Mitterrand Gets Polanski'd


Frederic, nephew of Francois, is the culture minister of France. He was an early supporter of Roman Polanski in the filmmaker's recent extradition case. He also enjoys traveling to Thailand to have sex with boys. Whoops!

Tres tres cool, et tres tres chic

In his 2005 autobiography, My Bad Life, the former TV presenter, intellectual and all round national treasure, describes in sweaty detail how how 'he got into the habit of paying for boys …The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire that I no longer needed to restrain or hide'.

Indeed why hide when you can write about it—and then be appointed Minister of State in one of the world's leading powers? That allows you to find the arrest of Polanski "absolutely horrifying". Why he asked, should Polanski be arrested 'over ancient history'. […]

Mitterrand has been called on his fatuous logic. Alas, it has taken a verbal barrage from the leader of the fascistic Front Nationale to bring calls for his resignation to national attention. With the intellectual dyke breached, some on the left are joining calls for Mitterrand to go. […]

His defence of his proclivity for Thai brothels is that his term 'young boys', and 'youths' did not mean the people he bought for sex were underage. He says homosexuals call all men 'boys'. Vraiment?

Reason on Polanski here.


NEXT: So How's That Stimulus Money Working Out?

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why am I not surprised that the notion of consent is completely unintelligible to quasi-socialist Europe?

    1. When you’ve scarfed down enough booze and ‘luudes, the notion of consent is completely unintelligible to anybody.

      1. Of course, but if meaningful consent plays no part at the macroscale of a society, why should it play a part on the micro?

        Dragging a “yes” out of someone by any means necessary, or assuming a “yes” by implication, is not meaningful consent.

        1. I wonder if they were not unresponsive?

        2. Getting screwed up on drugs, then later regretting saying yes is a whole other thing.

          1. That might be relevant if she was old enough to consent to sex. Stone cold super sober, our quite reasonable law says a 46-year-old can’t ass-fuck a 13 year-old.

            That she was saying “no” even while drugged does even give Polanski the fig-leaf of statutory rape.

            1. Sugarfree: do you think it would be reasonable to not have such a law? At what point does it become unreasonable to accept nature?

              1. Uh, WHAT? The law is based on the notion that minors do not yet possess the intellectual maturity to be able to consent, which is true. The exact age might be somewhat arbitrary, but you have to set the line somewhere. Thirteen is not a reasonable line by any measure. A 13-year old does not have the same cognitive ability as an 18-year old. “Nature” my ass.

            2. If the quite reasonable law prohibiting sex between a 46-year-old and a 13-year-old is based on the proposition that a 13-year-old can’t consent to sex, then the age of the other party isn’t relevant, is it?

              1. Well, it’s relevant to the extent that it would be ridiculous to prosecute a 15-year-old for having non-coerced/drugged sex with a 13-year-old. The purpose of the statute is to prevent crafty adults from taking advantage of naive adolescents. But beyond 17 or so it shouldn’t make any legal difference, I agree.

        3. They consented by not moving out of Thailand.

          1. Your right. I guess showing up to work everyday could be considered consent.

  2. ‘With the intellectual dyke breached’

    Ah, OK then.

    To paraphrase (I believe) P.J. O’Rourke, if you call a celebrity a crack-smoking goat-buggerer, that just means you’ve read their memoirs.

  3. “He says homosexuals call all men ‘boys’. Vraiment? ”

    Pretty much, but I don’t think you go to Thailand for the ‘of age’ ones.

    1. Just guessing that in that market the older ones have a heavy discount. He could have just been trying to save a buck.

  4. Here is an unexpected obstacle to a leftist/libertarian alliance: The libertarians seem to have higher standards of sexual morality than many prominent leftists.

    1. That’s simply a manifestation of the problem with liberaltarianism: libertarians hate coercion in all its forms, while the leftists love it if it’s packaged in the right way.

