poliphilo | Justice

Rape is not seduction.

From:

oakmouse

Yes, this. He admits he drugged her and that she said no repeatedly and begged him to stop. That's rape.

From:

I'm being careful. I wrote "rape" to begin with then changed it. What Polanski was found guilty of was "unlawful sex with a minor".

Like Whoopee Goldberg I'm inclined to think this wasn't "rape-rape". It was coercive and manipulative, but non-violent. What made it criminal was the age of the victim. In the past they would have called it "statutory rape" but I believe they don't use that term any more.

Whatever the name of his crime, Polanski is a paedophile and a creep- and I make a point of not going to see his movies.

From:

Tony, this wasn't statutory rape (though yes, that's what he pleaded guilty to). The girl and Polanski both testified to:

1. the fact that he drugged her
2. the fact that she said NO - REPEATEDLY.

These are the facts that are being blatantly - and deliberately - ignored by far too many people. I'd suggest reading Kate Harding's article at Salon:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/index.html

Here's a brief excerpt:
Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Statutory rape is used to describe consensual sexual relations that occur when one participant is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior.

What happened was rape. There was no consensual sex. None. He raped her. He raped a 13-year old girl who had no way of stopping him.

From:

mazzie.livejournal.com

strongly seconded. and, at the risk of being too graphic, there's very little chance that a grown man forcing his erect penis into a 13 year old's anus while she was resisting was not violent.

also, it is a myth that all rapes are violent.

From:

Amen.

There are no "degrees" of rape, which is what Goldberg is saying. That anyone would suggest such is disgusting, not to mention insulting and humiliating for those who have been "non-violently" raped (and I happen to be one of them and the thought that just because I didn't come out needing to go to hospital people think I wasn't raped has me near tears). Rape is rape. Period. It doesn't make it less of a rape if the woman isn't beaten up before, during or after. What makes it a rape is when the woman says NO.

From:

mazzie.livejournal.com

I couldn't agree more.

I was violently raped. The detectives told me I liked it - I'm "kinky," apparently.

I also volunteered at and worked for a rape crisis center, and in the course of my work, sat with people in the hospital or on the phone who were beaten so badly they needed surgery and people who didn't have a scratch on them, and I would be a fool to make any parallel comparison in their suffering or the maliciousness of the crime.

From:

Not knowing the details, I thought it best to play it safe. Now that I know them, I have no hesitation in calling Polanski a rapist.

From:

I hadn't read the details of what happened. Now that I have I withdraw my equivocation. Polanski is a paedophile and a creep and a rapist.

From:

I really appreciate that - and I wasn't trying to be harsh, just that this entire situation is making me physically ill.

From:

I entirely understand.

From:

Thank you. And I agree with you entirely.

From:

shullie.livejournal.com

me to.xxx

From:

daisytells.livejournal.com

I dont know how they defined it later, but when I was in my teens, statutory rape was defined as having consentual sex with any minor (under 18 years of age)-- the assumption being that "children" are not intelligent enough to make such a decision. Of course the perpetrator had to be of age, over 21 years of age, and the penalty on the books was for 20 years in prison. Where there was no consent it was just plain rape, and where violence was employed it was "aggravated rape".
Polanski? No excuse, sir! - as they say in the military.

From:

I believe Polanski has said there was a consensual element- but he would, wouldn't he?

From:

oakmouse

A person's wealth, status, talent, and popularity should have no bearing on their standing in law.

Absolutely right.

From:

The moment justice removes her blindfold she ceases to be justice.

From:

mazzie.livejournal.com

I deleted a badly worded and poorly thought out comment, but I do think it's interesting to see how judgment plays out across racial lines.

From:

I should perhaps have added "race" to the list that goes "wealth, status, popularity, talent".

From:

solar-diablo.livejournal.com

I don't care if the man made some interesting films, cured cancer, designed the Sears Tower, and makes the world's best Bananas Foster. The facts of the case seem to be he forced himself on a child.

End of story.

As a sidebar, are there actually articles out there arguing for leniency, or even out and out excusing him? If so I'd like to read them, if only to see how they get around that very basic fact.

From:

http://m.independent.co.uk/;article=4/search/?t=Polanski&=Search

apparantly Polanski has "served his time".

From:

Oh yes, Polanski has plenty of support- a lot of it, obviously, from within the industry that has allowed him to flourish and make movies.

From:

seraphimsigrist.livejournal.com

Yes that is exactly how it
seems to me.
troubling to see the names of all
those fancy people allowing themselves
this hypocrisy in their petition.
though I look in vain on the list, perhaps
ought look again there may be some, for
a name I esteem.

From:

I'm not sure what names are on the petition- in a way I think I'd prefer not to know. I did however read that the French director Luc Besson refused to sign it. Good for him!

From:

lblanchard.livejournal.com

Hear, hear!

One of my favorite comments comes from Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds), apropos the artists' petition:

"[A]s one of the creative elite, Polanski is supposed to enjoy a sort of droit de seigneur — but if you come right out and say that, the peasants will get angry."

Glenn Reynolds, of course, is firmly on the side of the peasants.

From:

I'm willing to cut the creatives a bit of slack. A lot of the people I admire have led fairly rackety lives, but I draw the line at what Polanski did. That was a crime- and a particularly mean one.

From:

lblanchard.livejournal.com

I believe that Glenn Reynolds' only child, a daughter, is about 13 now, so there are reasons the steam is coming out of his ears.

From:

wlotus.livejournal.com

Nor should their race. R. Kelly wasn't cut any slack by the mainstream media for his escapades with underage girls.

From:

Quite right.

I don't altogether understand why Polamski is getting so much support- or indeed why he has had a career all these years.

From:

wlotus.livejournal.com

That's a mystery to me, too. I suspect that if it was nearly anyone else, or if this had happened to the daughter of one of his high-profile defenders, he would have landed under the jail, post-haste.

From:

Yes.

There's something similar going on with Phil Spektor. That guy was clearly a menace to society, but because of his "talent" his wacko behaviour was indulged and excused.

From:

All crimes should be forgiven, especially if the perpetrator is clearly not a threat to anyone anymore.

From:

Has Polanski ceased to be a threat to young women? I wonder.

From:

Forgiven, perhaps. But only if the criminal has shown remorse, and has attempted everything they can to make amends.

Until that point, damn them.

I see little to show that Polanski has done either.

From:

Damn them? What gives you that right?

How much suffering is caused by any one of your actions in daily life? How many things do you need to be forgiven for?

From:

How many things do you need to be forgiven for?

Many. Like all of us.

And if I'm made aware of them, I seek to apologise, and to make amends before I ask for forgiveness.

Can you say the same of Polanski before you blithely state that all crimes should be forgiven?

What gives you the right to assert such?

From:

I never said Polanski had to apologize before I could forgive him (and I do think what he did was wrong). Until you learn to forgive everyone for all crimes, past, present and future, you serve the wrong master.

From: (Anonymous)

Really? Another sweeping assertion.

Seeing as you're so all knowing, which master do I serve, given that I choose not to forgive everyone everything?

From:

And this time logged in.

Really? Another sweeping assertion.

Seeing as you're so all knowing, which master do I serve, given that I choose not to forgive everyone everything?

From:

The one who knocked up Mia Farrow in Rosemary's Baby.

From: