« Shorter Dan Riehl | Main | Repulsion »
Rape Apologists: Roman Polanski’s Rape of a Child Not That Bad
By Jeff Fecke | September 28, 2009
It’s funny. If your average guy were to rape a 13-year-old girl and then flee into exile rather than paying for his crime, pretty much everyone and their twin sister would agree that he was a scumbag who deserved nothing less than the hammer of justice brought down upon him. Turn that average guy into a rich artist with good connections, and suddenly the crime wasn’t that bad, the girl was probably asking for it (or her mother was, whatever), and it’s really close to fascism to put the guy through the indignity of being extradited to face justice.
I’m having trouble picking out just what my favorite instant rape apology is; there are several good ones, so I just thought I’d share a few of the best.
One of the better ones is from novelist Robert Harris, who was collaborating with Polanski on an upcoming film:
Robert Harris, a British novelist who said he had been working with Polanski for much of the past three years writing two screenplays, expressed outrage over the arrest….”I am shocked that any man of 76, whether distinguished or not, should have been treated in such a fashion,” he said in a statement, adding that Polanski had often visited Switzerland and even had a house in Gstaad….”It is hard not to believe that this heavy-handed action must be in some way politically motivated,” he said.
Why, he had a house in Gstaad! And, and, he’s…uh…old! Clearly he shouldn’t be held accountable for actions he took when he was a poor, foolish boy of…(adjusts glasses, reads text)…just 44 years old. The idea!
Of course, some might say that it’s shocking that a girl of 13, whether “consenting” or not, could be drugged and raped by a man almost three times her age. But I bet she doesn’t have a house in Gstaad. So there.
Joan Z. Shore of The Huffington Post argues that the girl was asking for it, or at least her mom was, and besides, she was almost of age, so…yeah:
The 13-year old model “seduced” by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It’s probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence.
Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It’s now 18.
But of course, the age of consent isn’t like horseshoes or global thermonuclear war; close doesn’t count. Even if the age of consent had been 14, the girl wasn’t 14.
As for whether the girl’s mother “thrust” the girl onto Polanski (which she didn’t; testimony at the time indicated the mother was unaware of the photo shoot), it wouldn’t matter if the mother delivered her daughter naked to Jack Nicholson’s hot tub herself, and helped Polanski get the Quaalude ready. No parent can consent to their under-aged child having sex.
Also, of course, this entire line of argument sort of goes out the window when you remember that Polanski drugged and forcibly raped the victim [warning: link goes to graphic grand jury testimony that may be triggering], which kind of makes the age of consent utterly moot. (Incidentally, the fact that she was underage makes the force utterly moot. You can’t be 44 and legally have sex with a 13-year-old in California. Statutory rape has the word rape in it for a reason.)
Many, many articles cited the fact that the victim, now grown up and 45 years old, has said she wants the case to be let go, because each time it gets dredged up it brings up painful memories of her being raped. I choose the Telegraph because its headline puts the word victim in scare quotes, because…something:
In January, [the victim]1 filed a legal declaration in Los Angeles formally requesting that the outstanding charges against Polanski be withdrawn.
She said Los Angeles prosecutors’ insistence that Polanski must return to the United States before dismissal of the case could be considered as a “cruel joke being played on me”.
She also voiced anger that authorities had detailed her grand jury testimony in related hearings to the case.
“True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother,” she said, adding that it was time for closure.
“I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr Polanski may have caused me as a child,” she said. Polanski had taken flight, she said, “because the judicial system did not work.”
I understand the victim’s feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn’t work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice. And while the victim is no doubt hurt by Polanski’s drawing this out for decades, ultimately more women would be hurt by a justice system that allowed convicted rapists to avoid punishment simply because they were rich and could afford to flee jail. Ultimately, the victim’s feelings must be considered, but they can not be the determining factor in whether a prosecution goes forward.