      1. Did he just say “package”? Heh-heh.

      2. I dunno if I’d put it quite that way. The left generally is pretty anti-coercion when it comes to sex. They just are more partisan, and more willing to compromise their principles to protect their own.

        Libertarians are less willing to compromise principles, including sexual ones, for any reason. Including trivial matters like winning elections.

    2. The Leftist ‘standard of morality’ is to act like a complete hypocrite whenever you want.

      Laws and rules are for the little people.

      1. Laws and rules are for the little people.


    3. Libertarians can have higher standards of -personal- morality than arch-conservatives. Libertarian political philosophy is not about what people should and should not do, but what they should and should not force other people to do.

      Both left and right wing Christian activists tend to assume that because Jesus admonished people to behave in a certain fashion (charitably or sexually, respectively), Uncle Sam should do the same. If there were no God, they should have to make him. And their efforts to make him thus speak to a lack of faith. But as someone with little faith, I probably shouldn’t be too critical.

      1. Very well stated.

        It should be a sticky somewhere.

    4. The Left does have high standards of sexual morality for non-leftists, so that’s a start, I guess.

  5. What would have happened to him if he was *Father* Frederic Mitterrand?

  6. Why can’t we have a Culture Minister?
    We’re the only industrialized nation in the blah blah blah without blah blah blah…

    1. Great, give Obama ideas for a new Czar.

    2. We’re the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn’t leech off American innovation.

  7. “Boys” is an antiquated term. Does this guy even know what year it is? Being a bit of a progressive, I prefer “coloreds”.

  8. Here is an unexpected obstacle to a leftist/libertarian alliance: The libertarians seem to have higher standards of sexual morality than many prominent leftists.

    Talk about damning by faint praise. We ‘seem’ to have higher standards than people who excuse drugging and ass-raping children. Thanks, Max. You’re a peach.

    1. It’s one of the perks of being a Catholic. Everyone who isn’t one is on the level of child rapists.

      1. That isn’t exactly what I said, but if it’s emotionally true for you, who am I to complain?

        1. And a hearty ‘fuck you’ to you too.

          1. We seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. I’m sorry about that.

            But as a matter of fact, Catholics do not hold the view you attributed to them.

    2. If I said libertarians had the *same* standards of sexual morality as traditional Judaism and Christianity, would you consider it a compliment? Or would you consider that damning, too?

      And I’m sorry about the word ‘seem,’ if it offends you – I’ll stipulate that libertarians actually *do* have higher standards than many leftists, since I have no evidence to the contrary.

    3. Having read over the comments, I find *some* libertarians who *seem* OK with Mitterand’s behavior.

      Perhaps my praise was too sweeping, but I can still aver that lots of prominent libertarians dislike Polanski/Mitterandism.

      1. Moral panic! Christian hypocrisies! She wanted it, Your Honor! He was really mature for his age! And he used my money to help his family!

      2. I missed where anyone said “damn, he went to thailand, and its legal there.”

        Not sure where the appearance of anyone condoning his actions came from.

  9. He sounds like a natural Reason subscriber. Why don’t you drop him a complementary issue?

  10. From Beyond the Grave|10.8.09 @ 10:40AM|#

    …joe? Fuck along, now.

    1. Nah, probably Edward, Lefiti, Morris…whatever.

    2. joe, were he still commenting here, would be all over the Polanski suckups and apologists cases.

      He’s a true blue blue teamer, but he’s too moral to defend child rapists.

      1. What happened to Joe? I was gone a few weeks a while back and when I returned he was gone.

        1. The 2008 election perhaps.

        2. Screw joe.

          I miss thoreau 🙁

  11. In his 2005 autobiography, My Bad Life, the former TV presenter, intellectual and all round national treasure,

    If being a creep around children is the metric that we’re using, then I have several neighbors who are “national treasures” as well.

    I’d gladly send them to France in return for the Mona Lisa.

  12. “He says homosexuals call all men ‘boys’.”

    The ones I klnow call all men ‘girls’.

