Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Margo Howard | 10/06/2009 10:45 am

A Stupid Human Trick, by Margo Howard

Margo Howard
Editor’s Note: A longtime journalist, Margo Howard went into the family business (her mother was the fabled Ann Landers) in the 1990s as Dear Prudence. Her broad experience and understanding of human nature provide answers for the troubled — and entertainment for everyone else. Margo’s advice column, Dear Margo, appears twice a week — on Thursdays and Fridays — on wowOwow.com.

I know, as I write this, it ain’t gonna win me any friends with some women (OK, feminists) but I honestly feel sorry for David Letterman. I am sympathetic to his situation, which is not to say that I don’t ache for his wife, as well. Can any of us really imagine what it’s like to be such a public person, and on television, at that, having to deal with this stuff so publicly? He did what many married men do: dallied with women from work. I mean, think about it: where would a guy who is locked up with writers all day and taping a show at night meet any women who were not in his workplace? At that deli down the street?

I do not know why people are in such a lather about this. Apparently when Ms. Burkitt was involved with the boss he was unmarried. Although certainly committed to Regina (recently Mrs. Letterman – after God knows how many years together) and overjoyed when they had a child – looking at his history makes this less than a big surprise. Rumor has it that the man had such an unpleasant first marriage and divorce that he decided one was enough. He was in his late 50s when he remarried. In his head I’m guessing he thought single, even when he did marry … which I suspect finally happened so the little boy would have married parents. Fooling around would not be unheard of in show business. Hell, in any business.

Many men are caught out in extramarital and workplace affairs, but their lives aren’t such that they have to inform to millions of people. And apparently keeping the secret wasn’t worth two million bucks to him. There’s a lot of talk in the public prints and of course the blogosphere about workplace harassment, in all its iterations. This is just me guessing, but my hunch is that not one woman he’s done the horizontal mambo with ever felt pressured. (Just as an aside, both I and my daughter would have volunteered. She happens to be 27 years younger than I am, and yet we both find him appealing and smart. Dark in nature, perhaps, but appealing.)

The workplace/HR issues seem to me a red herring. How far could someone rise in that organization from personal affection anyway? He doesn’t have a co-host, and Paul Shaffer seems pretty well-entrenched. Do please note: He never fired anyone when it was over. I also give him props that Ms. Burkitt was an average-looking young woman. He did not go on the hunt (or a hiring spree) with starlet types in mind. I am aware that my stance might seem odd coming from someone whose day job is being an advice columnist, but I am pragmatic and realistic. I think all the hoopla is so much noise, given what we know of Letterman and the way his office is run. Not that he asked, but when he’s through doing penance at home I think a trip to the jewelry store would be in order. So for what it’s worth, Dave, all the dames out there are not steamed at you. While Betty Friedan may be rolling over in her grave, some of us here like you just as much as we did before Assistant Gate.

421 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Baby  Snooks

Sometimes it only takes one to tango. Sometimes it takes two. I think what bothers some is his attitude about it. 

We really have not moved beyond our puritanical roots which perhaps is one reason why we get so "fuzzy around the edges" with regard to the subject of sex and sexual taboos and of course the matter of consenting adults which often, depending on the laws, actually is between a consenting adult and a consenting teenager. 

It is interesting that with regard to the Lolitas we blame the man and yet with regard to the Loreleis we blame the woman. 

I do see your point, Margo, but I do have to wonder if it may turn out that he would have been better off paying the blackmailer instead of paying the "ex-wife."

Quite a few have paid the blackmailer. When they are done in by the blackmailer who proceeds to expose them, of course they then can claim it was all rubbish and they only paid them because they were a nuisance. And so it all becomes a nuisance. 

By Baby Snooks on 10/06/2009 10:33 am
Lila Kuh
Paying a blackmailer will only lead to more blackmail.  I don’t condone Letterman’s dalliances, but I think he was right to bring charges on the guy and to fess up.
By Lila Kuh on 10/06/2009 10:53 am
Baby  Snooks

Actually not because the blackmailer will not only be labeled a nuisance but will also expose themselves as a blackmailer and who is going to listen to a blackmailer?  Life among the rich.  Some of whom know the ways of Machiavelli. And some of whom know the ways of the Borgias. Who didn’t let Machiavelli in on all the secrets.  Just some of them. 

By Baby Snooks on 10/06/2009 12:16 pm
Lila Kuh
Machiavelli and the Borgias aside, blackmail in the US in our day is illegal; having office affairs is not.  So - I don’t like Letterman’s actions, but having gotten himself into this mess, I think he took the right - and only - path out of it.
By Lila Kuh on 10/06/2009 3:45 pm
Baby  Snooks

It’s illegal if it’s reported. Other than that, well, it’s just an expensive book or an expensive collection of photographs. I suspect most blackmailers who succeed then become afraid to go further. After all, at that point, the blackmail IS obvious. Although, really, they are dismissed by most. As both blackmailers and nuisances. 

