Culture

Rosemary's Crybabies

What's the matter with Roman Polanski's Hollywood pals?

|

There are a number of ideas in this world that never should be introduced to each other; "Christian" and "rock" are one example. "Movie" and "wholesome" are certainly another. And really, one thing we always have been able to count on is the boundless depravity of Hollywood. For this, I used to be grateful.

Obviously, those of us with even a tenuous grasp of decency or respect for the rule of law understand that filmmaker Roman Polanski—who, need we be reminded, loaded up a 13-year-old with alcohol and quaaludes before raping her—should find himself putrefying in prison. Even actors must believe this, right? No?

The subsequent skirmish over Polanski's arrest—not exactly a momentous international incident—isn't between right and left or blue state and red or secularist and social conservative. It's a gaggle of actors and directors against everyone with a moral IQ higher than Woody Allen's.

Harvey Weinstein, the noted co-executive producer of Pulp Fiction, has been one of Polanski's staunchest defenders. He claimed that the Polish director already had served his time (directing movies in Europe) and that we should trust his take on the situation because "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion."

Imagine, if you can, the impenetrability of this man's ironclad bubble. Weinstein's success is predicated on dispensing tales from the darkest, most twisted corners of the imagination. Don't get me wrong; for this, I am also grateful. Some of Weinstein's ethically magisterial works, for instance, have included Things To Do in Denver When You're Dead (tag line: "They can die quickly. They can die slowly. But they must die!") and Death Proof (plot: "Two separate sets of voluptuous women are stalked at different times by a scarred stuntman who uses his 'death proof' cars to execute his murderous plans"). Now, I ask you, if Weinstein possessed even a scintilla of decency, would he have subjected this nation to The Nanny Diaries?

When Weinstein circulated a pro-Polanski petition after the director was apprehended in Switzerland, Allen—a man who, somewhat prophetically, carried on an affair with a teenager in his film Manhattan, one of my all-time favorites—immediately signed up. As did Martin Scorsese, a true giant of cinema, whose depiction of psychotics, mobsters, teenager prostitutes, drugs, mayhem, and crass violence can only be called genius. But moral? Compassionate? Not exactly.

Polanski himself made a name directing Repulsion (plot: "Left alone when her sister goes on vacation, a sexually repressed young beauty goes insane with surreal fantasies of seduction and rape) and Rosemary's Baby, wherein a housewife is imbued with the devil's spawn (co-starring Charles Grodin!).

I enjoy many of these charmingly decadent films for what they are: fantasy, titillating, coarse, absurd, and escapist. There are few people who possess the talent to send us to a world where violence is without consequence, where serial infidelity is patched up with a couple of witty sentences and middle-aged men (often, incredibly, resembling the ones directing the films) can secure companionship from lithe 20-year-old beauties as effortlessly as they can jump from building to building chasing would-be terrorists.

The problem is that apparently, many of these people have a problem distinguishing between "art" and reality. As well-known blogger Allahpundit recently tweeted, "Word on the street: Polanski's next film is so good, Europe's going to let him (redacted) an eight-year-old. It's THAT GOOD."

Where are the average, serial-marrying, middling Hollywood immorals as their profession is sullied by the likes of Whoopi Goldberg, who asserted that Polanski's sin wasn't "rape-rape," and Debra Winger, who called the rule of law "Philistine collusion"?

What is the average American to make of this incident? Despite the coverage, not much. 1) Hollywood denizens are extraordinarily out of touch. 2) We send them to jail when necessary. 3) Always, always ignore them unless they have scripts in their hands.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Why Take Painkillers for Your Pain When You Can Take Up a Hobby Instead?

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.

  1. Hollywood doesn’t have much of ANY IQ.

  2. The skirmish over Roman Polanski’s arrest isn’t between right and left or blue state and red or secularist and social conservative, writes David Harsanyi. It’s a gaggle of actors and directors against everyone with a moral IQ higher than Woody Allen’s.

    QFMFT!

    I did not need to RTFA to agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion in the summary.

    1. I would add “actors and directors and their syncophants“.

      I.e. celebrity fans, hollywood wannabes, etc.

  3. Always, always ignore them unless they have scripts in their hands.

    Word.

    1. And sometimes ignore them even when they HAVE scripts in their hands, frankly.

  4. At least we know what one of the South Park episodes is going to be about this coming season.

    1. And it will be in such good taste, too 🙂

  5. Rosemary’s Crybabies

    Comedy gold, bay-bee!

