Polanski's Many Detractors

If the impression you have from reaction to the Roman Polanski extradition case (see Nick Gillespie's great posts here and here) is that the media and the broad Left are overwhelmingly rallying around the weird little Polack, please do think again. Today the Washington Post editorialized that "Sexual assault on a 13-year-old girl isn't 'a little mistake,'" then called for Polanksi's extradition, and took a slap at the director's celebrity apologists: "Thankfully, a backlash is developing, fueled by the public getting a clear understanding of Mr. Polanski's sordid crime and his cowardice in evading justice."

That comes one day after a similar editorial in The New York Times, and two days afer the hometown L.A. Times. An incomplete roll call of unsympathetic commentators would include Steve Lopez, Richard Cohen, Eugene Robinson, Peter Bradshaw, Joan Smith, Kerry Dougherty, and many more. Deserving special mention among that list is this brutal deployment of the English language by Salon's Kate Harding: "Reminder: Roman Polanksi raped a child." Even the French government is allegedly dropping its support, and one can more than seldom hear a discouraging word at the telltale heart of Polanskiphilia, The Huffington Post.

I've got a copy of RoPo's memoir, Roman by Polanski (get it???), sitting on my desk. Would you like to see an excerpt involving the sexing up of girls not of driver's permit age? Too late! This section describes events from October 1976:

One day a German gossip columnist invited me out on a double date with two girls he wante me to meet. Both were young and, in different ways, strikingly beautiful. One of them was rather dowdily dressed. I asked her name. "My friends call me Nasty," she said. [...] Very late that night, after a long round of discos, the four of us ended up in my suite. Leaving Nasty with the journalist, I took the other girl, a stunning blonde, to bed. By the time I surfaced the journalist had gone. Nasty was half-asleep in an armchair in the sitting room. Taking her by the hand, I led her back into the bedroom.

We never repeated this threesome, though I saw a lot of both girls thereafter. I dated the blonde for several weeks, but it was Nasty who grew on me more and more. [...]

Nastassia introdued me to her mother, who discussed her career with me [...]. That was when I first learned Nastassia's age. She was only fifteen.

We made love more than once during my three months in Munich. [...] On the night we met I'd thought her a couple of years older than her friend, who was, in fact, seventeen.

Charming! Just a couple of months later came The Incident. Yes, he describes it in the book. I'll keep the nauseating excerpt to a minimum:

Then, very gently, I began to kiss and caress her. After this had gone on for some time, I led her over to the couch.

There was no doubt about Sandra's experience and lack of inhibition. She spread herself and I entered her. She wasn't unresponsive.

Polanski was "incredulous" that anyone would consider his actions a crime. And he was indignant that photographs of him yukking it up in Munich on leave from his case became an issue, since the females in the photo were attached to various friends. Of course, at the time, he was still shacking up with Kinski, though in fairness she was a wisened old lady of 16.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • kinnath||

    There was no doubt about Sandra's experience and lack of inhibition. She spread herself and I entered her. She wasn't unresponsive.

    So he published a confession.

  • P||

    Yeah, saying "No, please stop raping me in the ass!" counts as a response.

  • Ariadne Huffanan||

    It's unfortunate to see such reactionary commentary at a high-minded site like this. You Americans simply do not understand the "European Way".

  • ||

    "European Way" .... get 13 year old drunk, drug her with a lude or two for good measure, rape/sodomize her as she protests "no" even while drugged, the protesting which you Euro fellas somehow take as "responsive". Sick and Wrong in any land!

  • Snoopy||

    Whooosh!

  • ||

    Thank goodness we don't. Still some decency left here. Reactionary? Drugging ans raping a 13 year old.

  • Bergholt Stuttley Johnson||

    So Welch gets blockquotes and we don't? I tell you, whoever is responsible will pay when the Dictatorship of the Commentariat comes.

  • Squirrel||

    Your blockquotes

    have been functional

    for more than an hour.

  • Moose||

    Go Rocky

  • Bergholt Stuttley Johnson||

    Awesome! Are there any plans to bring back the Preview and Remember Me options?

  • Squirrel||

    We're working on them right now.

  • Bergholt Stuttley Johnson||

    You are wise and benevolent, O Great Squirrel.

  • @||

    Squirrel is one helluva multitasker.
    Replies and fixes. Me impressed.

  • anarch||

    Are there any plans to bring back the Preview and Remember Me options?

    AKA the Polanski Maneuver?

  • anarch||

    Yo, didn't mean to shout, don't know how it happened.

  • ||

    Have you notified kilroy?

  • smartass sob||

    As contemptible as Polanski is, I have an even lower opinion of the girls' mothers.

  • ||

    I AGREE. THIS PART OF THE STORY HAS NOT BEEN COVERED. NOT TO MENTION, THAT WE HEAR NOTHING ABOUT THE FATHERS. MY IMPRESSION IS THAT THEY WERE NOT IN THEIR LIVES.

  • ||

    Honestly, I've never really heard squat to substantiate the theory that her mom was "whoring her out".

    If you have some actual evidence, statements, or whatnot to backup the whole "pimp-mom" theory, I would love to see it.

  • ||

    MY OPINION IS THAT THE VICTIMS MOTHER WAS AT THE VERY LEAST NEGLIGENT. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN READING THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS BUT THE REPORTING IS THAT SHE HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY SEXUALLY ACTIVE. JUST SAD.

  • Drew||

    From what I understand, it was the girl's mother that actually reported rape to the police as soon as she heard about it, leading to a search of Polanski's room that uncovered a pretty much airtight evidential case. The mother might well have put her daughter in a terrible situation and exercised incredibly poor judgment, but why would she have reported the rape at all, let alone right away, if she was complicit in arranging/expecting it?

  • scott||

    Q: why would she have reported the rape at all, let alone right away, if she was complicit in arranging/expecting it?

    A: $$$$$$$$$$$$$

  • JW||

    NutraSweet! Rewrite!

  • Lester Hunt||

    When he was first arrested my gut reaction was "aw, dismiss the charges!" But I am beginning to lean the other way -- at least, let the legal system take its course.

  • Colin||

    I realize he went through some horrible experiences in his life. And if those things happened to me, I'd probably be pretty screwed up, too.

    But it's no excuse. Nor is his filmmaking acumen.

    And even though I'm generally opposed to all violence outside of self-defense, part of me can't help but hope that somewhere in that Swiss prison he's getting a taste of his own medicine.