But you never discuss it openly. That’s where I suspect David Letterman really opened up a Pandora’s Box.  Some of the women who weren’t blackmailed have decided to discuss it openly. Instead of being just dismissed openly. 

I suspect there’s more to this story.  Much more.

By Baby Snooks on 10/06/2009 6:07 pm
Lila Kuh
Uh… no… any crime is illegal whether reported or not.  By your reasoning, one could argue that rape is illegal only if reported.  Not so.  It’s just that there can be no investigation, charges, or convictions without first reporting it.  Why let a criminal victimize you in any way, and get away with it?
By Lila Kuh on 10/07/2009 7:42 am
Marie Reinhart
Are we calling sexual harrassment, "dalliances" now?  Amazing how he says it was sex with staffers and everyone doesn’t question then why the extortion?  Any time a superior approaches or engages sexualy with a subordinate in the work place and then gives them special treatment and favors as David did it is "Sexual harrassment" NOT dalliances.  Whether she is of age and consenting is mute…because all the other females in the work place are going to feel the pressures and see the favortism.
By Marie Reinhart on 10/06/2009 1:19 pm
Lila Kuh
Not all romances with the boss are sexual harassment, and I don’t get that impression in this case; the blackmail did not arise from the women involved.  The blackmailer was a guy unrelated to this particular office, and the blackmail didn’t work, anyway; Letterman chose to blunt the guy’s ammo by coming clean publicly.
By Lila Kuh on 10/06/2009 3:41 pm
Karleen S
That’s what I was going to say.  It only amounts to sexual harassment when there’s a demand involved.  I’ve had work dalliances, but they were my choice.  I’m sure that if they were not consensual we’d be hearing about it by now.  If someone came to me looking to extort funds, if I were Letterman I’d ask, "How much are to asking from the women?  You’ll hurt them more than me."  And it’s the truth.  For heaven’s sake we have self-righteous "conservative" Republicans still occupying their tufted chairs.  Does anyone really believe it’s going to harm someone in entertainment who, though with a girlfriend, wasn’t even married at the time.  Sheesh.
By Karleen S on 10/06/2009 6:00 pm
Lila Kuh
Yeah… I certainly don’t condone actual sexual harassment, but to assume that ANY workplace romance means the woman (or the male subordinate) is a victim, is an insult… it’s like assuming we are too weak to make our own choices.  Different people, different circumstances - every situation on its own merits.
By Lila Kuh on 10/07/2009 7:38 am
Lily Rose

My friend Marie, I believe the word you were looking for is "moot," meaning irrelevant, as opposed to "mute," which is what I feel, as does Margo, it is appropriate to be on this subject.

Namaste.

By Lily Rose on 10/08/2009 12:43 pm
True Grit

OMG, first 3 different threads about the pervert Polanski and now we have to hear how we should feel sorry for that pompous ass David Letterman? And this is a woman’s site?

David Letterman is a cad. He is also a hypocrit. And there are plenty of women that have been turned off to his "humor" after this fiasco. He is a rude individual to boot. I do not believe that this is the end of this little sordid story. No way. There is more to this than meets the eye.

Did Margo suggest a trip to the jewelry store? Maybe I read that one wrong. Surely she did not. Any woman that would sell their trust and personal self esteem for a chunk of twinkling rock is one sick chic.

David Letterman should fade away and spend the rest of his spare time catering to his wife and child. I for one could care less about watching his sad and pathetic attempts to "come clean" about his dishonesty.

Time to go Dave.

By True Grit on 10/07/2009 12:29 am
Anais P
We should feel sorry for David Letterman because he was the victim of a CRIME. Do you not get that? Speaking openly about his romances is an attempt to blunt the effects of extortion, which is an attempt to coerce someone to pay you so you will keep quiet. If there is "more to this than meets the eye," why did none of these women sue Letterman, as Andrea Mackris sued Fox News sexual harasser Bill O’Reilly? Worse hypocrites than Letterman are the Republican politicians who went after Bill Clinton mercilessly, then dallied with their staffers or women from Argentina. Letterman only jokes about these people; he doesn’t impeach them. As for the jewelry suggestion, everyone but you understands it is a symbol of regret, not a "bribe." I’m with Margo on this one.
By Anais P on 10/08/2009 4:21 pm
Susan Veto
I totally agree with you. I have always liked David too, don’t know what is exactly, but I do find him appealing.
By Susan Veto on 10/06/2009 10:33 am
Marie Reinhart
EWWWWWWWWW  this is gross at every level. 
By Marie Reinhart on 10/06/2009 1:22 pm