  6. I think this is going to bite Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment world in the ass, big-time.

    Every time some shithead like Brent Bozell tries to slam them on the corrupt morals they promote in their movies, it’s going to be hard to say it’s just a movie and they don’t condone [insert moral atrocity like rape] in real life.

    1. Like Brent Bozell is ever going to carry the day. Like people are just going to stop going to the movies in droves.

  7. “there are a number of ideas in this world that never should e introduced to each other”

    Oh, like the monopolization of the administration of justice and justice itself.

    1. I’d be happy to take a contract on Roman Polanski, fwiw.

      Maybe not for death, but perhaps a severe kneecapping, possibly castration.

      Who’s with me?

      1. Er, take OUT a contract. OUT.
        I really don’t have that much free time.

  8. Dear diary:

    Libertymike’s at it again. I promise never to complain about Mad Max’s proclivity for dogmatic idealism ever again.

    1. Its not as if I am hijacking the thread; the scribes want to keep stoking the fires.

  9. Forest Gump was my last trip to a movie theater. Hollywood is fucking itself good, and I couldn’t be happier.

    1. Daaaammnnnnnnn. I love cinema too much for this to be the case. At least there’s still foreign film. 🙂

      1. Foreign films? Really? Half the people who signed that petition were in the French film industry.

        But fine. Go for foreign films, just as long as you avoid film-makers like Claude Lelouche and Wong Kar Wai.

  10. I feel sorry for the non-idiot actors and directors. They must just hide under their desks at times like this.

    1. True, mostly. At least a few of them (like Besson) have spoken up.

      1. I feel sorry for the non-idiot actors and directors.

        All six of them?

  11. “Roman Polanski loaded up a 13-year-old with alcohol and quaaludes before raping her.”

    Again with the sloppy facts. Do you really feel like you need to fabricate facts to make people despise Polanski? Is it overkill? I gotta say, this new crop of Reason writers are a bunch of cockbags. They can’t even get the simplest and most compelling story straight. WTF?

    1. What gets me about our justice system is that they accused him of 50 years’ in prison worth of felonies. Drugging, rape – really horrible crimes.

      Yet they were willing to plea bargain down to consensual sex with a minor – something the victim said never happened.

      Now… either the prosecution doesn’t believe the victim and/or doesn’t have enough evidence to take this tougher case to course, in which case they never should have alleged rape and so damaged a man’s reputation.

      Or they *did* believe the girl, and still were willing to plea down to a much less heinous crime. (All arguments about age of consent aside, we can all agree that consensually having sex with a minor is less sinister than drugging and abusing one, and the sentencing laws agree).

      I know, idealism meet reality (especially when it involves a director with a high-priced lawyer) but that’s still pretty messed up.

      1. What about they *did* believe the girl but felt that the probability of a conviction was sufficiently low such that the plea bargain gave them the greatest chance at some measure of justice?

      2. This has been addressed in past threads. It was much harder to get a rape convition in the 70’s because the general population was far more willing to dismiss a rape claim that was not backed by physical evidence.

        The plea bargin was most likely the best possible outcome from the prosecutions point of view.

      3. I don’t think they believed the girl. They probably thought she wanted to screw Roman Polanski and did, and only complained when her mom found out. I don’t know. Who cares? If you hate Polanski, you say he drugged her on quaaludes but she was still fighting the rape somehow and probably praising Ronald Reagan under her breath. If you love Polanski, he could screw your infant son or daughter and you’d make an excuse containing the word Europe.

        1. Lamar,

          I am unclear as to what facts you find sloppy in this case. Could you clarify?

    2. Roman Polanski loaded up a 13-year-old with alcohol and quaaludes before raping her … but the 13 year old really wanted it.

    3. You’re right.. really sloppy.

      He should have said “Roman Polanski loaded up a 13-year-old with alcohol and quaaludes before raping her in the ass”

    4. Why are you accusing him of fabricating facts? Go over to thesmokinggun and read the trial transcript. If those aren’t facts, then it’s the girl who made them up, not David.

  12. I’m sorry to hear that, Lamar. Would you like a tissue to wipe away the tears?

  13. “What’s the matter with Roman Polanski’s Hollywood pals?”

    It isn’t rape when the right people do it.