  • Ska||

    It's funny when people cite the "terrible past experiences" bit as an excuse. If I went up to Ossining or to Rikers Island and started polling rapists about their childhoods, do you think maybe, just maybe, some of them also have totally fucked up pasts? Perhaps not victims of the Holocaust, but certainly abandoned/locked up/killed/violent/drug dependent/alcohol dependent, etc. etc. So now we're going to forgive rapists because their childhood was fucked up?

  • ||

    You mean like Charles Manson? It's ridiculous to me that "he had a bad childhood" is a valid excuse for Polanski, but not the man who's responsible for Sharon Tate's murder (not that I support such a defense).

  • ||

    the stats are that about 70% of women in prison (I don't know for men) were sexually abused as children. My sense is that it is fairly high for men as well......which would explain why sexual predators are preyed upon when they go to jail.
    as for the parents (and PLEASE include the absent fathers in here as well)....yes, they have something to answer to, but, the reality is that Polanski, as an adult, should never have taken advantage of this child. The kid's (or kids in his case) parents' not being present does not give an excuse for what he did....it creates an opportunity for a predator, but it does not mean that it is an open invitation for the predator.
    Let's consider all of the parents who allowed their sons to spend time alone w/ pervy priests. It's a similar thing. Our society tends to value people in positions of power over average people...and to place a trust in them....Polanski and many of these priests (as well as plenty of others) violate that trust (which, to me, is misplaced to begin with).

  • Real Polish Person||

    "little Polack"

    You are the biggest cunt ever, Matt. Polack? You gonna use Kike on this guy too?

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Ha ha ha ha, naw, probably something else anachronistic like "Polack".

  • Death Panelist||

    Damn. I was hoping the site upgrade would include a political correctness checker.

  • Real Female Person||

    Uh...

  • ||

    Win!

  • Real German Perons||

    Shut up, Polack. The only thing I want to hear from you is why you forgot to empty the trash in my office last night.

  • GILMORE||

    All I can think of is, "Bow chicka wow wow"

  • P Brooks||

    Dylan Ratigan, on MSNBC, of all places, said, "Bring him back, and throw him in jail" yesterday.

    Good job, Dylan.

  • @||

    Dylan Ratigan is a bigger cunt than MSNBC's super-cunts, and by super-cunts I mean David Shuster, Tamron Hall Norah O'Donnell. Nothing personal, Dylan. Love the hair.

  • JB||

    European 16 is like American 19, but still.

    I wonder if anyone who signed that petition for Polanski (saying rape isn't that big a deal) are actually attractive. They may want to watch their drinks for awhile.

  • Drunkenatheist||

    Right asshole, because only hot chicks get raped. Pick up a fucking book and learn what rape is, what it's about, and then open your fucking mouth.

  • JB||

    Maybe you should sober up retard. You sound like you need to be Polanski'd.

  • tyciol||

    Oh c'mon you're totally not verbing his name.

  • zoltan||

    Monica Bellucci signed it. Her character in Irreversible was sodomized for 11 minutes on film. But hey, that penis was CGIed.

  • Real Polish Person||

    "Ha ha ha ha, naw, probably something else anachronistic like "Polack"."

    Having grown up hearing the slur countless times (as recently as today) I do not find it to be anachronistic.

    BTW, some of my best friends ar darkies.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Damn, dude, my bad, I didn't know you grew up in the '50s.

  • Michael||

    Weird, I heard it repeatedly growing up during the mid-eighties. Someday I might see it as a character building exercise.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Thanks, commentators, for going so far as condemning child rape. Also, good job on not advocating the punching of the handicapped in the face, I guess.

  • T||

    Also, good job on not advocating the punching of the handicapped in the face, I guess.

    Is it cool if the handicapped are being, like, total dicks and deserve a good face punching? The answer may help my lawyer out.

  • FIst of Etiquette||

    It would be more helpful if you were also handicapped. You have a poor attorney if he hasn't already suggested maiming you before your arraignment.

  • Berholt Sidney Johnson||

    Does backpfeifengesicht count as a handicap?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I think it's on par with the secondhandsmokeitis.

  • palerobber||

    i take great offense at your backhanded insult of Ty Cobb. that handicapped guy had it coming.

  • anarch||

    Doesn't he get an exemption based on the HAPPY Act described below?

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    One point about Polanski's decision to flee his sentence that nobody has yet made: It's a great example of the folly of market timing.

    When he took it on the lam, there was plenty of evidence that American society would become steadily less punitive of sexual misbehavior, and in most ways, it has. But at the same time the country has become vastly less tolerant of all forms of sexual contact with minors, and vastly more contemptuous of the idea that a woman's right to refuse can be casually dismissed.

    He almost certainly would have been better off taking whatever sentence he was going to suffer in 1978. The market for rapists was never going to get better than it was at that moment.

  • anarch||

    evidence that American society would become steadily less punitive of sexual misbehavior, and in most ways, it has. But at the same time the country has become vastly less tolerant of all forms of sexual contact with minors

    Acutely noted, Tim.

    Do you see a causal connection between these two trends - eg, as say a puritan undertow to the laissez-faire tide? And what futures are you selling for the secular market?

  • anarch||

    evidence that American society

    Sorry, Folks. Without a preview function, this was the only way to see whether blockquoting a blockquote makes the text still bigger. And I had to know.

  • ||

    Society needs deviants to define itself against. With the mainstreaming of so many formerly "deviant" forms of sexual behavior, the full weight of society's condemnation falls on the few remaining instances of sexual deviance.

  • T||

    Society needs deviants to define itself against.

    Some of y'all need to watch out if that's true.

  • zoltan||

    The difference in certain types of "deviant" behavior being some are consensual and some aren't. So the "full weight of society's condemnation" should be falling on non-consensual forms of sexual "deviance" (I'd call it crime).

  • anarch||

    And now I know.

  • Isaac Bartram||

    Yeah, as I understand it the judge reneging on the plea deal was threatening him with 16 months in jail rather than the probation that RP had been offered.

    Today 16 months would be considered unthinkably lenient for this offense. I doubt if probation with no jail time would cut it in a plea deal for that matter.

    Mind you, i also understand the judge wanted him deported after he did his time too. But that's not really relevant since there was no chance he was coming back after he went on the lam, was there?

  • ||

    Well-played, Tim!

