David Letterman

[SteamWake]

Mr. Letterman admits having adulterous affairs to avoid a blackmail scheme and the audiance yuks it up. :o

Yea funny stuff :nope:


You know what's creepy? Telling a story about having sex with your employees to people who LAUGH and APPLAUD


http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2009/10/davesex.html

[Tchocky]

Oh no! Sex!

[Platapus]

I agree that cheating is never acceptable. However I do like the fact that he is turning it around on the slim blackmailer. :yeah:

[Blood_splat]

I can't picture Letterman laying the wood.

[SteamWake]

I can't picture Letterman laying the wood.

Oh lord there goes my breakfast :oops:

[antikristuseke]

Great now you got me thinking about bill orly and letterman doing eachother.

[CastleBravo]

The alleged extortionist will get his day in court. However it would appear that Dave was in violation of CBS Corps ethics policy regarding

Supervisor/Subordinate Relationships [page 11]
CBS recognizes that consenting romantic or sexual
relationships may develop between a supervisor and a
subordinate (whether such supervision is direct or indirect).
These relationships frequently lead to complications and
significant difficulties for the supervisor, the subordinate,
others in the workplace, and CBS.

If a consenting romanticor sexual relationship between a supervisor and a direct or indirect subordinate should develop, CBS requires
the supervisor to disclose this information to his or her
Company’s Human Resources Department to ensure
that there are no issues of actual or apparent favoritism,
conflict of interest, sexual harassment, or any other
negative impact on others in the work environment.
Upon being informed or learning of the existence of
such a relationship, CBS will take steps that it deems
appropriate to protect the workplace environment.

http://www.cbscorporation.com/assets/documents/BCS8-08[1].pdf


If Dave had actually followed the policy he wouldn't be in this situation. Now, perhaps he did report the relationship(s) to CBS, I don't know b/c CBS is characteristically quiet about such issues involving one of their own.

[Shearwater]

I've been wondering all along what the women concerned would have to say.

[SteamWake]

I've been wondering all along what the women concerned would have to say.

Would you admit to sleeping with him?

[MothBalls]

It's Obama's fault. :cool:


I really think this is a non-issue. If it was a problem, someone would have spoken up by now. Bill survived Monica, Dave will survive.

[stabiz]

Why are Americans so afraid of sex?

[ETR3(SS)]

Because our country was founded by a bunch of prudes. Makes you wonder how we manage to sustain a population with this stance to all things sexual. Except for Benjamin Franklin, he was an 18th century party animal.

[Stealth Hunter]

Why are Americans so afraid of sex?

Basically the reason that ETR3 posted... combined with their crazy beliefs surrounding religion and their self-proclaimed "morality".

I quite frankly do not nor will I ever care. This is between Dave, the employee, and his supervisor; not us- or anybody else for that matter. Nevertheless, people like to stick their nose into other people's business because they think they need to know EVERYTHING that goes on in the lives of others... for that matter, they're hypocritical in doing so. As if they've never had adulterous thoughts- or even an affair (the latter being the more "serious" of the two by general opinion, but if they're both "immoral" then they would as well be equally serious). You might as well tell me that you've never lied before.:nope:

There are no saints, there are no morals or ethics in the real world, and there never will be. Because people always differ from one another, and it's all a matter of personal opinion in the end; if so-and-so's conduct is acceptable or not for instance. Members of societies the world over like to (and always have liked to) draw ourselves into the illusion that this is not so, but it's nothing more than that: an illusion.

And yes, Franklin was a party animal. He would have been awesome to hang around with.

[Rilder]

Someone had sex?

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/6104/angrymobz.png

Seriously calm down lads, sex is something to be enjoyed not be afraid of. :rotfl2:

[Platapus]

Oh we enjoy sex here in America, but god forbid you talk about it on TV :nope:

Here in the US we like to shelter our children. It is much better to expose our children to violence, intolerance, excessive consumption, and poor role models. That's ok, but you better not expose our children to a nipple slip! That might warp their impressionable minds!!!