  13. The ones I klnow call all men ‘girls’.

    I knew a gay dude in college who divided the world into ‘fags,’ ‘breeders,’ and ‘queers,’ and had nothing but disdain for the first two categories.

  14. I remember Bernhard Schlink came to one of my law school classes to discuss his book The Reader. Instead of delving into the complicated moral and social issues raised in the book, he was only asked questions about banging an older woman when he was a teen. Newsflash: Europeans don’t have the same attitude towards sex. They’ve already worked out their Christian hypocrisies.

    1. “Christian hypocrisies”? It’s not that some Europeans are immoral. They’re amoral. Like the Hollywood entertainment industry. There is no objective good or bad, right or wrong; only what makes money and what doesn’t. Polanski made money and won some awards. For some, that’s all that really matters.

      1. “There is no objective good or bad, right or wrong; only what makes money and what doesn’t.”

        Just because their moral lecture doesn’t have the same chapter on sexual repression doesn’t make them amoral.

  15. FWIW, my French wife says “My Bad Life” is a fictionalized autobiography, or however they call it there. She also says his writing is quite good.

    1. And what does your German wife think of the book?

      1. He can’t understand a word she says. And his Dutch and Italian wives left him… for each other.

        Poor Matt. It’s been a hard summer.

        1. What about his Asian mail-order bride?

  16. What’s the dividing line between silly inhibitions and immoral and reprehensible acts?

    1. Wherever Lamar can place it to have a bloody shirt to wave at libertarians.

      1. I’m being insulted, but I don’t know what this means. And yes, I’m a little surprised that Reason all of the sudden praises socialized morals.

    2. The word ‘yes.’

  17. …Minister of State in one of the world’s leading powers…

    I thought you said he was a minister of France?

    Le zing!

  18. I understand a poor kid saying yes for money, but I still think the adult that takes advantage of that should burn. And whether the kid is acting voluntarily is another issue.

    1. If the issue weren’t sex, it would be characterized as an adult giving that child’s family sustenance and a chance to succeed in life. Why can’t children make a better life for themselves? Of course, the young boys will most definitely “succeed”. A lot of seeds probably.

  19. Question: Does Matt Welch have a vast library of pictures of people looking like douches, or does everybody who disagree with me naturally have a backpfeifengesicht?

    1. In almost every case, these are photos prominently displayed by or on behalf of the authors themselves, for instance in this case on Pinkerton’s New American Foundation bio page.

      1. Whoops! Wrong thread. This one was stolen from the Sky News page, and seemed too good to try and top.

        1. On the other hand, those boys in Thailand are just good enough to top.

  20. Holy Shit. France really should never ever open their mouths about international matters.

    Stick to making wine and cheese and STFU.

    1. Sorry, should’ve added “Unless they want to promote nuclear power.”

  21. Why can’t we have a Culture Minister?

    Why is Obama on the cover of Men’s Health magazine?

    (Partial answer: So he can tout his healthcare reform inside.)

    Where will it all end?

  22. My eyes! These rose-colored 3D goggles do nothing!

  23. It is comforting to see that Reason and its readers are not above a good sexual panic when required.

    1. I know, right?

      What kind of rubes are they if they can’t take an enlightened, abstract approach to child prostitution?

      Adults in more evolved countries fuck children who may or may not get whipped and starved for refusing all the time.

      Keep your bourgeoisie morality away from me! I’m living life!

      1. “Adults in more evolved countries fuck children who may or may not get whipped and starved for refusing all the time.”

        As United States citizens, we need to outlaw a person’s right to say yes. After all, assholes are little halos.

  24. Before we get all high and mighty, how old is one of Mitterand’s “boys”?

    NutraSweet is just sensitive because he recently banged a 16-year-old Irish Setter and he’s a little paranoid about statutory charges. But man, he just can’t stay away from that red fur.

    “Sex with animals?!? There’s no time, man!”

  25. henry, have you ever been in a. . .in a Turkish prison?

