Where is the Outrage Over David Letterman?
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments today on the reaction to David Letterman’s revelation about having sex with his employees:
David Letterman began the week laughing about the authorities going after child rapist Roman Polanski, and he ended the week laughing about his own sexual exploits. His fans, of course, wouldn’t care if he sodomized the girls. Ali Hamoudeh of New York spoke for many when he said, “We love Letterman no matter what he does. He brings us joy.” And that’s all that counts—he brings joy. Besides, who cares? CBS quotes a Hollywood publicist today who says “the star wouldn’t be hurt by the revelations and might even be helped by them.”
It certainly didn’t hurt Letterman’s career when he laughed at the Catholic Church for what happened in 2002. That summer a man and a woman had sex in St. Patrick’s Cathedral around 4:00 p.m. on a Holy Day of Obligation for Catholics. They did so in plain view of men, women and children and had their performance described on the radio as part of some sick contest. Most people were aghast, the radio hosts who rigged the caper were fired, and apologies were issued by the radio station. Letterman, however, found it so hysterical that he used the story to tell jokes about it for three nights. Wonder how many nights he will use his own sexploits as source material?
There was a time, not long ago, when feminists would demonstrate in the street demanding Letterman be fired for sexual harassment. As defined by feminists, sexual harassment typically kicks in whenever a boss, usually a man, uses his position of power to initiate sex with his subordinates. But Letterman need not worry: feminists have shown so much interest in matching men at the game of sexual promiscuity that the issue of sexual harassment no longer interests them. Here’s the proof. The National Organization for Women lists six issues as “Key Issues” and twenty more as “Other Important Issues.” Sexual harassment is not one of the six hot issues, though “Lesbian Rights” is; sexual harassment is not even one of the twenty “Other” issues, though “Fighting the Right” is. In other words, as long as Letterman doesn’t tell lesbian jokes, he can take advantage of all the girls he wants.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
One moment, the Catholic League is whining and shouting "persecution" because someone even vaguely criticizes them. The next moment, they are all over some poor guy who made a mistake, trampling all over him while he's down.
Give it a rest already. You are nothing but a bunch of hypocritical bigots. You constantly whine about persecution, but you violently and relentlessly go after anyone who even looks at you funny!
"You constantly whine about persecution, but you violently and relentlessly go after anyone who even looks at you funny!"
That is overstating reality. Calm back down and try again... Use honest arguments.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Maybe the outrage is where it belongs...only among the nutjobs.
Thanks for small favors if we're finally reaching a point where sex is neither sin nor harassment, and people can get back to having sex be a natural part of the human experience.
Perhaps the "outrage" is exactly where it belongs...fading away due to people finally starting to be okay with their sexuality.
I doubt it. It is more likely some double-standard between celebrities and politicians, but one can hope. I don't care who has sex with whom, so long as it is consensual, which appears to be the case with Letterman, Clinton, Kennedy, and other luminaries "busted" by the media .
Screw them if they can't take a screw.
Thanks ebsarver for making a couple valid points.
I agree with all who have stated that there is a huge difference between a celeb falling in lust and being blackmailed as a result and the abuses which have taken place in the church and the behavior of Sanford.
Letterman should have shown better judgment - I'm sure his dalliance has caused pain at home, although we don't know the terms of their relationship.
As far as coming clean, at least Letterman conducted his assignation with a degree of privacy -- until some loon saw it as a profit opportunity.
Where is the outrage over that?!
Bored? Broke? Just plain mean? Buy my new book, "Outing People For Fun and Profit"!
As far as Letterman yucking it up over the Polanski arrest , I don't believe he actually made funnies over Polanski's act - merely the amount of time the man has been on the loose and how Bin Laden might be snared by a similar tactic.
And finally, why the mention of sodomy without so much as a hint that it happened?
That's a bit yellow, don't you think?
Here's the big difference between Letterman and the CLRCR writer who penned this article: One spreads humor and causes happiness, the other preaches distrust and attempts to spread hatred.
Ask me again why I'm not Catholic...
I think the reason that people are reacting as they are is because rather than deny it and hide it and then have to come out and say "yeah I did it", he just stood up and said yeah I did it and I messed up. Plus the fact that the public in general is so used to hearing about these situations that they are desensitized.
Sorry, but comparing Letterman's sexploits with someone raping a 13 year old girl is intellectually dishonest. That is of course what you alluded to by by the term "sodomized the girls" right? Even if he announced he had anal sex with these adult women, it's no reason to get all fussy. It's hardly a very taboo topic amongst the today's sexually active demographic. Of course, that's not to say everyone's doing it. It's just not as shocking as it used to be. It's time to accept that Americans are okay with expressing sexuality. Welcome to the 21st century.
It is pretty rich that an organization which hides pedophiles should demand "outrage" over this. We don't know when these events occurred, what his wife thinks about it (she used to be a staffer, I think), and it really isn't our business since he has no control over our life (unlike elected officials).
I personally am disappointed that he built his comedy on the failures of Clinton, Spitzer, Sanford, etc., while he was guilty of the same thing. But I think his approach to the problem was more honest than that of those politicians (and others).
"It is pretty rich that an organization which hides pedophiles should demand "outrage" over this."
I didn't see Switzerland demand outrage, or are you talking about another organization hiding pedophiles, Mr. Polanski?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I think you mean France, since Switzerland actually arrested that degenerate.
Good catch.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.