:har:

[Stealth Hunter]

Oh we enjoy sex here in America, but god forbid you talk about it on TV :nope:

Here in the US we like to shelter our children. It is much better to expose our children to violence, intolerance, excessive consumption, and poor role models. That's ok, but you better not expose our children to a nipple slip! That might warp their impressionable minds!!!

:har:

QFT.

[Shearwater]

Would you admit to sleeping with him?

I just mean I wanted to know whether it was consensual (if I really cared, that is). Of course, every interaction with your boss (sexual or other) is never among equals.
If I were bothered at all (I ain't), it would rather be because of some shady extortionist who tries to create public moral outrage out of a case in which he wasn't even remotely personally involved (I suppose) so that he can rake in the money. The epitome of hypocrisy.
Letterman is perfectly entitled to expose such a git to ridicule.

[antikristuseke]

Why are Americans so afraid of sex?

To me there seems to be some sort of a weird double standard regarding sex in the states, as to the best of my knowledge they have the worlds largest porn industry. Also what Platapus said, that never made any sense to me.

[Aramike]

Oh we enjoy sex here in America, but god forbid you talk about it on TV :nope:

Here in the US we like to shelter our children. It is much better to expose our children to violence, intolerance, excessive consumption, and poor role models. That's ok, but you better not expose our children to a nipple slip! That might warp their impressionable minds!!!

:har:Come on, man ... are you serious? This isn't about sex on TV. Have you ever watched prime time American television?

The sex isn't the part that's getting people worked up. It's the moral dalliances of someone who's image has been tarnished that makes for water cooler conversation.

It's funny how people on the other side of the pond someone think American's are prudes about this stuff. Again, I've gotta ask - have you all ever seen out prime time programming?

[Aramike]

I quite frankly do not nor will I ever care. This is between Dave, the employee, and his supervisor; not us- or anybody else for that matter. Nevertheless, people like to stick their nose into other people's business because they think they need to know EVERYTHING that goes on in the lives of others... for that matter, they're hypocritical in doing so. As if they've never had adulterous thoughts- or even an affair (the latter being the more "serious" of the two by general opinion, but if they're both "immoral" then they would as well be equally serious). The difference is that the person in question profits off of his public perception. Your average person does not.

[Blood_splat]

Dave is cheap!:rotfl2:

What's 2 million to him?

[XabbaRus]

Yes I ahev when I lived in the US I couldn't get over the fact that you would have a violent action film on in the early evening and all the swearwords were overdubbed and any sex or nudity was taken out but hey you could watch a guys guts explode.

In Britain we have our hangups about sex too but I think in the US you are worse than us.

Saying that we seem to be having quite a few episodes at the moment with teachers and students and the sickes involving a nursery nurse and the kids she looked after.

[Stealth Hunter]

The difference is that the person in question profits off of his public perception. Your average person does not.

And this is relevant... how exactly? It's not. How does this change the fact that he was being bribed/extorted by his supervisor? It doesn't. How is this a problem? It's not; if he's got the ability to make money off something like this, then let him. It's not illegal; there are plenty of other people on TV who do it all the time. Like I said, it's a personal issue- so he's got every right to decide what to do with it and how to treat it. If he wants to keep it private, fine. If he wants to make it public, fine. He's at least respecting the wishes of the employee by keeping her name private.

[MothBalls]

He's at least respecting the wishes of the employee by keeping her name private.Doubt any woman would want to be a member of the "I Shagged Dave Club" in public.

[Aramike]

And this is relevant... how exactly? It's not. How does this change the fact that he was being bribed/extorted by his supervisor? It doesn't. How is this a problem? It's not; if he's got the ability to make money off something like this, then let him. It's not illegal; there are plenty of other people on TV who do it all the time. Like I said, it's a personal issue- so he's got every right to decide what to do with it and how to treat it. If he wants to keep it private, fine. If he wants to make it public, fine. He's at least respecting the wishes of the employee by keeping her name private. First, my point had nothing to do with the employee.

Secondly, people who profit off of their public image invite public scrutiny, fair or not, consistant with the US' libel laws.

Third, anyone getting involved with a public figure risks publicity for doing so.

So yes, it's relevant.