    1. Well, duh. In other news, it isn’t sexual harassment when Bill Clinton hits on chicks who work for him.

  14. So I’m a libertarian and I think the government of California should be spending its money and energy on other stuff – I’m morally questionable?

    1. Depends on who defines libertarian. Bill Maher or Ron Paul?

      1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..72724.html

        Yeah, this douche calls himself a libertarian.

    2. The state of California should stop wasting money on things it has no legitimate purpose to do so that it has enough money to enforce the laws that should be on the books.

      1. That’s a tough argument to make, compared to MediCal, or building permanent housing for the homeless, etc. The cost of locking him up for a few years doesn’t compare to the costs of these progressive social programs or the costs of locking up minor drug offenders, for that matter. My point is that there is plenty of fat to be cut out of the budget, but it does not need to come at the cost of putting this pervert in jail.

        1. It’s an easy argument to make. If the state of California decides to let a rich and famous guy who pled guilty to committing a heinous crime get away with fleeing the jurisdiction to avoid his just punishment, then they should just shut the whole fucking state government down because then there is no justification for of any kind for any part of the state to exist.

          1. Wrong, he only pled guilty to having sex with her, not to raping her. The rape-issue is actually more complicated, it seems that Reason is very one-sided on this one. If this was all true, than it would be incomprehensible to me why the alleged victim never wanted him to go to jail, but simply to pay her money and even forgiven him.

            1. “Unlawful sex with a minor” equals “rape”.

              You are obviously not old enough to remember life before the feminist revolution.

            2. I definitely remember my father is law saying there was no such thing as rape because “a women can run faster with her skirt up than a man can with his pants down”.

              It’s actually remarkable that the prosecution got a plea agreement to start with.

              1. Is your father in law doing time?

                -jcr

            3. Right, so you are arguing that the 13 year old consented and lied in her grand jury testimony about it?

              I would note that Roman Polanski has never actually disputed her version of events under oath, because he plead guilty to a lesser offense. A plea he probably would never have gotten were he not rich and famous.

              If Polanski wants to dispute her testimony in court, let him return and face trial.

              You do not get out of having to face your accuser in court, just because you skip bail and evade the law for 30 years.

              So please, I’m quite willing to let Roman Polanski defend himself from the girl’s accusations – in court. Not in the media. Not in the court of sycophantic public opinion.

    3. No you are not morally questionable.
      Anyone that whines about the sate or government spending money to put a child molester in jail isn’t just morally questionable. They are morally bankrupt.

      1. You are the most morally bankrupt of all if you would violate the wishes of the victim herself.

  15. Hollywood is defending Polanski for the same reason BHO condemned the “coup” in Honduras. Right, wrong, and the law doesn’t matter. You don’t fuck with members of their club.

  16. If Rapin’ Roman is at least uncomfortable for a month or a year with this hanging over his head, at least that’s something. The SOB and his friends think directing movies in Europe for 30 years is hard time? Let’s all remember the assholes who are defending this child rapist. It always amazes me how the Hollywood folks have such selective morals based on the person or the politics involved.

    1. “assholes who are defending this child rapist”

      Her asshole had no defense.

      Sorry.

  17. We’re watching the left implode before our very eyes. It’s mesmerizing. On today’s menu: The Letterman “bombshell”, the Olympics???? catastrophe, the further adventures of lefty Hollywood Polanski apologists, the continued rejection of what’s left of Obamacare??…too much to digest at once! Feeling nauseous…but somehow exhilarated!

    1. You are an idiot. Most of the directors who signed that petition have right wing views.

  18. The article could’ve also mentioned Polanski’s Death and the Maiden, a movie he made about a woman coming to terms–you guessed it–with her rape.

    I wonder if he hired himself as a technical consultant.

    1. If I remember correctly, the rapist gets off scot-free and unrepentant!

  19. Actors, directors, and movie buffs seem no different from the blacks and football fans who cheered O. J. Simpson’s acquittal, right?

    1. Come again? Football fans? When did that happen?

  20. alt text: Elle Fanning is looking pretty good!

  21. Actors, directors, and movie buffs seem no different from the blacks and football fans who cheered O. J. Simpson’s acquittal, right?

    Well, not entirely. OJ’s acquittal tapped into a not wholly unjustified desire on the part of African-Americans to get back at white cops and a legal system that is typically harder on black defendants than whites. Polanski’s Hollywood apologists can point to no comparable mitigating circumstances.

    1. Hey everyone wants to fuck young girls, and people in Hollywood actually get to. Who’d want to give up that privilidge?

  22. Well, hell, if Polanksi had raped that girl in a Muslim country, SHE would’ve been punished. With rocks.

  23. My dear Mr. Polanski, I am pleased to see that a member of our class continues to enjoy his privileges even in this philistine age with it’s bourgeois morality.

    I’d like to invite you over to my chateau where we can exchange notes on the proper approach to debauching young girls without arousing undue ire from the locals. Certainly buying her and her family off was the right approach, but you should have done it much sooner to keep everything hushed up.

    If you follow my advice, you can fuck as many young girls as you like, in as many ways as you like, and nobody will be the wiser.

  24. I don’t know whether Roman Polanski is guilty of rape or not. That isn’t what he pled guilty to, and the facts have never been properly tried in a court where he could give his side.

    However, it seems clear that he was persuaded to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for time served – time which he has in fact served. Many innocent defendants make similar deals in American courts every day in order to avoid the barbarities of the American legal system. No rational person would give much weight to such a confession.

    When Polanski discovered that the judge who had offered the deal had decided to renege, but would still hold his coerced confession against him, he naturally fled.

    It is important to note, however, that this is not necessarily fleeing from justice. It looks surprisingly like fleeing from INjustice, which is another thing entirely. I’m surprised to see so little attention to the importance of a government agent keeping a contract here at Reason.

    Incidentally, if all these people out to punish Polanski care so much about victims and what they want, why are they so dismissive of what the alleged victim in this case has said? They are, rather, entirely dismissive of her feelings on the matter and intend to proceed intruding upon her privacy in spite of her wishes – which is only one component short of the crime which Polanski has been accused of.

    1. Yes, wanting a rapist to be punished is “one component short” of raping a thirteen-year-old girl and sodomizing her after giving her alcohol and quaaludes.

      1. No, delving into personal affairs where both parties have come to terms and ignoring what both those parties want (this includes the alleged victim) in order to force one’s own perverted “values” on others without regard to their beliefs or opinions or personal dignity, is exactly like rape except for the sexual aspect. That is, a rapist ignores their victim’s desires and personal dignity and imposes their own will upon them, but does so sexually.

        That is to say, the primary difference between what Polanski is alleged to have done to this girl and what his detractors are attempting to do both to him and to her, is whether the penis used is metaphorical or real. A substantial difference to be sure, but not one to be especially proud of – a sort of “I’m not quite as bad as he is” moment.

    2. At this point, it doesn’t really matter if he did this particular crime or not (though the evidence and testimony are fairly damning).

      He was indicted and pled (to a lesser charge than he would have been tried for). That the judge in this case might have chosen not to agree to the deal (which is legal, and sometimes even proper) has no real bearing. Polanski fled, and in so doing, committed a crime (notwithstanding the one he was accused of). The justice or injustice of the potential judgement doesn’t weigh into it.

      If he truly felt that facing the judge, and getting something other than he pled to, was not a correct outcome, he could have appealed (and if the actions of the judge in question were truly out of line, odds are that he would likely win that appeal).

      No matter how much time has passed, no matter who he is, and no matter what the victim thinks (though it kind of sucks for her that this may all open up again), if anyone else would be subject to this series of events (and forced to return to face the music), then Polanski must, as well. Anything else gives the lie (more than already exists, at any rate) to the concept of equal justice.

      The overall timing of this may be kind of odd, and it may become unpleasant for the victim, but there is no legitimate room for special treatment here.

      1. What gives the lie to the notion of equal justice is that he was allowed to escape it for so long.

        Does anyone think that anyone else accused of child rape, even if it were reduced to unlawful sex, would not end up getting extradited back to the US, from any country in Europe that we had an extradition treaty with, and maybe some that we don’t?

        I’m pretty sure that child rapists are looked on with abhorrence even in France. The only reason Polanski managed to live free is because people have been deliberately ignoring the details of the crime and inventing modifications to try to minimize it.
        Until the grand jury testimony was released, it was common to hear that Polanski “had an affair” with a “15 year old”.

        1. I am NOT common!

          1. I mean they thought that the Samantha Greimer affair was the same thing. I doubt that up until the last year people knew what was in that grand jury testimony. It only came out a few years ago.

