Re: The Polanski Debacle

[shipperx]

I thought that this article laid out what is outrageous about celebrity defenders of Polanski trying to pose this as it not being a 'rape-rape.'  This article references the grand jury testimony of the victim.  Although it left out this bit of her testimony that I also found particularly apalling.:

"He goes 'Come down here' and I said 'No, I got to get out.' and he goes 'No, come down here' and then I said that I had asthma and I couldn't {...} Q: Did you have asthma? A: No Q: Did you ever have asthma? A: No Q: Why did you tell him you had asthma? A: Because I wanted to get out)

Let's be clear that the guilty plea for the statutory rape in question is quite explicitly an instance of a 43 year old man egregiously exploiting a 13 year old girl who felt totally powerless in a situation that he had engineered and included isolating and drugging her. And he admittedly knew, but apparently didn't care, that she was only 13. 

Comments

[ladypeyton.livejournal.com]

It was the cuddliness line that got to me and really pressed home exactly how much of a child she was.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know. When I saw that, my jaw dropped. It amped the already extreme squickiness.

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

I'm horrified that people try to defend rape and child abuse!

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

It boggles the mind.

[hazel75.livejournal.com]

The WSJ also had a good article (link in my journal) which said this:

Again, the girl was 13, far below the age of consent. As a matter of law, it could not have been a "consensual matter." It is true that the use of force is not a necessary element of statutory rape, the crime to which Polanski pleaded guilty before fleeing the country to escape the consequences of his guilt. It does not follow from this, however, that the crime did not involve violence.

Statutory rape doesn't mean there was no explicit violence/force -- just that explicit violence/force was not a legal requirement for guilt. And if Whoopi Goldberg wants to go mouthing about it on the View, she ought to educate herself first. God, she makes me ill.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Seriously, what part of drugged thirteen year old implies that there's anything that could remotely resemble consent? Thirteen!

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

She was 13. She was incapable of consenting to sex plus he managed to get her into an altered state.

The Polanski defenders disgust me.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I don't get it. I mean, I really, really don't get it. It doesn't even require that one reads her grand jury testimony and believe it. What he admitted to was utterly inexcusable. Who the fuck think it's okay for a middle aged man to lure a thirteen year old, drug a thirteen year old, and have sex with a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD?! It's not something one rationalizes away!

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

I know -- that's the crazy thing. He admitted it! And yet we have Whoopee Goldberg trying to explain how rape isn't really rape.

This isn't 1545 for goodness sake!

Mind boggling.

[queenofattolia.livejournal.com]

He's disgusting, should NOT get a pass on this because justice is waaaaay overdue, and people such as Woody "Skeevemaster" Allen rising to his defense are ludicrous in the extreme (and what the HELL is up with Natalie Portman and Whoopi Goldberg?!) but I have to ask: what sort of parents would give up their 13-year-old daughter to this pig? Where the hell were they? I mean, this is straight out of the Hollywood scene in The Godfather. Bleh.

And yeah, I know Polanski has had a hideous life (running from the Nazis as a kid, the Sharon Tate murder) and that he is a good director, but that doesn't make him impervious to prosecution for the crimes he's committed. Jeezy creezy.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Yes. Horrible things happened to him, but that doesn't then excuse him for doing horrible things. It's amazing what people will rationalize.

[nmissi.livejournal.com]

This man is clearly a perv. This was clearly a rape. Not consensual sex with a minor (which is what he pled to) but a flat out violent rape. The first mistake in the courts was allowing him to plead down. I've read that the original charges were set to be withdrawn when he fled, but I wonder if that ever actually occurred. If not, he could still be charged with the whole enchilada- and could spend the rest of his life in prison. Which is pretty much fine by me.

I've only seen 3 of his movies, but they all involved rape. I'm wondering if this is a theme in all his work? And if so, why in God's name does anyone let him near their children? He started his affair with Natasha Kinski when she was fifteen. Tatum O'Neal has said he watched porn with her when she was a child. And we all know he raped a little girl. Anyone who supports this man, anyone who condones his actions, is an apologist for rape. And what does it say abt Hollyweird that this is okay with so many people? On one hand, I think, "Maybe they're all pervs, too." Then I think abt the women who've come out in support of him, and I wonder, do they think so little of themselves? Maybe they excuse what he did, because it's been done to them too. Casting couch, or whatever- in the entertainment elite, perhaps what he did is seen as ordinary, as just another operating cost. The enlightened artistes have the nobles' ancient right: to fuck the peasant wenches.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

He seems like a gross, disturbed little man. Sure there were terrible things that happened in his life, but that doesn't excuse him doing horrible things.

[goodbyebird]

I saw her testimony in the Polanski documentary, and the focused a lot on the mass-media and pr-horny judge and I was just sitting there with my mouth open, going "so? He raped a thirteen year old!"

People need to frickin' think.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I really don't get it. Sure, the lawyers involved may wrangle over the techincalities, but it's indisputible that he was a middle-aged man knowingly exploiting a thirteen year old girl. There's no reason for the general public (be they celebrities or anonymous plebian masses) to cut him any slack whatsoever.

[kaydee23.livejournal.com]

He gave her quaaludes and champagne. Unbelievable. He could have killed her just with that. I'm 47, and I wouldn't consider such behavior by any of my peers anything but criminal and disgusting. He really thought it was okay to eat out, vaginally and annally have his way with a 13 year old girl? I read the transcripts, and she was begging him to take her home or let her leave. Whatever. I find it vile that he uses his wife's murder and the Holocaust to excuse himself. Well, at least his friends and his lawyer has mentioned that. I guess if he'd punch her around, blackened an eye, broken a bone, brought some blood up, then it would have been "rape-rape"? All these people who are chill with him raping a 13 year old ought to give their 13 year old daughter or son to some Hollywood legend for a night or weekend of fun. If it was okay for Roman Polanski to do it, why not? :rolls eyes:

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The "it's not rape-rape" thing is utter hogwash. Even what he admitted to (much less what the girl testified to) was rape, not matter how many times your repeat it. The bastard engineered a situation to lure a girl into an isolated situation, drugged her, and penetrated her all the while, by his own admission, knowing that she was only thirteen! There's nothing defensible in that even prior to reading her testimony of everything that happened.

not so random commenter

[rowanda380.livejournal.com]

erg, the fact that some people want him to get away with this makes me want to barf!

Re: not so random commenter

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I really don't understand the impulse to defend him. Even what he flat out admits to is gross and dispicable. I can understand lawyers who are paid to form a legal defense, but there's no reason for anyone else to try to pretend it's about legeal hokus pokus. It is what it is, and what he did was dispicable.