Roman Polanski is Not a Victim

[...] Swampland A blog about politics. Swampland Feed   Daily E-mail Updates   « PreviousRoman Polanski is Not a Victim [...]

Well, Amy, very very well put. But you know, your colleague’s reporting has some issues too. And it’s a pity that you don’t have the moxie to take him on.
.
First of all, one of the odd defenses of Polanski’s flight was that he was going to be sentenced by a biased judge. (And an appeal is the remedy, particularly where, as here, there is no doubt about the crime that was committed.) And Time Magazine leaps to the defense:
.
“However, fearful that the Los Angeles judge in the case was about to renege on the deal and slap him with a long prison sentence, Polanski fled the U.S. in 1978 and never returned. ”
.
That, to borrow a phrase, is correction-worthy garbage. The judge wasn’t bound by the plea deal and thus could not renege. That construction makes Polanski look like a victim. Amy, will you call for a correction?
.
And then there’s this:

“Polanski, who won an Academy Award in 2003 for directing The Pianist, admitted to having unlawful sexual intercourse with 13-year-old Samantha Geimer as part of a plea bargain in which other charges — including drugging and raping the girl — were dropped.”
.
But the reality is that he did drug the girl. So why is Time Magazine not making that clear? He admitted to it, and no one seriously denies that it happened.

One of the more horrifying defenses of Polanski’s actions by Anne Aplebaum of WaPo:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html

Why has France allowed him to hide there all these years?

“Hmm. Dramatic much? You know what is actually horrifying? Raping a child.”

Bravo.

By no means defending the man, but a quick scan of his wikipedia shows that he has truly had one of the most difficult lives in human history. The only way to top a holocaust taking your mother and your childhood is by having your pregnant wife murdered in your own home.

Yes he did. And he could have made that case at sentencing . . . .

To some extent the victim’s personal settlement in a civil action and her request that the prosecution drop this issue may well cloud any proceedings. Without her co-operation it is not an open and shut case.

It is a pity the the victim’s husband and children will have to endure the publicity and pain while we can sit back and ask for an accounting. Tough. And I am not sure the case will end favorably for the Swiss authorities.

He’s already pled guilty. And the fugitive disentitlement doctrine should negate any appeals.

F%^k Polanski.

and even more so the French idiot who said that wanting Polanski back is a scary part of the US.

He needs to be sentenced to a month of listening to talk radio…….

Everyone outraged by Applebaum should simply email WaPo about her failure to disclose her conflict of interest. Her husband has worked to free Polanski of this charge.

Spob: it is not so cut and dried. Swiss laws on extradition, based on protecting dictators and other scumbags with millions in bank accounts, will make this a tedious process. Don’t look for relief any time soon.

Oh, and another thing–look at Anne Applebaum’s title. She calls the arrest “outrageous”. It’s one thing to call the arrest ill-advised or not in the best interest of justice or whatever . . . . but she called it “outrageous”. She has basically called everything she has ever written into question.

Well, he’s sitting in jail now. That’s something.

Polanski gave champagne and pills to a 13 year old girl and then engaged in oral, vaginal, and anal sex with her despite her protests. This is SICK. I don’t give a damn whether it happened last year or 50 years ago. Makes ABSOLUTELY no difference when it happened. It happened, and he must face justice. I’m completely sickened that some people are defending this guy.

Or like Time Magazine’s Brumley, subtly mitigating what he did . . . .

Excellent points made.

Thanks. Brumley’s email is: bruce_crumley@timemagazine.com
.
I’ve emailed him about this. I hope others will join me.

some questions:
what was that 13 yo girl doing at that party?
didn’t she know what she was getting into?
where were her parents?
she already got some money from a settlement with Polanski and spoke to the press about dropping all charges
was she really raped ?- if that was what happened to her, wouldn’t Polanski go to jal right away instead of making some plea deals – maybe that wasn’t that obvious after all?

ROMAN POLANSKI IS INDEED A VICTIM.

This is a poorly researched article from someone who doesn’t know what actually goes on in these cases (and certainly doesn’t know what happened in this particular case). This is Roman Polanski and Samantha Gailey’s story, not yours, and you probably have no idea what went on (legal or illegal). It probably doesn’t fit your image of forceable child rape.

None of us on the outside of this case know for sure whether Roman Polanski “drugged” and “forced” the girl into having sex. In fact those were “charges”, that’s all, and they probably came from the judge. All you know is that he accepted a plea bargain, which almost surely implies that what he pled to is not what actually happened — something he did in the hopes that this would lessen his sentence. It’s a common practice but one which plants false information in the public sphere. Besides which, the charges of “drugs” and “alcohol” were dropped. So all you know is that there was some kind of sexual activity and the younger person is not, and was not, in favor of pressing charges.

Also, just because something is illegal, and considered “immoral” by many, does not mean that it is a terrible crime. In some states in the US is it illegal to “blaspheme in the name of Jesus Christ.” So, if I say Jesus Christ instead of a four-letter word, I am a criminal in the eyes of the law. So am I to be extradited if I travel abroad? Sometimes a young person and an adult fall in love, and don’t have any kind of a negative experience. It happens, even when the older person is not famous. When I was thirteen, I loved an adult man, and it was my right to pursue a relationship with him. Roman Polanski did not appear get any special good treatment for being who he is, only special bad treatment from this crazed judge.

And no, Oscar Wilde was gay by today’s definition, he liked having mutually loving relationships with boys (under 18) and that was his crime. It’s the same thing with Roman Polanski. Orientation towards minors is indeed an orientation. It is not considered a mental illness by DSM criteria unless it is causes other serious mental health impairment. You’re wrong to say that it’s not considered acceptable to target people based on their orientation. Look at how you’re treating Roman Polanski and you will see that.

Surely forced rape of minors does exist, and it is not to be marginalized completely, although it is fairly rare. It consists primarily of paternal or fraternal forced incest against females, and usually it’s not lovey-dovey. If you think that “children cannot consent to sex” you have to explain the thousands and thousands that have, in clinical psychological studies, said that they did consent (a substantial portion of them actually pursuing the encounter) and that it was not a negative experience. No one is arguing over whether those cases of consensual adult-minor experiences exist.

ar9011 – You’ve got to be kidding and out of your mind. First of all, the case is available for all to see in the public domain and the case docket from the grand jury is available on SmokingGun – all 36 pages of it. We know quite a few things for sure, and the bottom line is Polanski decided to leave this country and never to return for well, 37 years, and I would have to say that is what we know for sure. Anyway ar9011, continue to philosophize about gender, rape, how it happens, when it happens, who says it happens, and if it’s OK or not, whether it is a mental illness or a love connection or relationship. You get a little to emotional about connecting your love life with this case – Polanski was not in love – he was a 44 year old man who was a predator, and she was 13 and barely knew him. Surely we can all agree – the man did not come back to the US for a reason. And now he will. God Bless.

Polanski raped a 13 year old girl. Soon he will face justice. CASE. CLOSED.