      2. It must be nice having so much confidence in your country’s “justice” system – or perhaps you are willing to sacrifice others for your vaunted principle of “Rule of Law – except when the authorities renege on a deal”.

        Let’s say a friend of yours was caught smoking pot but was promised by the judge that if he pled guilty to dealing he could get out of prison with time served – but then a prison informant decided to lessen their own sentence by testifying that your friend was in fact the state’s marijuana and cocaine kingpin, and the judge decided to prosecute your friend after all while using his coerced guilty plea as evidence against him. . . .

        Now let’s say that your friend has relatives overseas and could easily flee and stand a good chance of living the rest of his life peacefully. How many years of your friend’s life is it worth to you to preserve your delusion that yours is a nation with Rule of Law and something resembling Justice? One year? Two years? Twenty years? Fifty years? A century?

        Now add one complication: suppose your friend, about thirty years before, saw millions of his peers murdered by well-dressed men with badges of authority who acted in accordance with the law and with grand claims about the justice and goodness of their actions, and who succeeded in large part because their victims blithely went along with things because it was, after all, the law – and the Rule of Law is extremely important as we all know.

        How would you go about convincing him that THESE well-dressed men with badges of authority would treat him honestly and fairly in spite of the evidence before his eyes?

        Of course, none of us know the real facts of this case, and it may be that Polanski was as brutal and sadistic as some would claim – but I *do* know the facts of the United States, and I can certainly understand why someone would flee under these circumstances, even if they are purer than the driven snow.

        1. The point I was making (that you clearly missed) was that Polanski has to play by the same rules that apply to everyone else. That’s all. That’s also a primary tenet of libertarianism. And, yes, I *do* realize that this principle is honored more in the breach than in the keeping, but that doesn’t invalidate the principle itself.

          That the rules in place can be (and are) overwrought and capricious is a separate argument. It’s clear to anyone who’s paying attention that the practice of justice is a very long way away from the principle of justice (reading Balko here is enough to make that abundantly clear).

          The arguments about the wishes of the victim have significant points in their favor, but like it or not, law-wise, we’re stuck with what we’ve got now, not with what we’d prefer to see.

          Any other person who had done what Polanski did would be subject to the rules in place, and therefore, so should he.

          I completely agree that a whole metric assload of the current laws in place should be discarded or modified, but for this discussion, they exist as they are.

    3. Wealthy and powerful men should not be allowed to buy off their rape victims with large cash payments.

      1. Why not?

        Restitution has been more important than punishment in many legal systems. Is it more important that the public should get satisfaction by punishing a rapist, or that the victim should be made whole?

        Considering that the outcomes for rape victims vary considerably by culture, and tend to correlate with how much stigma a given society attaches to victims of rape, how much blame should we put on those righteous busybodies who defend our young women from the “fate worse than death”?

        Are these demands for justice really a cry from the guilty to be punished for their perversions and their crimes against women and children – specifically for imbuing them with guilt and fear over their sexual natures, and prodding them to value their ignorance above all else? Or is it something more sinister – a sadistic desire to see someone hurt, or at least a scapegoat to blame so that no one needs to look too closely at their own nature?

        1. In lots of cases the perpetrator doesn’t have huge pots of cash to pay off the victom. Take Phillip Garrido.

          If we assigned different punishments to each, then Polanski could basically rape lots of little girls and give them bags of money, while Phillip Garrido would have to go to jail. Probably for many years, and suffer the fate of pedophiles in prison.

          I think that violates basic notions of equal justice. One child abuser walking around free and making movies, while another one rots in prison and is subsequently shunned and ostracized.

          I agree that our society is too harsh on sex offenders, in general. But whatever punishment we hand out to them should be uniform. What horrifies so many people about the Polanski case is that he’s basically done the exact same thing as people who are subjected to the harshest punishments that our society can administer, but has managed to escape that by being part of a wealthy famous clique. Other child molesters don’t have high-ranking friends in government.

          1. “I agree that our society is too harsh on sex offenders, in general.”

            Too harsh? So exactly how should society deal with rapists and child molesters? Slap on the wrist and a promise not to do it again? Do you have ANY idea what being molested and/or raped does to a person. It’s a life sentence to depression, fear, insecurity, addiction, and screwed up relationships. Rapists and child molesters should be excluded from society permanently. Or perhaps we should send them all to live in your neighborhood.

        2. The purpose of restitution is to put the victim back in the position she/he would be in if the event did not occur, ie. the status quo ante. How exactly do you put a financial value on not being raped?

