The Mystery of the Missing Outrage: Letterman and Polanski
I’ve been a big fan of David Letterman, for years; however, no more. I am well and truly disgusted by his behavior. I know, I know. It’s “Show Business” and … well, you name it. And yes, he had shacked up with his now wife for over twenty years. But…I naively was hopeful he was just so burned from his first marriage, and blah, blah, blah. Yes, I was silly for thinking this. But, still, there is something about the whole sorry and pathetic sordid mess that he has now confessed to that simply disgusts me. FIRST THINGS had a great blog post recently on Hollywood’s reaction to the Roman Polanski arrest, you know, the guy who raped a thirteen year old girl? Yea,that guy. I think the same critique of the attitudes being demonstrated in this situation apply equally to the Letterman situation. Here is a snippet from the piece which I encourage you to read.
Traditional sexual morality depended on the assumption that human sexuality possessed an objective moral nature and seriousness that all human beings were obliged to respect and that society itself was entitled to protect through law and custom. Sexual liberation rejected such notions, claiming instead that in matters of sex the acts of consenting adults were none of society’s business. That is, the sexual liberation movement denied sex all intrinsic moral content and reduced sexual morality to the requirement that the consent of the participating parties be respected. The problem, however, is that once traditional sexual morality has been swept away, it is not clear that a solid respect for consent can be maintained.
Sexual liberation’s inability to sustain its initial insistence on consent can be traced to a certain tension, if not an outright contradiction, in the case for sexual liberation. On the one hand, we are told that what consenting adults do together is no one else’s business because sex is no big deal. Society was wrong all along to think that it mattered enough to regulate with such strictness. On the other hand, the very notion that sex is no big deal seems to be undermined by the case for sexual liberation itself. If sex is really no big deal, then why does it matter that it should be liberated? Indeed, if sex is of no great importance, it is hard to see why the case for its unshackling should be made with such energy and even indignation. This observation reminds us that sex is definitely a big deal at least in the sense that it is a powerful human desire that most people experience as essential to their happiness. When the sexual urge demands, they are powerfully tempted to give in. Hence the power of the sexual liberation movement’s appeal. The problem, however, is that once we have sacrificed so much to this powerful appetite, it is not clear why we should not sacrifice everything. If the demand for sexual pleasure is so compelling that we can throw overboard moral principles that extend back to the very roots of our civilization, it is not clear why we would insist that it stop short and respect the consent of individuals. In short, sexual liberation conjured up a spirit of moral nihilism to liberate the unrestrained pursuit of pleasure, and it is not at all certain that such a spirit can be commanded to behave once it has been summoned.
I was struck by this bit of writing in the article:
Put simply, Polanski’s sins are inextricably bound up with Hollywood’s own sins. If he is guilty, Hollywood is, in some measure, guilty as well.
It strikes me that the reason you see either an impassioned defense of his not being extradited or a quiet indifference is because Roman Polanski’s films (particularly “The Pianist”) made a lot of money, which is the loudest voice in “Hollywood” as well as every corporate boardroom in the country. It’s probably a given that the studios had invested a lot of money in this project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_(2010_film)
… that they stand to lose if Mr. Polanski can’t complete this film for release next year.
I always remind my confirmands as we work through the Commandments, that Hollywood only cares about the Seventh Commandment. It’s the one part of the Ten that they demand be followed, as they put the no pirating message on a dvd in such a way that you can’t even bypass it, but then proceed to break all the rest in the course of the movie! I used to like David, but haven’t followed him much in years, probably a circumstance of putting kids to bed and being wiped out myself, but the latest news will prevent me from ever starting up again.
First, I applaud the efforts of those who address the serious nature of these issues with the legitimate concern and attention they deserve. The statement I like most from the blog is this one: “. . . the embrace of sexual liberation necessarily diminishes our horror for rape, and contemporary Hollywood has been nothing if not ardent in its embrace of sexual liberation. Traditional sexual morality depended on the assumption that human sexuality possessed an objective moral nature and
seriousness that all human beings were obliged to respect and that society itself was entitled to protect through law and custom.” I also appreciate the “missing outrage” perception because I was sexually assaulted on Christmas Eve 3 years ago and I know how that missing outrage exacerbates the pain and loneliness of a victim. The blogger is correct in condemning the destructive attitude that sex is not limited to marriage; that sex is simply a pleasurable activity unrelated to
commitment. However, I think that most who take that position would concede that for most people, sex is a necessary pleasure, very much like food is a necessary pleasure. Consequently, the precise position of these opponents would not be that sex isn’t important to have, rather it would be that sex is not the “big deal” of a commitment.
It is important to understand that the following FALSE presupposition has paved the way for people to embrace the disassociation of sex and commitment: It is no big deal whether people have sex outside of marriage, especially if the participants care about each other, or make a marriage commitment to each other at some point, because that kind of sex outside of marriage doesn’t hurt anybody. The first argument for a Christian to defend is that any and all sex outside of marriage IS a big deal because it violates God’s commands and all of it does seriously hurt all of us. The most destructive idea that has been accepted by our culture is that unless it’s rape, sex outside of marriage doesn’t hurt anybody and sex in an exclusive relationship outside of marriage really doesn’t hurt anybody. Sadly, even our church leadership so often fails to take into account the extent of the damage by all the different varieties of fornication.
In the matter of David Letterman, I have followed his career as well and have observed many things about him throughout the years. There are things I like; there are things I don’t like and would not support. He has never demonstrated a belief that sex outside of marriage is harmful and personally, I have not looked to him as a moral example or promoted him as a moral example. I have always believed that some of his attitudes are wrong and I would say so if anyone cared to know, including him, but I have no personal relationship connection to him. If I had good reason to believe that he had sexually assaulted, abused or harassed anyone, I would support justice for the victim and the victim’s needs above all else but I have not heard of any complaints from the women with whom he was involved. As far as the woman who is presently his wife, he has already pledged restitution to her for whatever he did to her but I am not aware that he admitted to any unfaithfulness while he’s been married to her. What is an appropriate Christian response for those who have been fans? Well, if one refuses to watch his show, one would have to refuse to watch any celebrity who has ever participated in and condoned sex outside of marriage. In that case, I would suggest that you will never again watch another movie or TV show or listen to any secular music. For that matter, if you figure out a way to survive in the USA without in some way supporting businesses/careers of people who have at some time condoned fornication, please let me know. Interesting dilemma, isn’t it?
McCain: Karyn, thanks for sharing your thoughts and speaking out of your painful experiences. I really appreciated your remarks. As for Letterman. I can’t claim any consistency on this point, but all I know is that while once I enjoyed watching Letterman, I don’t any longer. His behavior, about which we are learning more lurid details, simply disgusts me. I see him as a man in a position of power taking advantage of female subordinates and his relationship with them. It just creeps me out and I no longer enjoy watching his show.
I understand the disappointment in Letterman and I share it. Thanks for your comment and the interesting articles, as always.@Karyn