Pass the tissue..having a horrible childhood, your wife and unborn child murdered, does not make it ok to take a 13 year old girl, give her qualudes and alcohol, perform oral sex, intercourse and then sodimize her.
Being a great talent does not make it ok.
Young girls all over the world are being subjected to this brutality on a daily basis. Roman Polanski’s karma is finally catching up tp him. I have no sympathy. None!

ar, yes the drug and alcohol charges were dropped. Do you know why? Was it because they were untrue, or because of a plea bargain agreement?

I find this event to be sickening. It was someone baby that was rapped and all people can say why she was there. He should be accounted for his action. People “RAPE is RAPE” there’s no gray area in this. He drugged her and had his way with her. I’m sure if it was you daughter things would be a different story. What I find disturbing is people are defending this child rapes. Monster like Polanski need to rod in jail and hey he can make some inmates sexual desires come true. Eye for Eye I say.

Considering how corrupt out police system is, I would not be surprised at all if they forced Polanski to lie and confess. It happens a lot. Sadly, as is evidenced by most of the posts here, in the USA, one is guilty until proven innocent. Never mind that the alleged victim is telling everyone not to do this…

The fact that he is famous is not the issue. The fact that so many in this country want to see him hang without knowing the facts IS.

The whole thing is suspect. Why would they offer a plea bargain if the case was cut and dried? As with the Rodney King business, something is rotten once again with so-called “American Justice.”

If Polanski does go down for this, then so too should the parents. As with the parents of those children allegedly abused by Jackson, they probably were pimping that kid all over the place if any of this DID happen.

Has anyone bothered to ask his victim what she wants? By the way, nobody from here cares about French opinions and furthermore nobody would care if was a nobody instead of a celebrity. The point is, he his a CHILD RAPIST, and it should not matter if he is a movie director or a janitor at the local Burger King, we should want to protect our children.

I think some folks are forgetting one important thing. Polanski already went to trial, he pled guilty, and he skipped out on sentencing. This isn’t even about someone being rightfully or wrongfully tried or presenting evidence or any of that. He skipped out on the sentencing phase and he needs to face that. As for ar9011, I am concerned for you since it seems to me that you are in favor of condoning pedophilia as an acceptable practice. It is not now, nor will it ever be ok to prey on children. This includes slipping them a mickey or giving them a drink to help them relax and then completely ignoring their requests that you stop.

Well it was definitely a strange historical moment, after the shackles of Puritanism had been thrown off (obviously much earlier for a European libertine like Polanski), but before the concept of women’s equality was fully accepted (see the young Anjelica Huston’s totally enabling testimony from the time) even/especially among the libertine set.

Quite the opposite of an outdated morality: if, say, Quentin Tarantino or Lars von Trier had drugged and raped a 13-year old girl recently, there’s no way either would have been able to plead out (at least not to less than a 5-year sentence), let alone given the slip to the lawmen.

he admitted to the act. He fled the country to avoid prosecution.

the only one’s that can possibly be defending this guy are those that think that this crime is ok.

because they are the French. French pieces of s#*t.

Hey guess what? Polanski actually WAS convicted, so much for your assertion that we assume people are guilty. He was tried, convicted, and then skipped out before sentencing. Yes, in the USA, we do not prefer to coddle criminals, we’d rather imprison them.

Let them know who they are getting and then release him into general population at Riker’s Island. I give him 48 hours and he’s either dead or receiving the same treatment he dished out.

How can you possibly defend someone that has already pleaded guilty to the inappropriate sex with a 13 year old girl. THIS IS WRONG ON ANY LEVEL YOU CAN PUT IT ON.

I don’t care when it happened or how long ago it happened, he must pay for his crime.

There are a lot of interesting comments on this board, many of which make me ashamed to be American.

Why is everyone so quick to assume that this was nonconsensual, when the facts are really not known by any of us? For sure, if there was sexual activity that took place, it was illegal. But, did it amount to anything more than someone running a stoplight? We will never know. Even from 36 pages of court documents it would be extremely difficult to see through to the real story, this I can say from real life experience from when I was younger than 18. This judge had a mission — just like many people here on this board who seem to eager to call Polanski a rapist.

Many people on this board seem to have a ‘protect the children’ mantra. But why does sexual activity bother people so much more than physical and emotional abuse and neglect of children, which is much more prevalent, and proven by the whole field of psychology to be much more damaging? I don’t see the same people getting as angry. I have a theory: it’s that most adults have some kind of unarticulated erotic attraction to young people (including parents towards their own children), and it’s particularly therapeutic for them to come onto boards like this and say “kill that evil child molester”, i.e. place the blame on other people. They resent it when someone else “has sex with a child” because they want it themselves. Two separate studies found that 22% of the general population is sexually attracted to “small children.” You go figure out what that means.

I suggest to you that most people who go onto web boards and say “kill that evil child molester” are a prime suspect for being a closet case potential child rapist. Look at the plank in your own eye before hurling a stone at someone else.

To all the people who said in response to my original post, “it will never be ok to prey on children,” why is this solely about what adults can or cannot “do” with “children”? Not everyone below 18 is a child, and not all of these cases are adults taking advantage of the younger person. For instance, about 15% of adult men who are gay once actively pursued sexual relationships with adults. I was one of them. It had nothing to do with any adult being a predator. What part of that are you having a hard time understanding? Some people like others who are older than them, for varying reasons. So who’s the victim?

ar9011 for shame all these post make me proud to be an AMERICAN. We have the rare privilege to speak our opinion, and you have the right to disagree. Never be ashamed of that!!

I’ve finally figured out what to do with the pedaphiles and child molestors here in America when they get out of prison. Let’s send them to France. Apparently child molestors are heroes in France. This way we don’t have to worry about them repeating their crimes here in the US. Apparently the French people and their government don’t mind exposing their children to pedaphiles.

I don’t generally quote stuff from South Park… but it seems appropriate, because you’re totally missing the point here.

Dude. He had sex with a CHILD. A CHILD. 13 years old is a child, legally.

I’ll leave morality aside, even if I think it is monstrous (And even more monstrous to defend such actions!)

It’s ILLEGAL. It doesn’t MATTER if you somehow think it’s “normal” to be attracted to children *shudder*. It also doesn’t matter if she “wanted” it (btw that’s a common defense that guys give where the woman is SCREAMING no… they just say she wanted it, or that the way she was dressed made him “lose control”… anything to make it look like the victim’s fault!) Besides, legally, a 13 year old CANNOT make that choice. It doesn’t matter if they think they’re mature enough, the law says “no”, and legal adults MUST respect that just like they respect other laws and ordinances. If you don’t like the law, then try to change it (good luck with that…) but the law was that way when this occurred, so just deal with it as it stands. Mr. Polanski screwed up big time.

Let’s look at the facts, once again.
Leaving aside the accusation that she was drugged…. he STILL made the choice to do it. He stuck his ****in a child.
He pleaded guilty to it.
And then he SKIPPED OUT ON THE PUNISHMENT.