[CastleBravo]

Putting the ethical standards aside this type of behavior can cause all sort of difficulty in the workplace.

An example.......

A supervisor who does not keep a certain professional distance from his employees and considers them friends, can cause issues for those who are not considered friends. In the office enviroment the behavior is easily detected and animosities develop. The actions of 'friends' are looked upon as sucking-up, while those' not considered friends' are often ridiculed, or left out of important decisions. The end result is a toxic work enviroment, which is detrimental to the workplace, and all involved.

[Stealth Hunter]

First, my point had nothing to do with the employee.

No, but mine did.

Secondly, people who profit off of their public image invite public scrutiny, fair or not, consistant with the US' libel laws.

Well really anybody who has a public image is liable for scrutiny- even ordinary chumps like you and me-- fair or not. But defamation laws here are just as closely related to privacy laws, and according to our privacy laws, the dissemination (debate or discussion of . . . by public members) of private information in this manner is really in violation of said privacy laws because of the element of subjective expectations of privacy.

With that said, we must, in the interest of the law, focus on the main legal discussion at hand here: which is not about Letterman's sexual circle/chastity, but the fact that his supervisor attempted to extort him over his sexual circle/chastity. Issues of chastity are protected by privacy laws; extortion, as done against him by his supervisor, is not.

Third, anyone getting involved with a public figure risks publicity for doing so.

Yeah... and? This isn't news to us. This is an element of everyday life for us all. Well, all of us who have a social life anyway.

So yes, it's relevant.

Not to us. Unless we're going to be sitting in court hearing the case anyway, in which case we'll be entitled to hear the details of the case and we won't be in violation of anything pertaining to privacy laws.

[Aramike]

Well really anybody who has a public image is liable for scrutiny- even ordinary chumps like you and me-- fair or not. But defamation laws here are just as closely related to privacy laws, and according to our privacy laws, the dissemination (debate or discussion of . . . by public members) of private information in this manner is really in violation of said privacy laws because of the element of subjective expectations of privacy.People who interject themselves into the public eye by way of profession are legally protected far differently, and less, than "ordinary chumps". With that said, we must, in the interest of the law, focus on the main legal discussion at hand here: which is not about Letterman's sexual circle/chastity, but the fact that his supervisor attempted to extort him over his sexual circle/chastity. Issues of chastity are protected by privacy laws; extortion, as done against him by his supervisor, is not.Dude, where did I at all suggest that extortion is legal?

My issue was with this statement that you made:I quite frankly do not nor will I ever care. This is between Dave, the employee, and his supervisor; not us- or anybody else for that matter. Nevertheless, people like to stick their nose into other people's business because they think they need to know EVERYTHING that goes on in the lives of others... for that matter, they're hypocritical in doing so. As if they've never had adulterous thoughts- or even an affair (the latter being the more "serious" of the two by general opinion, but if they're both "immoral" then they would as well be equally serious). This has nothing to do with the extortion aspect of the case. You were apparently criticizing people for taking an interest in the NOW PUBLIC personal affairs in his life.

My point was that, oh well! That's what happens when you've made your image into your business. If things happen that tarnish that image, despite whether or not you THINK it should tarnish that image, that's the risk you take.

I have no idea why you've extrapolated that into the legality of the extortion case.Yeah... and? This isn't news to us. This is an element of everyday life for us all. Well, all of us who have a social life anyway.Yeah, not really.

Having an active social life does not qualify one as a public figure, either legally or figuratively.Not to us. Unless we're going to be sitting in court hearing the case anyway, in which case we'll be entitled to hear the details of the case and we won't be in violation of anything pertaining to privacy laws. You're changing the argument my statement was in response to in an attempt to make it irrelevant.

[nikimcbee]

Look at the bright side, when Palin is on the show again, they'll have something interesting to talk about:haha::haha::haha:.

[Task Force]

LOL... I cant picture a man that old... doing that...:dead:

[Stealth Hunter]

People who interject themselves into the public eye by way of profession are legally protected far differently, and less, than "ordinary chumps".

