dagblog - Comments for ""Especially for the Women": The Scarlet Letterman"

Obviously you are counting!

Larry Jankens — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:40:29 +0000

Obviously you are counting! But you're right, I was kinda stretching it there.

1. Larry's point about

acanuck — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:36:49 +0000

1. Larry's point about personal responsibility is 100% top-dead-center. That's the element I couldn't quite put my finger on in my previous comment. 2. Re-reading the discussion, I find myself agreeing with about 98% of everything anyone has written. 3. The post itself is excellent and thoughful, doctor. It's grotesquely wrong for the media to expose non-celebrities to public humiliation merely for sleeping with a celebrity. And once the latter has openly acknowledged multiple affairs, the media don't even have the excuse that by detailing his dalliances they are providing "news." 4. Gossiping about TV or movie stars' sex lives (or drug and booze problems) is a different kettle of fish. Many of these people have signed tacit pacts with the media devil as a means of career advancement. Were Paris's sex videos or pantiless moments mistakes? If so, they sure worked out well for her. 5. Cleve's point that power inequities can both impact sexual decisions and raise the stakes of exposure is valid. But I tend toward Larry's analysis: if you're of the age of consent, accept responsibility for your actions. 6. As for the issue of harassment, no-one has claimed that but the (alleged) perp's lawyer. Even if true, it's no defence against an extortion charge. 7. I dispute the doctor's implication that either adultery or sleeping with your boss/employee is immoral per se. I've seen office affairs (even adulterous ones) that turned into happy, lifelong marriages -- and I give human happiness more props than I do sucking up to societal norms. 8. I got to eight, Larry. And you really should have run 5 and 6 together, to be fair. But who's counting?

1) Monica was a

Larry Jankens — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 04:18:00 +0000

In reply to "Especially for the Women": The Scarlet Letterman

1) Monica was a grown-ass-woman when she did that thing in that House. When you start making excuses for her you rob her of responsibility. When you are an adult you have to take responsibility for your actions, and it ain't always fair, but you still gotta do it. She's an adult, and while it may not be exactly fair, she has to deal with the consequences of bagging the president. 2) You said: What if the younger, less-powerful person in the affair didn't fully consent? What should the penalties for having sex with someone under duress be? What the heck are you talking about? Having sex with someone under duress is rape, that's like pretty well known to be illegal carrying severe penalties. 3) Power paradigm or not, unless she's under 18 or you want to drop the hard R word (rape), there is nothing criminally wrong with sex. Also, calling her a "humiliating bystander" is kind of minimizing and insulting to Monica. 4) You said: She was also an immature twenty-something who lacked the sense or worldly experience to turn a charismatic older man who was leader of the free world Burn! Sounds like are totally dissin' her in this sentence. When she has friends like you who needs enemies? 5) I don't know what my deal is today, but I have been numbering everything I write. 6) Screw paragraphs, I'm numbering for now on. It makes me feel important, like I'm laying out an complex plan that will take sequential steps to undertake.

Letterman gets a thumbs up

Canadian — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:21:07 +0000

In reply to "Especially for the Women": The Scarlet Letterman

Letterman gets a thumbs up for going on air and admitting his liasons and for a very public apology. And really, who cares? This is one woman who will not turn away from enjoying his on-air talent. And what gives S. Palin the right to comment? Wasn't she trying to cover up her daughter's pregnancy and pretend that the baby was hers? Let's worry about real, important news....

Thanks for the clarification.

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:11:45 +0000

In reply to Well, as Nebton helpfully

Thanks for the clarification. I have no position on who deserves what, and I shouldn't have used the word "deserve" at all in my reply. I don't think that any of these people "deserve" the consequences, since I don't regard their misconduct as unethical in the sense that they should be punished for them--any more that I would feel that an acquaintance who fooled around with colleagues or had affairs deserved to be punished. Though I would say that they shouldn't be surprised or feel abused if their choices came back to haunt them.

To your point, I'm not sure whether I agree that Monica has suffered more than Bill or even whether it's a meaningful question, but I agree that Monica has suffered significantly for her mistake or, as Acanuck prefers, her miscalculation.

It seemed like you were setting up the famous male participants as the guilty aggressors and the non-famous female participants as the innocent victims, and that's what I disagreed with--though it seems that I misinterpreted you.

It's a mistake to do

Doctor Cleveland — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:52:02 +0000

In reply to Genghis and the doctor are

It's a mistake to do something which is likely not in your own interests, or involves a creepy situation.