  26. What’s the dividing line between silly inhibitions and immoral and reprehensible acts?

    Immoral and reprehensible acts are ones you don’t personally enjoy. Silly inhibitions are strictures against acts you do enjoy.

  27. R C Dean,


  28. At least his defense of Polanski is consistent with his own morals (or lack thereof). The people who piss me off are the Hollywood feminists who defend Polanski.

  29. If sexually mature humans are allowed to have sex, the next thing you know it’ll be man on dog.

  30. I’ll agree that many American states have gotten carried away on age of consent laws.

    I really don’t think it’s astretch to say eighteen (as in CA) is too high. But I don’t think it’s prudish to think thirteen is to low.

    Hell, France and Germany have set it at fifteen, and frankly, I think that’s about right.

  31. The celebrities who signed the “Free Roman Polanski” petition gave $34,000 to Barack Obama and the DNC last year, and not a penny to Republicans.

  32. Isaac,

    I think the age of consent should be set at the age where a parent won’t try to kill the adult who tries or in fact does have sex with a child.

    1. So, what, like 35?

      1. Nah, most parents won’t kill at that age.

        1. You left out the “most” in your original proposal, opening the floodgates to inane responses.

          1. Did you just call my response “inane”? I think I’m entitled to some satisfaction. I challenge you to a duel!

  33. Exactly what is a “fictionalized autobiography?” I mean, if I can just make stuff up, I’ll start writing mine today. Is “Illustrious Potentate” more important than “king”?

    1. Don’t for get to write about your breathtakingly huge junk.

    2. Even if you write pure fiction based in the furure your most often heard comments will be:
      “So, these are real people?”
      “You really did that?”

        1. Inglorious Basterds was pure fiction based on the fuhrer.

          1. If I were a little quicker today I would have noticed that possible typo funny 🙂

    3. More interestingly why would you “fictionalize” your autobiography to include you paying little boys for sex.

      That seems like an odd bit of “fiction” to introduce.

  34. The dividing line is whether Mitterrand’s boys are old enough to consent legally and morally, just legally, or just morally.

    Depends on the laws in Thailand, depends on the morals of the observer.

    But the point of the piece is that someone who appears to have admitted to enjoying sex with boys (pre-sexual human beings) is a useful source of opinion about Polanksi, who has admitted to having sex with a child legally and morally incapable of consent in America.

    Kick up all the dust you want, but this has nothing to do with some prudishness on the part of libertarians that is being touted on this thread.

    1. Let’s not forget that she was also a child legally and morally incapable of consent in France.

      The interesting thing is that the reaction to Polanskii’s arrest from ordinary French people that I’ve seen is much more in line with American opinion. It’s pretty much France’s crypto-intellectual equivalent of Hollywood that’s pro-Polanski.

    2. Let’s also not forget that Polanski banged somebody who was NOT a “pre-sexual human being” such that all this talk about “morally incapable of consent” is made up. According to a lot of people, unmarried women shouldn’t ever be “morally capable of consent”. So to hear about “moral capability” is completely absurd. Legally, on the other hand, is another story.

    3. And I’m only kicking up dust to highlight how (1) America is one of the more prude developed nations and (2) Americans aren’t even aware of how prude we really are. Wanna go even farther? I think Thailand should make banging boys legal. If you’re really going to make a consent arguing (like Frist from the Senate floor), wouldn’t legalization do much to cure that? How’s that for kicking up dust?

      1. You want to legalize the anal-rape of 13-year-olds? Clown or troll, this makes you too stupid to continue with.

        1. SugarFree: you haven’t set forth a coherent argument yet. So calling me stupid is a bit of a stretch. Why don’t you try being honest with yourself. Age of consent laws are inherently arbitrary and do not (cannot) correlate with natural reality. A 13 year old could be mature enough to make a sexual decision while an 18 year old might not be. The age of consent is a made up age. We do this for a number of reasons, none of which you seem to understand.