No, they're not. They have the same rights as we do, they follow the same laws as we do. Now do they have business regulations and such from contracts? You betcha. But those are also bound by the law that the rest of us follow.

Dude, where did I at all suggest that extortion is legal?

Where did I openly say that you suggested that it was legal? I didn't.

My issue was with this statement that you made:This has nothing to do with the extortion aspect of the case. You were apparently criticizing people for taking an interest in the NOW PUBLIC personal affairs in his life.

I criticize those who meddle in the business of others because they're nosy; I've got nothing wrong in taking an interest in it- just with snooping and being hypocritical by acting like a saint.

My point was that, oh well! That's what happens when you've made your image into your business. If things happen that tarnish that image, despite whether or not you THINK it should tarnish that image, that's the risk you take.

Not denying that.

I have no idea why you've extrapolated that into the legality of the extortion case.Yeah, not really.

Because the topic to begin with was about the extortion incident and law.

Having an active social life does not qualify one as a public figure, either legally or figuratively.

Public Figure: referring to any person who receives any particular amount of interest from others (Oxford American Dictionary & Thesaurus, 2003 Edition). If you have an active social life, then you are involved with other people in a regular, in-depth manner. So you are a public figure. Not legally or figuratively, by simple definition.

You're changing the argument my statement was in response to in an attempt to make it irrelevant.

That's not true and you know it, just as you know that the public's "perception" hardly changes the extortion element of the legal side of the incident, as was the original point by me which you commented on in the first place.

[Aramike]

No, they're not. They have the same rights as we do, they follow the same laws as we do. Now do they have business regulations and such from contracts? You betcha. But those are also bound by the law that the rest of us follow.Wrong. People considered to have sought the attention of the public have a completely different legal expectation of privacy and there are COMPLETELY different legal parameters that much be met for libel.

However, you're again clearly skipping over the point.Where did I openly say that you suggested that it was legal? I didn't.It's the only thing you could possibly be challenging me on considering the nature of my comments. Perhaps you're distracting?I criticize those who meddle in the business of others because they're nosy; I've got nothing wrong in taking an interest in it- just with snooping and being hypocritical by acting like a saint.I don't necessarily disagree with that, when stated that way.

But then again, my one sentence reply to that post only suggested that the reason for people's interest and "nosiness" is due to the fact that the individual is a public figure who has profited from his public image.Because the topic to begin with was about the extortion incident and law.I thought you just said that you never suggested that ...

Okay, distracting it is. :nope:Public Figure: referring to any person who receives any particular amount of interest from others (Oxford American Dictionary & Thesaurus, 2003 Edition). If you have an active social life, then you are involved with other people in a regular, in-depth manner. So you are a public figure. Not legally or figuratively, by simple definition.Not by legal definition.

In fact, the very definition you quoted uses the word "particular" - which means that, as a phrase, the amount of interest would be defined by society. In fact, the legal term for that is "particularized determination".

Using the only benchmark we'd have for that, the legal system, we arrive with information from the following links:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+Figure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

Sorry, pal ... no matter how active your social life is, you are not considered a public figure. Especially not in the OBVIOUS context of the phrase in this discussion.That's not true and you know it, just as you know that the public's "perception" hardly changes the extortion element of the legal side of the incident, as was the original point by me which you commented on in the first place. Actually, I think it is very true. It is possible that we both simply misunderstood what one another were saying, but I think that, since then, you've interjecting MANY things I didn't comment upon in my one sentence reply to your original statement.

[MothBalls]

Top 10 Reasons Letterman Never talked About His Sex Life

10. It's was nobody's business.
9. It's was nobody's business.
8. It's was nobody's business.
7. It's was nobody's business.
6. It's was nobody's business.
5. It's was nobody's business.
4. It's was nobody's business.
3. It's was nobody's business.
2. It's was nobody's business.
1. Prevent arguments in the Subsim GT forum.

[Aramike]

Top 10 Reasons Letterman Never talked About His Sex Life

10. It's was nobody's business.
9. It's was nobody's business.
8. It's was nobody's business.
7. It's was nobody's business.
6. It's was nobody's business.
5. It's was nobody's business.
4. It's was nobody's business.
3. It's was nobody's business.
2. It's was nobody's business.
1. Prevent arguments in the Subsim GT forum.Funny, his sex life is nobody's business so he doesn't talk about.

