After 31 years ....

[Flyndaran]

I agree. It's been far too long already for one and if the victim wants to drop it, then they should drop it already.

Are you saying that rape is significantly less important than murder? That statutes of limitations should continue even when the criminal is fleeing the state?

[Amethyst Hunter]

HOW. Seriously, put your righteous indignation aside, and tell me how losing an extradition hearing in another country sends a "rape is okay" message in the US?

Read between the lines. Those involved in this case will know *exactly* how the extradition "got lost." And so will anyone - female or male - who's ever been a victim of rape. Because rape victims have a too-damn-long history of having their claims ridiculed and dismissed. Especially if it's a case of a victim versus a wealthy/powerful person/celebrity.

Put aside thoughts of the UNCOMMON instances where a few females falsely accused a man of rape, and remember that 1) there are a helluva lot of rapes that go unreported due to any reason, not least of which is the emotional turmoil the victim feels, and 2) the victims that do report it get put through a wringer that is very likely akin to a second rape: the victim gets accused of everything from lying to being a whore to being a golddigger, EVEN when there is substantial evidence that proves it was rape and she (or he) never said yes to any of it.

Witness the case of Jennifer Levin, the victim in the media-dubbed "preppy killer" case in the 1980s. This woman was just barely around a hundred pounds and the rapist's defense claimed that she overpowered her attacker - who outweighed her by probably a good 100 pounds - during a bout of "rough sex" and he "accidentally" strangled her to death trying to get her to stop. To this day this scumbag has a fan club that wrote him love letters while he was in prison (last I heard, he was up for parole in recent years); his appearance and social standing and wealth were all used by his defense to claim that Jennifer Levin was a golddigger out to witch-hunt a poor little rich boy. (Despite the fact that there were diaries written by the victim in which she repeatedly wrote of romantic feelings for him while they were dating.)

Now, let's look at this list of reasons as to just WHY this situation with Polanski is NOT okay: (Courtesy of a friend of mine and reposted with her permission; if you want the original link PM me and I'll ask her because this comes from her journal. I don't link to others' personal journals without their permission.)


1. He raped a thirteen year old girl and admitted it.

2. He agreed to plead down from the several felonies he could have been convicted of to a lesser charge of 'having sex with an underage child.'

3. He did not 'serve' his time. He was held for psychological evaluation. He bolted before he was sentenced because the 42 day sentence--much cited and mis-cited---was not a certainty. All he would have had to do was sit in some celeb-country-club-spa jail and he'd have been out; instead he turned fugitive because he knew damn well he could get nailed worse for what he did.

4. His attorneys suddenly discovered concern for the victim---as long as it was about the other people she'd allegedly 'had sex' with. They wanted those people prosecuted, presumably before Polanski. They used this to make sure the public knew the girl wasn't a virgin. (Because only virgins can be raped, to such way of thinking, and then that girl better be all-American sweet apple Jesus pie who was beaten to a bloody pulp while trying in vain to defend her honor.)

5. Polanski fled to Europe because evidently the only people he can fight are thirteen-year-old girls, and even then only if they're drugged and drunk.

6. Polanski raped a child. (Seriously, this should NOT need any explanation whatsoever.)

7. Polanski's history as a Holocaust victim did not lead him to rape. It led him to use the Holocaust as an excuse for rape. His using it as an excuse spits in the face of all Holocaust victims who amazingly did not go on to rape/harm others.

8. Polanski is not, nor ever has been, 'in exile.' He's French by birth. His so-called exile consists of being unable to return to the US and pick up his awards and presumably attack American girls. He's living in his home country.

9. The rationalizations about the case---"Oh, everybody did this that then," say far more about the speaker than about the times. Rape is rape. There is no occasion on which it is ever okay. There was no time during which it was ever okay. If this girl is not safe and respected, then no adult women are safe, either.

10. This is not the time to discuss statuatory rape laws and how fucked up they are. This is the perfect case in which those laws apply: the victim was thirteen. Polanski was forty-four. He isolated her, drugged her, raped her repeatedly.

