Both great insights into a small event that illuminates the larger ones.

A play on sexual harassnment... yes! And turning the tables on the usual configuration (male on female) is one of the elements that makes this episode unconfortably humorous.

And the thought that Fonda was attemting a reverse-objectification scenario... whether she had that in mind or not, it's fun to see it that way. It works for me.

Thanks.

Come on, lighten up! I thought it was absolutely hilarious, and rather endearing. Of COURSE both Colbert and Fonda were in on the joke (did you not see that in the introduction the segment was called "Colberella"??). And both had fun playing their respective roles, Colbert in his "aw, shucks, I'm just a bashful wholesome conservative host" mode, and Jane as the vixen who, in my opinion, still has it in her later years. To me, it was just a fun continuation of Fonda's previous appearance with Gloria Steinem. Colbert wouldn't play along, as he surely did, if he didn't actually enjoy Fonda's enduring ability to flirt, regardless of her age.

This guy makes his living making other people uncomfortable

Fonda was giving him a good natured dose of his own medicine, and it was funny.

His character got what was coming to him.

On the other hand, my impression is that for an out-there improv comedian, Colbert truly is a devoted husband and father, definitely not an enormous egotist and he was somewhat embarrassed and uncomfortable. But that's okay; he's a big boy and he can handle it. After all, part of what makes his show great is the tension between his on-air O'Reilly-ish character and his genuine, humble self.

I thought it was a brilliant move on Fonda's part - she really threw him off his game; it's difficult to know how to respond to Colbert in an interview. And it was riotously funny. I love that Fonda does not take herself too seriously. She was, after all, as Sandra M said, very good-natured about it. I thought it was oddly sweet, actually.

I thought it was hilarious, and I didn't see him as being that uncomfortable with it.

She can harass me anytime.

Joan,

I read your blog about Fonda and Colbert and was quite shocked at your reaction. Mine (and I am a 61 year old) was completely the opposite--I enjoyed the entire bit and so did my colleagues at work, young women in their 20s and 30s.

While he can come off as a straight edge, Stephen Colbert is no prude. His double entendres are sly and extremely dirty at times.

I didn't think he was that uncomfortable with Ms. Fonda on his lap and I think the joke is on you.

As a life long feminist and liberal, I love it when a brainy woman can enjoy her obvious good looks and sexiness. Jane Fonda has a brain and a body. She has the right to behave the way she feels. Who wouldn't love to sit on Colbert's lap and tease him?

Don't cry for Stephen Colbert. It's a waste of your tears.

Karen Prosser

Joan,

You assume a lot in this piece, and then run with the assumptions. First you assume the motivation for Fonda's behavior in her first Colbert appearance, then again in this most recent one. The "intentional fallacy" applies to television appearances too, I think.

When you approve of Fonda's behavior through the lens of your assumption, you celebrate her. When you don't approve, again through the lens of your assumption, you protest. I don't know what that says about you. Anything I could say would assume your motivation for writing this piece.

Why not just write a piece about the proper expression of feminism for seniors, as you see it?

Really, now. Jane Fonda is an actress. Stephen Colbert is a parodist. Why are all you people looking for meaning in this stuff? Fonda took control of the situation by closing in on Colbert's "comfort zone" and you all react as if she was in your face!

Sheesh. I wish, no, I dream Jane Fonda could be that close to me! She's sooo hot! And smart! She's sooo smart! And she can act up a tempest in a teapot, as you all prove.

The problem isn't the lusty role Fonda played, it's that she played it too well, with too much conviction. There's a reason they say comedy ain't easy. Fonda needed to lessen the intensity and play up the absurdity. Jane should have acted more like Terri Garr or Gilda Radner and less like Jane Fonda. In other words, Jane didn't appear to plant her tongue firmly enough in her cheek. (Pun intended).

Do two things and you'll get back to finding Colbert sexy in no time. (Why you'd want to do something like that is an issue in and of itself, by the way) But the first thing you should do is rerun your tape. Yes, rerun you're rerun and that will allow symmetry to your perspective. The second thing is to look at the intellectual weight you've brought to the issue. Under those circumstances your wires were bound to get crossed.

Everything's fine. Don't worry about it.

Now, notice I didn't mention that this whole thing implies issues YOU may have of approaching sixty. Those fears would be totally unfounded, in fact they always are. By the time someone is aprroaching the age of arthritis and diapers, if they haven't a clue as to whether they're sexy taking time to wonder is a waste, OK?

This is simply an issue of not being in the right mood for an event important to you. For crying out loud, Jane Fonda was hot during "On Golden Pond." The problem, therefore, must lie with you and it's simply a problem of not being prepared due to other responsibilities.

Rerun the tape this weekend at the actual broadcast time.

Rerun the tape when you've got the time, you see?

I'm sending you a bill!

It's the not knowing that made this creepy; if Colbert wasn't in on the joke and didn't know it was coming, then yes, it most certainly was sexual harassment.

I just don't think anything happens on TV by accident, not on a show like this. These guys are pros, and Stephen Colbert is serious, big-time, big bucks. This is not a home-movie. And as someone pointed out above, Colbert put this out himself. It was taped, not live.