer).
"Get the fuck out of here. We're being offered a lot of money for this shit."
Sounds like Chicago Way is spreading beyond DC!
Being a rogue is an affirmative defense to being a cad. Errol Flynn and Robert Mitchum got away with it. Being a comedian, not so much. Charlie Chaplin and Fatty Arbuckle were not given a pass. I felt almost personally betrayed by Woody Allen's misdeeds. Part of Letterman's persona is that for all his neuroses he is a better human being than the people he passes judgement on in his monologues. His interactions with the staff are meant to show that they are smart, nice people in pursuit of nothing more than ratings and a good laugh. All of what comes out will subvert these essential premises of the show.
A good friend of mine hooked up with his wife when she was his subordinate at work. He now has a great marriage and two wonderful kids. I know these relationships can be bad but I don't think it is fair to say they are always bad. This probably calls for a case by case thing easily handled by the courts. I doubt CBS is going to want to get rid of Letterman for this but they might if it becomes a big enough brouhaha and his ratings go south or CBS starts to see it as tarnishing the brand.
montana urban legend,
What is the proof of this intelligence of which you are so proud.
I haven't noticed. You seem like the usual sanctimonious leftist nitwit to me.
Why do all the sanctimonious leftist nitwits think they're originals? They're as original as canned tuna.
Oh! So you have opinions and, and insults, but no original arguments, (count 'em, none), no rebuttals to any arguments I posed, and yet, somehow I've displayed that I have no intelligence.
Right. I see.
Well, perhaps I can get down on all fours and speak your language right back to you, you unoriginal, sanctimonious right-wing blowhard!
Save it for the fellow right-wingers who are supposedly selling out your cause by not being true enough to it, whiningthomas. I thought every time the right gets into a jam, they set up for a circular firing squad? Your issue is with them.
What about Glenn Beck's refusal to deny that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
But keep on assuming you have your finger on the pulse of what everyone who disagrees with you actually thinks. That must be a winning "principle", right?
Now we get to the root of the problem.
Look up the word "principle" in the dictionary. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Bill Clinton was elected prior to the popularity of the Internet. Which is more humorous, looking back at Internet origins or Bill Clinton? I think the latter.
I'm willing to forgive ol' Dave quite a bit, yet, I admit, it's beginning to creep me out. Too much experience with what that feels like in my intern years in the, yes, entertainment industry. Like you say, it's the entire atmosphere that pervades the workplace. Especially if you're female, it leaves you in a quandry. Is there a way to progress if you're female w/o pimping yourself to the old guy? Should you at least track your offers?
There is this feeling that if you aren't at least getting offers that you aren't being noticed *on any level* and are being overlooked. But if you reject the offers then you risk professional retaliation. But if you accept them, then, well, ew. What if you couldn't make yourself like older guys (as I couldn't) etc. etc.
I used to be quite jealous of guys not having to deal with it at all - maybe a bit on the gay side here and there, but in general.
Still, it's not the same as an elected official, where they are essentially your employee and working the power you loaned them on your time and your dime.
It makes me happy I haven't watched him in years.
Executive cribs at the workplace gross me out in general. There's something unhygienic about the mix - like eating in the bathroom.
One thing interesting to me is that apparently none of these women chose to file harassment claims. They were not stupid or unsophisticated and probably not weak. They knew that there was money in these claims for them. But it looks like they concluded that they had their share of personal responsibility for the relationship and chose to move on. I imagine that happens quite a lot. Is passing on the claim admirable or foolish? Hard to tell but these women definitely qualify as independent females.
"Get the f--- out of here. We're being offered a lot of money for this s---," he said.
Amazing! That is exactly what the IOC told Obama! Small world, isn't it?
Meade, fellow republican, thank you so much for your concern and empathy.
Fellow cheese head, you current me former, I believe we have a bond...a connection....
And I can tell you support my goals.
Thank you so much.
As well, thank you to Althouse for her continued support, love and encouragement.
God Bless.
And may cum droppings rain down on all.
Also, you can use the dry cum droppings and create special little ceramics.
