Seems like 100 posts ago you said
According to Mr. Polanksi a year after the event, it’s perfectly understandable to do what he did, because:
Hitler? Naaaw- I was talking about Stalin. Have you SEEN his origami?
The New York Times is reporting backlash against the knee-jerk reaction to the arrest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/movies/30polanski.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=Polanski&st=cse
In other news, I was reading the above story on my Kindle. I mentioned Woody Allen was “stupefied” by the arrest. As is my habit, I had the machine look up the word. It defined it as;
(trans) make (someone) unable to think or feel properly; the offense of administering drugs to a woman with intent to stupefy her.
So that clears that right up.
But he only said that because someone killed his wife and baby. Yah, that’s right.
It couldn’t be that he sees nothing wrong with what he did, which could make him still a danger.
Irishman said it in the Cafe Society thread. Unfortunately the victim is never going to get away from the publicity. Whether we pursue the case now or not any time Polanski gets any publicity they will go through the highlight (or lowlight) reel of his life and this is part of it.
I do understand the victims desire for this to just finish though. I had the Today show on this morning while I was getting ready for work and they had Sharon Tate’s siter on. The headline below read “It wasn’t Rape Rape”. The stupid bitch went on to say she was a victims advocate and what happened there was consensual sex.
Ummm… according to her deposition it was Rape Rape. When someone tries to kiss you and you tell them no and they kiss you anyway. Then they go down on you and you tell them no and ask them to stop and they keep doing it. Then they start having sex with you and you tell them no ask them to stop but they keep having sex with you. Then they ask if they can stick it in your ass and you say no and ask them to stop but the stick it in your ass anyway. I’m pretty sure it qualifies as Rape Rape. Put that all on top of a 13 year old that the RAPIST fed champagne and drugs to and you have RAPE RAPE!
I’m pretty sure everyone here is on board with the idea that this was Rape Rape I just had to say I am disgusted by the way the media is willing to just downplay the whole thing.
What a moron. Even as a teenager I didn’t want to fuck teenage girls.
I’m sorry this thread got a wheel in the ditch, because I nearly always enjoy Sampiro’s posts. Here, I sympathize with the view that the victim is likely to find that this case brings her additional pain, but don’t agree that this is a reason to drop the matter. As others have noted, justice transcends the concerns of individuals.
I’ll note that it’s widely reported she received a substantial monetary settlement from Polanski. While I’d say she certainly deserves such, I think this weakens the argument that her feelings on the case should be controlling. One report (quite unsubstantiated) said that she was offered a larger settlement if she would publicly announce forgiveness.
Human nature being what it is, the rich and famous will always receive special treatment - just as men will take advantage of underage girls. Both are to some degree inevitable - and both are wrong, and should be resisted to the greatest extent possible.
Oh, you mean that’s not just seduction? Courting: IM DOIN IT WRONG. :smack:
In all seriousness, I just don’t get it. If it were a case of an underage girl looking older and being seriously interested in Mr. Polanski and saying yes and being all eager, it would be more ambiguous. Creepy, but grey. The whole, “Can a thirteen year old consent? What if she’s just that well adjusted?” topic might have some merit–not legally necessarily. But it’s not a matter of her just being too young. What he did was wrong to do to a thirteen year old–or a twenty three year old. It’s not some technical rape where everyone was OK with it–he forcibly violated her. It makes me seriously question the kind of sex these supposedly normal people supporting him are having. People go around saying, “Oh the seventies were a wild time, Roman Polanski and all those guys were debauched as hell,” but if your idea of wild fun sex is drugging someone who doesn’t want to be with you…that just seems more sad and pathetic than anything else.
Huh?
He might be gay?
Or he likes the taste of older flesh.
How can you stupefy someone who is already stupid?
Yeah, could be gay or likes the MILF. The comment just struck me as odd. Teenagers boys are generally interested in getting a “home run” with girls in their general age range.
All the teenage girls I knew as a teenager were concentrated bags of crazy.
I also love the assumption that since I didn’t want to get a home run with the crazy chicks my own age means I’m one of those gays.
Fair enough. 
But as a flat statement, in the context of this thread, it did seem a bit odd; kinda reminiscent of the poster we had some years ago who opined that teenage boys who were attracted to teenage girls were pedophiles.
Having worked with teen girls I understand the sentiment. Having been a teenaged girl I understand the sentiment even more.
The only reason the victim has to deal with this in the first place is because of Polanski’s actions. He’s solely responsible for her pain then and now.
Whatever. It was offered merely as a possibility. If an adolescent guy doesn’t want to fuck teenage girls, i don’t think it’s completely unreasonable to assume he might be gay. It was not offered as a value judgment; merely as a possibility.
And treat similarly Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post op-ed page.
Here, in what she terms “The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski,” she simply refers to the crime as a statutory rape, one where the victim has forgiven him.
Sure, it was that too, since the victim was underage. But even if she’d been over the age of consent, it would have still been rape, pure and simple.
But wait, in a followup piece, Applebaum gets worse:
to all who imagine that the original incident at the heart of this story was a straightforward and simple criminal case, I recommend reading the transcript of the victim’s testimony (here in two parts) – including her descriptions of the telephone conversation she had with her mother from Polanski’s house, asking permission to be photographed in Jack Nicholson’s jacuzzi – and not just the salacious bits.
I really didn’t want to read the transcript, because I didn’t want to feel like a voyeur to the suffering of a young girl. Now, at Ms. Applebaum’s urging, I have, and as expected, I feel like a peeping Tom. A very unclean peeping Tom. But I still don’t see how it is anything but “a straightforward and simple criminal case.”
I hope her sorry ass gets fired from the Washington Post for this. Unfortunately, the people in charge of it have long since stopped being repulsed by any sort of moral monstrosity by those they rub shoulders with. I doubt they’ll be bothered that one of their op-ed writers condones rape.
And her characterization of the phone call is itself false; the girl called to get permission to stay, NOT to be photographed in the jacuzzi.