These are facts. They are NOT in question. Stop obfuscating – we are not talking about general abuse (sexual or verbal) of OTHER children, we are talking about THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE.

So why do you think he should get off without being punished for it? Because you think it’s not a crime to rape a child? I don’t ever want to live in a world where that’s the case!!

Because he’s a great artist and film maker? Hey, I love his films, they ARE fantastic. His cinematography is second to none, IMHO. But great people screw up sometimes, and they need to be tried and punished, just like everyone else, or else we have a *definite* bias in the system toward the wealthy, influential, and powerful. Would you feel differently if he were a poor man of African or other descent? Maybe you should examine your own reasons for bias.

Because her mother had a hand in it? Then she should be punished, too, as an accessory to the crime. But he still was the one who chose to stick his **** in the girl. He could have gone “You know what, this could get me in trouble” and just STOPPED. Nobody forced him to do it (whether or not the girl was truly forced is, of course, up for debate.)

Because he had a rough life? Sorry, but everyone is ultimately responsible for their own action. I fail to see a link between his tragic history, and him wanting to stick his **** in a child, against the law. If he is mentally imbalanced due to his life trauma, then he should be evaluated as impartially as possible, and treated accordingly. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

Because it’s “too long ago”? What should the statute of limitations be for this sort of crime? How much time is a child’s innocence worth?

I’m not crying for his blood here, but I do think that he should be given a reasonable prison sentence. HE BROKE THE LAW, and he ran. End of story.

I’m not anywhere near as sure as Amy did that Polanski “raped” anyone. And given that the “victim” doesn’t want him prosecuted, I don’t see why we’re wasting time on this. And the very conventional morality being expressed here is a bit off-putting.

Rape should not be in parenthesis. The victim asked him to stop and told him no. That means it’s rape.
.
Even if it was consensual (which it definitely wasn’t), it would still be statutory rape. So, no matter what, it’s rape.

Morality aside, it’s illegal. But… “very conventional morality”? Really? REALLY??? Are you SURE you want to open up that can of worms? Because where would it end?

I’m serious. Next thing someone’s gonna start arguing that it’s okay to for someone to want to have sex with toddlers, just because their personal morality (or the voices in their head, or whatever) says it’s okay and would make them happy. Or BABIES (because hey, there are people out there who, for whatever reason, are sexually aroused by babies.) Or heck, how about getting ‘em in utero?? Nothing like starting young!

Come on, the line’s gotta be drawn somewhere. At what point does an adult’s personal right to pursuit of happiness come to final conflict with a child’s or teen’s right to grow up able to trust adults to protect them and to be given information, before they the win their right to make their OWN personally and legally binding choices? Why NOT give adults the burden of responsibility here?

People who are defending Polanski are exhibiting moral relativism at its finest. It is very hard for me to believe that someone would actually defend a child rapist, even if in an anonymous format.

Hypothetically replace, in this case, polanski with a economically distressed african american male and in many states he would have been put to death and forgotten for all of time by now.

He had his d*ck in a drugged 13 year old girls @ss people, as she said “stop” and “no”… sorry to be crass but it is what it is. I don’t care that the legal system appeared to not treat him fair (but I question how his wealth and influential friends didn’t play a role in that ridiculousness generous plea bargain that was supposedly offered).

so, basically what the french are saying is “its ok for you to commit all those crimes in your country, you could stay a couple of years here in beautiful france, and we could forget everything let say 20 years later”.. and yes, it would be easier for us to do that if could get yourself really famous.. whether as an athlete, an actor, a scientist.. i never thought crime had an expiration date..

I find it quite stunning that anyone would defend the rape & sodomy of a child, acts that are taboo, & rightly so, in every culture. It’s hard to say which is worse, the original crime against humanity, or the celebrity defense, an argument based on the rectitude of unequal justice.

There are a few universal values, but the prohibition against sexual abuse of children is one of them; those of you who see Polanski as some kind of victim should seek counseling, because your decency meter is broken.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

44 years old, a famous celebrity whom everyone is watching your every move and you scope out a teenager??? And drug and rape her? You are a sick, overindulgent, and arrogant predator!
To all of you defenders out there – let him take YOUR 13 year old daughter out to some house party!

ar9011

This si so typical of the far left elite. Accuse the innocent. Make the victim the criminal. Make the predator the victim. That is of course is if it’s one of their own.

If this were someone else who was rich and famous, umm like George Bush. Would you be defending him?

Also I read your deranged thoughts about how we, the concerned public, society as a whole, are somehow as deranged as you. No I do not sit here in envy and want sexual contact with children. You see that, that word is NO !!!

I am a father of a girl. I will tell you now, I want this guy brought to justice, because it’s an unwritten code of society. I will look out for your child and you look out for mine. I want this pervert in jail the same as I want the next pervert to see him go to jail. See how that works. You rape children, you go to jail, no matter how much money you have.

Seek help, Because our minds do not think the things you do.

And say for a moment everything you say is true. Suppose we are all just as sick as this pedaphyle.

Are you actually saying we should open the gates on child rape? That we all think it, and want it, therefore it should be legal? No punishable?

Wow. well my answer is the same, even if you were right. We have to punish this crime as to deter folks who think like you from proceeding with you desires.

ar9011
Yes everyone under the age of 18 is a child by law. Minors cannot enter into a contract or even have a credit card. In this country you cannot even drink alcohol legally until the age of 21. Ask any physcologist or psychiatrist worth his salt and he will tell you that at the age of 13 a child is not old enough to make a decision about sex, that is why it is unlawful. Roman Polanski was not an idiot or unaware that he was breaking the law when he raped this young girl. He plead guilty to the crime and then fled the country before his sentencing. How does this make him a victim? You say everyone was eager to call Polanski a rapist, but isn’t that exactly what he is under the law? You also compare the rape of a child to running a red light? Lets get some victims of child sex abuse and ask them if there is a comparison. It worries me that you so strongly defend the rights of adults to have sex with children. I think maybe you have issues with your past experiences that you cannot deal with or are currently engaged in activity you feel you need to defend. Lastly there is a diagnosis for persons attrated to prepubecent children children. It is either exclusive pedophelia ( those who are attracted to children only) or non-exclusive pedophelia (those who are attracted to adults and children). Pedophelia is a diagnosis not a sexual orientation.

ar9011, read the Kate Harding piece from Salon. She clearly and concisely debunks every argument you’re making. The girl could not consent under California law; the age of consent at the time was 16. (In other words, if a 15 year old willingly sleeps with a 17 year old, it’s still considered statutory rape because under the law the 15 year old cannot consent. Admittedly, in this scenario, it isn’t often prosecuted, but it can be and is.)