11. The girl's mother is not to blame. The girl's mother did not rape the girl. Polanski did. It was Polanski's choice to rape the girl. Was the mother supposed to know? Seriously, what was she supposed to know? Polanski said it was for a 'photo shoot'. Did he have a reputation as a rapist? Even a reputation as a womanizer does not make one a rapist. The victim was not a woman. She was a thirteen-year-old girl.

12. The age of consent in France is fifteen. This still makes Polanski a creepy stunted man who can't handle adult women. Even in 'liberated' France, what he did was a crime. (And 75% of French citizens in a recent poll believe that Polanski should be brought to justice.)

13. He was a shitty husband to Sharon Tate, who just wanted to get married and have babies. He has also used her death as an excuse to justify the rape. In short, Polanski seems to use just about everything as an excuse to rape little girls. (See further notes below.)

14. One does not 'have sex with' a thirteen year old girl if one is 44. It is rape.

15. Numerous celebrities have shown that womens' rights are just so much shit under their feet by signing a declaration in support of poor Polanski: among them: Debra Winger, Pedro Almovadar, Woody Allen, and so on.

16. The documentary that some people are citing is a piece of propaganda. It discusses Polanski's background, but not the judge's: he was such a good student than he went directly to Harvard from high school. They also discuss the judge's sex life but not Polanski's, except to wink at it. Reportedly, the judge had two girlfriends, which has nothing to do with his morals, unless there was something non-consensual about it. Also, it's incredibly hypocritical of Polanski's apologists to take this route, because Polanski was and might still be the sort of guy who dates women three or four decades younger than him. (His current wife is forty years younger than him. They have two children, one of whom is a daughter about the age of the girl he raped.) The documentary devotes a great deal of time to the judge, but in fact he granted Polanski permission to travel to Europe---again, not exile, but home---to do a movie. It was when Polanski proved the prison shrinks wrong---"Unlikely to offend again"---that the judge indicated he was extremely displeased and disinclined to abide by the original suggested sentence.

17. It is not puritanical to want to make sure that men in their forties do not prey on girls in their teens. In fact, it is the very definition of sexual liberation to free girls--and boys---from the possibility of such a situation. People who stand for Roman Polanski are supporting the notion of sexual exploitation of children by adult men.

18. Sexual liberation does not mean 'men get to do whatever they want to whomever they want, and moreso if they're famous and rich and successfully avoid prosecution for a crime they already plead guilty to.

19. Sexual liberation means that people can sexually experiment in a consensual non-harmful non-exploitive environment. A 44-year-old man drugging and raping a thirteen year old girl is not liberating.

20. Drugging a thirteen-year-old girl is a crime. Forcing alcohol upon such a girl is a crime. When a girl says no it is a crime. Doing all three ought to be an enhanced felony, as crimes are being committed to further other crimes. Instead there are people calling this 'a mistake.' It is a mistake, for example, to leave one's fly unzipped.
It is not a mistake to open a bottle of pills and force one on a young girl.
It is not a mistake to open a bottle of champagne and make a girl drink from it.
It is not a mistake to ignore the fact that a young girl is saying 'no' when one rapes her.

21. Drugging a girl who's of age is a crime as well.

22. Raping anyone of any age who says no is rape. Full stop.

23. Forcing drugs on someone is illegal, full stop.

24. Raping someone is not something one does by accident. If one does not have the enthusiastic consent of one's partners, if one regards unconscious or drunken women as sexual opportunities, one is a rapist.

25. It does not matter if 'everyone' did drugs or drank it up during the Seventies. Roman Polanski is accused of doing these things to an underage girl---which is illegal in and of itself--in order to further his plan to rape her, which plan of action ought to be illegal in and of itself. Rape is never okay. What Roman Polanski did was rape.

26. It is not okay to force drugs and alcohol on of-age women, either, whether to rape them or not.

27. It is not okay to rape someone when they're of the age of consent, either.

28. It is not okay to rape someone because they want to work for you.

29. It is not okay to say 'I didn't know how old she was." If you don't know, find out. If you think she's younger, change your plans. Why is this so horrible? Seriously, why? "But I won't get to fuck her!" is not exactly a great excuse. You're not being deprived of food, water, shelter, employment, or education. Why is it that some men (NOTE: SOME, NOT all) rank immediate sexual gratification as being necessary to their survival?

30. It is not okay to say about a thirteen-year-old girl, or anyone: she asked for it, she wanted it, she should have known better, she was flirting, she was experienced, etc., etc,. especially when one is forty four one's self. It is not okay to say this about any rape victim. Also, if the accused or alleged---or, in this case, admitted rapist says this, common sense would dictate that the smell of self-interest in the air would alert people to the notion that an admitted rapist might not the best person to talk about his victim.

[IDrinkaRum]

AmethystHunter - I applaud your friend.

She has a head on her shoulders, and yes, I agree with everything she has said. I really don't understand why there are people out there who are "outraged" about this. They should be happy that Polanski was in his home country, and not in the US molesting/raping their children.

I am both saddened and sickened that there are people out there who are supporting this ... creep.

[Boozy]

I would have applauded too because I believe you can appreciate and celebrate a person's work without agreeing with stuff that person has done in their own life.

I completely disagree.

Ostracism is one of the single greatest deterrents to crime that we as a society have, and I don't like that celebrities seem exempt from it.

[Rapscallion]

I agree with most of what you say, but the list caught my eye.

Now, let's look at this list of reasons as to just WHY this situation with Polanski is NOT okay: (Courtesy of a friend of mine and reposted with her permission; if you want the original link PM me and I'll ask her because this comes from her journal. I don't link to others' personal journals without their permission.)


1. He raped a thirteen year old girl and admitted it.

2. He agreed to plead down from the several felonies he could have been convicted of to a lesser charge of 'having sex with an underage child.'

3. He did not 'serve' his time. He was held for psychological evaluation. He bolted before he was sentenced because the 42 day sentence--much cited and mis-cited---was not a certainty. All he would have had to do was sit in some celeb-country-club-spa jail and he'd have been out; instead he turned fugitive because he knew damn well he could get nailed worse for what he did.

No complaint here.

4. His attorneys suddenly discovered concern for the victim---as long as it was about the other people she'd allegedly 'had sex' with. They wanted those people prosecuted, presumably before Polanski. They used this to make sure the public knew the girl wasn't a virgin. (Because only virgins can be raped, to such way of thinking, and then that girl better be all-American sweet apple Jesus pie who was beaten to a bloody pulp while trying in vain to defend her honor.)

I don't have enough information about the case to make an informed comment. No contest.

5. Polanski fled to Europe because evidently the only people he can fight are thirteen-year-old girls, and even then only if they're drugged and drunk.

From what I understand, he forced himself on her and raped her - it wasn't a fight.

6. Polanski raped a child. (Seriously, this should NOT need any explanation whatsoever.)

Redundant - covered in point one.

7. Polanski's history as a Holocaust victim did not lead him to rape. It led him to use the Holocaust as an excuse for rape. His using it as an excuse spits in the face of all Holocaust victims who amazingly did not go on to rape/harm others.

From what little I've read, his holocaust history was used to try and excuse his fleeing from justice, not for rape (fear of imprisonment).

8. Polanski is not, nor ever has been, 'in exile.' He's French by birth. His so-called exile consists of being unable to return to the US and pick up his awards and presumably attack American girls. He's living in his home country.

He raped one girl. There is no evidence he wants to do more. Try him for the crime he committed and punish accordingly, but not for alleged future crimes.

9. The rationalizations about the case---"Oh, everybody did this that then," say far more about the speaker than about the times. Rape is rape. There is no occasion on which it is ever okay. There was no time during which it was ever okay. If this girl is not safe and respected, then no adult women are safe, either.

The times have changed. I mentioned that earlier how attitudes were different back then. They did punish back then, but it's the extent of the reporting and the attitudes being different. I never said it was ok because of it, but as far as I'm concerned there was far less in the way of paedophile hysteria back then than there is now. It's got to the stage where I won't go for a walk in the park - I'm a single male, so I can't risk it.

10. This is not the time to discuss statuatory rape laws and how fucked up they are. This is the perfect case in which those laws apply: the victim was thirteen. Polanski was forty-four. He isolated her, drugged her, raped her repeatedly.

No objection - there's no hint that she was even remotely willing, which is where the grey areas come in for statutory rape.

11. The girl's mother is not to blame. The girl's mother did not rape the girl. Polanski did. It was Polanski's choice to rape the girl. Was the mother supposed to know? Seriously, what was she supposed to know? Polanski said it was for a 'photo shoot'. Did he have a reputation as a rapist? Even a reputation as a womanizer does not make one a rapist. The victim was not a woman. She was a thirteen-year-old girl.

No objection, save to say that in this section there's pointing out that he wasn't known as a rapist, but above there's the claim he'd only want to go to the US to rape girls (and pick up awards).

12. The age of consent in France is fifteen. This still makes Polanski a creepy stunted man who can't handle adult women. Even in 'liberated' France, what he did was a crime. (And 75% of French citizens in a recent poll believe that Polanski should be brought to justice.)

Irrelevant - the offence didn't take place in France.

13. He was a shitty husband to Sharon Tate, who just wanted to get married and have babies. He has also used her death as an excuse to justify the rape. In short, Polanski seems to use just about everything as an excuse to rape little girls. (See further notes below.)

To rape little girls. So, which other underage girl has he had sex with if this is plural? I'm genuinely interested, as I've not heard of this.

14. One does not 'have sex with' a thirteen year old girl if one is 44. It is rape.

See point one. This is just repeating the same thing.

15. Numerous celebrities have shown that womens' rights are just so much shit under their feet by signing a declaration in support of poor Polanski: among them: Debra Winger, Pedro Almovadar, Woody Allen, and so on.

No objection, though in fairness many celebrities don't take time to invetigate what they're doing. It's not only about this one case.

16. The documentary that some people are citing is a piece of propaganda. It discusses Polanski's background, but not the judge's: he was such a good student than he went directly to Harvard from high school. They also discuss the judge's sex life but not Polanski's, except to wink at it. Reportedly, the judge had two girlfriends, which has nothing to do with his morals, unless there was something non-consensual about it. Also, it's incredibly hypocritical of Polanski's apologists to take this route, because Polanski was and might still be the sort of guy who dates women three or four decades younger than him. (His current wife is forty years younger than him. They have two children, one of whom is a daughter about the age of the girl he raped.) The documentary devotes a great deal of time to the judge, but in fact he granted Polanski permission to travel to Europe---again, not exile, but home---to do a movie. It was when Polanski proved the prison shrinks wrong---"Unlikely to offend again"---that the judge indicated he was extremely displeased and disinclined to abide by the original suggested sentence.

Not seen it, cannot comment.

17. It is not puritanical to want to make sure that men in their forties do not prey on girls in their teens. In fact, it is the very definition of sexual liberation to free girls--and boys---from the possibility of such a situation. People who stand for Roman Polanski are supporting the notion of sexual exploitation of children by adult men.

Very definition? I beg to differ. Wikipedia certainly does. It barely touches it save as an obvious aspect of 'only between consensually agreeing adults'. Sexual liberation has many aspects to it, but mostly it's about getting over irrational societal constructs preventing willing people from spending time with each other and indulging in jollies.

I hate citing Wikipedia as a source, but it was the only result when I googled for "Define: sexual liberation". My apologies.

18. Sexual liberation does not mean 'men get to do whatever they want to whomever they want, and moreso if they're famous and rich and successfully avoid prosecution for a crime they already plead guilty to.

I don't remember anyone saying that it did. Please cite a source?

19. Sexual liberation means that people can sexually experiment in a consensual non-harmful non-exploitive environment. A 44-year-old man drugging and raping a thirteen year old girl is not liberating.

I really think this point and the two above should have been part of one big point. It's very repetitious, but that's more about style.

20. Drugging a thirteen-year-old girl is a crime. Forcing alcohol upon such a girl is a crime. When a girl says no it is a crime. Doing all three ought to be an enhanced felony, as crimes are being committed to further other crimes. Instead there are people calling this 'a mistake.' It is a mistake, for example, to leave one's fly unzipped.

What should be in the opinion of one person runs the risk of muddying the waters of what actually is. You cannot run a system whereby someone can say, "I'm so outraged by your actions that I'm going to work out more things to pile onto your punishment, things that aren't included in any guidelines or maximum sentences."

It is not a mistake to open a bottle of pills and force one on a young girl.
It is not a mistake to open a bottle of champagne and make a girl drink from it.
It is not a mistake to ignore the fact that a young girl is saying 'no' when one rapes her.

No objection.

21. Drugging a girl who's of age is a crime as well.

22. Raping anyone of any age who says no is rape. Full stop.

23. Forcing drugs on someone is illegal, full stop.

24. Raping someone is not something one does by accident. If one does not have the enthusiastic consent of one's partners, if one regards unconscious or drunken women as sexual opportunities, one is a rapist.

Repetition does not make for a good argument. I agree with the contents, but the issue is cloudied by repeated rhetoric.

25. It does not matter if 'everyone' did drugs or drank it up during the Seventies. Roman Polanski is accused of doing these things to an underage girl---which is illegal in and of itself--in order to further his plan to rape her, which plan of action ought to be illegal in and of itself. Rape is never okay. What Roman Polanski did was rape.

Repeat.

26. It is not okay to force drugs and alcohol on of-age women, either, whether to rape them or not.

Is he accused of this?

27. It is not okay to rape someone when they're of the age of consent, either.

Is he accused of this?

28. It is not okay to rape someone because they want to work for you.

I figure this was covered by it not being OK to rape someone.

29. It is not okay to say 'I didn't know how old she was." If you don't know, find out. If you think she's younger, change your plans. Why is this so horrible? Seriously, why? "But I won't get to fuck her!" is not exactly a great excuse. You're not being deprived of food, water, shelter, employment, or education. Why is it that some men (NOTE: SOME, NOT all) rank immediate sexual gratification as being necessary to their survival?

The fact that a disclaimer is thought necessary by the author is pretty telling. Despite that, I get the feeling that I should be ashamed to be male.

Did Polanski ever say he didn't know how old she was? I've not read all the documentation, so I have to ask. If he did, then did he ever say he thought, "But I won't get to fuck her!"? Please, nail him to the wall for the crimes he committed - not for things that have been made up.

30. It is not okay to say about a thirteen-year-old girl, or anyone: she asked for it, she wanted it, she should have known better, she was flirting, she was experienced, etc., etc,. especially when one is forty four one's self. It is not okay to say this about any rape victim. Also, if the accused or alleged---or, in this case, admitted rapist says this, common sense would dictate that the smell of self-interest in the air would alert people to the notion that an admitted rapist might not the best person to talk about his victim.

In a court of law, which is where I suspect this came from, he might be one of the people considered to be worthy of providing evidence, since he was actually there? The right to defend yourself and all that. He might or might not be believed, but he could give better evidence than I could, since I doubt I was even in my teens and definitely not on the same continent when it happened.

Your friend is obviously very passionate, but that's really clouding what she has to say. Sure, nail him for what he did, or what he admitted to if we're going down the plea bargain route, but don't invent additions to crime sentencing in the process, or appear to invent new crimes for him.

Rapscallion

[kibbles]

I still say I think it should be dropped and IMO I think after a while it will be. Also, I used to hear doubts about the validity of what the victim said. It has been heard of people "admitting" to crimes they didn't commit on the advice of their lawyers to avoid what would be certain jail time.

JMO.

[IDrinkaRum]

He raped a 13-year-old child back in the 1970's. He didn't admit it because his lawyer sold him some bad advice to get the "thing" over with. I don't know why there are people here on the board and in Hollywood and around the world that can't seem to wrap their minds around this simple fact.

The man is a child rapist. Just because he raped "only" one child, still makes him a child rapist.

The man is a waste of space.

And I hope a backlash against the people who signed the petition to free him. I know I'm not watching any Woody Allen movies (okay, I don't believe I've ever seen a Woody Allen movie, but that's beside the point).

I refuse to watch Polanski movies, and I'll refuse to watch other movies of his "supporters".

Bah on the lot of them and humbug on those who can't seem to think he's guilty.