As always, thank you.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
May the Lord, Jesus Crist support in you in all you endeavors.
"Bringing In The Sheets, We Must Cum Rejoicing Bringing In The Sheets".
Hozana in the Highest.
I note that, nowhere in the dictionary, or in any other source of knowledge, does it say that principles are mutually exclusive with winning elections or anything else.
Guess we didn't get to the root of the problem today?
wv: trughtv
former law student said...
CBS simply must fire Letterman.
Letterman doesn't work for CBS. Letterman works for a company that produces a show that CBS pays to air. It would be like finding out that [famous brand name] jeans sold by Macy's were made by children in a third world country. The connection to Macy's is too attenuated.
Very good point by FLS. So much for poorly informed commentors like Florida ASSUMING he is a direct employee of CBS.
However, what Letterman likely has is a morals clause in his multimillion-dollar production company owner-entertainer contract. Meaning that CBS can terminate the contract under the right "morals clause" conditions. However, it is unlikely that you will have lawyers backing female outrage and saying the willing young twiffle being tapped is grounds for termination. Particularly if the twiffle is hired and paid by Dave, not CBS.
Syndicators and advertisers have a say....but show no sign, so far, of wishing to see the top-rated late night venue for their business needs...ended.
==================
Althouse has it right, IMO...that there is more to sleazy workplace sex situations than the simple, stupid narrative of the tapped twiffle as Victim and the tapper as Cad.
It is what happens outside the "Victimhood" of the female trading sex for prestige, favors, seeking the alpha male...and debate on if an executive who has lots of eager nookie on the side is capable of serving shareholder interests.
It is the stress and anxiety, the hatreds of others who are not playing the "Game". It's how the women who were hit up but thought it wrong to sleep with the boss feel as they sit knowing they did a great job but lost out to twiffle on the promotions and assignments. Of the guys who see their careers impacted because they were not born female and loose feel...or didn't think walking the female boss's dogs, picking up her dry cleaning, or shopping for her kids Christmas toys was in their job title. It is about unattractive women who know society doesn't give them the breaks a long-legged blonde cheerleader gets...but who think years of their life committed in the workplace are worth some assurance that - there at least - they won't be discriminated against. And find themselves the ones downsized instead of the 4 hotties who slept with management. Or women losing out on the job because they fell in love and raised a family..making themselves unavailable to the boss's quest for "complication-free sexual favors"...and don't get selected to attend the Big Conference in Hawaii.
===================
Remember that society has long held that workplace discrimination is deeply harmful and made it against the law to discriminate against classes of people.
And what is it in certain workplaces where the workforce (esp. female) is divided between those with the opportunity to trade sex for favors and/or promotions...or advanced simply because of nubility...and those "out of contention"??
1. As unattractive females.
2. As older females.
3. As men unable to "play by gender" for a male boss, unwilling for an older female boss, or be made a "personal services slave by either.
4. As women whose morals, religion, and family status bars them from "opportunity".
The answer is that it is discrimination. No different really than other forms of class discrimination.
The best energy engineer I worked with at a firm I was consulting with was up against two women and seven men for promotion. She worked harder than all of them. But I had no doubt she wouldn't get promoted because she was the ugliest of the 10. She was single, fat, not black. Her competition was with 5 good-looking guys who were almost as good, one minority, and the ugly black woman who was useless as an egineer but who would be a huge "Two-fer" diversity beancount. And a hyper-attractive young MILF. Who was a good engineer, when she was actually at work.
The MILF got it.
I once enjoyed Letterman, starting when he had his short lived daytime show. Now, I find him to be a creepy, unfunny old man.
That said, I don't see this as sexual harassment; these women WANTED to sleep with him and chose to do so of their own accord just like Monika Lewinski did. I'm tired of this bizarre assertion that women are victims in almost all areas of sexuality--it's just as dumb as the women-as-sexual-temptress meme.
Jeez, Meade...that was a rather "crusty" comment from you, done Titus-gross style! Undoubtedly to celebrate his return.
Titus, fellow republican,
Nice to hear from you and congratulations on your recent marriage. Sincere best wishes.