          1. That is up to the victim to decide, not you. The State does not have the right to use force unless the victim who originally had force initiated against her wants to use the state to administer justice. The justice is for HER, not you or the state. People like you are just as perverted as Polanski.

            Please understand the core libertarian value of “self-ownership”.

            Unless the victim has been hurt so badly they cannot speak for themselves (ie murder) the state has no right to prosecute if it isn’t the will of the victim.

            You are being incredibly selfish.

    4. I agree with this post. I am surprised that libertarians do not recognize the libertarian principle that the principal agent is the victim, not the state. The victims wishes, including forgiveness, should be honored. Monetary compensation should be honored as all crimes are essentially torts. The conservative reaction to this incident on a libertarian site is troubling.

      1. Get real. We have a duty to protect the younger and more impressionable members of our society. Simply going easier on a guy because he can front boat-loads of cash to a confused young (and potentially infatuated) victim would be a horrible precedent. If a child can’t even give legal consent to have sex, then why make a blanket mindless statement that we should allow the judgment of a naive child to completely override the judgment of the justice system that a perpetrator should be punished.

        1. Bud, you frickin moron, the woman is in 40’s.

          God you are an idiot.

          1. Ralph, you are the fucking idiot. It is irelevant that she is 40 now. What is relevant is she was a minor when the crime occured.

            1. Do you even have the slightest grasp of the most important part of libertarian ideology? “self-ownership”

              Read about it sometime…

      2. Which libertarian site is that?

    5. Allowing the victim of a crime to determine how or whether the offender is sentenced seems like an unwise public policy, for two reasons. First, the offender has a motive to convince (by bribes or threats) the victim to avoid prosecution. Secondly, it can embolden the offender in some cases to continue in his ways.

      (Note: for the this comment I’m assuming the guilt of defendants, but that’s for discussion purposes only.)

  25. Hazel, he did have an affair with a 15 year old. That was in addition to his anal rape of a thirteen year old.

    1. Oh right (Kinski), but that’s what people think he is a fugitive from, if what I mean. They thought the “underage sex” crime he was fleeing was some sort of consentual love affair with an underage girl. This was before her grand jury testimony was publicized.

  26. disclaimor: I think Polanski is a piece of crap.

    but this is worth reading: http://blacksungazette.com/?p=936

  27. Newsflash.
    It appears that Polanski may not have actually paid the sattlement money anyway.

    http://www.theage.com.au/world…..-ghbf.html

    The deal they hammered out called, in part, for Polanski to pay Geimer $US500,000, with interest, no later than October 11, 1995. But the deadline came and went with no cheque from Polanski, her attorneys alleged in court documents.

    A court ordered a formal judgment against Polanski for the amount plus interest – just over $600,000.

    The following year, her attorneys attempted to garnish money intended for Polanski from movie studios, his agent and the Screen Actors Guild, the records show.

    The case file does not disclose how the issue was resolved. The final document filed in the case bears an August 1996 stamp and has the director still owing Geimer $604,416.

  28. how do quotes work?

  29. How many of the people that signed the petition would let Polanski babysit their 13 year old daughters or granddaughters?

  30. The victim of Polanski’s crime, Samantha Geimer, now 44, has denounced the media for precisely such conduct as REASON nowdisplays.

    She, writing in a 2003 op-ed piece, says: “And should he come back? I have to imagine he would rather not be a fugitive and be able to travel freely. Personally, I would like to see that happen. He never should have been put in the position that led him to flee. He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago, just as we all agreed. At that time, my lawyer, Lawrence Silver, wrote to the judge that the plea agreement should be accepted and that that guilty plea would be sufficient contrition to satisfy us. I have not changed my mind.”

  31. Huh. This is the third article I’ve read on the subject of Roman Polanski’s encounter with the 13 year-old. One was in 1970-something when the events occured, and Polanski
    split the country. That one implied the sex was consensual and that the girl was a usual at a number of bars in and around Hollywood/Beverly Hills.

    Now, the two I’ve read today (one one here (or here: http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=4…..97&c=0 – depending on how Reason handles embedded links) and the one above. Both note that the girl repeatedly said “no”.

    In my eyes, that makes the case rape, whatever the age or condition of the woman in question. I don’t have a clue as to which story is true, and I doubt any of you or Roman Polanski’s celebrity supporters do either (disclosure: I love Polanski’s movies). The only people who really know are Polanski and the girl (inarguably a woman now), because they were the only one’s there.

