Roman Polanski

[Ghost of Electricity]

Is this in response to my mentioning Krakow? If so, your diatribe is not only wildly assumptive but woefully misguided. For the record.

It is in response to the implication that he should be treated differently because of the tragedy he has had in his own past. Perhaps I was reading a bit too much into your post, but the French government, for example, has said as much.

[Ghost of Electricity]

naked for photos (which, let us be clear, is child pornography).

 

Not necessarily. This is not child pornography.

[Spawn's dad]

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.

 

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

[Littlebear]

^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?

[M. (hristine]

 

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.

Law is written for human beings who fail internalize a distinction between compulsion and action.

[Spawn's dad]

I feel like a lack of argument.

 

Really? Did you piece that together all by yourself?

 

You're either a troll, or an imbecile. In either case your post doesn't warrant argument, just highlighting as a sad and ignorant point of view.

[Sir Stewart]

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.

 

This is probably the most fucked up thing I've ever read here.

 

It is in response to the implication that he should be treated differently because of the tragedy he has had in his own past. Perhaps I was reading a bit too much into your post, but the French government, for example, has said as much.

 

I didn't realize that (re: the French gov't). No, I did not mean my post to be a defense of Polanski's actions in this matter at all.

[MattZ]

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.

[Sir Stewart]

You're either a troll, or an imbecile.

 

Or:

 

[rareair]

It is in response to the implication that he should be treated differently because of the tragedy he has had in his own past. Perhaps I was reading a bit too much into your post, but the French government, for example, has said as much.

 

he was actually correcting my stupidity, which had nothing to do with the merit-based argument occurring in the thread.

[Guest Speed Racer]

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?

 

Having never been raped myself, I am going to go out on a limb and say that the feeling of being sexually controlled in a relationship to the point of being forced to engage in non-consensual sex, so nuanced that the victim feels like SHE did something wrong, or that it is not a crime, is as bad or worse to experience than violent, clear-cut rape.

 

But I can't speak to that. And you sure as hell can't either.

 

The "nuance" you speak of is measured on a sliding scale labeled "Rape," and lord knows the situation you describe has been successfully prosecuted as rape before. "A woman may not have to scream 'no' to be raped." Oh my god! REALLY!? Jesus christ.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude to you, but I really can't believe that any level-headed person is entertaining the idea of "nuanced" sexual assualt. That's like having a discussion about "nuanced" torture.

[Sir Stewart]

he was actually correcting my stupidity, which had nothing to do with the merit-based argument occurring in the thread.

 

I should clear up why I replied as I did to your question: it was simply a rare instance where the mention of Hitler in a thread could actually be relevant (and there's the rub: I mean "relevant" as in Hitler had an effect on Polanski's life, not "relevant" as in Hitler's effect on Polanski's life is an excuse for Polanski's actions in this matter).

 

But I can't speak to that. And you sure as hell can't either.

 

Don't be so sure. Men can be raped.

[MattZ]

SpeedRacer - I agree with you. My point was that there can be nuance in the eyes of the law. In that someone can actually be raped, but the law wouldn't call it rape. I would never suggest, and didn't mean to suggest, that the impact on the victim is any less devastating.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Don't be so sure. Men can be raped.

 

I was speaking on the assumption (pardon my liberties with this) that neither I nor Matt have been raped.

 

SpeedRacer - I agree with you. My point was that there can be nuance in the eyes of the law. In that someone can actually be raped, but the law wouldn't call it rape. I would never suggest, and didn't mean to suggest, that the impact on the victim is any less devastating.

 

I'm glad that, to an extent, I was misreading what you said. But I would also argue this: the law DOES clearly define non-consensual sex and sex acts as rape; prosecuting the kind of crime you describe could be difficult, but I do not think the law is unclear.

[Rusty Shackleford]

For those of you who are withholding judgment because we don't really know what happened, the girl's grand jury testimony is available at the Smoking Gun. It's only her side of the story, as presented by prosecutors, but it's incredibly damning and Polanski has never refuted it. Instead, he pled guilty and admitted in open court and under oath to the gist of it. His factual guilt of the crime would seem to be beyond dispute, and the fact that he pled "only" to unlawful whatever with a minor is an artifact of the plea bargain, not an indication that there was no "rape rape" (I'm looking at you, Whoopi).

[watch me fall]

It's obviously worse to rape a 10 years old girl than a 30 years old one.

 

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.

[MattZ]

I was speaking on the assumption (pardon my liberties with this) that neither I nor Matt have been raped.

 

 

 

I'm glad that, to an extent, I was misreading what you said. But I would also argue this: the law DOES clearly define non-consensual sex and sex acts as rape; prosecuting the kind of crime you describe could be difficult, but I do not think the law is unclear.

 

You don't need to argue it. You are right, the law is very clear that nonconsensual sex is rape.

 

My point was that in the eyes of the law there is nuance to rape because there is nuance to consent. It is not easy to define consent for a jury when a woman who is controlled emotionally by her husband doesn't object to sex. It is still rape. And I am sure it happens very often, and rarely is prosecuted.

 

Let's move on from this. It has nothing to do with Polanski, and we really do agree.

[Littlebear]

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.

[Littlebear]

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?

[Sir Stewart]

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

 

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.

[bjorn_skurj]

No means no, I don't care how horny or entitled you feel. And no fucking 13-year-olds, whether they are willing or not. Nothing good can come of that.

[M. (hristine]

How about 14 year olds that look like 16 year olds?

[Littlebear]

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.

[Littlebear]

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

 

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

[bjorn_skurj]

How about 14 year olds that look like 16 year olds?

"How old is 15, really?" - Dave Chappelle