Those of us who have made this the fabulous blog it is need to stick together and, you know, have everyone's lawyers talk to everyone else's lawyers and, as Pastafarian suggested, speak commenter truth to blog proprietor power. Regardless of what sized boobs we are. Are you with me?
Stay waxed and fabulous, buddy. And give the rare clumbers a little scratch behind their ears from me.
Thank you.
@Cedarford, Yes.
And in all seriousness, your articulating the evils of workplace discrimination was very well done.
Ok, Cedarford's point is a good one.
But what about workplaces as venues of discrimination against lovers? Eh? What'cha got to say 'bout that, huh! What about the discrimination that lovers (either potential lovers or current lovers) face in not being able to work with/for each other?
Oh, the humanity!
BTW, my word verification on that was "layst".
On this one, it's "backe".
Coincidence? Hmmm....
@FLS 10:02 Tell that to Don Imus.
We assume Letterman, being in the power position, made the moves; not necessarily.
When attractive young women and powerful older men converge it is often difficult to tell whom is screwing who.
Letterman has never struck me as a careless man and other than speeding tickets and an obsessed fan, he is rather boring celeb-wise. So I have to cut him some slack on this one.
And not so recently: Bill Clinton (Presidents of the United States might be allowed to have sex with subordinate employees).
You forgot the "and lie about it under oath" part.
i honestly don’t understand why Letterman’s involvement with Birkitt is supposed to be so scandalous — they were both consenting adults
William @11:57Part of Letterman's persona is that for all his neuroses he is a better human being than the people he passes judgement on in his monologues.
That was a joke, right?
they were both consenting adults
And, additionally, she was a subordinate employee of his at CBS.
So, now, it depends on CBS's employment policies. Which (I'm guessing) will turn out to be flexible based on ratings. In other words, the head of the shipping department would get canned for having an affair with an underling in a New York minute, I bet.
Bringing In The Sheets, We Must Cum Rejoicing
The company I worked for in the 80's rented an apartment across the street for visiting employees. The VP was screwing the receptionist there. Our janitrix got to clean up, so we heard all about it. The receptionist went to computer school on the company dime and quit as soon as she found a new job (and then dumped him). Other people had a continued employment clause in their school contracts.
"But since it's Letterman"...or Polanski...or Titus??
While squirting streams of Min-Wax Wood Floor Cleaner on my entry room floor this afternoon, I thought about Titus jerking off alone, shooting his intense 4 gulp load, while extolling the joys of his six month marriage.
I wondered as I mopped, about the role he serves on this setting? How and in what context do his graphic, detailed, self-centered descriptions of personal behavior and preferences serve to promote or facilitate civil commentary?
Would it be considered amusing, entertaining, enlightening or interesting if more posters started sharing the olfactory details of their partner's cum or revealing the texture and pattern of their pubic hair?
Who is allowed this revelatory privilege, and why does it seem to work better for one than the whole?
Titus takes it to the edge, diverting to stimulate reaction and response. He reveals at the expense and benefit of himself.
Mascots, Jesters, Scapegoats, Presidents and Comedians all play their role in greater social settings. They draw and focus the attention of many onto themselves, and in doing so, divert or expose truth in a way which causes the public to form a response.
In family dynamics those same roles are often played out to protect and preserve the dysfunctions present.
Society often overlooks, excuses or covers for the outside-the-norm behavior of prominent individuals for similar reasons.
Why is sexual favors for the boss different from sucking up to the boss?
Something we all live with easily and make our choices about.
The suckers-up get promoted and you don't, but on the other hand you may well be happier.
My intuition is it's the women's-sexual-parts-are-sacred faith that's actually behind it and is itself the anti-woman position.
Just as blacks-are-always-and-everywhere-victims-of-racism faith is anti-black.
They're both what really has to be gotten past.
Why is sexual favors for the boss different from sucking up to the boss?
Why is saying "hello" different from grabbing a stranger's breast?
Why is hitting on a woman different than raping her?
So similar, really, except for the technicalities.
So similar, really, except for the technicalities.