    If the scene was the one described in this article- then, yeah, Polanski needs to be (figuratively) hung by his nuts. This is true even if the girl was a regular at a number of bars and in the habit of bedding older men.

    But I think a lot of the ire of the respondents is based simply on the fact that the girl was 13 at the time- irregardless of any other facts. This is (as I’ve said in other places) just plain stupidity.

    There are many young, underage women out there who are as voluptuous as Sharon Tate (Polanski’s wife of Helter-Skelter fame), and you can’t tell by looking at them or even talking to them that they’re that young.

    There is a world of difference between a young woman at that age and a pre-pubescent. You know at a glance whether a girl is one or the other. The same isn’t true for a teen and a woman at the age of “majority”. Could YOU tell that Traci Lords was 15 when she was doing all those hard-core porn movies? I coudn’t.

    Not only are post-pubescent teen females particularly hard to distinguish from fully-legal 18+ females, but they also have the hormones to actually make them DESIRE to engage in sexual activity, just like the one’s 18+!

    There’s the rub, and there’s the difference between child molestation, rape, and “statutory rape”. A pre-pubescenthild can not consent to sex because they have no sexual feelings. They don’t have the hormones to have sexual feelings.

    I know there are those who will chime in, Freud-like, concerning “infantile sexuality” or the like (I even had a guy
    suggest castration didn’t diminish sexual urges and that the reason harem guards were castrated was simply to insure any progeny of the women kept therein were
    massah’s- and if you believe that, I suggest you go to somone who geld’s horses for your next vascetomy and save yourself a bunch of bucks).
    But this is just an effort to justify a view that it’s not what the person who is the object of the crime wants and feels that the law is designed to protect, but the interests of the paternalistic
    state which “knows better” and disapprove whether the “victim” does or not, by equating having sex with a 13-year-old who looks like Miss March with
    banging a toddler.

    1. Unforgiven, I generally agree with what you’ve said above.. and I know I’ll probably be seen as some sort of sick fuck for even arguing against you on one point… it is just that at a very young age.. a prepubescent age (I won’t go into how young) a post-pubescent teenage girl fooled around with me and one of my friends the same age… I also did a lot of fooling around with children my own age at the time… the point I’m making is there is no “magical age” or point in biology… even if we are talking about prepubescent children — just because you aren’t capable of reproducing doesn’t mean you cannot have sexual desire.

      From my experiences as a child and from how I had/have no ill will towards that girl who was much older than me.. the only thing traumatic about it was the fact my parents and other adults around got so upset over the matter… I didn’t want anything bad to happen to her. I’m not saying what she did was right… but even if I was DEFINITELY a prepubescent child at the time… I do not believe anyone besides me has the right to say that it was rape or was not rape.

      That is all.

    2. I guess the anticipation and the erection I had and all was just imaginary? Indeed I was only six or seven, but I did indeed want it.

      This is what I don’t understand… No one seems to understand it is more about exposure to the idea itself than the hormones or anything biological.

    3. I guess what I’m trying to say is… while I do not necessarily believe these things which occurred in my childhood were “okay”.

      What I’m saying is, people fail to broach this subject in an unbiased way. So the best solution for the individual may be unavailable.

      Yes, I was only seven years old… but I still think the decision on whether or not this girl would be prosecuted by the state should have been left up to me. You might think this position, unreal or idealistic, or maybe you’ll assume I’m just some sick fuck who wants to rape kids. But, I just wish I knew the truth about why I acted the way I did at such a young age if children that young are incapable of of such things.

      It was actually very traumatic only because of how my parents responded, (not that I blame them) but it still bugs me to this day and I’m not sure how to reconcile it. While on the other hand I have completely reconciled things in my mind when it comes to the incidents with the above mentioned young woman.

      I just don’t see how it was anyone else’s choice but mine to decide if she was punished by the STATE or not… Maybe I’m just fucked in the head?

      I’m not saying any of it was right, I quite frankly do not know. I’m just saying people sweep this issue under the rug and accuse anyone who disagrees with age of consent laws as some sort of monster… and as long as you have this sort of attitude towards a subject you will never know the truth about the issue or how best to deal with it with the child’s best interest in mind.

  32. Thanks to the author,This really very nice,Thanks very much

  33. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.