Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

David Letterman

Was is that moral of him to announce his sex life on TV?

Answer Question

Asked by Anonymous at 4:57 PM on Oct. 2, 2009 in Religion & Beliefs

Answers (15)
  • I suspect on the very long list of priorities in Letterman's head, moral falls somewhere below rotating his tires and cleaning out his underwear drawer. He doesn't get paid to be moral.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 4:59 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • I think he thought that whats done is done and it was going to get out whether he brought it up or someone else did. I think his morals pretty much went out the window when he slept with a bunch of his employees.

    Answer by Anonymous at 5:00 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • I think he did the right thing. He knew this was going to come out - and I respect that he faced it head on. I don't agree with the sleeping with subordinates thing - but I very much agree with not letting that guy hold him hostage over it.

    Answer by PaceMyself at 5:06 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • the ONE night i decide not to watch Letterman, and it turns out to be something big! my ds was scared of the thunder last night and ended up in bed with me, so i turned it off. so, i don't know much about it, i just saw a bit of it on the news but then had screaming kids to deal with.

    Answer by Anonymous at 5:14 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • I don't think it was even a matter of morals but reality of fame. He knows that it would come out sooner or later so better to tell what happened himself and control what was said.

    Answer by teamquinn at 6:13 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • I think he did the right thing in coming out and saying this. He didn't sugarcoat it, he didn't seem to be minimizing it...although the audience kept laughing, probably because he's known for his practical jokes. I'm disappointed with his conduct, but I don't like his show or his humor any less.

    Answer by AnamCara1 at 6:14 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • I think he did the only thing one can do when dealing with blackmail, which is to take the blackmailer's power away from him by revealing what the blackmailer is threatening to make public. I don't think it was a 'moral' decision- I think it was a business/practical decision. It was going to come out anyhow. He chose to take control of the way it was going to come out. From a business perspective, it was a good decision IMO. The 'moral' thing to do would have been to keep it in his pants in the first place, but obviously it's a bit too late!

    Answer by Freela at 6:24 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • Even though he behaved immorally, he made right the wrong, and owned up to it. He did the brave thing. Instead of paying the blackmailer or going privately to the police (both ways the public would learn about sooner or later), he admitted his faults to the public. Not many people in this world have the courage to admit they've made a mistake, especially such a sensative one, and especially nation-wide.
    So, yes, I do think it was moral of him to reveal his wrongdoing.

    Answer by flatlanderjenn at 6:47 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • Many men (or women) in a position of power take advantage of it and often find themselves engaging in sexual activity they find exciting. Let's face it, not the most attractive man in the world. It was because of who he was, his fame/money/status, that he had access to the sexual opportunities. Its not a judgement call on him if he was right or wrong. Personally, what a horn dog. But I respect not giving in to blackmail and outing himself first. Two wrongs don't make a right. It wasn't any one's business to parade his sexual interludes to the public - unless you were the one he paraded with at one time. Then maybe your specific event. But blackmail - no. I would worry about sexual harassment having sexual relationships with employees. Or being sued by ones you didn't have sex with. They can claim raises and other benefits were given to women who gave him some extra fringe benefits.


    Answer by frogdawg at 9:49 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • I think celebrities personal lives should be none of our damn business. I didn't see the show, so I don't know what exactly was said, but my fiance kind of told me. He was not married (as far as I know) when the "affairs" I really don't see any problem with that at all. Regardless of the exact circumstances, everyone makes mistakes. Everyone has skeletons in their closet...why is it that celebrities are expected to be more "moral" than every other normal person? Why do we have to know everything they do and judge it? Letterman probably wanted to tell the story from HIS point of view, as a few others said, instead of having it spread by the tabloids, but he shouldn't have had to. I hate how people obsess over celebrities' personal lives. It's completely ridiculous and I'm sure there's lots of people out there who's talent we will never experience because they couldn't handle the stupid fans.

    *end rant* :D

    Answer by metalcowgirl34 at 1:07 AM on Oct. 3, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.