  • ||

    One of the odd things about the public support for Polanski by some Hollywood types is that these very same Hollywood people have been making money off the anger and hatred of criminals who sexually exploit children for years now, with shows like "Law & Order: Perverts Division" and that predator trapping show. Hollywood people know how regular people feel about this (you might even argue that such TV shows prod people into thinking this way), so you'd expect them to keep their mouths shut if they disagree.

  • ||

    My opinion is that most of them probably didn't know that he drugged and raped a 13 year old.

    They probably had some vague misapprehension that he had consensual sex with a minor, and never bothered to look further.

    Seriously, what else could explain Harvey Weinstein's "so-called crime" and Whoopie's "it wasn't rape-rape".

  • Context||

    I kinda made that point the other day

  • Klaus, Roman's prison roommate||

    He spread herself and I entered him. He wasn't unresponsive.

  • Seward||

    Ouch.

  • wtm||

    Lets Ask ACORN what to do

  • ||

    Drink!

    (I play a great online ACORN game!)

  • anarch||

    But seriously folks, I thought libertarians disapproved human cages, except possibly for wildebeeste-type people, as being (at best) unproductive, and opted instead for reparation/compensation.

  • kinnath||

    I think that a 40-something year-old man that drugs and rapes a 13-year-old girl while she continuously says no is someone that clearly should not be allowed to walk around freely in a civilized societ.

  • Tholan||

    anarch, the man is a fugitive from justice. And not "justice" dolled out for not paying taxes or some such, but an unconstitutional plea bargain to step down the charges for raping a female who was also well under society's arbitrary age of consent.

    The rule of law exists protect those who can not protect themselves, like say a drugged 13 year old girl.

    But if you want to put fourth an argument says that she coerced him by wrongfully presenting her age, and then he was somehow obliged to respond in the manner in which he did, then go ahead. But Anarch, I would much rather say the proper response would have been to toss her out of the house and not the self serving, violent action he took instead.

  • perlhaqr||

    It's true, a less statist solution would have been to capture his productive output, provide him with a minimal stipend and a bodyguard, to make sure he doesn't harm anyone else, then give the rest of it to the victim.

    But that hasn't happened. Perhaps the judge in the case will fine him "everything" and award it to her. That seems fairly reasonable.

  • Klaus again||

    Vot? No prefew?

  • Polanski||

    Previewing seems to be frowned upon hereabouts.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    I am waiting for Jennifer Lopez and that commedian guy to weigh in before I decide what the pulse of Hollywood is on this one.

    My GOD, this guy sold books? SugarFree writes better than him! Ukerbold writes better than him. I write better than him!

    What's the deal? Maybe I should make some underage characters getting drugged, bound and assaulted. Seems hot 26 year olds drugged in lesbian rape scenes are out of vogue. Hell, that book is free too! Transvestites drugging assaulting adult characters is a big nothing now too.

    What's with Matt's name not being linked any more? He is like the big dog and no link on the main page?

    (eleventh time trying to post this, I keep getting bounced to another page)

  • Real Polis Person||

    "Damn, dude, my bad, I didn't know you grew up in the '50s."

    70's & 80's.

    BTW, when I click "reply to this" nothing happens.

  • R C Dean||

    She wasn't unresponsive.

    Hey, struggling and pleading are a response.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Exclaiming "No, stop" is another.

    I wonder what John Draper's opinion on this is?

  • Happy Congressman||

    I keep getting bounced to another page.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    The only thing that works for me is closing the browser window and reopening when that happens.

  • EJM||

    FYI: Most of the links in the second graf of the post are bad, as they start with "http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/01/ ".

  • Hacha Cha||

    I think if it is merely statutory "rape" as opposed to violent forced rape that there should definitely be a statute of limitations to prevent such absurdities.

  • kinnath||

    Plead guilty to any crime and then fleeing the jurisdiction to avoid sentencing is an entirely new set of crimes.

    Besides there is no statue of limitations once you plead guilty to a crime -- you are then a convicted felon -- not a suspect.

  • Hacha Cha||

    I thought a guilty plea does not mean you are automatically convicted, doesn't he have to be found guilty by the judge or jury and then sentenced? also I know he was fleeing jurisdiction but I meant that too in most situations should have a statute of limitations. not necessarily supporting Polanski but supporting statutes of limitations.

  • kinnath||

    guilty equals guilty; a plea has the same legal standing as a jury verdict.

    Once you say I'm guilty, you are a convicted felon.

  • kinnath||

    I guess the one issue have not seen covered in the press yet is whether

    a) the judge accepted his plea, then sent him to jail for a psyche evaluation prior to sentencing.

    or b) the judge sent him to jail for the psyche eval before the judge accepted the guilty plea.

  • ||

    Not true if the judge does not accept your plea. It is not the act of you confessing to a crime or pleading guilty that convicts you of the crime. The court must find you guilty, which of course, it can do based on your plea.

  • ReadTheDepo||

    "
    Print|Email
    Polanski's Many Detractors

    Matt Welch | October 1, 2009

    If the impression you have from reaction to the Roman Polanski extradition case (see Nick Gillespie's great posts here and here) is that the media and the broad Left are overwhelmingly rallying around the weird little Polack, please do think again. Today the Washington Post editorialized that "Sexual assault on a 13-year-old girl isn't 'a little mistake,'" then called for Polanksi's extradition, and took a slap at the director's celebrity apologists: "Thankfully, a backlash is developing, fueled by the public getting a clear understanding of Mr. Polanski's sordid crime and his cowardice in evading justice."

    That comes one day after a similar editorial in The New York Times, and two days afer the hometown L.A. Times. An incomplete roll call of unsympathetic commentators would include Steve Lopez, Richard Cohen, Eugene Robinson, Peter Bradshaw, Joan Smith, Kerry Dougherty, and many more. Deserving special mention among that list is this brutal deployment of the English language by Salon's Kate Harding: "Reminder: Roman Polanksi raped a child." Even the French government is allegedly dropping its support, and one can more than seldom hear a discouraging word at the telltale heart of Polanskiphilia, The Huffington Post.