More importantly, Polanski pleaded guilty. His guilty plea is a matter of record. He then fled the country before sentencing. Not a legal scholar here, but I think sentencing does allow for a judge to imposing a harsher sentence than the one agreed upon by the lawyers. (There has been some mentioning of the judge being less than reputable, but the only evidence offered so far for that is that he was probably going to impose a harsher prison sentence. Admittedly, I haven’t seen the documentary, but no report has gone beyond that point.) The US gov’t and the State of California were seeking Polanski because he fled from sentencing. There is no statute of limitations, as I understand, once you reach the sentencing stage. He raped a child and pleaded guilty to the crime. That part of the legal proceedings is closed. He’s being arrested now for not serving his time, whatever that may be. He’ll probably get a more lenient sentence because of his age, but as Harding says, this case is no longer about the rape per se, but about a convicted (to plea guilty implies conviction) criminal serving his time; it’s about justice.

wow, I have to say I’m not surprised that some of the usual and great commentors on Swampland aren’t participating in this debate. Regardless of political perspective Left or Right, for most Americans, for most nations, the idea that anyone has the right to rape a child of 13 yrs old is horrible.

The reality is, he had his day in court, pled to an agreement, and left the country. No excuse for that. None. I don’t believe the French or Swiss would appreciate a criminal fleeing their countries to the U.S. in order to avoid serving out their time. That simple. Polanski is a great director, no doubt IMHO. But that is no excuse to evade prosecution under the law.

What scares me at this moment, is I agree wholeheartedly with Spob’s posts. Well that’s America for you. You might not agree with everything, but sometimes, you stand shoulder to shoulder.

[...] can feel the anger from Amy Sullivan of TIME who is deeply pissed off that Mr. Polanksi is being portrayed as a [...]

YMMartin, why do you not hear from “great commentors” on this point?

I can’t tell you, I can only speak for myself. Simply: this is gossip. It is only politics in the sense of the scene from Blazing Saddles when the corrupt governor makes some ludicrous statement about apple pie and motherhood and feigns outrage over something, and everyone in the room gets to “harrumph.”

Did you know that the most critical aspect of our health reform plan is being debated today? You wouldn’t know from reading Swampland.

Obama is right. This crap is catnip for journalists, who cannot resist false controversies and trivialities. That’s why Matt Drudge and now Glenn Beck tells them what to do every day, and why America is in decline.

Because she said no. I think that is a matter of public record. Last time I checked when someone said no to a person wanting to have sex with them and that person forced them to have sex anyway, that is not considered consensual. It is rape. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Bottom line: he knew having sex with a 13 year old was illegal. He did it anyway. He got caught, admitted it and then ran.
If he were a store clerk, garbage man or office drone we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

Oops, I forgot to harrumph.

Yes, the rule of law should apply to everyone. Now, who volunteers to arrest David Addington, Dick Cheney, the medical doctors, psychiatrists and private contractors that tortured or monitored torture, CEOs of every company that knowingly backdated executive stock options and hid the results (Steve Jobs, that’s you), the investment bankers that peddled dot coms knowing they had no business model, the thousands of mortgage agents who processed liars’ loans, the guys at Enron that arranged the strategic shutdowns of power plants that created the fraudulent power contracts that cost ratepayers $50B, etc, etc., etc.

I am against child rape – harrumph. What about this other stuff?

Here, I think this is for you: A primer, if you will.

ar9011,

I your defense of Polanski. I am sure in a minority of cases, one could find a minor pursuing an adult, in hopes of sometype of misguided attempt at a relationship. What scares me, is your seemingly non-existent knowledge of what an adult/child relationship is or should be. We as adults are here to protect, teach, and nurture children. This how we as a race, grow and evolve. I have a 13-year old daughter, and I would hope if for whatever reason (even if that reason is my shortcomings as a parent) she should seek out an older man or woman, the adult would be humane and caring. The majority of us would help, and not prey upon those in need of guidance. The definition of the word predator is this according to Webster’s:
1. An organism that lives by preying on other organisms.
2. One that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for one’s own gain.

I believe its clear that Mr. Polanski was a predator. Consensual or Forced, I guess is up to debate. But, it is rape, he did prey upon a young girl. We do not excuse crimes due to one’s past. I would surmise most criminals did not have what we would consider to be a “normal” life up unitl their crime. We all have choices. Mr. Polanski chose to have give alcohol, drugs, and have sex acts with a minor. As a society we punish crimes to punish the individual and to also deter others who may have inclination to committ the same crime. 30 years or 30 seconds, crime against children should be punished. I applaud the precedent we as a country are setting.

> As for ar9011, I am concerned for you since it seems
> to me that you are in favor of condoning pedophilia
> as an acceptable practice.

I’m not condoning rape.
Polanski belongs into prison if he actually raped somebody.

The US is a nation full of people with a sexual neurosis. And this shows in the laws in the US.

Pedophilia is an sexual attraction to children.
If she was 13, she certainly had all the features of a woman. So pedophilia does not apply here.

Wow, more invective. Once again, I’m ashamed to be American. I think a lot of people here cannot read and process information correctly.

To the person who said “dude you’re missing the point,” I will say back (once again), when I was 13 I pursued a sexual relationship with an adult and it was not ‘rape’. I knew exactly what I was getting into. What I’m trying to say here is this (I said it before but you didn’t catch on): why is this all about what adults can or cannot do with “children”? Is that the only consideration here? You seem almost subconsciously jealous of Polanski. That would explain your inflammatory rhetoric. Nothing else would (why would you not get as incensed every time a parent murders a child?).

By some people’s definition, I was sexually abused. So to the people who said “well go out and ask anyone who’s been abused whether it’s the equivalent of running a red light,” I have asked others (like me) and they agree with me on this. If you define “child sex abuse” as only unwanted, coercive and forced, then that’s a different story — but since people here said “children cannot consent,” I will be happy to label my experience as abuse. Most people here are defining sex abuse to include cases like mine.

For men, the majority of childhood sexual experiences with adults are not coerced or forced, and not negative. No one is arguing to the contrary. For women, it’s not as common, but it happens to. I know someone close to me, a woman, who pursued a relationship with an adult when she was 13. She’s in her 70′s now and she still remembers that man fondly. How do you square that with “children cannot consent”? Children do not consent to being inculcated with their parents’ religion — and for people who grow up gay in a hostile environment, this is really destructive — can we punish that by law, too, just because “children cannot consent” to it and because it can be damaging? Who among you is protecting children from that kind of damage from parents and why is it any less important?

People here keep calling Polanski a rapist. But, you cannot add to this story any information that you do not know. He accepted a plea bargain. By definition this is pleading guilty to things you did not necessarily do, in order to get a reduced sentence. He broke the law, for sure. So do I, according to state law, every time I say the name Jesus Christ in vain. Just doing something illegal isn’t always so terrible. Everyone does things that are illegal.

The French don’t care about whatever he may have done, not so much because Polanski is a great filmmaker, but because they don’t have the same complex about adult attraction to minors. Whatever he did, they don’t consider it a more heinous crime than, say, murder. France is looking across the Atlantic now and seeing an America that openly gawks at scantily clad teenaged tennis stars, and simultaneously says ‘death to child predator monsters’. It doesn’t take a genius to see how conflicted America is, and to see why.

“Dramatic much”? What kind of journalist uses phrases that sound like the lingo of a tween?