          Second, you have consistently read “rape” into every circumstance. Roman Polanski pleads guilty to sex with a minor, and you say “rape”. Frenchy likes boy hookers in Thailand, and you say “rape”. What are you, Ayn Freaking Rand? You see rape everywhere. Where is that skepticism that we’ve seen from you on these blogs, and why doesn’t that skepticism apply to sex? Do you perhaps believe that ALL sex is rape?

          Instead of calling me names, why don’t you ask yourself why you assume that everything is rape?

          1. Yeah Sugarfree, you American prude, where’d you get the idea that drugging and violating a minor over her protests is a rape? It debases the word. No only means no at frat parties.

            1. I guess 13 year old girls are the only people in the world who can get drunk and take a bunch of luudes then later claim they said no. In fact, little known secret: Polanski gave her the booze and drugs intravenously. You know, because she didn’t want the booze and drugs. But hey, since you were there, why don’t you tell us what happened? Or show us the video that you have?

              1. You’re a moral midget.

                1. I may be a moral midget, but your level of arrogance in how certain you are about her grand jury interview is disgusting. It’s like you haven’t been paying attention to anything Radley Balko has written over the last few years.

              2. Yes, and it’s hard to get rape convicionts for that very reason. Even when a 13-year-old girl is involved, apparantly.

                Which is why he plead guilty to the lesser charge. But apparantly, you think the lesser charge is a “so-called crime” that shouldn’t even be punished.

                Ergo, anytime someone boozes up a 13 year old girl and fucks her in the ass, he should get off scot free, because you can’t trust the word of 13 year old girls.

                If there is one thing that age-of-consent laws are good for, it would include allowing SOME level of punishment for perverted older men who drug 13 year old girls and rape them in the ass while they say no.

                1. Incidentally, the comment nesting here is fucked up.

                  1. Agree. Not a fan.

                2. Polanski broke the law and admitted guilt. He should have gone to jail and been done with it. But damn it if we don’t have a bunch of time traveling experts here to tell us just how incredibly honest and truthful her testimony was. How the fuck is booze forced on somebody? A syringe down her throat? C’mon.

                  1. She’s a 13 year old. She’s probably curious. Maybe a bit rebellious. Trying to act a little more mature than she really is. And hence easily manipulated by an older adult with designs on her.

                    1. So she said yes, albeit because she was manipulated?

                    2. No. She drank the alcohol and took the half a quaalude, because she was manipulated. She still claims that she said no.

                      However, let’s suppose for the sake of argument that after he ate her out (while she was in a drugged stupor) that he got her to at least not say “no” when he started fucking her.

                      You might consider that “consent”. But even then, most feminists today would argue that consent provided only under the influence of drugs and booze, after initial refusals, isn’t really valid consent, and it would still constitute rape.

                3. “If there is one thing that age-of-consent laws are good for, it would include allowing SOME level of punishment for perverted older men who drug 13 year old girls and rape them in the ass while they say no.”

                  This is the type of disingenuous comment that drives me crazy. (1) If he is screwing her in the ass while she is saying “no”, then it is rape, pure and simple. I’m just not convinced that this is what happened. (2)dosing or involuntarily drugging somebody is a crime. I’m not convinced this happened. (3) You assume that an older man is “perverted” for finding a sexually mature female to be sexually attractive and even acting on it (Angelica Huston said she looked 25 years old). I don’t find attraction between sexually mature people to be perverted, even if there is a large age disparity. This is where America’s prudishness comes in. I’m not convinced that Polanski is innocent, but it saddens me to see so many people here jump to conclusions.

                  1. There is no way a 13 year old girl can look 25 years old. And I’d look a bit “sullen” too, if I had just been drugged and raped. Plus, we’ve seen her picture, and she doesn’t look anywhere near 18, much less 25. And I live near a college campus, so I know what 18 year old girls look like.

                    Anyway, I find her jury transcript on the anal sex part very convincing. Why would she make up a detail like him asking her if she was on the pill? That struck me as very much having the ring of truth. It also strikes me as true that a 13 year old is going to say “no” to anal sex. Plus, his (alleged) dialogue implies that he fucked her in the ass because she couldn’t remember when her last period was. To paraphrase: “You can’t remember? What? Do you want me to fuck you in the ass instead?”

