You think someone telling you they’ve had sex before entitles you to know every detail?
He told us why he had been the victim of an extortion attempt. That still doesn’t make the details of his relationships our business – especially not his relationship with his wife, who had no role in any of this.
Would you like an itemized list of times, dates and positions? Exactly how much have you decided that you’re entitled to know? What will be your legal recourse if he chooses not to tell you any more?
Well, while Dio’s being silly about this whole affair/cheating thing, now you’re being silly. Letterman told us about it because as soon as he decided not to pay the blackmail the story was inevitably going to come out. It’s better for him if he controls how it comes out, and hey look how handy he has a nationally televised TV show that allows him to do that. That really doesn’t make any of it our business. It’s still a private matter that’s only truly relevant to Dave and people with whom he has personal relationships.
I agree he handled the situation as well as he could. But part of controlling the story was to tell us that he’s had sex with his staff members. He issued a press release, in fact. No, we don’t have the right to know all the details (damn it!) but the fact that he’s something of a horn-dog is now a matter of public record.
We are allowed to discuss and speculate about what was really going on as much as we wish. And if there is a trial, we might very well learn a whole lot more about what was in that diary.
Nope. Don’t even know what it was. I just know the guy’s been a prick and an asshole for as long as I’ve known of him, which dates back to stand-up performances and occasional guest host gigs on the Tonight Show.
And I couldn’t care less if it’s his schtick, niblet_head. Polanski’s schtick was schticking it in 13-year-old girls, and that doesn’t give him a pass either. It’s not like he’s just pretending to be an asshole (though the difference would be scant), it’s that he’s found a way to make it pay off for him.
As far as his twisting in the wind is concerned, yeah, he is. He’s an intensely private man and now he’s having to live through the experience of having intensely private and probably unsavory facts and speculation about his sex life being the subject of gossip all across the nation. The women he’s had sex with are now the subject of intense scrutiny and curiosity which will undoubted impact on their private and family lives in unpleasant and embarassing ways. (How would you like your mother or husband or boyfriend or co-workers to know that a schmuck like David Letterman used you for a fucktoy and then discarded you?), and to a certain degree that’s his fault. He’s going to have to testify at some point and he has no idea what all is eventually going to become public knowledge, and to a certain degree he probably worries about his job…or least he said he did.
This has got to be a most unpleasant, unsettling and even revolting development for him, and he’s just going to have to suck it up and endure it. That’s what I mean when I say he is twisting in the wind.
Well sure it’s now a matter of public record (and inevitably has to be if it goes to trial). That still doesn’t make it any of our business. We happened to learn of it, is all.
Not really, no. What’s so hypocritical about making jokes? If Letterman had gotten up on his moral high horse and seriously denounced Clinton for having sex with an employee then that would be one thing, but making jokes about something doesn’t even necessarily mean you think it’s wrong. It just means you find some humor in the situation. And as I said before, it’s Letterman’s JOB to make jokes about current events.
Even if Letterman did really believe that Clinton’s behavior was morally wrong, Letterman’s behavior was not identical to Clinton’s. Both had a sexual relationship with a younger, low-ranking employee, but Clinton 1) was married the whole time he was having his affair with Monica Lewinsky and 2) publicly denied having sex with Lewinsky. Letterman still has some room to feel morally superior to Clinton, because at least he hasn’t lied to the public about what happened.
“Affair” is short for “affair of the heart”, though has come to mean “a sexual relationship with someone other than your spouse.”
To me, an “affair” would mean they were married, which they were not.
“Cheating” would mean it was in violation of the expectations of their relationship. We do not know if it was cheating. Nobody here is privy to the specifics of Letterman and Regina’s long relationship prior to their marriage. Without one of them going on TV and telling us, we are left to guess. Many people are going to assume he must have been cheating on her, because that is how they perceive relationships. If it was serious and long term, it must have been with the expectation of exclusivity. Well, not everyone works that way. I personally know a couple situations that are different. One is an engaged couple (they might have married - I’ve been out of touch) who have an open relationship. The other was a married couple with open relationship, such that they took in a shared girlfriend.
The sexual angle issues are if there was any impropriety in the office relationships, and if there was violation of relationship expectations with his now wife. The first is a legitimate issue for World Wide Pants and perhaps CBS. Apparently it was an open situation at his office that he dated coworkers and subordinates. No one has made any issue of this yet, so it is unlikely anyone will. But possible. I suspect, though, that any internal investigation will show that the ladies involved did not find anything improper and it’s all water under the bridge. Nothing for WWP or CBS to worry about.
The second issue is only interesting for the prurient sort. Will people make jokes about it? Sure. Now it’s in the public attention, he’s fodder for the mill. But really, it’s not like he was caught in a public restroom with his pants around his ankles waving his privates about. But really it is no one’s business but Letterman and his wife. And it is very likely she knew all about it, and it was a condition of their marriage that the relationships stop. Which could explain why they were in a 28 yr? relationship and not married.