Why are we so concerned with what adults do with children?
-
Because kiddy-diddling, consensual or no, is against the law. This really shouldn’t be this difficult a concept. The age difference alone would have made it cut-and-dry statutory rape. The law in some states makes allowances for a few years’ age difference, but when a man wines, dines, drugs, and has intercourse a child nearly thirty years his junior against her will, there ain’t a whole lot of wiggle room.
-
Furthermore, citing an apparently lackluster degree of outrage over neglect and physical abuse as a reason to let Polanski slide for molesting a child is possibly the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard. Child abuse in any form is utterly abhorrent, and to ignore one man’s crimes because you think others are going unpunished is ludicrous.

So, Brett Ratner is calling the Los Angeles Judicial System “corrupt” for pursuing Roman Polanski for 31 years?

I think that a man in his mid 40′s drugging and raping a 13-year-old child is what’s truly corrupt.

(But maybe in France, that’s considered okay? That’s the France that scares ME!)

> As for ar9011, I am concerned for you since it seems
> to me that you are in favor of condoning pedophilia
> as an acceptable practice.

I’m not condoning rape.
Polanski belongs into prison if he actually raped somebody.

The US is a nation full of people with a sexual neurosis. And this shows in the laws in the US.

Pedophilia is an sexual attraction to children.
If she was 13, she certainly had all the features of a woman. So pedophilia does not apply here.

This article and some of the comments here have reasserted my opinion, that Americans have a very f* up idea of justice.

Justice in the American definition is something like “when a person gets x years in prison for the offense y”. You DO NOT regard the personal situation.

Take the Lockerbie case for instance. You could not understand it, because, you DO NOT KNOW what “compassionate grounds” mean. Because in your definition, you don’t put yourself in the criminals shoes.

Prison in America is not true justice, it’s a punishment, meant to deter.

And it is the practice to make examples out of people, and let them suffer for the greater good (yes, you can compare it to slaughtering some million jews and handicapped to purify the human breed if you like), that makes a lot of Europeans disgusted.

Roman Polanski obviously should NOT go to jail, because as he has proven for the last 30 years, he pose NO DANGER WHATSOEVER to the public. No danger at all, he’s as harmless as any citizen. And why then incarcerate him — unless you’re an American, it doesn’t make sense.

And of course it has nothing to do with our view on child molesting or other crimes, which some ignorant commenters have stated.

But you forget Roman’s polite consideration!
He didn’t want her to get pregnant so he finished in her behind, AFTER drugging her, getting her drunk, forcing her to do oral sex and otherwise raping this child.

ar9011, this really isn’t an issue of morals or ethics; it is a case with legal and psychological ramifications (although you seem to view this from more of an ethical or subjective standpoint). Psychologically speaking, a 13 year old does not have A) the emotional capacity to decide if he/she is ready for a sexual encounter, and B) the mental or emotional ability to weigh the outcome of a sexual relationship, i.e. STDs, pregnancy, etc. Legally speaking, a minor is not able to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult, consensually or otherwise.
You argue as if you are objective, but the fact that you have disregarded a basic law betrays your true position. You are essentially arguing that the law is up for interpretation, and is relative to one’s beliefs. This is not objectivism, it is relativism. Where will your relative laws be when you are in need? Will you be passive or even apathetic if your house is broken into, or someone runs a red light and totals your car, injuring you and/or your passengers? Or how about if you are assaulted and forced to comply with your attacker’s wishes? The law would instantly become concrete, as you sought restitution.
I don’t buy the relativity argument, because it only works when there is no conflict. When conflict arises, the once “relative” thinkers ironically cling to absolutes.
It sounds to me as though you might be experiencing cognitive dissonance, which would explain your defense of an individual who has admitted to pedophilia.
As far as the shame you feel for your country (or your fellow citizens), it is the broad and varied viewpoints in this country that allow us to function in the most free and fair way possible. However, if the shame is simply more than you can bear, by all means move to France; I’m sure they would celebrate your expatriation.

> Legally speaking, a minor is not able to enter into a
> sexual relationship with an adult, consensually or
> otherwise.

This should read:
“According to current california law,
a minor is not able…”

What is the difference between the sexual relationship between two minors and between a minor and an adult?

What is the difference between an orgasm achieved alone and one achieved with a partner.
If you’re logical you should outlaw masturbation for minors.

Logically speaking, a 16 year old is not able to accept responsilibilty for driving a car.
But still it is lawful in the US.

There have been and there are still all kinds of laws.
The existence of a law does not make the law useful or right.

The notion that sex is something to be avoided before marriage is coming from the bible.
And the bible means nothing to me.

My religion wants me to enjoy sex in all of it forms as long as I don’t hurt anybody.

I lost my virginity at age of 14 and I enjoyed it and still remember it fondly.
Somehow I find it unacceptable that the goverment wants to criminalize this.

ar9011, If it makes you feel any better, I am ashamed that you are an American as well.

It sounds to me that you just might be a child molester your self, the way you skip and jump over the facts that are in front of you. For some reason you do not believe the info that is put in front of you. Lets forget the child part (that is the main thing that you want to defend) and just look at some facts. The female said NO, this makes it rape, plain and simple. When you add the fact that she was only 13 makes the RAPE even worse.

I too am sorry that you are an American, i am just glade that you are not part of the Justice system.

The real issue here is not whether RP is morally innocent or not, but whether the crime is pursuable. Every civilized nation has periods of time that limit for how long a crime can be pursued, called “statutes of limitation”. RP -and everyone else- has these benefits. I believe the U.S. is wrongly trying to make an example out of RP, despite the fact that known rapists and pederasts have lived for years in the U.S. and haven’t even faced process -from Michael Jackson to the pederast priests in the Boston scandals.

Morality is not an issue. Effective prosecution during a given time limit, as a preferable alternative to futilely reviving 30 year old crimes, is. Especially if the victim has been repeatedly quoted saying she no longer cares.

None of you are getting it right, age does not have anything to do with RAPE. When she or he says NO and you still have sex with them it is RAPE.

So according to AR9011…if I wish Charles Manson dead that would make me a psychotic killer as well… and I have been fooling myself all along thinking I wanted to protect society.In the interests of full disclosure,I’m against the death penalty,but I wouldn’t walk across the street to protest it.You would think Roman Polanski would be grateful that he’s had all these years free to molest and rape and he can do his time now as an old man…lets raise money to buy his cellmates Viagra!!!

> None of you are getting it right, age does not have
> anything to do with RAPE. When she or he says NO
> and you still have sex with them it is RAPE.

I was only replying to some peoples notion that it is pedophilia if somebody is attracted to teenagers.
I said before:

> I’m not condoning rape.
> Polanski belongs into prison if he actually raped
> somebody.

I can’t help wondering how an “average Joe” would have been treated in 1977 – throw away the key! Why was an admitted rapist out on bail?

There is no excuse and no timeframe for punishing the rape of a 13 year old child. There is only justice.