I'm asking what technicalities.
Most people prefer to use sucking up as a metaphorical term.....Isn't this one of those misdeeds, like DWI, that should be judged in the context of their moment in time. Some of this was defined differently not so long ago......Even so, I think the affair makes him look odious and hypocritical.
Why is sexual favors for the boss different from sucking up to the boss?
I do think there are similarities, but anybody can suck up, not anybody is going to be eligible for the sex-to-promotion option. So, one is a choice everyone makes, and one is a choice a few people are obliged to make, while no one else has that option.
So, I guess getting ahead by sucking up/not sucking up is more egalitarian?
Actually, I found it almost shocking that the CBS policy on workplace relationships does not preclude superior-subordinate bedroom romps. (See my post at http://someothersteve.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/update-cbs-the-sexual-harassment-network/ for details.) Of course, I realized that's probably partly because Les Moonvees was cruising the halls looking for hookups.
Get the fuck out of here. We're being offered a lot of money for this shit.
I was at the local tackle shop yesterday when an sad old guy came by looking to unload some stolen watches. "Get the fuck out of here," yelled the owner, "I don't want your shit."
It's a universal language.
So, I guess getting ahead by sucking up/not sucking up is more egalitarian?
I suppose so, but that would favor women over men, and the law seems to be the opposite.
I do think there are similarities, but anybody can suck up, not anybody is going to be eligible for the sex-to-promotion option.
Yeah. Especially men. And yet, women seem to have a bigger problem with sex in the workplace than men do. Wonder why?
I'll tell you why. Women are more jealous of other women than men are of either other women or other men.
It all comes down to that sex thing. American society would sooner endorse the fiction that we can or should de-sexualize certain venues than that we could actually be mature about sex, and not let our relative power to offer it or procure it be seen as so awesome as to overwhelm our ability to otherwise objectively, and fairly perceive situations.
American society is so immature it's not even funny.
I should have probably said "assess situations" rather than "perceive situations".
@ MUL Perhaps you are so immature that you you don't understand American society especially when it comes to mature women. You have a lot to learn from your experience with the Brazilian woman. You are very naive for a man who believes that he is a player.
And Holly said to Dave, "Please get off my lawn".
In fact, all of the women who didn't succumb to David's advances (and there have to be a whole group who for one reason or another did not agree to have a sexual relationship with him) have a pretty good case to make that because they didn't submit to his sexual advances, they didn't get on-air skits.
Why stop with just the women?
As for promotion, lots of guys won't suck up the boss...
I imagine rhardin meant to say "suck up to the boss", but does it not create a "hostile work environment" for the boss to be receiving sexual favors from one employee, even if we stipulate arguendo that he would not appreciate those favors if offered by males? Does that not compound the offense with gender discrimination, as would a boss who wouldn't appreciate sexual favors from women of color add a racist element?
From what we know, Letterman has restricted his dalliances to white women, so he's clearly a racist, sexist, homophobe for failing to offer equal opportunity for advancement through sexual services.
Not every sort of workplace favoritism is actionable. One of the guys who married into my wife's family is a fabulous businessman. He started his career at a giant corporation; then got headhunted away to work in a series of family-owned, closely held corporations (which can be quite large: think of the Crowns and the Pritzkers). He would invariably rise till he reached a level above which, all the jobs were held by family members.
What's a fella to do? He couldn't even marry into the boss's family, at least not without dumping his wonderful wife.
Aren't y'all getting tired of arguing with a MUL? The acronym seems fairly apt. As in, stubbornly staying with arguments that have been stomped to death by several commenters.
Beta Conservative: Rich celebrities have young paramours!!! Who knew?
Letterman knows. He jokes about it for months and months when it's somebody he doesn't like.
MUL: It was not clear which daughter (the underage one or the older one) Letterman intended to reference.
There was only one Palin daughter at the baseball game he was referencing. If he and his writers were just too lazy to verify which daughter they were maligning, he has failed to say so.
MUL: My comments stand and they are rational enough to anyone not willing to assume that Letterman knows or cares about anything related to the Palin family and its Brady Bunch-level of complexity beyond what her defenders here know in very familiar detail.
