Littlebear

That's like having a discussion about "nuanced" torture.

If I could choose how to be tortured, I'd certainly do.

Well played. We may assuage your tempered irregularities through indubitable foresight and antelope pushing (a colloquialism to be sure, yet pertinent in this case). Having twelve pouches of saccharine involved couldn't hurt in the least, if you know what I'm saying.

Now I feel like I need to learn a third language.

Tell that to the 30 year old who's been raped. Not to say that it wouldn't be absolutely devastating to be raped at 10 years old, but unless you've been in either of these persons shoes, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh, really. A 10 years old girl who never menstruated yet, raped, not worse than for an adult? And I am stupid?

I am going to go out on a limb and say that I think I understand Littlebear's point, but maybe he's not making it very well. There are nuances to everything in life. And there IS a difference (nuanced or not) between violently raping someone, and being in a relationship with someone who feels trapped emotionally, or controlled emotionally. Sex in that latter situation is rape, but the law wouldn't necessarily call it that. A woman may not have to scream "no" to be raped. There is nuance, right?

 

That being said, the girl was 13, and I don't know much about the specifics re drugs, etc. I agree that we weren't there as Littlebear suggests, but I have a very hard time imagining what sort of nuance could excuse an adult engaging in sexual relations with a 13 yr old. I'd even go so far as to say that none could possible exist.

 

EDIT: I'd also add that suggesting that attractive women are responsible for rape is the most frightfully stupid thing I've read around here in awhile. As VC, said.

At least you can understand what I meant, you may be less stupid than the others. And I didn't say that attractive women were responsible for rape. Not exactly. I may write in my second language, but I can read better. I could also add twenty lines of nuances to this, something that nobody here, in their first language, feel like doing.

I could very well state here that all of the others are fucked-up morons unable to write on the subject.

^This is fucking retarded. You're way too stupid to be a Wilco fan.

I feel like a lack of argument. Who's stupid exactly?

Records I especially enjoyed:

Eleni Mandell – Artificial Fire

Neko Case – Middle Cyclone

Marissa Nadler – Little Hells

Julie Doiron – I Can Wonder What You Did with Your Day

Jill Sobule – California Years

The Decemberists – The Hazards of Love

Grizzly Bear – Veckatimest

Records I found good:

Joe Henry – Blood from Stars

Phoenix – Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix

Ana Egge – Road to My Love

Camera Obscura – My Maudlin Career

Devon Sproule – Don’t Hurry for Heaven!

Plastiscines – About Love

Pastels/Tenniscoats – Two Sunsets

Animal Collective – Merriweather Post Pavilion

The Pains of Being Pure at Heart

St Vincent – Actor

Dirty Projectors – Bitte Orca

Records I need to listen to again to be sure what I think of:

Niobe – Black Bird’s Echo

Amy Allison – Sheffield Streets

Wilco – (the album)

David Mead – Almost and Always

The Antlers – Hospice

Bat for Lashes – Two Suns

Jay Reatard – Watch Me Fall

Arctic Monkeys – Humbug

Taken by Trees – East of Eden

Jean-Louis Murat – Le cours ordinaire des choses

Records I purchased and still expect in the mail:

M. Ward – Hold Time

Loudon Wainwright III – High Wide & Handsome (The Charlie Poole Project)

Butterfly Boucher – Scaryfragile

Records I plan to purchase:

Rose Melberg – Homemade Ship

Anny Celsi – Tangle-Free World

Paul Curreri - California

Patty Griffin - ?

Sondre Lerche – Heart Beat Radio

Special favorites of mine, along with Van's Veedon Fleece, that haven't been mentionned:

Dory Previn - Dory Previn

Millie Jackson - Caught Up

Jesse Winchester - Learn To Love It

If she were 10, 20, 30, 40 or any age whatever, and was drugged and sodomized and engaging in sex acts against her will, rape is rape, circumstances be damned. Period. I don't care how short the skirt is, how sexy the cleavage, and I certainly don't give a fuck that she was posing naked for photos (which, let us be clear, is child pornography).

I disagree. Rape is rape, but there are different sorts of rapes, and different sorts of sentences required to these. It's obviously worse to rape a 10 years old girl than a 30 years old one. Unless the 30 years old one is handicaped or something. It's worse to rape with violence than with psychological pressure. And yes, a girl who's been sexually provocative is an attenuating circumstance to me (but I don't say it's been the case with Samantha Gailey).

If you claim that girls aren't responsible for provoking rape when they're sexually attractive, then you totally dismiss the power of the sexual pulsions. The sexual world is a big part of the human life. The raping pulsion takes part of the sexual game. It belongs to any of us to deal carefully with it. To men, and to girls.

Polanski is totally responsible of what happened. But HOW did it really happen? That's the only question I have no answer to. And the facts we know (alcohol, drugs, sodomy) aren't helping in any way. There are just shocking words thrown like these, that don't tell the reality of how the things happen. That's what I tried to say with my idea of movie describing the circumstances. That's probably why some movies were done in the first place: to describe a reality that's far more complex than a final judgement.

We don't live with the law in mind. We don't live with logic or under a social contract. At least I, for one, don't - bless my soul.

Is it your view that because he is a disturbed artist, and not a man of law, that he should be exempt from the law? I'm not talking moral or ethical law, I'm referring to the law of the country in which he resided, worked, and from which siphoned a good deal of money.