Bristol Palin's sex life is nobody's business, but that never bothered Dave...

Whoever said hypocrite was right. Ideologues just love to stand up for their own, don't they?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

The only reason some people are trying to slam Dave on this is because he slammed Palin. If Dave were a raving neocon, these same people would ignore it.

This seems to fall under the heading: "get a life"

[Aramike]

The only reason some people are trying to slam Dave on this is because he slammed Palin. If Dave were a raving neocon, these same people would ignore it.

This seems to fall under the heading: "get a life" http://newssohot.com/bed_bugs/pics/tinhat.jpg

Who ignored Limbaugh's drug problem? Or the multitude of conservative sex scandals?

Scandals involving public figures are juicy stories regardless of the politics involved.

Thanks for proving my point, though - ideologues just love to stand up for their own.

[MothBalls]

Bristol Palin's sex life is nobody's business, but that never bothered Dave...

Now that's 100% truth. I do hope that comes back to haunt him. The second he complains that his sex life should be private, or people shouldn't talk about it, the Internet will suffer another slowdown like it did after MJ died.

He did what he did and owned up to it in public. I give him credit for that. If it was a boss/employee problem, or a violation of company policy, I'm sure that will play out in the near future in the form of a lawsuit or firing.

The best thing he could do at this point is start joking about it. Milk it for a few jokes, make it a top 10 list. It'll become second page news after that.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://newssohot.com/bed_bugs/pics/tinhat.jpg

Who ignored Limbaugh's drug problem? Or the multitude of conservative sex scandals?

Scandals involving public figures are juicy stories regardless of the politics involved.

Thanks for proving my point, though - ideologues just love to stand up for their own.

Ad hominem and ridicule?

Thanks for playing. Too bad you didn't win anything, but we have some parting gifts..

(Two can play this game)

[Aramike]

Now that's 100% truth. I do hope that comes back to haunt him. The second he complains that his sex life should be private, or people shouldn't talk about it, the Internet will suffer another slowdown like it did after MJ died.

He did what he did and owned up to it in public. I give him credit for that. If it was a boss/employee problem, or a violation of company policy, I'm sure that will play out in the near future in the form of a lawsuit or firing.

The best thing he could do at this point is start joking about it. Milk it for a few jokes, make it a top 10 list. It'll become second page news after that.I agree. Frankly, neither situation really matters to me but I do enjoy observing the hypocrisies of people who are so incredibly adamant in their belief systems, regardless of what those systems are. Honestly, I tend to think that Letterman is a pretty tasteless guy, but then again, a lot of comedians are generally tasteless people.

The difference is that people like Letterman, while being tasteless, love to get up on their high horses and use humor to ridicule others of behaviors they themselves engage in. That's where the observations get fun. :cool:

[Aramike]

Ad hominem and ridicule?

Thanks for playing. Too bad you didn't win anything, but we have some parting gifts..

(Two can play this game)Ad hominem? No. You may want to look up what an ad hominem statement is. Pointing out actual reasons that you're wrong is NOT an ad hominem attack. At no point did I say that you were wrong just because of who you are.

Ridicule? Maybe a little. But you earned it. The tin hat example has nothing to do with your belief system, but rather a particular belief which is absurd.

The idea that this Letterman scandal has ANYTHING to do with the neocons is, well, ridiculous, and based no where in facts. Hence, the ridicule.

Finally, the observation of the hypocrisy of ideologues is not an ad hominem attack, as it was merely an observation and not an invalidation of any statement.

[Tribesman]

Who ignored Limbaugh's drug problem? Or the multitude of conservative sex scandals?

The difference is that Limbaugh took a stance as an anti-drug crusader while being a junkie , the conservative sex scandals have all involved people who spout family values and the sanctity of marriage.
Letterman on the other hand has been screwing around for decades and made no issue about himself sticking to sex within marriage.