At least you're admitting he doesn't see Palin's daughters as individual human beings. You're right, he just used them to get at their mother, and in that capacity they were interchangable.
Also, try not to protest so much that your comments are rational. Sounds a bit desperate.
1% of society is afflicted with pathological narcissism (even less so women) and yet, because I met someone who was (someone from another country, at that), I'm the one who has more to learn about American women?
I'm sure I have a lot of things to learn. But I'm mature enough to realize when someone other than me has even more to learn about reading and being coherent.
I love the way RLB_IV extols more mature women in the same paragraph that he derides me for not being a sufficiently experienced "player" to know what I'm talking about. Talk about incoherent!
I take it his ethical maturity is what makes him a more skilled "player". Whatever.
Being able to wave a hand in the air and yell "hell yeah!" doesn't mean that someone has stomped to death the arguments that bother you, Buford. And I hope that's not you in the avatar pic. For a fifty-year old, you look like you're pushing a hundred.
There is a difference between maturity and senility.
One usually doesn't have to be as good a player to pick up "mature" women. Once they get into their thirties and forties their increased sex drive and decreased sense of insecurity makes them easier to "pick up". If you want to be downright lecherous about it.
But RLB_IV fancies himself an aficionado of both maturity and knowledge of "the game". Now I've heard it all.
I'm asking what technicalities.
The technicality of...sex.
How casually do you take sex?
There are many people- including women- who take sex seriously and don't want to be handing it out for favors.
If it's no big deal, what's stopping the men from engaging in a little fling with the male boss?
The technicality of...sex.
How casually do you take sex?
There are many people- including women- who take sex seriously and don't want to be handing it out for favors.
Taking sex seriously doesn't make it sacred.
You can take seriously anything you want. I take sucking up seriously.
So I don't do it. The same thing can be done with sex.
The question remains, how is it different when the boss asks for sex and you say no, and the boss asks for sucking up and you say no?
The suckers-up and the sex-givers get ahead in both cases.
I think feminists want men kept walking on eggshells, is the reason. It's the nagging instinct made law.
It isn't in society's norms to put acts of sex in the same category with acts of telling someone their jokes are funny.
That's not a feminism thing. I don't think my husband is cheating on me if he goes on a business lunch. I would think he was cheating on me if he had a business f*ck. I think he'd feel the same about me.
And, as I said, if we're going to equate the two actions- sex and sucking up- there's no reason to assume the men can't offer their services to the male boss.
As a society in general, we rank the different actions hierarchically. All unpleasant things aren't equal.
The question remains, how is it different when the boss asks for sex and you say no, and the boss asks for sucking up and you say no?
If you can't tell the difference... you're hired!
hilarious!
It isn't in society's norms to put acts of sex in the same category with acts of telling someone their jokes are funny.
The question, though, involves what happens when you refuse.
This, after all, is why we are to discount Letterman's affairs as being consenting; it's because of the others who refused.
In both cases, sex and sucking up, others get ahead of you in the boss's favor when you refuse. You lose out.
One is illegal. One is not.
Other than the political strength of mindless feminism, why?
The question, though, involves what happens when you refuse.
This, after all, is why we are to discount Letterman's affairs as being consenting; it's because of the others who refused.
It involves the question of what happens when you refuse, but it is not only that.
It is also- what does it take to say yes? Who is eligible to say yes? What is the personal cost of saying yes? The cost of having sex is higher, thus more people refuse (or are ineligible, like a male who won't do a little something for his male boss).
If you think turning down sex and refusing to "suck up" are on similar levels of personal costs, we're just not going to agree.
If you think turning down sex and refusing to "suck up" are on similar levels of personal costs, we're just not going to agree.
They're the same in their effects.
They're the same in their effects.
Doing a bad job has the same effect, for that matter.
In this case, everybody is a grownup. I wouldn't have had the first problem with Clinton doing what JFK did, and run around with grown up women who were at least somewhat his social equals. I just can't care.
BTW, I don't like Letterman and don't watch him.
Post a Comment