My feelings on the Roman Polanski issue are represented fairly well by a post at Shakesville: Her Reasons Are Not Yours
I liked this piece by Kate Harding in Salon's Broadsheet as well: [link]
et'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.
No. There is no way that I will ever give ground on this. Rape is rape is rape is CHILD RAPE for fuck's sake and I'm sorry, but the excuses bound up in our RAPE CULTURE are just fucking disgusting. It's not just Polanski, but it is an incredibly truthful way about how WE (as a culture) view rape.
at 13 she had had drugs before, had been drunk before and had already had sex twice, if I read that police interview correctly.
My sister moved away from our home town when she was ten, when she went back for the summer when she was 12, both of her best friends were pregnant. They did seem to be wilder times.
There was definitely some bad parenting going on, If I remember my tabloid TV correctly, I believe it was her mother who originally introduced her to Polanski, because she wanted her to be a star.
I've always thought Polanski needed to come forward as the only way to satisfactorily end this. Him staying away seemed to say that he felt he did nothing wrong and was being unfairly punished. Being brought in smells of a witchunt.
Him staying away seemed to say that he felt he did nothing wrong and was being unfairly punished. Being brought in smells of a witchunt.
Then why did he plead guilty?
I feel lousier than ever. Too lousy to even watch TV. (Also, maybe it's the fever talking, but has GG gotten very stupid?) Stupid airplane was so hot. Flying with a cold is of the devil.
Then why did he plead guilty?
Again, vauge memories about what I read and saw years ago, but I don't think he was ever comfortable pleading guilty, but did so because that's what lawyers and other people advised. PArt of hsi whole thing about fleeing was that he after living in Communist Poland, he didn't trust the system.
Him staying away seemed to say that he felt he did nothing wrong and was being unfairly punished.
So noted legal scholar Roman Polanski, a middle-aged man who had repeated 'relationships' with adolescent girls, didn't feel that drugging and forcing one of them was really so bad or worthy of punishment. Okay. Why are we taking his word for it again?
Don't think I'm defending him, I'm just restating what I vaguely remember reading.
This is what makes me so disgusted with ephebophilia. It's close enough to sexual maturity that sick fucks use the excuse that these young girls are "ready for it" or want sex in a way that is "natural."
Fucking assholes are still rapists/child molesters. They are skeevy and scary because they prey on kids who are feeling sexual urges but are not in any way ready to act on them with another person. And we, as a society, are asking ourselves some horrible questions about the victim's motivations or what they or their parents did wrong. It muddies the water in a way that makes me very angry.
Polanski's victim, as embarrassed as she is or as ready to move on as she is can do so, if she's made piece with it. His problem is with fleeing the law and his admitted guilt and the system he promised to submit to.
Okay, I give. I get it and y'all were right and I was blinded by empathy on the victim's part. The good of the whole has to outweigh the good of the individual and I can see that and I suppose, make an uneasy peace with it.
Barb, I think it's possible to hold 2 (or more) different viewpoints on such a fraught matter. You can totally side with the victim's desire to not keep being dragged through this over and over and over and *also* want a clear message to be sent via the judicial system that a rapist cannot get away with the crime just because he has money, friends, and a home in Switzerland.
This makes me think of Michael Jackson. I think he was an amazing artist. I also think he abused young boys, which is disgusting and deserved some sort of punishment. I also think that he was so deeply, deeply fucked up starting from his own boyhood, and never got help, that it was almost inevitable that he was going to end up abusing children. I think that, along with legal punishment, he needed as much psychological help as humanly possible. His talent and his history don't excuse -- to me -- his reprehensible behavior in abusing children.
And similarly, when it comes to the Polanski case, I wish that his victim didn't have to keep being dragged through the press. That's not justice for her. But, like Nora, I will not give ground on rape.
Does that make sense?