Having sex with a married person, or with your boss, is likely to burn you in lots of ways. And both are morally dubious. I don't view the adulterer's partner as a home-wrecker, or as responsible for the other person's marriage (Clinton was violating his wife's trust; Lewinsky wasn't), but you're at best participating in something that the other person experiences as unethical. That doesn't always go well.

Sleeping with your boss is not nearly as bad as sleeping with your employee; the power dynamic creates a different set of moral responsibilities. But it's not good, even if consensual. You're messing up your workplace and almost always creating a climate where other employees feel either pressured to sleep with the boss or rewarded less well for sleeping with the boss. (Letterman may have paid one assistant's way through law school. That's generous, and arguably kind if it was a post-relationship gift, but it has to make it strange for other assistants who just get the average Christmas bonus.)

Well, as Nebton helpfully

Doctor Cleveland — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:41:05 +0000

In reply to I have to disagree with you,

Well, as Nebton helpfully clarifies, it's about the power, not the gender. But alas, the power and the gender tend to be correlated very often.

And I am not saying that moral mistakes should be free from consequences. I'm saying that consequences should be reasonable and proportional.

Did Lewinsky do a bad thing? Sure. Does she deserve some consequences? Of course. Should those consequences include a life-long humiliation and the end of anything like a normal life. I think that case is a long, long way from being made.

(And the normal consequences for sleeping with a married man happened to Lewinsky: she got strung along, unceremoniously dumped, and by all accounts had her gullible heart broken. Those are the unavoidable wages of her misjudgment.)

I also think that consequences should be proportional to each partner's power. Letterman and Clinton had for more control over these situations than their partners did, and were entrusted with more responsibility. No employee is responsible for the boss's erotic life or personal conduct, but all bosses are responsible for their employees' workplace conditions and chances for career advancement.

What if the younger, less-powerful person in the affair didn't fully consent? What should the penalties for having sex with someone under duress be?

And as for being patronizing: that's point I worried about. But it's not patronizing to recognize genuine power inequities. That's dealing with reality. And if women aren't fully equal in the professional world yet, it's important to mitigate that inequality until it can be eliminated.

Moreover, I think that

Nebton — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:36:39 +0000

In reply to I have to disagree with you,

Moreover, I think that coddling the younger woman in such affairs as if she were a victim betrays an implicit sexism. If the woman's mistake was human enough, then so was the man's. And conversely, if the man deserves the consequences of his mistake, then so does the woman.

I think you're missing the Doctor's point. It's not about male/female, it's about famous before/famous because. If it were Oprah and some male intern, the point would mostly be the same. (I say mostly because unfortunately it's true that due to societal norms, Oprah's hypothetical male intern would most likely not suffer as much scorn.)

Sure, Clinton's reputation was damaged as a result of the affair, but Clinton's fame is far beyond the scandal, whereas Lewinsky's fame is not.

"Mistake" does not imply

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:36:32 +0000

In reply to Genghis and the doctor are

"Mistake" does not imply moral judgment. Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was idiotic due to the likelihood and consequences of getting caught, and so it was a mistake in the sense that it was an imprudent choice that didn't work out well--for either of them. Call it a miscalculation if you prefer, but I don't see the distinction.

If there is any moral judgment on my part, it's in the cheating. The one obvious victim in the Clinton-Lewinsky affair was Hillary.

Genghis and the doctor are

acanuck — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 06:14:55 +0000

In reply to I have to disagree with you,

Genghis and the doctor are both right, in a way. It's an atrocious invasion of privacy for any respectable news outlet to be publishing the names of otherwise private persons, solely on the basis that they may or may not have fucked a celebrity.

Monica Lewinsky and Rielle Hunter became fair game only once prominent politicians chose to publicly lie about their liaisons. At that point, the issue became one of trust in the politician's honesty, and the facts of the matter became legiitmate issues of public interest.

But Genghis and the doctor both both use the word "mistake," which offends me. Why does consensual sex between adults become a mistake just because our societal values are so skewed that screwing a celebrity necessarily exposes you to public humiliation? The sex itself is not the "mistake," unless of course most consensual sex is a mistake. The mistake is the stuff we surround it with: "I thought he/she wanted a long-term commitment ... would look better with his/her clothes off ... would leave his wife ... might be better in bed ... had more money ... wasn't as dumb as he/ she looked ... I was really, really drunk."

Actually, the latter is the one excuse I'll accept for sex being a mistake. The others are just miscalculations.