I said at the beginning that I was having trouble picking out a favorite rape apologist. But I must confess, I think I’ve settled on one. That would be The Washington Post‘s Anne Applebaum, declaring that Polanski’s arrest was “outrageous,” because he’s famous:
There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.
He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.
I am certain there are many who will harrumph that, following this arrest, justice was done at last. But Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren’t famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.
Yes, it’s true, if Polanski wasn’t famous, he wouldn’t be in this mess, because he wouldn’t have had access to Jack Nicholson’s house while Jack was out of town. And he wouldn’t have been able to flee to France. And he wouldn’t have been able to live comfortably for 30 years. But hey, the poor guy had to forgo his Oscar! The horror!
Ultimately, Applebaum’s argument is pretty foolish. Admittedly, there’s been all sorts of tragedy in Polanski’s life, but that doesn’t justify his committing several felonies. Most Holocaust survivors did not grow up to become rapists.
But it’s worse than that. You see, you may not realize it, but Applebaum is married to a guy named Radosław Sikorski. Now, that’s pretty uninteresting, until you realize that Sikorski is the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs. Who just happens to be actively lobbying to have Polish native Polanski’s charges dismissed.
This is something Applebaum somehow forgot to mention in her column.
Time for another blogger ethics panel, I guess.
—
1This blog never publishes the names of victims of sexual abuse, under any circumstances.
Topics: Crime, Roman Polanski, Sexual Assault | 59 Comments »
September 28th, 2009 at 9:16 am
[...] leave the rest to Jeff Fecke, who has a great post on the response to the arrest. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites [...]
September 28th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I seriously cannot wrap my head around the commentary you’ve linked to above. How can anyone blame a 13-year-old victim or try to minimize what happened? This situation, more than anything else, proves to me what a friend said the other say — that society as a whole really does not care about any kind of rape. When this is the reaction to the rape of a CHILD, what hope do we have of getting compassion for grown men and women who are the victims of sexual violence?
Thank you for a great post. It helps a little to be reminded that there are men out there who get this stuff.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Oh, Kat…. welcome to Hollywood… the business I grew up in and worked in for 16 years, until I decided that saving my eternal soul was something worth doing and quit. As I have said on my own blog, they’ll throw a parade for Polanski here when he comes back. They’ll give him honorary Oscars specifically BECAUSE he drugged and sodomized a child. Here, in Hollywood, where humanity goes to die, that’s a prestige-builder.
You watch. He’ll be a flaming hero by the time the boutique entertainment law firm he’s hired to defend him, and the PR firm he’s hired to spin his story is finished. By the time they’re done with this whole sordid affair, you’ll start to think maybe you’re crazy — that maybe the little girl DID have it coming. Yes, they’re that good.
That’s why I quit entertainment legal, and never looked back.
/cas
September 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I am so glad I found your column. Seeing all of the apologists has been making me sick. Thank you for expecting a rapist to be punished even if they do make good movies.
September 28th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I came to your excellent post from a link in Kate Harding’s Salon post. I especially appreciate you taking Applebaum to task for failing to mention her marriage to Sikorski!
September 28th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I just want to point out that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had sex and babies with his 14 yr old slave/concubine Sally Hemings when he was in his 40′s.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Ah, irony!
September 28th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Jefferson’s relationship with Hemings would be creepy, of course, if she had been an adult; it’s impossible to imagine anything resembling “consent” between a slaveholder and a slave. Jefferson wrote some of the most beautiful words about liberty ever put to paper. And he even seemed to believe most of them. But when it came to slavery, he was as utterly and completely wrong as can be.
(Interesting trivia: many scholars believe Hemings was the biological half-sister of Jefferson’s wife. I don’t even know what to do with that information, other than to gag a bit.)
