I read with curiosity last week a brief letter from the National Organization for Women regarding David Letterman's situation.  You can read the letter here. 

The vaguely worded, poorly defined letter full of insinuations and baseless allegations is pathetic enough.  And first off, let me repeat that I am not attempting to justify Letterman's behavior.  What he did was inappropriate and wrong - by my Biblical Christian standards.  His apologies to his wife and to others that he has hurt are warranted and have a moral ground that Letterman is well aware of - even if his critics are not.  According to our tolerance-oriented, if nobody-gets-hurt-it-isn't-a-crime standard, he hasn't done anything wrong - and anyone who doesn't take offense on a Biblical moral ground really doesn't have much ground to stand on, as far as I can tell.  Let's investigate this a bit further. 

I've yet to hear any actual allegations of wrong-doing by Letterman (legally, not morally) by any of his current or former staffers.  So far, we've learned about two interns that Letterman was involved with for prolonged periods of time.  Other previous relationships are known about, and it won't surprise me if more than these recent two surface.  But so far, what has surfaced is that he was in sexual relationships.   One of them indicated that she would have married Letterman if he had asked her.  Hardly sounds like a woman being forced to have sex with the boss to keep her job.  Despite long-running knowledge of Letterman's relationship situations with staffers, nobody has yet accused him of fostering a "hostile, workplace environment", or wielding his authority and sexual demands to determine "who gets hired, who gets fired, who gets raises, who advances, and who does entry-level tasks".  So NOW's letter is alleging actual crimes (sexual harassment) that appear to be - at least as yet - completely without foundation or basis.  The assumption is that if there were relationships between Letterman and employees, there had to be abuses of the employer/employee relationship.  That's a pretty big assumption to make.

I think it's interesting that NOW "demands"  CBS to take action, yet does not specify what action should take place.  Should Letterman be fired?  That would be problematic, apparently, since he definitely has hired some very talented women for his show over the years.  We'd hate for them to lose their jobs, I guess.  So what does NOW propose would be a proper form of rectifying the situation?  Should CBS implement a new policy that there is no dating between people in authority and those who directly report to them?  What about indirect reports?  What about people in another department?  What about staffers from another show?  How do you craft a policy that would prevent this sort of thing from happening without preventing anything from happening? 

Here's the conundrum this brings to light, one of the moral and intellectual flaws in the assertion that sexuality needs to be free from any moral constraints except arbitrary ones.  On what basis?  In a time when Biblical morality was the expected norm, the situation would be clear.  You shouldn't be having sex with anyone that you aren't married to.  Period.  End of story.  Are you having sex with someone other than your wife or husband?  You need to stop immediately, because it's wrong.  Period.  End of story.  No equivocation, no need for trying to create a policy that somehow prevents a few forms of sexual behavior that some people might feel are wrong, while encouraging other kinds of sexual behavior. 

The net effect of NOW's statement is not to castigate Letterman, but rather to objectify the very people NOW purports to defend - the women involved.  In order for NOW to make sense, it has to turn these young, smart, talented women into victims.  Helpless.  Taken advantage of.  Wronged.  In doing so, it strips them of the sexual empowerment that it thinks it has been equipping women with for the past 30 years or more.  All that stuff we fed you about sexual empowerment and your right to utilize your sexuality on your terms?  it's really rubbish.  You're really still just a victim.  You're really still not very smart.  Because if you really aren't a victim any more, or if you really are making decisions on your own, then we don't have a need to exist any longer.  If we succeed in our goals, we eliminate the need for our organization.  So, you women have to be victims.  Always and forever victims. 

I find it interesting that NOW weighs in so bravely against Letterman, yet appears to be mum on situations where women are exercising a position of control in sexual matters.  I haven't watched it (I don't watch TV), but I hear there's a new show called Cougar Town, premised around the idea of more mature women seeking out younger lovers.  Yet there's no cry of victimization here!  What about the forgettable (I'll assume, since I don't plan on seeing it) film The Proposal that was out earlier this year?  Wasn't the premise of that movie a woman executive using her authority to force a male underling into an outlandish plot involving lying to multiple families and the US Government?  Wouldn't that justify a little note of disapproval from NOW, since that involves a blatant abuse of authority?  Apparently not.  Perhaps the happy ending (I'm assuming it's happy) means that there was really no harm done. 

We need to acknowledge that sexual liberation only makes sense within clearly defined boundaries, and that those who equate boundaries with a lack of freedom ultimately contradict themselves intellectually and morally.  There is no protection for women or men against sexual predation other than the strong support of marital fidelity.  Only within these parameters can men and women enjoy the blessings of sexuality without the constant fear of exploitation, of having their emotions as well as their bodies utilized improperly.  No, marriage isn't perfect.  But it's not imperfect because the idea is bad, but rather because we are sinful people who implement it improperly. 

Until we stop fooling ourselves about this, we can point fingers all we want and accuse each other of sexual impropriety.  But we won't have any basis for the allegation.