    I've got a copy of RoPo's memoir, Roman by Polanski (get it???), sitting on my desk. Would you like to see an excerpt involving the sexing up of girls not of driver's permit age? Too late! This section describes events from October 1976:

    I want my alt text back!One day a German gossip columnist invited me out on a double date with two girls he wante me to meet. Both were young and, in different ways, strikingly beautiful. One of them was rather dowdily dressed. I asked her name. "My friends call me Nasty," she said. [...] Very late that night, after a long round of discos, the four of us ended up in my suite. Leaving Nasty with the journalist, I took the other girl, a stunning blonde, to bed. By the time I surfaced the journalist had gone. Nasty was half-asleep in an armchair in the sitting room. Taking her by the hand, I led her back into the bedroom.

    We never repeated this threesome, though I saw a lot of both girls thereafter. I dated the blonde for several weeks, but it was Nasty who grew on me more and more. [...]

    Nastassia introdued me to her mother, who discussed her career with me [...]. That was when I first learned Nastassia's age. She was only fifteen.

    We made love more than once during my three months in Munich. [...] On the night we met I'd thought her a couple of years older than her friend, who was, in fact, seventeen.

    Charming! Just a couple of months later came The Incident. Yes, he describes it in the book. I'll keep the nauseating excerpt to a minimum:

    Then, very gently, I began to kiss and caress her. After this had gone on for some time, I led her over to the couch.

    There was no doubt about Sandra's experience and lack of inhibition. She spread herself and I entered her. She wasn't unresponsive.

    Polanski was "incredulous" that anyone would consider his actions a crime. And he was indignant that photographs of him yukking it up in Munich on leave from his case became an issue, since the females in the photo were attached to various friends. Of course, at the time, he was still shacking up with Kinski, though in fairness she was a wisened old lady of 16.

    Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
    StumbleUpon| Digg| Reddit| Twitter| Facebook

    Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
    ← HAPPY Days or, Should Pets Be… | Main | Feminist Majority Foundation Founder on Polanski:… →
    See all 118 comments | Leave a comment
    kinnath|10.1.09 @ 2:02PM|#

    There was no doubt about Sandra's experience and lack of inhibition. She spread herself and I entered her. She wasn't unresponsive.

    So he published a confession.
    reply to this
    P|10.1.09 @ 2:44PM|#

    Yeah, saying "No, please stop raping me in the ass!" counts as a response.
    reply to this
    Ariadne Huffanan|10.1.09 @ 2:02PM|#

    It's unfortunate to see such reactionary commentary at a high-minded site like this. You Americans simply do not understand the "European Way".
    reply to this
    ProphetFella|10.1.09 @ 8:55PM|#

    "European Way" .... get 13 year old drunk, drug her with a lude or two for good measure, rape/sodomize her as she protests "no" even while drugged, the protesting which you Euro fellas somehow take as "responsive". Sick and Wrong in any land!
    reply to this
    Bergholt Stuttley Johnson|10.1.09 @ 2:06PM|#

    So Welch gets blockquotes and we don't? I tell you, whoever is responsible will pay when the Dictatorship of the Commentariat comes.
    reply to this
    Squirrel|10.1.09 @ 2:13PM|#

    Your blockquotes

    have been functional

    for more than an hour.
    reply to this
    Moose|10.1.09 @ 2:18PM|#

    Go Rocky
    reply to this
    Bergholt Stuttley Johnson|10.1.09 @ 2:23PM|#

    Awesome! Are there any plans to bring back the Preview and Remember Me options?
    reply to this
    Squirrel|10.1.09 @ 2:27PM|#

    We're working on them right now.
    reply to this
    Bergholt Stuttley Johnson|10.1.09 @ 2:42PM|#

    You are wise and benevolent, O Great Squirrel.
    reply to this
    @|10.1.09 @ 3:03PM|#

    Squirrel is one helluva multitasker.
    Replies and fixes. Me impressed.
    reply to this
    anarch|10.1.09 @ 2:29PM|#

    Are there any plans to bring back the Preview and Remember Me options?

    AKA the Polanski Maneuver?
    reply to this
    anarch|10.1.09 @ 2:30PM|#

    Yo, didn't mean to shout, don't know how it happened.
    reply to this
    Lamar|10.1.09 @ 3:24PM|#

    Have you notified kilroy?
    reply to this
    smartass sob|10.1.09 @ 2:11PM|#

    As contemptible as Polanski is, I have an even lower opinion of the girls' mothers.
    reply to this
    MARY STACK|10.1.09 @ 6:26PM|#

    I AGREE. THIS PART OF THE STORY HAS NOT BEEN COVERED. NOT TO MENTION, THAT WE HEAR NOTHING ABOUT THE FATHERS. MY IMPRESSION IS THAT THEY WERE NOT IN THEIR LIVES.
    reply to this
    Hazel Meade|10.1.09 @ 7:13PM|#

    Honestly, I've never really heard squat to substantiate the theory that her mom was "whoring her out".

    If you have some actual evidence, statements, or whatnot to backup the whole "pimp-mom" theory, I would love to see it.
    reply to this
    MARY STACK|10.1.09 @ 7:47PM|#

    MY OPINION IS THAT THE VICTIMS MOTHER WAS AT THE VERY LEAST NEGLIGENT. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN READING THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS BUT THE REPORTING IS THAT SHE HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY SEXUALLY ACTIVE. JUST SAD.
    reply to this
    Drew|10.2.09 @ 10:11AM|#

    From what I understand, it was the girl's mother that actually reported rape to the police as soon as she heard about it, leading to a search of Polanski's room that uncovered a pretty much airtight evidential case. The mother might well have put her daughter in a terrible situation and exercised incredibly poor judgment, but why would she have reported the rape at all, let alone right away, if she was complicit in arranging/expecting it?
    reply to this
    scott|10.2.09 @ 1:25PM|#

    Q: why would she have reported the rape at all, let alone right away, if she was complicit in arranging/expecting it?

    A: $$$$$$$$$$$$$
    reply to this
    JW|10.1.09 @ 2:12PM|#

    NutraSweet! Rewrite!
    reply to this
    Lester Hunt|10.1.09 @ 2:13PM|#

    When he was first arrested my gut reaction was "aw, dismiss the charges!" But I am beginning to lean the other way -- at least, let the legal system take its course.
    reply to this
    Colin|10.1.09 @ 2:13PM|#

    I realize he went through some horrible experiences in his life. And if those things happened to me, I'd probably be pretty screwed up, too.

    But it's no excuse. Nor is his filmmaking acumen.