September 28th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
There is no defending Polanski’s crime. However, he is no threat to our society, and we are doing no good by his victim – she went so far as to file a formal request to have the charges dismissed. It is hard to see what good is being accomplished by pursuing Polanski’s extradition to the States thirty-one years later…
September 28th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I think the winner has got to be:
“He’s a brilliant guy, and he made a little mistake 32 years ago. What a shame for Switzerland,” said photographer Otto Weisser, a friend of Polanski.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Contrary to the assertion by “zaerix” above, a great deal of good would be accomplished by Polanski’s extradition (and subsequent sentencing). Apart from the good of doing justice itself on a man who drugged and raped a child, this outcome would discourage potential fugitive felons by reminding them that they could run but not forever hide. That’s a lot to gain from one extradition.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Exactly, George. If we do nothing to pursue a rich, famous, guilty fugitive, we send the message that it’s okay to run from sentencing if you have the ability to do so.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Polanski has apparently lived his life as a wild child and has taken what he wanted. He broke the law and should pay for that, which is what justice demands. Just because you are famous you should not be absolved of crime, even when the victim has provided forgiveness.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Why all the fuss when a man commits statutory rape against a girl, but when a female teacher does it to a student, he’s considered lucky?
September 28th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
To be honest, I am not sure why anyone is surprised by the responses to Polanski’s arrest. The same people making excuses for him are the same people who made excuses for R. Kelly and Michael Jackson and they are the same people who make excuses for, cheer on or turn a blind eye to the countless female rapists who continuously prey on boys. One would think people would be used to the popular notion that it is okay for certain people — the famous, clergy, women — to rape without consequence.
That said, I do think the victim’s desire should play a role in the prosecution. If she wants to move on and not proceed, then the prosecutor should drop the charges. Ultimately, the crime was against her, so if she feels that enough time has passed, no one is served by forcing her to take the stand and recount what occurred, which is exactly what would happen in Polanski managed to get the case overturned and the DA decided to refile the charges.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
On the nosie, JF.
Jacobtk: bullshit. Rape is not just an offense against the victim; it’s an offense against all of us. That she doesn’t want further publicity about a horrible incident she’s tried, apparently successfully, to put behind her, is understandable; it’s also irrelevant. Polanski isn’t going to get the case overturned; the scumbag pled guilty, then fled to avoid serving his time.
It’s worth remembering that this wasn’t just a matter of a technicality — the asshole drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, after all.
The defense of Polanski are the Hollywood version of Pat Buchanan’s noisesome defense of Demjanjuk — it was long ago, he hasn’t done anything all that horrible since, and he’s an old man.
Let the shithead die in prison.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Should I ever be accused of rape, I’m going to argue that I have, in my time, written some pretty kick-ass term papers.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Good on ya Joel. There are reasons we have the term Stockholm Syndrome. There are reasons that police will sometimes still prosecute domestic violence cases, even when all charges have been dropped by the victim. Just because they are a victim does not mean their wishes align with what’s best for justice. And let’s not forget that there’s little chance this man is a single offender. What about potential new victims? Do they not deserve to be protected?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Why all the fuss when a man commits statutory rape against a girl, but when a female teacher does it to a student, he’s considered lucky?
I defy you to find anywhere I’ve argued that, John. Quite the contrary, a female teacher raping her underage student is just as wrong as a male teacher raping his underage student. Both deserve the book thrown at them as hard as it can be thrown.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I think bringing up the female teacher to male student phenomenon is just a tacky way to try and detract from the real issue, and it should be ignored. Its just another form of rape apology.
Let’s not forget, too, that at the very least, even if this girl was coming on to him strongly to the point he could not resist, its STILL WRONG. And he still at the very least should be forced to wear an ankle monitoring bracelet and register as a sex offender, like all the other perverts in this country.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
of for fuck sake. she dropped charges nobody gives a shit about this but stupid schmucks like you who want to bring this shit out again.
how about investigating 9/11 you assholes! now that was a crime!
September 29th, 2009 at 12:07 am
[...] Rape Apologists: Roman Polanski’s Rape of Child Not That Bad. [...]