                    I find it highly unlikely that a 13 year old mind is going to just invent a scenario like that.

                    I suspect Polanski really was just so used to having his way with young girls, that he just stopped taking objections seriously. The priviledge of being a famous film director and living in Hollywood. Getting a girl a little drunk and stoned and eating her out becomes prefunctory seduction. Too bad he wasn’t doing it to an aspiring starlet, but to a child.

                    1. “Plus, we’ve seen her picture,”

                      Couldn’t get past this. Everybody in the world knows that a girl can look much older if made up right. So, no, can’t say that we’ve seen any picture on the night she did it with Polanski. You are making the same mistake over and over….you’re taking one small piece of evidence and assuming all kinds of things. So there is a picture where she looks young, so that means she can never look older?

                      “And I live near a college campus, so I know what 18 year old girls look like.”

                      I’m sure you do. Except when you think they are over 18 but they’re not. But you aren’t aware of those situations because you would have to know that they aren’t 18 to know that you were wrong in thinking they were over 18. Kind of hard to do.

                      “Why would she make up a detail like him asking her if she was on the pill?…I find it highly unlikely that a 13 year old mind is going to just invent a scenario like that.”

                      I stop inventing reasons for kids to lie. Their imaginations are pretty well developed. But really, I’m not here to say she definitely is a liar. I’m just saying I’m not convinced she is telling the truth, not ruling it out. The fact is that I don’t know.

                      The rest is a mix of speculation, wanting to believe her, hating Roman Polanski and filling in the gaps with innuendo. Maybe her whole story is accurate except for when she says she said no, she actually said yes. Or maybe the entire story is made up, but she really did say no. Let’s not pretend like we’re big time heroes reading a transcript and using our ESP to determine the truth.

                    2. If I were to start speculating, I would question how Polanski would get any pleasure out of eating out and banging a crying drugged girl saying “no, no, no”.

                    3. He’s been quoted as saying “normal sex is boring”.

                    4. The rest is a mix of speculation, wanting to believe her, hating Roman Polanski and filling in the gaps with innuendo. Maybe her whole story is accurate except for when she says she said no, she actually said yes.

                      I don’t hate Roman Polanski indenpendently of the fact that he’s a child rapist.

                      But even if everything in the story is true except she says “yes” instead of “no”, it would still be considered rape by standard feminist analysis. Consent that only occurs after being drunk and drugged isn’t valid consent.

                      Even if she said “yes” after he ate her out, she’s still a drugged 13-year-old. What kind of 43-year-old man boozes and drugs up a little girl and then fucks her, even if he gets her to consent (or at least not resist) after eating her out?

                      Imagine you’re a 14 year old boy. You’ve got a 13 year old girlfriend that you’re “going steady” with and had sex with twice. You’re at a party with a bunch of adults drinking and smoking weed. Later that evening, while you’re stone and half passed out on the couch, a 43-year-old woman comes up and unzips your pants and starts sucking your dick. You try to wave her off, cause you don’t want to cheat on your girlfriend, but your too wasted. Eventually she fucks you.

                      You don’t consider that rape? Or even sexual exploitation?

          2. The girl says it was rape. Do you not get that?

            1. The guy says it wasn’t. So where do we go from here?

              1. Believe the guy of course, because we all know that 13-year-old little slut wanted it.

                You’re fucking sick.

                1. We don’t know that she wanted it any more than we know that she didn’t want it. Here’s the big difference: I don’t necessarily believe Polanski’s story. By contrast, you completely believe the girl’s story and will go to great lengths to defend her story.

                  You started out saying “He” fed her booze, “he” fed her drugs. “He” raped her as she was saying no very quietly. The second I say “how do you know that?”, you accuse me of blindly believing the guy because I’m a fucking sicko. Don’t you realize that you’ve based your entire opinion on this on ….. oh never mind. I guess everybody has blind faith in something.