Bristol Palin's sex life is nobody's business, but that never bothered Dave...

Bristol Palins life became peoples business when her idiot mother touted her family as part of the campaign and spouted rubbish about their good old folksy family values......you betcha.

[MothBalls]

This was to be expected;

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,559823,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r4:c0. 000000:b0:z5
On "SNL," "Weekend Update" anchor Seth Meyers dubbed the extortion attempt by a CBS News producer "a stupid human trick." : "After sex, he would always say, 'Stay tuned for Craig Ferguson.'"

Leno kicked off his monologue Friday by declaring, "If you came here tonight for sex with a talk show host, you've got the wrong studio."

Jimmy Fallon "There's a new book out called 'Why Women Have Sex' that says there are 237 reasons why women have sex. Letterman knows the top 10."



I wish I knew the top ten reasons why women have sex. $5 will get you $10 money is one of them. That last comment actually made me go look and I found:

Love, pleasure, duty: Why women have sex: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/30/why.women.have.sex/
Some women have sex to make money, and not just in the conventional manner of prostitution. A woman from California who goes by "Natalie Dylan" garnered national attention this year with her campaign to sell her virginity and said in January that her top bid of $3.8 million came from a 39-year-old Australian

I knew it, money would be one of the top ten. (Someone needs to explain to the Aussies you can get laid for much cheaper than that.) Then 3/4 of the way down I lost all faith in this study;
There is also evidence that sexual arousal is more complicated for women than for men, the authors report.
They actually had to do a study to learn this? I think it falls into the "No Chit Sherlock" category.

[AVGWarhawk]

Someone mentioned Dave had cheated. I believe this was done before his current relationship.

Someone mentioned talking about Palin's sex life is fair game for Dave but Dave's sex life is off limits. Good point! Whatever gets a good rating for Dave is fair game from the looks of it.

Someone mentioned that American's are afraid of sex. Some are and some aren't. However, just like Dave, most if not all American's sex life or lack there of is none of anyones business. I did not know other countries were such sexual dynamos. I'm sure Boyle over there in Scotland is a real treat in bed. At least we know she can sing.

I find this whole thing quite boring to be honest.

[Onkel Neal]

Ha, speaking of Letterman and Limbaugh, the latter said that if any Republicans had sexual skeletons in their closets, now would be the time to bring them out--they would have to be afforded the same tolerance as Letterman.

Btw, this Stephanie Birkitt (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/06/crimesider/entry5366663.shtml) sounds like a real slut. And a high paid one at that. :nope:

[SteamWake]

Ha, speaking of Letterman and Limbaugh, the latter said that if any Republicans had sexual skeletons in their closets, now would be the time to bring them out--they would have to be afforded the same tolerance as Letterman.

Btw, this Stephanie Birkitt (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/06/crimesider/entry5366663.shtml) sounds like a real slut. And a high paid one at that. :nope:

Not a very flattering photo. :oops:

[AVGWarhawk]

Ha, speaking of Letterman and Limbaugh, the latter said that if any Republicans had sexual skeletons in their closets, now would be the time to bring them out--they would have to be afforded the same tolerance as Letterman.

Btw, this Stephanie Birkitt (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/06/crimesider/entry5366663.shtml) sounds like a real slut. And a high paid one at that. :nope:


Two men with money and she is getting her boo boo taken care of. What can one say?

[AVGWarhawk]

Not a very flattering photo. :oops:

All cats are the same in the dark. :03:

[KG_Jag]

Letterman is an ego-maniacal, hypocritical sleazebag. Of course he's not the only one on the planet. Still he is a public figure/big cheese and that makes him fair game for an open hunting season with regard to this issue.

He is (I assume) in hot water with his network and he should be. He has real power over people there. There certainly was carrier pressure on any woman who wanted to say to no to him. At a minimum--a refuser might not get the same raise and professional opportunities as those who said yes. I have tried several sexual harassment suits, and these are very real issues--both legally and in the lives of those connected with the actions/events.

[CastleBravo]

Could this be a cover for his homosexual relationships with his other interns?

[antikristuseke]

What the hell are you talking about now CB?