Yes, he may be Dinosaur Dave, according to sexual harassment experts. And yes, he's Dumbo Dave for repeatedly romancing female members of his staff. After all Dave, we're in the second decade of an era where office nookie is a no-no.
Nevertheless, as clueless as Dave has been, he's still not about to destroy his career and drive off hordes of women who watch him. No matter what the pundits predict, there's a very key reason why Dave won't drive off his female audience.
Women are still in the powerful clutches of the Cinderella fairytale. 
The allure of being picked out and romanced by a wealthier, more powerful man who is capable of carrying you away from all your cares and woes, is still enormously alive and well. What little girl doesn't still grow up hoping to be discovered and swept off her feet by a handsome, rich prince? Show me the shrink who says that women aren't still striving to marry "up" -- I doubt you'll find one.
Despite recent cultural censures against the office affair, it is quietly thriving. Admit it, how many people do you know who met their mates at the office? And why wouldn't they -- most people are working harder, longer hours than ever before. Where else are they going to meet people? This fact seems to explain Dave, a famous workaholic. He met women at work -- including his wife, Regina Lasko -- because he never went anywhere else.
According to statistics on the October 5th "Today" show, 8 million Americans have had office affairs, and 42% are with the boss -- the ones most likely to be well-off and able to pay for dinners, limos, flowers...and engagement rings. Old fairytales die very hard.
Meanwhile, even modern generations of young women continue to have been raised on multiple versions of old fairytales.
I remember that as the Editor-in-Chief of the girls' teen mag, 
YM, my readers' favorite film was the Disney cartoon, "Beauty and the Beast." Yet if there was ever a romanticization of sexual harassment, that was it.
The rich, powerful Beast imprisons Beauty in an attempt to "nicely" force her to marry him. Ultimately, Beauty, like many kidnap victims, begins to empathize with her kidnapper/harasser, then tames him and finally falls in love with him
As for Dave, and his younger female staffers, Stephanie Birkitt and Holly Hester, he didn't have to imprison them, he just kept them busy with work and plied them with kindness, consideration and romance. That explains why less wealthy, less powerful women would fall for a gentle, romantic prince, even if his looks were a little beastly. I bet Dave's young women hoped to "tame" him and have as happily ever after an ending as Beauty and the Beast.
"Beauty and the Beast" is just one example of the Cinderella diet fed to little girls and young women. How about the films "Pretty Woman," "Working Girl," "Two Weeks Notice," or the movie classic Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell's "His Girl Friday?"
Plus, in addition to movies, literature -- often taught in women's lit courses -- also teaches women to lust after men in a position of money and authority. 
Jane Eyre is required reading in many schools, and what does the heroine Jane do? She, the lowly poor tutor, falls for her rich boss, Mr. Rochester, and is in ecstasy when he deigns to fall in love with her, too. So think about it -- we're actually schooled to believe that it's desirable to date the boss.
It's because of this powerful cultural/historical force -- this yearning to be rescued by a prince -- that ultimately means women will not be able to honestly condemn Dave or turn his show off. As long as there are no other revelations that his behavior was threatening or demeaning to his love object employees, Dave will ultimately dance away from this sextortion scandal.
Deep down, many women know that given their druthers -- right or wrong -- they still wouldn't turn down the opportunity to date a rich, charming, and seemingly non-threatening man, even if he happened to be the boss.
For more on David Letterman and his illicit affairs, follow Bonnie Fuller on twitter.com/bonniefuller
Follow Bonnie Fuller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bonniefuller
Jane Shure: The Hypocrisy of David Letterman
Sheila Kohler: Edward Cullen and Heathcliff: Why Girls Love "Blood-Sucking" Men
Enough. I think blackmail is a heinous offense, and Dave cut that jerk at the knees.
Where's the outrage over the guy who took the diary and tried to blackmail Dave with it?
Dave gets a pass with me not because what he did was undeniably questionable, but he went on air and confessed. With some jokes because he is a COMEDIAN. I would imagine it was very uncomfortable to do that, but he realized otherwise he would have been pilloried for NOT admitting it.
He didn't "hike the Appalachian Trail". He came clean, and it's a trait more people should have.
Again, save the outrage for the people in the public trust who say one thing and and get caught doing what they supposedly preach against.
Beauty and the Beast is really the story of Psyche and Eros. Psyche's parents hand her over to Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty, for an offfense. Eros, Aphrodite's son, gives Psyche the world, secretly makes her his lover, but does so completely in the dark. Protecting her from his easily offended mother, he tells Psyche she must never see his face. Her evil sisters visit , convince her he's a monster that must be killed. Eros comes home, and with knife in her hand, she lights a candle as he sleeps, sees that he is actually the beautiful Eros- he awakens, angrily leaves. Psyche consults Aphrodite to find Eros. She puts Psyche through impossible tasks to test her love, but mostly to make her go away. She completes the tasks and is reunited with Eros.
The story IS NOT about a powerful, rich guy will imprison you, and you will then suffer from Stockholm syndrome and then be rescued from all the ills of the world.
The real lesson is that you have to see people as they really are,--look to their conduct and how they treat you rather than what they might look like. This is the same in Beauty and the Beast. When she matures enough to looks past his beastly exterior, all is well. Having to pass various impossible tasks are standard symbols of maturation and initiation.
Not having heard from the women DL had relationships with, it appears that they were consensual.