                  1. I have faith you’re a piece of shit.

                    But really, why are we talking about this story now? There’s must be some sort of sinister ulterior motive.

                    1. “Believe the guy of course, because we all know that 13-year-old little slut wanted it….You’re fucking sick. I have faith you’re a piece of shit.”

                      Tell that to the Duke Lacrosse players.
                      Tell that to the Duke Lacrosse players.

        2. And I advocate the legalization of prostitution as do a majority of commenters at this site. That does not extend to your fetish fantasy of anal raping a 13 year old or whatever other made up horror you want to use as a bad-connotation proxy for prostitution.

          It’s like saying people in favor of medical marijuana are terrible people because they kill people for heroin.

          1. I have not seen him advocate that particular fetish fantasy. Citation needed and not one where he was joking around either.

            1. I didn’t say that Sugarfree “advocated” such a fetish fantasy. I merely stated that Sugarfree made up that fetish fantasy. See, for example, the direct quote: “You want to legalize the anal-rape of 13-year-olds?”

          2. You are the one trying to conflate the two issues. You want to have a discussion of prostitution? Fine. But that’s not the issue.

            What Roman Polanski did had nothing to do with prostitution laws. What Roman Polanski did had nothing to do with the age of consent. If he drugged and raped a 50-year-old, he’d still be just as guilty. He incapacitated her and had forcible sex while she protested. That’s rape.

            Read the trial transcripts. I don’t care what he plea bargained to. What he did was rape.

            1. I’ve read the trial grand jury transcripts. I’m not convinced on a number of things. Mostly, I’m not convinced that she didn’t do what 90% of kids do when they get caught doing something they aren’t supposed to be doing.

              What he did was sex with a child. Whether it was rape is your judgment, i.e., you crediting uncrossed testimony that you did not observe. Jesus. It’s Bill Frist diagnosing Terry Schiavo from the Senate floor. It’s absurd to say you can believe (or disbelieve) anything from that transcript. You have no idea what happened in that grand jury room. There is a reason that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. The testimony is highly coached and uncrossed. So go ahead and believe what you want to believe. Just know that its on shaky ground.

              1. If he wants it cross-examined, he can with draw his plea bargain and go to trial.

                1. You can’t withdraw a plea bargain like that. And maybe he did everything she said and worse. But to believe it as the gospel because she said it in a grand jury interview? Sorry. Can’t do that. I actually know how grand juries work.

      2. What is it about this story that causes people to assume all kinds of things they have absolutely no idea about? Traveling to Thailand? Why…that’s slave boy anal rape. Illegal sex with a minor? Well…he poisoned her with luudes and booze and raped her despite her protests (must have been really groggy protests!). You can’t just say rape over and over again and make it true.

        The simple fact (and if you’ve read this magazine and given to the foundation you know it) is that assuming facts you don’t really know always leads to problems. It’s how cops get into trouble. They think they know what happened, then force the facts to fit that mold. Then convicted rapists in FL turn out to be innocent. In short, it looks like you’re calling me stupid because I don’t view the Bible or a 13 year-old’s grand jury testimony as absolute fact. Sue me.

        1. The ramblings of guilty mind. Did that bitch tell lies about you? Did you manage to finally teach her to keep her fucking mouth shut?

          1. “The ramblings of guilty mind.”

            I supposed the next thing you’ll say is that I enjoyed coffee and cigarettes after the death of my poor mother.

            1. What, your mother’s corpse finally rotted too much for you to… have “consensual relations” with her or something?

              1. Sorry, that reference was for literate people.

    4. You think boys are pre-sexual human beings? You are either female or you had a very boring childhood.

  35. Thank heaven for little boys
    for little boys get bigger every day!

    Thank heaven for little boys
    they grow up in the most delightful way!

    Those little eyes so helpless and appealing
    one day will flash and send you crashin’ thru the ceilin’

    Thank heaven for little boys
    thank heaven for them all,
    no matter where no matter who
    for without them, what would pedophiles do?