    And even though I'm generally opposed to all violence outside of self-defense, part of me can't help but hope that somewhere in that Swiss prison he's getting a taste of his own medicine.
    reply to this
    Ska|10.1.09 @ 2:30PM|#

    It's funny when people cite the "terrible past experiences" bit as an excuse. If I went up to Ossining or to Rikers Island and started polling rapists about their childhoods, do you think maybe, just maybe, some of them also have totally fucked up pasts? Perhaps not victims of the Holocaust, but certainly abandoned/locked up/killed/violent/drug dependent/alcohol dependent, etc. etc. So now we're going to forgive rapists because their childhood was fucked up?
    reply to this
    Ken J|10.1.09 @ 3:34PM|#

    You mean like Charles Manson? It's ridiculous to me that "he had a bad childhood" is a valid excuse for Polanski, but not the man who's responsible for Sharon Tate's murder (not that I support such a defense).
    reply to this
    wah|10.2.09 @ 1:22PM|#

    the stats are that about 70% of women in prison (I don't know for men) were sexually abused as children. My sense is that it is fairly high for men as well......which would explain why sexual predators are preyed upon when they go to jail.
    as for the parents (and PLEASE include the absent fathers in here as well)....yes, they have something to answer to, but, the reality is that Polanski, as an adult, should never have taken advantage of this child. The kid's (or kids in his case) parents' not being present does not give an excuse for what he did....it creates an opportunity for a predator, but it does not mean that it is an open invitation for the predator.
    Let's consider all of the parents who allowed their sons to spend time alone w/ pervy priests. It's a similar thing. Our society tends to value people in positions of power over average people...and to place a trust in them....Polanski and many of these priests (as well as plenty of others) violate that trust (which, to me, is misplaced to begin with).
    reply to this
    Real Polish Person|10.1.09 @ 2:13PM|#

    "little Polack"

    You are the biggest cunt ever, Matt. Polack? You gonna use Kike on this guy too?
    reply to this
    Art-P.O.G.|10.1.09 @ 2:23PM|#

    Ha ha ha ha, naw, probably something else anachronistic like "Polack".
    reply to this
    Death Panelist|10.1.09 @ 2:34PM|#

    Damn. I was hoping the site upgrade would include a political correctness checker.
    reply to this
    Real Female Person|10.1.09 @ 2:31PM|#

    Uh...
    reply to this
    Really Amused Person|10.2.09 @ 3:38PM|#

    Win!
    reply to this
    Real German Perons|10.1.09 @ 6:11PM|#

    Shut up, Polack. The only thing I want to hear from you is why you forgot to empty the trash in my office last night.
    reply to this
    GILMORE|10.1.09 @ 2:16PM|#

    All I can think of is, "Bow chicka wow wow"
    reply to this
    P Brooks|10.1.09 @ 2:22PM|#

    Dylan Ratigan, on MSNBC, of all places, said, "Bring him back, and throw him in jail" yesterday.

    Good job, Dylan.
    reply to this
    @|10.1.09 @ 3:08PM|#

    Dylan Ratigan is a bigger cunt than MSNBC's super-cunts, and by super-cunts I mean David Shuster, Tamron Hall Norah O'Donnell. Nothing personal, Dylan. Love the hair.
    reply to this
    JB|10.1.09 @ 2:22PM|#

    European 16 is like American 19, but still.

    I wonder if anyone who signed that petition for Polanski (saying rape isn't that big a deal) are actually attractive. They may want to watch their drinks for awhile.
    reply to this
    Drunkenatheist|10.1.09 @ 4:54PM|#

    Right asshole, because only hot chicks get raped. Pick up a fucking book and learn what rape is, what it's about, and then open your fucking mouth.
    reply to this
    JB|10.2.09 @ 11:20AM|#

    Maybe you should sober up retard. You sound like you need to be Polanski'd.
    reply to this
    zoltan|10.1.09 @ 6:02PM|#

    Monica Bellucci signed it. Her character in Irreversible was sodomized for 11 minutes on film. But hey, that penis was CGIed.
    reply to this
    Real Polish Person|10.1.09 @ 2:29PM|#

    "Ha ha ha ha, naw, probably something else anachronistic like "Polack"."

    Having grown up hearing the slur countless times (as recently as today) I do not find it to be anachronistic.

    BTW, some of my best friends ar darkies.
    reply to this
    Art-P.O.G.|10.1.09 @ 2:37PM|#

    Damn, dude, my bad, I didn't know you grew up in the '50s.
    reply to this
    Michael|10.1.09 @ 3:37PM|#

    Weird, I heard it repeatedly growing up during the mid-eighties. Someday I might see it as a character building exercise.
    reply to this
    Fist of Etiquette|10.1.09 @ 2:29PM|#

    Thanks, commentators, for going so far as condemning child rape. Also, good job on not advocating the punching of the handicapped in the face, I guess.
    reply to this
    T|10.1.09 @ 2:53PM|#

    Also, good job on not advocating the punching of the handicapped in the face, I guess.

    Is it cool if the handicapped are being, like, total dicks and deserve a good face punching? The answer may help my lawyer out.
    reply to this
    FIst of Etiquette|10.1.09 @ 4:22PM|#

    It would be more helpful if you were also handicapped. You have a poor attorney if he hasn't already suggested maiming you before your arraignment.
    reply to this
    Berholt Sidney Johnson|10.1.09 @ 2:56PM|#

    Does backpfeifengesicht count as a handicap?
    reply to this
    Fist of Etiquette|10.1.09 @ 4:19PM|#

    I think it's on par with the secondhandsmokeitis.
    reply to this
    palerobber|10.2.09 @ 1:55PM|#

    i take great offense at your backhanded insult of Ty Cobb. that handicapped guy had it coming.
    reply to this
    anarch|10.1.09 @ 2:33PM|#

    Doesn't he get an exemption based on the HAPPY Act described below?
    reply to this
    Tim Cavanaugh|10.1.09 @ 2:33PM|#

    One point about Polanski's decision to flee his sentence that nobody has yet made: It's a great example of the folly of market timing.

    When he took it on the lam, there was plenty of evidence that American society would become steadily less punitive of sexual misbehavior, and in most ways, it has. But at the same time the country has become vastly less tolerant of all forms of sexual contact with minors, and vastly more contemptuous of the idea that a woman's right to refuse can be casually dismissed.