DL is extremely attactive because he is funny and a bit of a mystery. Money is a turn-off because like good looks, it's an external attribute that is often a false representation of the true person.
This article fails to give much credit to a woman's intelligence. It suffers from the same paternalistic viewpoint of the "fairytale" she bemoans, that a rich handsome man will rescue her. Women can freely choose to have a relationship with a man that she knows will "not go anywhere". And maybe she doesn't want it to go anywhere. So many people assume that women are in relationships to reach the ultimate goal--marriage. Come on, everyone is a grown -up here.
Birkitt was a willing participant in the relationship. It will never be viewed as harassment.
If what you say is true - then both Republicans, Mark Sanford and John Ensign did something unethical and illegal and should lose their jobs as well.
Especially because both Republicans were lawfully married, and lied to cover up their affair, neither of which was done by Letterman.
I think some people are still upset that palin's Letterman protest was a huge joke to the rest of the Country....and the world
I am against sexual harassment. I don't think men or women should use their position to extort sex from another. I don't think men or women should be subjected to sexually motivated ridicule or explicit language.
And in regards to the article: Of course people still have relationships with coworkers. Work is where we spend most of our time. I dated several coworkers before I met my husband (not a coworker). My husband had his own business which wasn't doing too well when we met. He was going through a career transition when we married. We come from very similar socio-economic backgrounds.
I love Chick-lit, fairy tales, and romantic comedies, that doesn't mean I can't tell fantasy from reality. And I'll keep watching Dave because he's a funny guy. I still watch Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt movies. They are entertainers. Maybe what he did was immoral, but he isn't an elected official hired by the tax payers to do a certain job. Let's not get the two confused. Every sexual liaison isn't a scandal or harassment.
He didn't fly off to Argentina and not tell his family and lie to the public by saying he was "hiking the Appalachian Trail".
He didn't call his mommy and daddy for $100,000 in bribery money.
As for the guy who stole his (ex)girlfriends diary - well Birkitt can sue this baboon as well.
Jennifer
moved on...yes we read fairy tales as little girls, but would prefer a real relationship. thanks anyway.
It is a free country,people do all sorts of things, that's about it as far as I can see.
As to his "beauty", if he is beautiful on the inside, that's more than enough beauty for me.
I thought that the human animal had finally evolved beyond the hunter-gatherer mentality, but we obviously have not.
For every woman wanting to "marry up," there's a deadbeat wanting to sit on his butt drinking beer while his wife/girlfriend works to support him. Show me a woman looking for a fairy-tale and I bet I can show you a man collecting disability for a "back injury" that doesn't affect anything but his "ability" to work.
Yeah, there are a lot of people of *both* sexes who are looking for an easy way to get ahead. And then there are a lot of us who are mature enough to look for relationships based on more than money or power. Even if the women Letterman slept with were seduced by the fantasy of a knight in shining armor, they have yet to claim they were coerced. It's rather simplistic and, frankly, quite offensive to suggest that women are so easily manipulated that any man who is nice and has a good job can have any woman he wants.
What about the "Monica" factor? The women who'll lift their skirts and show their knickers to any powerful man whether he asks or not? I think most women have worked with one of those... they ply the boss with compliments and flattery in the hope of getting a leg up on their co-workers.
While both your scenario and the one I've posted happen, I think more often it's just two people who spend more time together than is healthy and they fall into a relationship without thinking of the future ramifications.
Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances and other verbal or physical conduct e.g. inappropriate pictures, posters and dress manner. The emphasis is on the word "unwelcome" rather than on anything else. Unethical behavior, on the other hand, includes behavior which is immoral, unfair, etc. Therefore, Letterman may be guilty of unethical behavior rather than sexual harassment. This does not absolve the women in question of guilt in this matter(s). I wish people would give Mr. Letterman a chance to deal with his life without adding fuel to the existing fire.
Maxwell Pinto, Business Author: leadership, ethics, teamwork, women in the workforce, trade unions, etc.
http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/Management-TidbitsForTheNewMillenium.html
I agree that office relationships definitely don't automatically constitute "Sexual harassment".
However, there is a power imbalance thatis set up when 1) one member of the relationship is a boss or supervisor and 2) the playah in the office has serial relationships among the employees.
It's likely that Dave played this off with his typical humor to defuse the power imbalance and musky energy... buthe did apologize to his employees and he's smart enough to know there is good reason for an apology.
Neither of us knows what went on in that office. Dave's show has been on for how many decades? Perhaps the serial relation consisted of two affairs over 40 years. Again we don't know and the difference is I don't care.
I had a relation with a woman in my office who was several layers down the org chart. There was no power imbalance. We LOVED each other and in my experience love is not that easy to find so if it happens between two consenting adults its hard to turn away from it just because our prudish society will slap all kinds of BS labels on it.
The "power imbalance" argument flows through the same vein. It suggests that no woman could resist the advances of a powerful man (or vice-versa). It demonizes and accuses one party and makes a victim out of the second whether there was any actual coercion involved. There's no need to use an excuse like "power imbalance" to explain why 2 people who worked together made a questionable choice to have sex.
1986... twenty three (23) years.
Some women are more attracted to a guy who is already in a relationship -- the thrill of "winning" him away from someone is part of the lure....
And then there are some women who have se xual ethics and wouldn't have dated an already-attached guy even if he were in a position of power.