 

I just don't see this situation as some sort of murky, moralistic, Puritanical witch hunt. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

My point is not to say he should be exempt from the law. My point is : there can be attenuating circumstances to something that appears strictly shocking. Circumstances could have been worse, say, if the girl was 10 years old, if she hadn't posed naked, if the man had been known for raping again or being violent, etc, etc

So I repeat it: I don't say at all he should be exempt from the law. But I tend to temper the severe judgement that moralistic people apply to the man and the matter that makes this thread. There is the law, and there is life. Millions of things in life, light or serious, happen out the law.

I don't quite understand the man who spoke of "social contract" earlier. Any man can meet a girl and have a sex relation with her, to learn after she was only 17, whereas she looked like 21. And then the law leads him to prison. And then in prison, the man is raped by his colleagues, because things happen in prison out of the law, too. But then the *law* is totally responsible of something way more serious. No?

I am not quite sure how to respond. You are essentially saying it is ok for adults to have sex with children.

Not at all. I say there are circumstances that can be avoided between some men and some teens, teens (from 13 to...) being more very young women than children most of the time. Roman Polanski isn't an example of wise person. It's a disturbed artist, all of his movies illustrate it.

More than that, if I well understand, they spend a whole day together (or a long afternoon? anyway...). Anything weird can happen in a day. Polanski, more than any other maybe, could pretty much make a movie about that, the complex story of a day (or a few hours), telling the strange relationship of two persons of different age, that would lead to the fault that everybody judges now only as a result. But anything more complex can lead to that terrible fault. And I don't even feel like playing the devil's advocate here.

You still can ask to an artist to be as wise as a judge, but it's, to my view, basically silly. Psychologically and sexually, the world of Polanski is pretty heavy, and far from being moral. If he'd been a man of law, he wouldn't have made movies at all.

No matter when, where, what the circumstances...sex between a 44 year old and a 13 year old is rape.

Disagreed. Anyway, I don't believe the girl was consentent. But I don't believe she "was afraid of him" either.

How a 13 years-old girl should be allowed to follow an adult to his house and pose naked anyway? In my opinion, circumstances count.

The most despicable side of Polanski in this matter is having used his status of celebrity to abuse a teen, along with her parents (who must have trusted him - I wonder if they had ever watched his movies...)

Apart from that, the media are worse again, as the girl herself will attest later. Whatever you say, it's indeed ALL a matter of circumstances.

To say that it's a side effect of greatness appears to be a bit of a stretch. I know plenty of people who are't great that engage in "sexual deviance." It may be a side effect of being alive.

or a side effect of the sexuality which we can see everywhere in the media and in our society. What does surprise the French more about the US, is the paradoxe between their society and their puritanism, the latter appearing mainly hypocrite.

Who, in this thread, has said that? Who anywhere has said that?

I've read that on several other sites and read it between the lines here as well. You know, if "he can't get away with it", that means "he should be punished". No? As well as from half of the French people mentionned earlier in this thread, funny to note that those who treat Polanski of "pedophile" are from the worst political side of our country (extreme right winged - the fascist kind, the ultra national front). Well, they certainly hate Polanski's movies anyway. The way they go from the rape of a teen in attenuating circumstances to straight "pedophelia" is simply disgusting. Polanski isn't a child rapist, and he hasn't done any other rape over more than 30 years. And what kind of rape it was, only him and her know. I for one won't judge, as much as I won't excuse the man either.

Who's "we"? It's those French people who think he's so awesome he can rape teens and get away with it.

Sure. And being put in prison for some years certainly allows to get away with it after. That's what everyone takes as justice in this world. That ridiculous notion of punishment.

"to pay the price". Good Lord, as if there was a price to pay. If that is the case, many people are ready to pay the price.

In short, to tell what I think, punishment doesn't change anything.

I don't care that 76 years old Polanski would be finally put in jail. I sincerely don't care. What irritates me, is the people who want to punish him for the sake of the punishment, and call that *justice*. But that's not *justice* at all. Give me a break, moralist freaks.

Curiously, I'm more angry at the fact Pinochet lived and died peacefully.

Point three: McCartney wasted loads of time and money attempting to make Oh Darling a hit single.

Wasn't it "Maxwell's Silver Hammer"?

It seems a bit amazing that the others humored him on this.

They were humoring him about "Yesterday" too a few years before, but they had humor and weren't taking themselves too seriously then.

does Here comes the sun count as 'obscure', cause its my fave Beatles tune out of the lot

Sure. Thinking of it, I forgot "Yesterday".

So please somebody clear this up for me. I have heard for years and from more than one source that the white VW on the cover of Abbey Road belonged to John which always seemed unlikely. Then an interview with Paul in Mojo stated that it was just a random car that had been parked there. I'm guessing that's not his car but why do I keep hearing that?

It's the first time I read about that.

After "The Inner Light", I'd mention "I'll Get You", "Slow Down" and "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party"

In my opinion, you can't find any obscure title from Rubber Soul to Abbey Road, since there're all big classics.

How about "pointless for you, fun for other people"?

 

Really, what's the harm in it?

The harm is that I was bored reading it. It's an offense to me.

And if you take THIS seriously, then I'll get me some fun at least. To each his own fun.

"Don't Pass Me By."

My vote for the song that deserves to be obscure the most.

yes.

no.

The Inner Light

Now can you do this for all the albums? I highly enjoyed it.

Well, anyone can do the same with short statements about any song. It's essentially pointless.

I mean, I think "Drive My Car" is a cool opener, and I was never impressed with "In My Life". Who cares?

The fact is that we change of mind with pretty much every listen. Every week, every month, every year.

Last time I listened to Abbey Road (two days ago), I favoured the Paul songs, whereas I used to prefer the John ones before.