Evidently you did not read the court transcripts!!! I did it was RAPE in every sense of the word! This child was thirteen. I hope by the grace of God you do not have children! Especially a daughter! Whether or not she said yes or no (which she said no) it is RAPE.
Furthermore I think anyone who has glorified the work of this RAPIST or worked with him should be ashamed of themselves! He is not a great director or a great misunderstood man HE IS A RAPIST AND A COWARD!He left when he couldn’t face the fact that he might not be able to get out of a prison sentence.
I read the transcripts and it was made very clear that the judge could sentence him to prison and he still accepted the deal! I wish we could give scum bags like him the death penalty!!
I also agree that if this was some minority who didn’t have money there would be no argument! I am sick of the justice in this country being all for the rich! I have always said I will not see his movies and I will not see the movies of the actors that work in his movies because they are just as bad working for a man who would do this kind of thing just makes me wonder about their morals!

This does not excuse his actions. Other people go through bad things, but they do not take it out on others. The coward is guilty be a man and face the music. If he gets away with it, what is to discourage other high profile people from thinking they can get away with it.

The real issue is actually that this is not about prosecuting anyone. He has already been prosecuted and he fled from sentencing. That technically makes him a fugitive under the law. There is not a statute of limitations in bringing a fugitive to justice. He was supposed to have carried out his sentence in the 70′s. It was his choice to run and hide for all of these years. If he had manned up, faced his sentencing and carried it out, he would likely be free now. He made a bad choice and whether or not the victim now says it’s ok, it wasn’t then. This works the same as if someone breaks out of prison. They have already been prosecuted and found guilty. If they are caught they are sent back to prison. If someone out on parole breaks the terms of that parole, they are sent back to prison. Mr. Polanski was already found guilty so there will be no trial for him, only a sentencing that he should have faced 30+ years ago.

Convicted rapists serve a sentence determined by the court. Polanski avoided this process by evading the law for all these years which is also a crime.

The statutes of limitation do apply to crime. If this were the case, murderers could simply goto France and live happily. He did not avoid conviction…he avoided the punishment.

Every case is unique, so you cannot make vague comparisons to other situations fairly. He should be brought back and face his sentencing accordingly, regardless of his history after wards.

Further, crimes are not tried as victim against perpetrator, they are tried and State VS Criminal. The victim has no say in whether a case goes to trial or not, the state does, and it’s the states duty to prosecute those who violate the law.

I meant “do not apply” to crime.

Our prison system exists to protect society from those persons who decide to break the law. Unless of course you would have them live next door to you so you can rehabilitate them, avoid condemning the system that attempts to maintain social peace.

Polanski posed a danger to US society and MUST be punished…the passage of time does not lessen the crime.

Nothing to do with child molesting? He was convicted of just that we can argue till the end of time, but it does not diminish the fact that plead guilty to a crime and skipped out of the punishment.

30 years of running from the law does not make you a law abiding citizen; hence, he should go to jail and serve punishment for, the conviction, and evasion.

I’ll let the court in California decide the punishment, and certainly disregard any effort he made otherwise. Your comparison of the prison system with the holocaust is shameful, ludicrous, and wrong.

Sooo, I have some tragedies happen in my life. Does that give me carte blache to go out and sodomize a CHILD??? Chris, you are f**king sick!

At least your reply shows some thoughtfulness, and I thank you for that.

I assure you I was not misguided at all when I was 13. It was not ‘rape’, though it was illegal. Actually rape is not a legal term, you won’t find it in the relevant sections of the law (at least not in my part of the country), it’s more of a colloquial term. Using it to describe something that was willingly engaged in is a disservice to actual victims of violent sexual assault and aggression.

I’m not sure what you imply about my own relationship, in regards to “protecting, teaching and nurturing.” I would say that I was seeking those three things in the context of an intimate relationship. There is nothing wrong with that. Who is the victim in my case? What seems to give you the most problem is that the person I chose was an adult, and he may have been sexually attracted to me.

I keep insisting that this is not about protection of children, but rather about the strong resentment people have of other adults who have a known sexual interest in minors and act on it. In cases like mine there is no victim. I don’t know whether Geimer was a victim, and neither do you. We were not there, and like I said, what ends up in courtroom testimony can be very different than what actually happens.

You make a very good point and one which I missed. I can confess to being ignorant of which you speak. But even if I mischaracterize the French viewpoint, missing that this is about the objectives of the criminal justice system — even if this is the real reason for the strong reactions in France, one must admit that there is also a fundamental difference over how people react specifically to child sex cases in America which does not happen in continental Europe. That might not be obvious unless you have seen the extent to which the American child sex reaction has resulted in draconian measures. You are correct, but if France were as deeply conflicted about child sex as America, then I don’t think we would see any protests in favor of Polanski.

Hi alalia

I did read Kate Harding’s piece and I did not find it informative at all — it was all polemic from my perspective. Again, in my area it’s illegal to say “Jesus Christ” in vain. Do they prosecute it? No. If they did, and I skipped the country, would they come after me? No, it’s not worth it to them. Why is it worth it to this judge? They had a choice to pursue Polanski or not. They spent a lot of money on it, which probably should have been used to pursue people who are a bigger danger to society. Is this really about justice?

in response to walkingdeep:

Thank you for at least a thoughtful reply. Yes, I am writing from an ethical perspective. I am saying there are a lot of things wrong here, including the laws and including the majority view. My view is that the practice of criminal law relates to the majority view. I do not get prosecuted for saying “Jesus Christ” in vain even though it is punishable by law. The reason why is that no one cares. I don’t think laws are concrete, and punishments given in these cases are indeed quite subjective and not concrete. If they were concrete, we would not see child murderers getting less jail time than sex offenders against children. The reason they often get worse sentencing than murderers is because of public opinion, not because of any new laws on the books. It happens in public opinion first, then finds its way into court cases.

I don’t think you’re correct on the psychological issues, even if admittedly it is the majority view. Your views fly in the face of all of the psychological research that’s been done into this issue over the past 50 years (I know most of it very well). There are dozens and dozens of studies — tens upon tens of thousands of subjects, dozens of researchers around the globe, with the full apparatus of human subjects committees and peer review boards. While the moral dimension has been subjective, the data consistently shows in every single one of these unconnected studies that willingness is there in a certain (surprisingly high) percent of cases, that outcomes of these experiences were very strongly predicted by level of consent. Many of these studies went to great pains to detect psychological damage, and found it only in cases where there was unwillingness, coercion, especially for kids subjected to unwilling sex (typically girls coerced by fathers or brothers) within a bad family environment (emotional and physical abuse and neglect).

I do agree with you regarding the arguements polanski supporters are making. They truly are horrifying. Where I part with you is the on the actual case itself, and how clear cut you are trying to lay it out this “rape.

((“this has to be the first recorded instance of the “her mother wanted it” argument”))

You had it and you’re actually the first person I’ve read so far to bring it up. Yet instead of exploring it, and discovering what made this case so bazaar, and even more sickening, You just brushed it off as Hollywoods confused moral elitism.

