October 1, 2009
-
Why BUST is my favorite magazine.
This commentary says oh so much:
So why defend a rapist? Because he’s ‘brilliant,’ says Debra Tate, sister of Sharon Tate. Because the victim says she doesn’t want the case pursued any further. Because Polanski’s had a hard, tragedy-filled life.
All of those things are true. Polanski IS a brilliant director — anyone who’s seen Rosemary’s Baby, The Pianist, or Chinatown can tell you that. The victim DID say she doesn’t want this pursued any further. But that’s not surprising — rape victims don’t usually want to relive their experience over and over again in front of a courtroom, and in this case, in front of the whole world. And yes, Polanski HAS had a tragedy-filled life. But so have lots of criminals — does that mean we should give them a free pass to Europe whenever they don’t feel like going to jail?"He's brilliant," isn't going to excuse rape in my book, what about yours?
Comments (6)
I think he needs to face up to what he did. I just wanted to throw my computer screen when I saw Woody Allen trying to defend him. Woody Effin' Allen. STFU, entertainment industry. Just STFU.
Yeah, I'm pretty disgusted by this whole deal. I understand the entire situation and how the judge was going to go back on his word...blah blah blah. And how he supposedly served the time his plea bargan required...but bottom line is:
He raped her.
If he served his sentence then why did he run? Because he's a coward, and a terrible human being. I don't give a crap about his art. I think it's terribly fool hardy for those in the industry to stand up for him. He is a perfect example of how power and influence can corrupt.
If he's to be SOooooo respected as an artist, then man up, face up and fight the charges in a court of law.
I also feel this is a slap in the face to women in general as all I've heard is that the victim was a little slutty Lolita, and she bascially deserved it. Bullshit. (and I don't care that the victim no longer wants it pursued, he settled with her years ago...and hey that's an admission of guilt if there ever WAS one.)
Whew! Thanks for letting me get that out! It's been bugging me!
It was statutory rape. He didn't find, groom and seduce the girl. He didn't pull the girl from the streets. The girl was made up to look much older and knew exactly what was going to happen because the whole thing was planned by her mother to make her a star. She wasn't a 'slutty little Lolita', she was a victim, inasmuch as all those little girls, the Jon-Benet's and their like are victims of child abuse by their mothers. Why isn't the mother prosecuted? I have no idea, I think she probably would have been in these days.
In New Hampshire, I believe, a little girl of 13 can get married with parental consent. Since Polansky's victim definitely had parental consent, how would this rape be viewed there? Statutory rape means that the consent of the child is ignored, how come then, could any girl of that age consent to marriage? Does this make sense?
What about the Mormon polygamists and the customary and sanctioned rape - illegal polygamous underage marriage - of little girls - why are there just one or two men being prosecuted and the rest allowed to get away with it? Is it because these Mormons are otherwise (well, apart from the benefit-drawing scams) good, upstanding Jesus-worshipping home-grown Americans? And Polansky, is a short little Polish/French Jew?
There's something hypocritical in all of this.
When is there EVER a valid excuse for rape? never!
@SavonDuJour - I wasn't aware that Polanski was Jewish, but it makes no difference to me what a rapist's ethnic, religious, or national orgin is, I'd feel the same if it were Brad Pitt. He admitted to feeding the girl a Quaalude and alcohol, then raping and sodomizing her. His objection was to the punishment. Though, if there was real justice, her mother would be in jail right now.
I don't know about the laws in New Hampshire, and since the crime wasn't committed in that state, to me, the issue is irrelevant. I get what you are saying about hypocrisy. I think parents who exploit their own children for personal gain (this is why I have trouble with Regency era "romance" stories) are horrible. Children are not property and should not be treated as such. But I don't think because hypocrisy exists is reason someone who is conviceted of rape should be allowed to go unpunished.
My opinion of the polygamist Mormons or any other religious group (or any group however they are described) that exploits women or children is on par with yours. Unfortunately they have more than 100 of years of experience at evading law enforcement and hiding their behavior. I know that there have been on-going investigations, but those are closed communities and harder to penetrate than Scientology.Should we allow Hollywood to become another closed society allowed to do as they will regardless of the law?
All that said, I'm glad that you feel comfortable enough with me to post your opinions without censoring yourself.
I was wrong about New Hampshire, a girl only actually has to be 13 and get the courts' permission - generally given if she is pregnant. Statutory rape eh? Actually about 16 or 17 states allow marriage at 15 or under.
I understand that you didn't know that, I understand that its just 'too difficult' to really say anything about the systemised rape of polygamous Mormon girls because of their experience of evading the law, but if as you say rape is rape, then why attack Roman Polansky and give weak excuses for the continuance of child marriage/rape? Why not actually write a blog or better, campaign to bring about the end of such appalling laws and loopholes? Those laws do mean that for rape and sodomy to occur by a much older man, he wouldn't need to drug or drink the girl, just force her into marriage (with the mother's or father's permission, of course).
I am glad you wrote to me explaining your final sentence in the comment addressed to me above and hope that you are comfortable with me replying as I am uncomfortable with the persecution of one and allowing the many to be just passed over.
Comments are closed.