September 29th, 2009 at 4:30 am
[...] Comments Roman Polanski Arrested on Saturday in Switzerland « The Gender Blender Blog on Rape Apologists: Roman Polanski’s Rape of a Child Not That Badandrew on Rape Apologists: Roman Polanski’s Rape of a Child Not That BadHolly on Rape [...]
September 29th, 2009 at 4:30 am
[...] and, in many ways, heartening. While there have been many posts defending Polanski — I touched on some yesterday, as did the redoubtable Kate Harding — most bloggers on the left and the right [...]
September 29th, 2009 at 4:42 am
of for fuck sake. she dropped charges nobody gives a shit about this but stupid schmucks like you who want to bring this shit out again.
how about investigating 9/11 you assholes! now that was a crime!
Yes, one that was perpetrated by al Qaeda. We all saw the planes, truther troll.
As for her “dropping the charges,” evidently you don’t read well, so please, re-read my post and tell my why her position on the charges is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Given that you evidently can’t understand that large planes flying into buildings causes buildings to collapse, though, I’m not expecting much by way of an intelligent answer.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:11 am
There’s something ironic about bringing Auschwitz into the argument. By the logic of his defenders, shouldn’t we abandon our pursuit of Nazi war criminals too?
September 29th, 2009 at 11:16 am
[...] OK, let’s break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, “Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It’s now 18. But of [...]
September 29th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
[...] though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke [a blogger] said it quite well: ‘I understand the victim’s feelings on this. And I sympathize, I [...]
September 29th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
wait a minute, there are baby like 14 year olds and much more mature 14 year olds. many girls have sex at 14, and are really into it. the hormones are all there and its great for them, as long as whoever they are with is not making it bad or getting them pregnant. others wait till 18 or 20 or later.the ok age of 18 is legal. not biological. he was older? yes. that is bad? how about having experience to make it good for both? was she a virgin ? legally of course that doesnt matter but practically it does.
drugged and raped? yes that would be bad, but he pleaded guilty to sex with her. how do you know she was drugged and raped?
now she says forget about it.
back off people all you know are the headlines, not the circumstances.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
The grand jury testimony made me sick to my stomach. She didn’t say no in the middle of it or something, she said no before, during and after it. She was constantly telling him to stop while be brutally raped her.
I agree with the original judge, if I were him I would have also sought the absolute maximum sentence. I hope he dies rotting in a prison cell.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It’s now 18.
Accurate facts:
“In 1889, the California statute was amended to make the age 14. (Stats.1889, ch. 191, § 1, p. 223.) In 1897, the age was advanced to 16. (Stats.1897, ch. 139, § 1, p. 201.) And in 1913 it was fixed at 18, where it now remains. (Stats.1913, ch. 122, § 1, p. 212.)”
(Michael M. v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 608, 618.)
You should correct your article.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
was she a virgin ? legally of course that doesnt matter but practically it does.
Fucking disgusting.
September 29th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
how do you know she was drugged and raped?
1. She was too young to consent
2. She didn’t consent
The drugging’s irrelevant–replace that quaalude with Folger’s crystals, it’s still child-rape. Not that it’s in question anyway.
Oh, and those girls you’re talking about? They’re either fucking other minors or getting raped. Sure, it’s bullshit when an 18-year-old boy gets busted for having sex with a girl a year younger, but we’re not talking about that.
how about having experience to make it good for both?
How about we DON’T FUCK KIDS.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
[...] OK, let’s break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, “Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It’s now 18. But of [...]
September 30th, 2009 at 1:39 am
[...] OK, let’s break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, “Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It’s now 18. But of [...]
September 30th, 2009 at 2:08 am
Sorry if this is a repeat of what has already been pointed out-I have not read every comment, but the victim received a financial settlement from Polanski. To my mind that invalidates anything she might have to say about this case. Who knows what the terms of her settlement were? She could have agreed not to publicly call for his arrest. We don’t know. Strange, that many articles about this fail to point that out.
Not that a victim’s wishes outweigh the duty of society to protect children, anyway.
