On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we on the list assume it as a given that the blackmailer is a > douche. Where Letterman's morality comes into question is that he had > a long standing relationship with his wife, which was taking place > when he chose to diddle Stephanie (among others, apparently). If the > mother of his child is alright with that, she's a more open minded > person than I might be under those circumstances (when I woman I loved > cheated on me, I dropped her almost instantly). I think Letterman fell > victim to the cliche and abused his position as producer/host.
As far as I know (I have not kept up with any breaking developments during this day, so I may be behind a lap or two) the Stephanie diddling occurred long before Dave got married, and before he had a son. He did have a live-in girlfriend, and apparently was having sexual intercourse without a marriage license. For that he is guilty of the sin of fornication. In my book though, there is only married and not-married. I did not think that adultery was an impeachable offense, but it certainly did qualify Clinton as a sleaze-bag, because when you get married you make a clear promise that you should keep. If you only want to have sex with somebody who has promised not to have sex with anyone else, you should marry that person, and not have sex with them until you do. Otherwise, you accept the possibility that the person you are having sex with might have sex with someone else. I don't see any evidence here (and again, maybe something broke today that I missed) that Dave abused his position as producer or host. Ms. Birkett was a grown woman at the time, and able to make her own decisions. It is insulting, infantilizing and inaccurate to assume that any woman who has sex with someone they work with or for has been metaphorically raped, or made the victim of a power disparity. If she believes that she was pressured to trade sexual favors for continued employment, or advanced position, then she can sue. Many (perhaps most?) employers have policies against such sexual relationships, not because they are intrinsically illegal or unethical, but because it is too much of a hassle to deal with the liability. The mere existence of the sexual relationship here is not and should not be used as evidence of abuse of position or power. Now I will go read through the news reports of the day, and probably find that this afternoon Dave confessed to only allowing Stephanie the joy of his sexual performance if she agreed to play his fool on the show.... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