I do agree with you that sex with a 13 yr old. is wrong and criminal no matter what the situation. IMHO there is no such thing as consensual sex with a 13 yr old. Hense the reason for the law. So don’t you ever wonder, why the plea deal??

Lets say there is evidence it was a case of sex for fame, and she seduced him, then threatened to put him in jail for 20 years, if he didn’t make her famous and introduce her to all the rest of the hollywood elite, Do you think it could become very difficult for the public (jury) to decide who’s the victim and who’s the perpetrator?

Her mothers actions were very disturbing, and are probably the reasons the DA agreed to a plea bargin of a lesser charge. Not because he’s famous. This woman actually drove her 13 yr old daughter to the mans house and left her there, ALONE with a 44 year old man!! What kind of mother consents to allow her 13 yr old daughter to go to a private photo shoot in a strangers house (Jack Nicholsons, btw) unsupervised with a 44 year old man! Not once! but twice!! It’s completely criminally negligent and mind boggling to me! It makes one wonder if she is THE single most incredibly STUPID mother on the planet, or if there is any truth to claims they were trying to set him up, to begin with. The DA knew the jury would suspect this was the case also, and victim in the case would become unclear, hence they allowed the plea bargin.

No one is trying to make the victim a criminal, they were making her mother a criminal. And seriously, she should have been charged with something as far as I’m concerned.

Does it make the sex with a minor any less wrong, NO. But does it call into question the actual “rape” charge. YES. Lets say, they were setting him up for black mail and he fell for it. Would you still feel he should go to prison?

I agree so much that Polanski is not a victim and I feel sick of the directors who signed to support him. So is it just because he is talented, he can do whatever he want?
Raping an underage is not a trivial matter and I think he deserves what a normal person would get if he/she does the same thing.

Its just amazing people, who are normally completely rational individuals, would defend this man.

There is something interesting happening psychologically here. Perhaps the same part of the brain that tells people killing a puppy is worse then killing a man… Polanski’s beautiful movies and talent some how make him different, special and someone to look up too.

I love this case because it perfectly exposes the faults in our celebrity obsession culture.

Finally someone who speaks for the victim for the child. Thank you Amy. I have been outraged by the individuals who have defended this child rapist. He needs to go to jail and spend the rest of his life behind bars. He has escaped because he had money and because the Hollywood crowd has helped him. Anyone who has helped him stay out of jail should be arrested for aiding and abetting this rapist. Polanski is a RAPIST and that is his true legacy.

But according to her testimony the child was already raped twice before Polanski… (If there is no cosensual sex with teenager of 13, then her first two intercourses must be rapes). Were those rapes ever investigated? If the child abuse is such a heinous crime, why those two first rapes declared by the victim before the grand jury were never even touched upon? If this is the crime not against a person, who repeatedly asked to drop the whole affair, but against justice or people why, then, the American people or the American law newer showed even a slightest interest in the first two rapes? If there is no statute of limitations applying to this crime, why not to investigate those rapes right now? Why not to begin with such an investigation before trying to nail Polanski? In short: why famous and rich filmmaker of European origin must be brought to justice and some obscure American rapists shouldn’t?

As a child who was repeatedly raped, the trauma from it was so great that my mind just shut down. I had no memory of it, but I knew I was evil and unworthy. I lost time, I was a little spacey, but this time loss became worse and worse until I could not be sure of what I did. College tests came back to me with the most amazing gibberish instead of the words I thought I put down. I dropped things, a nano-seconds when my brain disengaged from my hand. I started falling. From a straight up to on the ground. It was as if my mind disengaged from my left leg. I broke my ankle falling from the 3rd step from the bottom. My left foot didn’t get the message to disengage.
Finally I found a doctor and a therapist who understood what was happening. The journey back was made without knowing exactly what disassociation was, or what PTS entailed.
The body memory comes back first. Imagine, my body violently contorted, my head and shoulders jerking away from something I could not see.
Polanski raped a child. She was drugged and she said no, over and over. I don’t have words, I don’t know what I said, but a 7-year-old child shouldn’t have to say anything. A 13-year-old child shouldn’t need any words. Period.
If Polanski had done his time none of us would be talking about this. That’s a crime. He would have gotten out early with good behavior and made wonderful movies again AND he would have been able to pick up his Oscar in person.
Anyone who thinks that he has paid for his crime in anyway think of someone you love, a child. If your daughter was raped would you think Polanski had been “punished enough?”
I’m losing time again. I wake from dreams I can’t remember and I am afraid to go back to sleep.
Now a mother of 2 wants the whole thing dropped because she feels like she is being violated again. “Let Polanski go, forget the rape and conviction, just leave me in peace.”
I wonder if she is waking to dreams she can’t remember.
For those who think Polanski is the victim,
SHAME ON YOU!

First, whether those rapes were investigated or not, that would not have been part of the grand jury investigation on this particular case. The information would likely have been deemed irrelevant to this particular act. Second, there is a statute of limitations on the actual crime. However, because the trial was over and the defendant was found to be guilty by way of his plea agreement, he would be a fugitive for running away from sentencing. He is not being pursued now to go through a trial, but to serve his sentence, whatever that may be. And third, being a rich and famous European doesn’t give you leave to do whatever you feel like doing without ramifications. It doesn’t allow you to be a continuer of abuse on someone and stating that someone else did it before doesn’t make it okay for you to do it. As we say, two wrongs do not make a right. I have every sympathy for Mr. Polanski and his rough beginnings, however, coming from a home where abuse was common, I understand that I am still the one responsible for my actions so for those of you who feel that Mr. Polanski shouldn’t be blamed because he came from a tragic beginning, I’m sorry that you believe in that now too common cop out. As adults, we alone are responsible for our own actions. As a thirteen year old girl, and yes a child, the young lady in question had a right to protection from harm by an adult. No means no each and every time and slipping drugs to people to make them comfortable while you rape them is not okay. It makes them powerless to stop you and that is not any different than a street rapist who holds a gun to your head or a knife to your throat.

How many times has France refused to see the crimes that people commit. Holly Maddux was murdered by Ira Einhorn and France said the same thing. Their comment “There’s an America we love and an America that scares us, and it’s that latter America that has just shown us its face.” How can wanting justice for a 13 year old rape victim be scary for France? Then again it was almost twenty five years ago that two explosions sank the Rainbow Warrior and killed photographer, Fernando Pereira in Waitemata Harbour, Auckland, New Zealand. The bombs were planted under the direction of the French government because of Greenpeace’s protests against the French nuclear testing programs in the Pacific. Planting bombs in a foreign nation is scary. Sorry to turn this about the Frances comments instead of the child rapist Polanski.

Hi Pam,

Thanks for your illuminating post. It sounds like you have real problems. I think I can help you.

You’ve clearly had PTSD. What you may not know about PTSD is that it is first and foremost a stress response crisis which is really a nutritional crisis involving your adrenal gland and other biochemical systems in your body. For you to have had PTSD, you must have had a combination of prolonged stress (possibly from a whole variety of sources some of which can be from birth!) and lack of appropriate nutritional support (very specific vitamins and minerals) to compensate for the increased nutritional needs that adrenal and thyroid stress requires.