I am heartened to see that so many people believe, as I do, that Polanski is first and foremost, a rapist, in this matter and should not be above the law.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Polanski is a child rapist and not above the law. No right minded society supports evil people like Polanski abusing children sexually. Supporters of Polanski’s child rape actions are a disgrace to themselves. Well done to the American authorities for their efforts in bringing Polanski, hopefully to justice. This is a crime against child and the French and Polish Governments can get stuffed.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:50 am
[...] Fecke’s Rape Apologists: Roman Polanski’s Rape of a Child Not That Bad posted at Blog of the Moderate [...]
September 30th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I guess what I’m finding curious is that somebody had to be obsessed about it enough to make it their personal mission to someday, SOMEDAY, get Polanski. But then, I don’t understand all the circumstances behind waiting 30 some-odd years to arrest him. Justice should be swift and severe. And this one ain’t so swift. Which sort of pisses me off.
This is a very well-written post. I like the exposing nature of it. I’m here because a fellow blogger showed your article to me. What’s catching my eye, though, are your links to PZ Meyers and Bad Astronomy. I’m much more into science than politics.
September 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
[...] Jeff Fecke states so beautifully in his post: Rape Apologists “It’s funny. If your average guy were to rape a 13-year-old girl and then flee into exile [...]
September 30th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Jacobtk.
When someone commits a crime they are not tried for committing a crime against the person, but for committing a crime against the state. Therefore, the victims feelings about the crime are irrelevant.
September 30th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I would also like to point out that, contrary to what some people have posted, the LA county DA had tried numerous times in the past to have Polanski arrested.
In some cases he changed his plans and never show-up; or managed to slip-out of the country before the cops arrived; or in some cases the police refused to arrest him.
This article has the details:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/rcmp-was-called-after-polanski-planned-calgary-trip/article1306339/
September 30th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
[...] the public at large does not like to see their heroes fall off pedestals, perhaps? Many bloggers more eloquent than I have noted the elitism inherent to some pro-Polanski reactions: what’s the [...]
October 1st, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Jacobtk: I would argue there is a vast difference between Michael Jackson supporters and Roman Polanski supporters due to one crucial difference–Jackson stood trial and was never convicted of wrongdoing whereas Polanski pled guilty.
It’s interesting to note that Jackson was demonized in the press as a pedophile up until his death although never convicted whereas Polanski, again, an admitted rapist, remains a celebrated director.
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:19 am
Even if you take out the horrendous crime, the guy fled after being convicted of a crime before he could be sentenced. How can that be okay, just because he thinks he might have gotten more jail time than he felt he deserved? Or because he didn’t want to go to jail?
I would think that many felons would have similar feelings, so do they have the right to flee the country to escape a sentence? Or is it only for famous directors?
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Jacobtk wrote: The same people making excuses for him are the same people who made excuses for R. Kelly and Michael Jackson…
Thanks to Melissa for her critical thinking skills demonstrated on this response blog, the distinction being that Michael Jackson (a) was innocent; and (b) was found not guilty by a jury.
Indeed, we call for Michael’s vindication by MAINSTREAM MEDIA. MJ was acquitted by a jury in 2005. Not good enough. For his children’s sake, mainstream media must become more responsible. We discuss how truth can compel mainstream media to publicly admit it wrongly accused MJ of despicable crimes. Many people still believe MJ was guilty. They were influenced to believe the allegations by a biased MAINSTREAM MEDIA. No links allowed here so search at Yahoo Groups for “vindication better than tributes.”
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Why continue to drag this poor man through all this legal mess after 30 years? I will tell you why. It is for people like me and the perps who think they can get away with such horrific, life changing trauma! To not do so promotes and support their denial/minimizing of their acts. My life was forever changed by the trauma of sexual assault as a child. PTSD, MDD, anxiety, abusive future relationships that not only impacted my life but those of my children. Sexual abuse has a domino effect that alter’s the victim’s self perception; their family; and can lead to increased risk of suicide due to self loathing, issolation, stigma etc. This case sends a message to both camps. Victims: What happened to you matters no matter how long ago it occured and it was wrong. Law enforcement cares enough to see this through. (Yes I know the victim has asked for all this to stop. I understand that however, it isn’t just about one victim. It is about the thousands of others who are watching or preventing future victims.)