Barring any startling evidence, like pics of Letterman in some kinky shit with whips, chains, and animals, there’s nothing but some minor embarrassment for Letterman that personal relationship details have been made public. The only significant story is how someone tried to blackmail him, and he took the guy down.
Starving Artist said:
This is a guy who had his own divorce over extramarital affairs. Of course he’s going to be sensitive to the possibility that Letterman having relationships outside of his main one would be a possible source of blackmail fodder. Especially if he thought he could use the threat of the publicity of the numerous instances of relationships with subordinates as motivation. But I think he’s going to find that he overestimated the value of what he thought he had.
Then there’s this quote:
“My position is that, even upon a superficial glance, there is another side to this story and I’m making it up right now.” 
“Happened to learn of it?” Letterman issued a press release. I guess I’m just not sure what constitutes “our business” in your eyes. No big deal.
I also agree that whatever we might think, I’m guessing Letterman considers what he’s going through this weekend as “twisting in the wind.” As Starving Artist points out, Letterman is an incredibly private person (as is Regina Lasko). For him to look straight into the camera and admit to banging members of his staff must have been one of the most difficult things he’s ever had to do. As much as I may disagree with Letterman’s politics (and I admit to enjoying this story immensely), I have to admit a grudging respect for how he handled the situation. He stood up to the extortionist and was straight with his audience. He could have easily let the story break on a Thursday night and gone on hiatus for two or three weeks and never have uttered a word. That’s probably what I would have done!
BUT…I’m not quite sure this is over and, as I’ve said, I have a sneaking suspicion that the worst is yet to come.
Stephe96 said:
Yes, he admitted he slept with coworkers and subordinates, and that most people would find that “creepy”.
Possibly “well-known celebrity making jokes about peoples affairs and office peccadillos has actually been engaging in office relationships with subordinates for decades”.
It is entirely possible there is more to Letterman’s behavior than we have been told. It is entirely possible that there are some really illuminating secrets in the stuff that haven’t come out, and may not come out (though I suspect they would be brought out in the blackmail case). But, that information (if it exists) has not been presented. So far, all we have is a disgruntled man dumped by a fiance trying to solve some money problems by blackmailing that woman’s prior boyfriend because of the details of that relationship. The lawyer is hinting there is more to the story, but it hasn’t come out, and it’s the lawyer’s job to cast doubt on the situation any way he can. Suggesting there are things there is one way to build that doubt.
Here is the strategy I anticipate:
Starving Artist said:
That’s definitely being presumptive and judgmental. Who is to say that those relationships weren’t mutual? Why do you assume Letterman did the dumping?
You mean you fervently hope the worst is yet to come.
Whatever comes out about Letterman’s past behavior, it’s unlikely to be more distasteful than yours has been here. I can’t say I wouldn’t be amused if some public figure I disliked suffered public embarrassment, but your obvious delight at the possibility that Letterman might soon be hit with something even worse is downright creepy. You keep making insinuations about how his behavior must be worse than we’ve heard – what is it exactly that you’re hoping for here? Do you have your fingers crossed that he’ll turn out to be a rapist?
These, from a poster at Free Republic (hey, don’t blame me, Google’s the one who found it :D)
[*When his career took off, Letterman dumped his wife for Merrill Markoe…
By the mid-80s, Letterman had tired of Markoe. With his clout as star and producer of Late Night, he pushed her off the program, and began a new romance with Regine Lasko*](Palin was right about Letterman)
Then there’s this about his relationship with a staffer named Holly Hester:
[*"Hester claims that Letterman called her up and asked her to the movies, which would begin a slew of many secret dates, she alleges. She said, “I was madly in love with him at the time. I would have married him. He was hilarious.”
Letterman dumped Hester because she said he claimed that their age difference was too great.](http://beat.bodoglife.com/entertainment/holly-hester-another-of-lettermans-conquests-68937.html)
Admittedly these aren’t the greatest cites in the world, but they do bear out what I’ve read before.
TMZ also has the Hester story.
Ah, so that’s it, then. He found a way to make being an asshole pay off. I can see where that would upset you so. I mean, here he is a multi-millionaire who gets paid for being a dick, and you’re stuck as just some schlub on the internet. That must really sting.
Poor SA! He doesn’t like it when people are mean! Wha-whaaaaaaaa.
Is “48 Hours” covering this story?
Yay!!! ::claps like a little girl:: That’s a good one!
You’re the one who tried to minimize it because it was his “schtick.”
I simply don’t like assholes whether they make it pay off or not.
(Note that I said I didn’t like him for that reason even back when he was a struggling stand-up comedian performing on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.)
Facts are facts, baby. I’m not minimizing anything by saying it’s his schtick. Man, you’re an interesting schlub. Who doesn’t like assholes.
(Note that I don’t care how long you’ve been jealous of him that he’s a much more well-liked dick.)
You and Letterman’s other fans come to mind.
No, honey. I’m a cunt.
Man, you’re not even funny! So much for your millions.