    He almost certainly would have been better off taking whatever sentence he was going to suffer in 1978. The market for rapists was never going to get better than it was at that moment.
    reply to this
    anarch|10.1.09 @ 2:42PM|#

    evidence that American society would become steadily less punitive of sexual misbehavior, and in most ways, it has. But at the same time the country has become vastly less tolerant of all forms of sexual contact with minors

    Acutely noted, Tim.

    Do you see a causal connection between these two trends - eg, as say a puritan undertow to the laissez-faire tide? And what futures are you selling for the secular market?
    reply to this
    anarch|10.1.09 @ 2:43PM|#

    evidence that American society

    Sorry, Folks. Without a preview function, this was the only way to see whether blockquoting a blockquote makes the text still bigger. And I had to know.
    reply to this
    Tulpa|10.1.09 @ 3:20PM|#

    Society needs deviants to define itself against. With the mainstreaming of so many formerly "deviant" forms of sexual behavior, the full weight of society's condemnation falls on the few remaining instances of sexual deviance.
    reply to this
    T|10.1.09 @ 3:27PM|#

    Society needs deviants to define itself against.

    Some of y'all need to watch out if that's true.
    reply to this
    zoltan|10.1.09 @ 6:09PM|#

    The difference in certain types of "deviant" behavior being some are consensual and some aren't. So the "full weight of society's condemnation" should be falling on non-consensual forms of sexual "deviance" (I'd call it crime).
    reply to this
    anarch|10.1.09 @ 2:44PM|#

    And now I know.
    reply to this
    Isaac Bartram|10.1.09 @ 2:53PM|#

    Yeah, as I understand it the judge reneging on the plea deal was threatening him with 16 months in jail rather than the probation that RP had been offered.

    Today 16 months would be considered unthinkably lenient for this offense. I doubt if probation with no jail time would cut it in a plea deal for that matter.

    Mind you, i also understand the judge wanted him deported after he did his time too. But that's not really relevant since there was no chance he was coming back after he went on the lam, was there?
    reply to this
    Rob McMillin|10.1.09 @ 3:07PM|#

    Well-played, Tim!
    reply to this
    mitch|10.1.09 @ 3:25PM|#

    One of the odd things about the public support for Polanski by some Hollywood types is that these very same Hollywood people have been making money off the anger and hatred of criminals who sexually exploit children for years now, with shows like "Law & Order: Perverts Division" and that predator trapping show. Hollywood people know how regular people feel about this (you might even argue that such TV shows prod people into thinking this way), so you'd expect them to keep their mouths shut if they disagree.
    reply to this
    Hazel Meade|10.1.09 @ 7:17PM|#

    My opinion is that most of them probably didn't know that he drugged and raped a 13 year old.

    They probably had some vague misapprehension that he had consensual sex with a minor, and never bothered to look further.

    Seriously, what else could explain Harvey Weinstein's "so-called crime" and Whoopie's "it wasn't rape-rape".
    reply to this
    Context|10.1.09 @ 5:21PM|#

    I kinda made that point the other day
    reply to this
    Klaus, Roman's prison roommate|10.1.09 @ 2:37PM|#

    He spread herself and I entered him. He wasn't unresponsive.
    reply to this
    Seward|10.1.09 @ 3:33PM|#

    Ouch.
    reply to this
    wtm|10.1.09 @ 6:08PM|#

    Lets Ask ACORN what to do
    reply to this
    Steve-O|10.2.09 @ 10:13AM|#

    Drink!

    (I play a great online ACORN game!)
    reply to this
    anarch|10.1.09 @ 2:37PM|#

    But seriously folks, I thought libertarians disapproved human cages, except possibly for wildebeeste-type people, as being (at best) unproductive, and opted instead for reparation/compensation.
    reply to this
    kinnath|10.1.09 @ 3:01PM|#

    I think that a 40-something year-old man that drugs and rapes a 13-year-old girl while she continuously says no is someone that clearly should not be allowed to walk around freely in a civilized societ.
    reply to this
    Tholan|10.1.09 @ 3:38PM|#

    anarch, the man is a fugitive from justice. And not "justice" dolled out for not paying taxes or some such, but an unconstitutional plea bargain to step down the charges for raping a female who was also well under society's arbitrary age of consent.

    The rule of law exists protect those who can not protect themselves, like say a drugged 13 year old girl.

    But if you want to put fourth an argument says that she coerced him by wrongfully presenting her age, and then he was somehow obliged to respond in the manner in which he did, then go ahead. But Anarch, I would much rather say the proper response would have been to toss her out of the house and not the self serving, violent action he took instead.
    reply to this
    Klaus again|10.1.09 @ 2:38PM|#

    Vot? No prefew?
    reply to this
    Polanski|10.1.09 @ 2:46PM|#

    Previewing seems to be frowned upon hereabouts.
    reply to this
    John Tagliaferro|10.1.09 @ 2:46PM|#

    I am waiting for Jennifer Lopez and that commedian guy to weigh in before I decide what the pulse of Hollywood is on this one.

    My GOD, this guy sold books? SugarFree writes better than him! Ukerbold writes better than him. I write better than him!

    What's the deal? Maybe I should make some underage characters getting drugged, bound and assaulted. Seems hot 26 year olds drugged in lesbian rape scenes are out of vogue. Hell, that book is free too! Transvestites drugging assaulting adult characters is a big nothing now too.

    What's with Matt's name not being linked any more? He is like the big dog and no link on the main page?

    (eleventh time trying to post this, I keep getting bounced to another page)
    reply to this
    Real Polis Person|10.1.09 @ 2:50PM|#

    "Damn, dude, my bad, I didn't know you grew up in the '50s."

    70's & 80's.

    BTW, when I click "reply to this" nothing happens.
    reply to this
    R C Dean|10.1.09 @ 2:50PM|#

    She wasn't unresponsive.

    Hey, struggling and pleading are a response.
    reply to this
    John Tagliaferro|10.1.09 @ 2:56PM|#

    Exclaiming "No, stop" is another.

    I wonder what John Draper's opinion on this is?
    reply to this
    Happy Congressman|10.1.09 @ 2:58PM|#

    I keep getting bounced to another page.
    reply to this
    John Tagliaferro|10.1.09 @ 3:16PM|#

    The only thing that works for me is closing the browser window and reopening when that happens.
    reply to this
    EJM|10.1.09 @ 2:59PM|#

    FYI: Most of the links in the second graf of the post are bad, as they start with "http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/01/ ".
    reply to this
    Hacha Cha|10.1.09 @ 3:10PM|#

    I think if it is merely statutory "rape" as opposed to violent forced rape that there should definitely be a statute of limitations to prevent such absurdities. "

    I agree the rapist should only be punished if the victim fights back.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Drugs & Booze intoxicating a girl til she can't physically fight back and yet who still says no repeatedly doesn't count as "forced"?