Prep: What you did was a crime, it matters no matter how long ago it occured. You will be prosecuted. I am sure that many of these people are hanging on every word that is being said in support of this man and seeing it as supporting either their past behavior or current behavior of abuse.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:04 am
“wait a minute, there are baby like 14 year olds and much more mature 14 year olds. many girls have sex at 14, and are really into it. [...] how about having experience to make it good for both? was she a virgin ? legally of course that doesnt matter but practically it does.”
Holy shit. This makes me unbelievably sick. People like you are the reason people like Polanski rape and get away with it. Dude, she said “no” repeatedly, he drugged her, and she was well under the age of consent. That’s pretty much the rapeiest kind of rape ever.
October 4th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
[...] Polanski, since testimony says that the mother was unaware of the photo shoot to begin with. As Jeff Fecke points out, regardless of the mother’s actions at that time, no parent can consent to their [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
[...] OK, let’s break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, “Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It’s now 18. But of [...]
October 6th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
people love projecting and condemning!!!!!!
they love words like CRIME and VICTIM….
most of them are so convinced they are right !!!!!!
but if u condemn him, condemn 90% of the planet’s male population….
i am a woman…i know something about it since i was very very young..and i am telling u they are all like that…..
if he wasnt famous would they go after him? i doubt it…
October 6th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Excellent, excellent article. Should be used as an Op-Ed piece in newspapers.
HOWEVER, reference to the “holocaust” is erroneous. The hijacking of this term to refer only to a portion of the genocide and general slaughter committed by Germans in WW II is seriously annoying in and of itself but, even more important, its meaning is fuzzy in that context. Polansky escaped as a child from Warsaw — as did many, may others — and survived the war being cared for by other Poles (I presume). Does this make him a “survivor” of the “holocaust?” Well, anyone who survived in countries occupied by the Nazis during the war was a “survivor.” Polanski’s case is neither unusual or worthy of note.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:16 am
ROBIN –
No. We aren’t. Too many men are, but not all men are, not 90% are, not 50% are. By throwing up our hands and saying “all men rape,” we ensure that all men rape. Being a man, I can tell you that it is not hard for me not to rape — I simply don’t do it. I don’t walk the line, I don’t get to a point where I can see the line. And as I have no desire to hurt another person for my own benefit, I never will do so.
October 10th, 2009 at 10:41 am
people are so angry! its scary!
actually their reaction is more sick and primitive that any crime…
so eager to punish…
October 10th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
actually their reaction is more sick and primitive that any crime…
so eager to punish…
Really? I want Roman Polanski brought to justice, and I’m glad he’s in jail. But I don’t want him drugged or raped — which is a courtesy he did not show his victim. Tell me, why is it scarier to want a criminal jailed than to rape a child?
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Ok… front page news… 44 year old man has sex with 13 year old girl and is sentenced to see a shrink for 90 days. Are you KIDDING??? My god he had great lawyers. He said he was guilty… he says he did it. 90 days of talking to a shrink?? perhaps 2 years for running from the law? He lived a life (he created). Thank god this is not how we treat all men that admit they raped a 13 year old. Shame on society for letting him get away with it.
Chow…off to have sex with 13 year old then to chat with my shrink about it.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
[...] OK, let’s break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, “Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It’s now 18. But of [...]
January 31st, 2010 at 11:39 pm
[...] OK, let’s break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, “Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It’s now 18. But of [...]
March 12th, 2010 at 7:03 am
Roman Polanski gets off because he’s Jewish. If he were Catholic, all the bashers would be out full force.
August 25th, 2010 at 6:39 am
I have read this article.Really its shameful activity.