    Thank heaven… thank heaven…
    Thank heaven for little boys!

  36. From the article
    “All these rituals of the market for
    youths, the slave market excited me enormously”.

    Hmmm a slave market of young boys and there is confusion as to why people would take issue with this. headshake

  37. Okay, score one for our priggish, puritanical view of sex. At least we kick bums like this out of public office.

    1. Yeah, by God. That’s why David Vitter. . . OK, strike that.

  38. All I can say is, if I ever drug and forcibly sodomize a thirteen year old girl, I want Lamar on my jury.

    1. And if that hot 25 year old who pops pills and drinks all your vodka turns out to be a 16 year old with a fake ID, you definitely want me on your jury.

      In fact, anytime somebody gives questionable grand jury testimony is a good time to have Lamar on your jury.

  39. You can’t withdraw a plea bargain like that.

    Actually, you can.

    1. “Actually, you can.”

      No have to move the court and have a reason. The motion can be denied. C’mon. You know that.

  40. The Court can deny your motion to withdraw the plea, that’s the point.

  41. “(3) You assume that an older man is “perverted” for finding a sexually mature female to be sexually attractive and even acting on it (Angelica Huston said she looked 25 years old).”

    She Lies:…..en_746.jpg

    1. Epic fail, Gobbler.

  42. “Epic fail, Gobbler.”

    Glad to see you can admit it.

    BTW, I hope somebody rapes your ass.

  43. “Epic fail”

    How so?

  44. “I hope somebody rapes your ass.”

    I hope somebody falsely accuses you of rape. There, we’re even. And, FYI, Angelica Huston said that the girl looked 25 on the night that Polanski banged her, not in the photo you posted. That is why you fail. You cannot prove A wrong by submitting proof of an unrelated B circumstance.

  45. You talkin’ to me or The Gobbler? I’m not sure.

    1. The Gobbler as to the insult. I don’t think it is a stretch to think that maybe the girl looked older, though I’m not sure it matters.

    2. This is the quote: “She appeared to be one of those kind of little chicks between — could be any age up to 25. She did not look like a 13-year-old scared little thing,” Huston said.

      1. And per Polanski
        “Oh, I knew she was 14,”


        1. He must be getting his 13-year olds mixed up with his 14-year olds, or maybe his 15-olds.

    3. And its funny to me how all of the sudden prosecutors are upstanding citizens who would never coach a young girl or make overheated statements to the press. Make no mistake, Polanksi pled guilty and should have done time. But the court of wild speculation is getting out of hand on this one.

      1. If the prosecutors were coaching her to make exagerrated statements why the fuck did they plea bargain all the way down to unlawfulsex with a minor ?

        It seems, oh, just slightly illogical to encourage your witness to invent vast exagerrations if you aren’t going to bother to prosecute for any of them.

        1. Unfortunately, that’s how our adversarial legal system works. We don’t know why they plea bargained down so much. Perhaps they wanted to protect the minor from certain publicity from a rape trial. Perhaps they didn’t believe her story. Most likely, it falls somewhere in between. Maybe they believed her, but didn’t think she’d withstand cross. Or maybe they just thought “let’s get the conviction and not risk some super lawyer getting his off scot free.”

  46. Me thinks Lamar protests too much. Perhaps he likes les petites filles, non?

  47. Gobbler, what Lamar is saying is that:

    When the inevitable happens, and
    1) You find yourself alone in your home with a female 7th grader who you don’t know, and
    2) As a gesture of good will you give her some of your precious stash alcohol and ludes, and
    3) You inevitably trip and upon falling finding your penis mysteriously shoved up her rectum, that
    4) You are punished harshly for not previously understanding that such thing happen to all of us at one time or another and you should have been more sympathetic, you judgmental Bastard!

    1. “1) You find yourself alone in your Jack Nicholson’s home with a female 7th grader who you don’t know, and”


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.