    I mean... in general, the idea that a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old consensually and getting charged with rape is absurd... but 40 year old dude and a 13 year old? C'mon.

  • Hacha Cha||

    well I admit I've heard different accounts, so I could be wrong. the thing that is absurd, if it really was just statutory, is trying to go after him decades and decades after the crime was committed.

  • kinnath ||

    Do a little research then. The grand jury transcripts are available online. Polanski was charged with multiple serious felonies and then pleaded guilty to a single lessor charge.

  • Drew||

    Wasn't "just" anything. It was forcible rape, period. And when the only reason he was free for "decades and decades" is because he was a FUGITIVE, that logic does not make any sense at all. You don't get to _benefit_ from evading the law.

    The statue of limitations exists to protect people from being charged with minor crimes many many years later at the arbitrary discretion of prosecutors. It really doesn't apply to someone that was both charged and who pled guilty, but then fled sentencing.

  • ||

    This is not a case where he had consensual sex with a girl who was 17 years and 11 months old.

    He gave a 13 year-old girl champagne and half a quaalude. While she was drunk and drugged, he raped her orally, vaginally and anally, while she told him "no" and "stop" and tried to fend him off.

    This he admitted to in a plea to avoid being charged with rape and other serious charges. Instead, under the please, it would be reduced to "unlawful sex with a minor" - i.e., statutory rape, which eliminates the lack of consent element.

    The dude is slime and those in Hollywood who are supporing him are the ass-end of slime.

  • Abdul||

    Aside from Sharon Tate, did Polanski ever fuck an adult?

  • John Tagliaferro||

    He fucked the entire population of California for over 30 years with this stunt.

  • *||

    Polanski is Jewish? I have to wonder if Hollywood would be so eager to forgive this piece of shit if he were Catholic or Protestant?

  • John Tagliaferro||

    He is Jewish by heredity. Does not to seem so by faith.

  • ||

    And then the anti-Semitism comes out. We all knew it would.

  • *||

    And then the ANTI-anti-Semitism comes out. We all knew IT would.

  • ||

    "Nastassia introdued me to her mother, who discussed her career with me [...]. That was when I first learned Nastassia's age. She was only fifteen."

    Ah, don't tell me - she did NOT look 15.

    Sure.

    I saw Natassia in several movies when she was just starting, and by the life of me if she was 25, she looked much younger - I would not have hit on her unless I see her actual birth certificate! Yeah, that's right: I am a birther!

  • ||

    Polanski is an incredible piece of shit.

    I don't really have much else to add, but I am trying to get this damn thing to actually let me post a frickin' comment!

  • Spread This||

    Michael Deacon of the Telegraph has unearthed a wonderful little quotation from an interview Roman Polanski gave to Martin Amis in Tatler in 1979, one that, along with the original grand jury testimony, should be spread far and wide:

    “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

    Do you girls get the girls impression that girls the only thing girls on his girls mind is, well, girls? (And young ones at that.)

  • John Tagliaferro||

    I have run into this general attitude before and it always amazes me. Not all at once, but over the past 15 years or so:

    One guy was always checking out girls who were obviosly pre-teen or early teen and every time I told him to STFU he would say "You know you would do that." Too bad there were always too many people around for me to demonstrate to him what I wanted to do to his fat face.

    Same with an old gay guy, retired military officer, when he would alert me to guys he thought were hot walking into the bar (not an gay bar) behind me. No matter how often I told him that we have different tastes and mine was exclusive to the opposite sex, he would say the same shit every time.

    Same with a chick I mentioned here recently, Hamas chick, when she revealed fleeing the country and that "other people were laundering millions of dollars, we weren't doing anything like that" as if it was an everyday thing that anybody would do.

    UGH! What is it with these people? Is there a name that is hard to spell for that sort of mind?

  • Roman Polanski||

  • ||

    I was thinking about it....then I looked to the right side of the monitor saw Ann Coulters haunting visage and all thoughts of that magically fled my noggin!

  • tyciol||

    That just happened when I looked at the 'now' photo. Before is better.

  • ||

  • K.T.||

    man... i am opposed to the death penalty. but, i'll make an exception for roman polanski. fry the guy.

    moreover, what kind of mentally deranged individual needs to tout their sexual conquests -- particulary sexual conquests characterized by rape.

    what a waste of human flesh.

  • R C Dean||

    Is there a name that is hard to spell for that sort of mind?

    Well, I don't think its very hard to spell, but "amoral scumbag" seems to fit the bill.

  • ||

    I don't know. "Amoral scumbag" just doesn't seem like it's enough for this turdnugget.

  • ||

    An entire 37 days after "Cash for Clunkers" ends, Saturn shuts down.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....04812.html

  • ||

    Hillary Clinton, defending Obama's Afghanistan policy this weekend:

    Now, the decision that was made to add troops in the spring has not even been fully implemented yet. You know, you don't get up and just deploy the 82nd Airborne, and they get there the next day.

    Actually, Madame Secretary of State, yes they do. With six hours to spare, in fact:

    Army Brig. Gen. William Mayville shared his concerns as the division’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team trains to re-assume its role in June as the U.S. global response force. In this capacity, the brigade will be on 24/7 standby, ready to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours.

  • </||

    I'm banned right?

  • The Arquette Sisters||

    Libertarians take note. What is more of an affront to personal rights. Raping a 13 year old girl or punishing the man who raped her.

    What is less libertarian than rape?

  • wtm||

    lets aks ACORN what he should do

  • ||

    Hey, the only thing certain in this life are rape and taxes.

  • ||

    Throw Roman in with the general population in any U.S. prison for a few months. He will be saying "noooo" a lot and remember when someone said that to him.

  • ||

    The 13 year old looked like she was at least 14, I swear it.

  • Brian Combs||

    I'm not a fan of the Huff Post, but I followed the link in the OP, and I quickly found a couple of articles in support of Polanski's extradition.

    And the comments were overwhelmingly in support of his being thrown in jail.

  • Drunkenatheist||

    So let me get this straight.

    Samantha Geimer wants the rape charges against Polanski dropped. She feels he has made restitution to her. She does not want him to serve in jail.