It is common for rape survivors as well as war veterans to place *all* the blame on the recent ‘trigger,’ when in fact it is a host of underlying issues. For sure the ‘trigger’ can indeed be a painful experience and contribute towards adrenal failure but it is almost certainly not the sole cause. If your therapist does not know this, you need to go see someone else who has more experience in this area.

Not only can the right practitioner make your symptoms go away (through things like IV-injected vitamins and minerals which you are depleted of), they can also help to erase traumatic memories through Neuro Emotional Technique and other therapies. MDs typically know absolutely nothing about sub-clinical nutrition, except in cases of life-threatening status (despite your trauma, you are not near death yet). You do not have to live in pain the way you are living now. I’ve not had PTSD but I’ve had adrenal failure which is almost the same thing.

Here is a good resource for you.

http://www.hypoglycemia.asn.au/articles/PTStress.html
I also ask you to ponder one question. I think you are incorrect about the forensic evidence in this case, about Geimer “saying no over and over.” Transcripts in cases of plea bargains can be notoriously incorrect because by definition, it is set up so the defendant pleas guilty to a distorted description of what really happened, in order to get a reduced sentence. Science tells us that a certain percentage of adult-child sexual contacts are not of the unwanted and traumatic variety the way you experienced it.

Not every woman who had a sexual experience with an adult man was raped, even if it was illegal and widely disdained. Someone very close to me, who is now over 70 years old, had a very loving relationship with an adult man when she was a young teenager. I ask you to do a better job next time putting your experience in context with other people’s experiences. I am willing to bet that your rapist was a person of authority, perhaps your father. I am willing to bet that you did not seek out your rape voluntarily, for instance going to this person’s house of your own volition, writing love letters, etc. I do not properly understand why you associate your experience with Roman Polanski and Samantha Geimer’s story. You think she has dreams which make her afraid, because you have dreams which make you afraid. It appears to me her story was a different type of story, a passing encounter which apparently both of them wanted. However, I reserve judgment because I don’t know — and neither do you — what really happened.

If you think that there are no minors out there, especially after hormonal changes between the ages of 10 and 14, who are seeking sexual relationships with adults, then you are mistaken. No one — psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, whoever — no one disputes the more than occasional occurrence of these kinds of encounters and relationships, just as no one disputes the existence of forced, coerced, traumatic experiences involving frightened kids (especially when it happens within the family).

Those of us who had willing experiences with adults find it at least a little bit offensive that others tend to project from their experience onto someone else’s story which is distinctly different. Granted you may not agree on a moral level, I hope you will agree on an ethical level that it was my human right as a 13yo to pursue a loving mutual relationship with someone of my choice, given that there was no harm possible to me as a result because of the mutuality. In my view, I would have been harmed without the relationship.

Well, you know what, you make me ashamed that you’re an American. You have a sick, twisted view of rape and pedophilia.

We are “so quick to assume that this was nonconsensual” as you say because Roman Polanski admitted he that he drugged and raped a 13 yr old girl. He was convicted and then he fled the country when he was to face sentencing. CASE CLOSED! You say, “many people here on this board who seem to eager to call Polanski a rapist.” Well, DUH, that’s because he admitted to being one.

I’m not usually someone who has a “‘protect the children’ mantra” as you say. I support age-appropriate sex education for kids. I support giving kids contraceptives. I realize kids are going to have sex WITH OTHER KIDS.

You ask “why is this solely about what adults can or cannot “do” with “children”? Well, because they are the adults in the legal sense. The children are children in the legal sense. I don’t care if a kid does look for sex from an adult! It’s the adults responsibility to respect the law and the fact that the child hasn’t developed emotionally and physically and DENY THE CHILD’S REQUEST!

[...] Links (Ingles) Todas somos víctimas de Polanski Polanski no es una victima Por qué la gente no le come al supuesto liberalismo de [...]

The only true deciding factor here can be the will of the victim who is now an adult. Her mother was for it? Heh, if that’s true, then she’s the one that drugged her own daughter. Did she want to set him up to extort some money from him, probably. So let the man pay the victim, ex-wives get big chunks if not half, then let the victim name her price. She already did as I understand.

There’s a new documentary that was just released which shows that Polanski was slandered and the accusations of drugging the girl or that the girl ever said no are all lies. We should wait and see before we jump to conclusions. If the girl wanted him to have sex with her and she was a teenager (13+), then it should not be any of the governments business anyway. Parents? Why shouldn’t sexually developed teenagers have the right to choose thier sex partners regaurdless of age and simultaneously enjoy the benefit of being protected by the law?

Here in Russia, the laws against sex between minors and adults are as serious as can be, yet the prosecutor never goes after these adults that get very young girls pregnant and marry them. Why? Because prosecuting the adult partner only brings trauma and more misfortune to the minor. Especially if she need’s him to be the bread bringer of the family. Moreover, the minor can always decide to write a statement to the prosecutor’s office, even 20 years later. The adult becomes totally dependant on the wishes of the minor for the rest of the minors life. If he ever ticks her off badly, she can just fry him at any point. It’s well understood. It seems to be effective in protecting the young partner’s interests in regards to the adult partner permanently.

As the father of two wonderful daughters, I would surely rather have my girls grow up to be teenagers that date boys in thier own age group. However, as a loving father I must be willing to support them wherever thier heart leads them. Parents all over the world should stop treating thier children as property and governments should keep thier noses out of people’s private affairs except when the child and or parents file a complaint. Otherwise the government is just traumatizing us all for no apparent reason.

[...] (0) Just…wow. I honestly don't know what's more shocking–that France's culture minister, the same fellow who vociferously defended Roman Polanski and complained the director was being "thrown to the lions," has a history of paying for sex with [...]

The proper term is Ephebophilia. If we’re applying Paedophilia to attraction to anyone under age 18, that means a vast majority of this planet is now guilty, starting from age 17, so for those standing on the soapbox of righteousness – open mouth, insert foot. We should get the terminology right if we’re going to be using it in the context of accusation.

I think in this case, the wishes of the “victim” should be upheld. In her mind, this has been settled for thirty years and has been a closed case since. Dragging her and her family back through the mud when the matter between Polanski and her was settled long ago is just a quick way to make great headlines.

The alternative is to throw the guy in jail, make a big scene of it, have the press ringing the now adult victim’s phone off the hook for a candid interview, have the paparazzi follow her around taking pictures during his trial.. be the first to get an exclusive book deal… I love sensationalism and the constant headlines!

Just adding insult to injury at this point, which is now doing more harm to the her than good. Nothing like having a victim constantly relive psychological trauma, over and over again… they finally put it behind them and settle it, start a family and live a normal life… and BAM! It pops back up like a jack-in-the-box that simply refuses to stay down.

Justice is served… what happened in one night, and was put behind her and settled, was instead dragged out for over thirty years against her wishes. Apparently Justice is not only blind, but deaf and stupid.