[telecom_goddess]

wow....refusing to watch his movies is kinda harsh. You're missing out on a classic like Rosemary's Baby because of something he might have done...we still can't prove for sure he did it.

I ksay that because I knew someone who was accused of sex abuse when it was complete and total bs, the girl made it up cause she was a bitch. It could have ruined his life. All because something wasn't going the way she wanted it to.

We shouldn't be so quick to blame someone for something of this nature unless it's proven without a doubt they did it and without consent.

[kibbles]

I hope there is no backlash IMO because as unpopular as some opinions are, they are still should feel free to express them.

And what I was saying is some people do admit guilt to something they didn't do because if not, the probability of proving their innocence would be very low.

I'm not saying he shouldn't pay (if in fact he is proven guilty beyond a resonable doubt); but, I just don't think he should pay in the same way others think he should.

[IDrinkaRum]

For the record, I very rarely, if ever, watch a movie based on a book. The exceptions are the Harry Potter series as I've never read the books and the movie "Auntie Mame" where I did read the book eventually (years after I first saw the Rosalind Rusell film) and I prefer the movie over the long and boring book.

As for Rosemary's Baby? Ira Levin is a creepy enough writer and with my imagination, that was scary enough without needing to see a visual representation on screen. I have not seen Wuthering Heights, Emma, or any of the classics that have been brought to screen back in the '30's, '40's and within the past 10 years or so.

So no, I don't "need" to see Rosemary's Baby.

And telecom_goddess you're basing your assumptions on one girl. Just because one girl was delusional, doesn't mean this woman, who was a girl at the time, was delusional. Don't use the same brush to paint victims of sexual assault.

[lordlundar]

I hope there is no backlash IMO because as unpopular as some opinions are, they are still should feel free to express them.

Ah yes, the "I have a right to speak my mind without repercussions" argument.

Bullshit. You want to say something that does not directly harm someone else, fine. But there are ALWAYS consequences for your actions, and while you have the right to speak your mind, it comes with the responsibility to accept those consequences.

[BroomJockey]

Read between the lines.

Translation: "It does because I say so." Got it. I'm officially done in this thread. Moving on.

[telecom_goddess]

And telecom_goddess you're basing your assumptions on one girl. Just because one girl was delusional, doesn't mean this woman, who was a girl at the time, was delusional. Don't use the same brush to paint victims of sexual assault.

I'm not I"m just saying that we don't KNOW what happened....that people's lives can be ruined over something that may not be based in fact. Opinions are formed about people based on things that are not proven to be totally true.

Frankly I feel the whole thing should be dropped.....it's been a long time, she's gone on with her life and he should be allowed to get on with his.

And if he is such a sexual predator how come it's never come up again? The types of people who commit those crimes and are proven to have done it ...do it repeatedly. Not just once.

[BlaqueKatt]

Frankly I feel the whole thing should be dropped.....it's been a long time, she's gone on with her life and he should be allowed to get on with his.

I suggest reading the link IDrinkarum provided-that argument is in there. And he has been-he has an estate in France where he is a legal citizen, a wife, two kids, has been making movies...wow he's had it rough....

Maybe we should just close all criminal cases after 30 years-after all "it was so long ago, and the victims have moved on-why bother trying to bring perpetrators to justice" Then maybe we can lower it to 20, 15 years-HEY criminals-if you commit a crime, just stay on the run for a while and we won't bother with you......Yeah that's a great idea.....

And if he is such a sexual predator how come it's never come up again? The types of people who commit those crimes and are proven to have done it ...do it repeatedly. Not just once.

hmm his current wife was 20 when they met(he was 53 at the time)....and just because it's never come up publicly doesn't mean "it's never happened again"(catholic church sex scandal anyone?)-maybe he just payed them off beforehand-or the fact that age of consent in france is only 15 may have helped.....

[Nyoibo]

IThen maybe we can lower it to 20, 15 years-HEY criminals-if you commit a crime, just stay on the run for a while and we won't bother with you......Yeah that's a great idea.....

You already do that, it's called the statute of limitations

hmm his current wife was 20 when they met(he was 53 at the time

Wht's that got to do with anything?