    He has not been accused of rape in the thirty years he was on the run, so he's not exactly at a high risk of recidivism.

    And the readers on Reason - a LIBERTARIAN PUBLICATION - think that the state should still intervene and throw the man in jail?

    This is more bullshit, save teh wimminz smokescreen nonsense, in the same fucking way that going after the Taliban had fuckall to do with actually protecting women. If this was in anyway rooted in protecting or caring about women, then we would actually be LISTENING to Samantha Geimer's wishes. (This is doubly so considering that, from what I have read, it wasn't even her fucking choice to press charges against Polanski in the first place. It was her mother's, so lord only knows if she ever even wanted to press charges in the first place.)

    Do you even realize the irony in your words or how hypocritical you're acting?

  • kinnath||

    You're way late to the party. Go read the last several days worth of threads.

  • Drew||

    You don't have it even remotely straight.

    Libertarians do not tolerate rape. Nor do they celebrate people committing actual violent crimes and then trying to benefit from committing _further_ crimes to evade punishment. Libertarians are not anything goes anarchists who cheer when ANY criminal evades the law: the state DOES, in fact, have an important role in making sure that citizens do not forcibly sodomize young women.

    And because of that, what Samantha Geimer wants is somewhat irrelevant. A criminal case is a case brought by society against an alleged criminal, not by the victim (that's what a civil case is: and Samantha Geimer DID file, and win via settlement, a civil case against Polanski).

    The reason Geimer wants the charges dropped is that in addition to having been victimized by Polanski, which had absolutely devastating effects on her life and sanity to begin with, she has in turn been re-victimized every time Polanski's fugitive status becomes an issue again, thus putting a glaring public spotlight on an extremely traumatic event.

    Geimer wants all that to be over, very understandably. But the reason it isn't over is entirely Polanski's fault. He's the one who has evaded the consequences of his actions and has kept the issue alive. If you feel bad for Geimer not finally getting left alone, then there is really only one person to lay that moral blame on, and it's Polanski. End of story.

  • ||

    Leave Roman ALONE! Just because he spoke favorable about President Obama before the election you hate him. President Carter is right, you all are RASCISTS! I am seething with RAGE!

  • ||

    I'm wondering when Klaus Kinski is going to get around to beating the crap out of Polanski.

    -jcr

  • ||

    He shouldn't have done it.
    Her mom shouldn't have brought her anywhere near him.
    She's done the right thing and forgiven him.
    Her dad should have shot him.
    Now he should be in prison.
    Next question?

  • tyciol||

    Nobody should have shot him, that's stupid. He shouldn't be in prison because he served the sentence he was led to believe he would need to serve in exchange for the plea bargain.

  • ||

    Samantha will leave the country to escape the media frenzy. The "Justice for Samantha" movement will furiously demand to extradite her.

    *

    The trial will be a hit. Advertising revenues will be enough to get rid of the financial crisis and to buy everyone his own jacuzzi.

    *

    An opera will be made from Samantha's testimony.
    "I said no and he didn't care", Samantha will sing.
    "She said no and he didn't care", the choir will sing.
    The opera will end with the lines:
    "I didn't want the testimony to be published"
    "She didn't want the testimony to be published"
    "But nobody cared and it was published and it was everywhere"
    "But nobody cared and it was published and it was everywhere"

    *

    A new holiday will be introduced in France, "Roman Day". On that day the male population will go after 13 year old girls from the neighborhood and pretend to penetrate them anally (of course, only pretending, like pretending Santa Claus comes down the chimney). It will be fun for the male population and a lesson for the girls. Or not.

  • ||

    The age of consent in Germany was, and is, 14. So, at 15, Kinski was not a forbidden fruit any longer.
    In Germany, in some cases the age of consent can be pushed up to 16--but only if the minor or his/her family files a complaint and then a panel of psychologists finds the minor incapable of discernment--or to have been pressured by the older party. Kinski, who began acting and living independently at 13, did not fall into this latter category.

  • ||

    All well and good but this still demonstrates Polanski's predilection for the young girls. You know you would do everything to stop your 15 year old girl from "dating" a 45 year old man. It is a totally degenerate situation.

    German laws are more suitable for a 15, 16,17 year old male having sex with a 14 year old girl

  • tyciol||

    Demonstrating his predilection for young girls is irrelevant though, being attracted isn't the crime, it's actually breaking laws that is.

  • Jun||

    "...the weird little Polack...."

    Sureley you mean Jew as Polanski's father was Jewish and his mother half Jewish and half Polish-Catholic.

  • ||

    "It's a great example of the folly of market timing."

    Well, it's a great example of Polanski's bad timing, anyway, and I guess it refutes the case for market timing if that case relies on every single person having perfect timing in everything they do.

  • ||

    Where I think as a journalist the real story lies is with the girls history and upbringing and the mother.

    CHeck it out I used google translator to translate from Polish to English and it wont let me copy and paste as it shows up in Polish if I do that so you have to go to the page:

    http://translate.googleusercon.....AibAITooYA

    What is so incredible is how "jerry Springer" her and her family seem if what he says is true. he claims the girl started having sex at 8 years old with some boy down the street, and even in her testimony in court she admitted to doing drugs at 10 or 11 yrs old!! what kind of perverted person is this or what kind of circumstances would breed a person so deprieved at such a young age? I just dont understand how thats even possible I mean you would be hard to go to the worse slum or ghetto and find such behavior unless you were in thailand or something. In that same article or in his autobiogrpahy he also claimed she told him at 13 she went right away to bed with her 17 yr old bf the day she met him and even her mom slept with him once. This is just so whakko a movie like this I dont believe even exists.

    also proof she took drugs as a little kid (who the hell does that?):

    http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/.....nskib2.gif

  • ||

  • ||

    Forgiveness of Polanski should not only come from Woody and fellow artists, it should come from the holy of holies, and that is the Pope. His understanding of the weakness of man and the temptations of the Devil can silence the angry mobs that wants to crucify an aging hipster. The enlightened people of the world anxiously wait for the day when the Pontiff issues an edict that allows Polanski to continue his great works of art without being hounded by scapegoating mobs that have committed greater sins.

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

  • mbt||

    hi,
    everybody, take your time and a little bit.sdhshrts

  • Nike Air Jordan Fusion||

    Here you can choose more new products, enjoy more discounts, so you get favorite products while saving money.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement