Just wondering: How many teen girls has Polanski raped?
posted at 7:31 pm on October 2, 2009 by Allahpundit
An important question to ask, no? Not necessarily for the sake of justice — as a 76-year-old, he’s unlikely to be prosecuted again — but for the sake of determining just how much child molestation a masterpiece like “Chinatown” entitles you to. By my count, we’ve got one confirmed incident (a rape-rape, in Whoopi Goldberg terminology, not statutory rape) per the guilty plea that he entered in L.A. in 1977; we’ve got a likely statutory case via his, ahem, “romance” with 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski; and we’ve got this charming anecdote dug up by Mark Steyn, which pre-dates both of those incidents.
Jonah, in my weekend column, I quote Robert Towne, the screenwriter of Chinatown, who says he found it hard to concentrate during writing sessions at Polanski’s place, what with “the teenyboppers that Roman would run out and take Polaroid pictures of diving off the f***ing diving board without tops on. Which was distracting. With braces.”
I guess “teenybopper” could encompass a range of ages, although I don’t know many 18-year-olds to whom that term is normally applied — and who, at that age, are still having their teeth straightened. But kudos to our genius auteur for being able to maintain his focus on a cinematic masterwork while snapping presumptive spank photos of pre-pubescent girls. Clearly he’s earned a comfortable retirement in a Swiss chalet for that.
Anyone think this sort of behavior ended cold turkey after Kinski, incidentally? And anyone think his L.A. victim is the only one he agreed to pay hush money to?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I can’t beleive there are people here who defend that a normal adult man would find a 13 or even a 16 year old sexy. That is a pervert.
bloggless on October 2, 2009 at 9:49 PM
It happens every day in advertising and men don’t even know it.
dedalus on October 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM
so was Micheal Jackson
tai-pan on October 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Some of the women here, if they are willing, should chime in. Were you ladies mentally and emotionally able to handle the relationship some of the males here (apparently) would have sought from you when you were 13?
splink on October 2, 2009 at 9:52 PM
As a former 13 year old, and the mother of two daughters, I will tell you that no 13 year old is capable of making informed consent. Any relationship between and older man and a girl is a form of victimization.
TXMomof3 on October 2, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Maybe in Turkey…But not in the West. This younger girl and older man pairing was only prevalent among aristocrats in Europe and it was not prevalent at all in colonial America. While many in America married young (NOT 13 but around 17), they married to men no more than five years older. You are making s*** up.
nyx on October 2, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Well if any of the dudes here own a time machine, don’t let your daughters get in it with them…they’ll just head back a couple hundred years and it’ll be all good with them. Dirtbags.
splink on October 2, 2009 at 10:04 PM
No.
nyx on October 2, 2009 at 10:04 PM
No where in any state’s criminal code is there an offense “rape-rape” and “no big deal rape”. What Polanski did was horrific, and he should be punished to the fullest extent for the crime he committed. I think what happened to his mother and his father is heartbreaking and having your wife and child brutally murdered would be a horrible cross to bear. However, that does not give Polanksi a pass for raping a 13 year old girl. Justice finally needs to be served.
ice princess on October 2, 2009 at 10:09 PM
I have chosen not to follow his side of the story – he admitted to it after it happened, that’s all I need to know.
But are you saying there’s people actually defending him on the basis of Tate’s murder? That somehow that’s what caused him to molest?
splink on October 2, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Excellent.
The Ugly American on October 2, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Nobody said they didn’t have perverts back then, too.
bloggless on October 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM
I would suggest a new Polanski movie rating system. Instead of stars, they use children. The highest level you can get is 4 children, instead of 4 stars.
bloggless on October 2, 2009 at 10:20 PM
But it wasn’t seen as perverted though. There wasn’t this sense that all 13-year-olds are delicate china dolls that are utterly incapable of making their own choices about sex.
mr_B on October 2, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Looks like NAMBLA has it’s members out and “on duty” tonight trying to tell all of us how wonderful and “natural” it is for a 40 year old man to want to have sex with a child.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2009 at 10:26 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iKqRuiC7IkWfa2fEuqjfumGUziZAD9ANHIFG1
“The head of the U.N. children’s agency said Monday that the tragic death of a 12-year-old Yemeni after three days in labor underscores the urgent need to better protect the rights of girls and prevent child marriages.
Fawziya Abdullah Youssef died of severe bleeding on Friday while giving birth to a stillborn child in the al-Zahra district hospital of Hodeida province, 140 miles (223 kilometers) west of the capital San’a. Youssef was only 11 when her father married her to a 24-year-old man who works as a farmer in Saudi Arabia, Ahmed al-Quraishi, chairman of the Siyaj human rights organization, said Saturday.
UNICEF Executive Director Ann Veneman expressed sadness at Fawziya’s untimely death.
“Child marriage denies girls of their childhood, deprives them of an education and robs them of their innocence,” she said in a statement.
Child marriages are widespread in Yemen, the Arab world’s poorest country, where tribal customs dominate society. More than a quarter of the country’s females marry before age 15, according to a recent report by the Social Affairs Ministry.
In February, Yemen’s parliament passed a law setting the minimum marriage age at 17. But some lawmakers are trying to kill the measure, calling it un-Islamic. Before it could be ratified by Yemen’s president, they forced it to be sent back to parliament’s constitutional committee for review.
Veneman said “the younger the girl is when she becomes pregnant, the greater the health risks for her and her baby.”
Girls who give birth before the age of 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than women in their 20s, she said.
“Tragedies like these underscore the urgent need to better protect the rights of women and children, particularly girls,” Veneman said. “Child marriages are often a result of poverty and ignorance. More must be done to address the underlying causes in order to prevent tragic deaths like those of 12-year-old Fawziya and her baby.”
Asher on October 2, 2009 at 10:27 PM
They can make choices, yes. They cannot yet make intelligent, competent choices about sex. That is, and always has been, the point.
splink on October 2, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Indeed.
nyx on October 2, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Some, perhaps even most, can’t. But many can. Probably most 18-year-olds can’t even make “intelligent, competent choices about sex” either.
mr_B on October 2, 2009 at 10:32 PM
I know you’re a troll. You cannot possibly be both sick and stupid enough to be posting this tripe and mean it. At least I hope you’re not. Whether you mean it or not, though, you’re really coming off as a sick fuck, hope you know that.
splink on October 2, 2009 at 10:34 PM
The man had a polished approach to the girl. It wasn’t his first time, and it wasn’t his last. In Europe they work real hard to hide the elites bad behavior. Run his credit cards or those of his staff and see what hits you get.
I’ll bet there will be a place that offers little girls for a fee.
archer52 on October 2, 2009 at 10:35 PM
So you are saying that 13 year old bodies can handle sex with middleaged men? You sick freak.
nyx on October 2, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Stay down with your bad-self!
Gang-of-One on October 2, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Burn in eternal Hell, all of you who make light of what that man did, or would do it yourselves. Burn.
splink on October 2, 2009 at 10:38 PM
My view of humanity has dimmed considerably after this Polanski incident. If people cannot condemn a man who f**king raped a child, we have fallen so deeply into sin. I am just speechless.
nyx on October 2, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Please, tell me you mean “some of the creepy dudes.” What any male poster says speaks to his dirtbagness not that of “most men,” like some claim.
Gang-of-One on October 2, 2009 at 10:59 PM
I ain’t even religious, but I am a zealot in thinking you got that right.
Gang-of-One on October 2, 2009 at 11:04 PM
About a hundred years ago girls of 13 where not only on the cusp of womanhood, but also the cusp of adulthood.
You see, back then there was no such thing as “adolescence” – because of the shorter life span and the need to get out and work and build a family kids went straight from child to adult with no teenage years as adolescents.
But as health, education and wealth improved, we were able to give our children an extended childhood.
Now, we COULD debate whether that is good or bad, but the fact is that it happened.
Thus all this NAMBLA and pedophilic talk about how 13 year olds can make adult sexual decisions is pure BS.
We simply can not compare what once was and what is now.
Times and maturity have changed.
Today, 11 through 18 is considered a child and are viewed as children by everyone except 11 through 18 year olds…
…oh, and pedophiles who want to excuse their immoral and evil natures by talking about “beauty” and “naturalness.”
This isn’t “facts” or “nature” – this is evil and it should be noted as such.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2009 at 11:07 PM
What? You go street to street trolling for 13 year old girls, looking for a “sexy one” who’s cable of making intelligent decisions about sex? Sounds like an MO.
Gang-of-One on October 2, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Ugh, this thread makes me ill. I hope I live nowhere near any of you sickos claiming 13 year olds can have sex with adult men if they choose to. NO THEY CAN’T. It’s called consent, and they can’t do it at 13. I have two 13 year old nieces and I guarantee you they are nowhere near emotionally prepared for anything that comes along with sex. It’s not because they haven’t had proper sex ed either, it’s because they are just starting to learn who they are. Pregnancy, even if protection is used, is a possibility. Then what? Abortion? Yeah, sure why not. Let’s train ‘em young.
/rant off
thevastlane on October 2, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Anyone telling you that a 13 year old can make an intelligent decision about picking their clothes (much less about having sex) is a moron and/or a liar.
And they definitely have never worked with teens or had teenage children of their own.
And let’s put this in a little bit of perspective – 13 years old is 7th/8th grade – not even high school but MIDDLE school.
Some of them haven’t even had their first menstrual cycle yet.
So anyone telling you that a 13, 14, 15 year old can make an intelligent decision about sex is not only lying…
…but quite possibly also a pedophile.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Yes, sorry. The couple of guys who’ve tried to excuse sexual attraction to children – they’re the ones I meant.
splink on October 2, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Yes, back when men saw their daughters as bargaining chips and married them off for a new mule. The reason why this has changed, and is changing in areas which still practice this, is because enough childhoods have been ruined over the years and a change was sought.
Daemonocracy on October 2, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Professing feminists have long complained about males using their innate “power” to take sexual advantage of relatively powerless females. Yet with Clinton, genital mutilation, and other cases – and now Polanski – they seek to excuse it, remain silent about it, or even blame the victim.
Think about that a second: the most powerless females – children – they don’t defend when raped by pigs, at least not when the pig is ideologically aligned with the feminist.
Maybe not so odd, really…I forgot teen girls are only the second most powerless females. Unborn babies are THE most powerless, and feminists are fine with them being murdered. So their silence with Polanski and attacking Clinton’s accusers really shouldn’t surprise me, I guess. There’s room in Hell for them all.
splink on October 2, 2009 at 11:33 PM
The Other NAMBLA must be pissed off.
I didn’t scan the whole thread – has anyone defended Mohammed’s 6-year old wife Aisha (and their “consummation” at age 9) and how that’s “culturally acceptable” and to reject it is ethnocentric?
Are these the same folks who work at ACORN setting up rape-slavery rings with 13-year old girls?
If some folks are just going to throw out morality as a “modern invention” that should be historically ignored in favor of child rape, those of us who are anti-child rape are going to want to bring back tribal warfare, stoning, and maybe some Aztec sacrifice or sippenhaft to deal with the child molesters.
CPL 310 on October 2, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Why isn’t there a full blown boycott of Toys R Us since they’ve made Whoopie Goldberg, the child rape apologist, the disgusting stand up comic, and the big supporter of killing babies, the spokesperson for their “Special Needs” Children’s toy division?????????????????????????????????
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Yeah, but back then, the average life span was around 40 years. If you weren’t popping out babies by 14 or 15, you weren’t going to be around long enough to raise them.
Dave R. on October 2, 2009 at 11:55 PM
I know. I’m an old old-school dude that can’t comprehend that deviant garbage. A non-deviant man has an innate sense of duty to protect children.
Keep hammering away!
Gang-of-One on October 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Either attraction is a sign of a sexually immature and emotionally disturbed man.
No 13-year-old child is ready for true sexual intimacy because she still has an adult/child relationship with older men, let alone her physical development. I was still playing with Barbies and going to Disney movies when I was 13. My daughter is 18 and she would never consider dating anyone even 5-10 years her senior (anyone over 30 is definitely a “creeper”).
When I was 16, through an unfortunate circumstance, I was left stranded at the house of an older man (probably 30s) and was molested by him. I didn’t even try to stop him because he was an “adult” and I was very frightened. I allowed behavior that I would never have tolerated for a second even a few years later because I had the perspective and experience of a child. The creep knew it and took advantage of it. Anyone who thinks this type of behavior is o.k. is just flat wrong.
inmypajamas on October 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM
I’m so sorry. I cannot fathom your pain. I have been following these threads and some of the apologist/pedo sounding people scare the crap out of me. I can’t imagine how you must feel.
Exactly. Crazy things being said here.
thevastlane on October 3, 2009 at 12:14 AM
A lot of women know what it means to be victimized by an older man. It leaves life-long scars. Men who are excusing the sexual abuse of a young girl cannot begin to understand what that kind of experience does to a girl.
TXMomof3 on October 3, 2009 at 12:15 AM
That’s correct far as pedophiles go. For normal people, it’s the same thing.
Pedophiles, such as Polanski and possibly you, are preferential about age and/or appearance of the targeted child.
No matter what, it’s child sexual abuse and your defense of it as you have presented your ‘arguments’ and yourself makes me wonder about you.
Liam on October 3, 2009 at 12:32 AM
Note, friends, that AnninCA is avoiding this thread like the plague.
Maybe because she’s a disease among us, too, and she knows it?
All the libs’ defenses on this matter are crushed. Some in Hollywood are rising against Polanski, with France and Poland changing their views. With more evidence coming out, the trolls who posted here in defense of Romi are either running away or showing themselves to be possible pedophiles.
How I love winning!
Liam on October 3, 2009 at 12:45 AM
It also wasn’t so long ago that you’d be beaten bloody by passersby for saying so. Say, 1968.
Chris_Balsz on October 3, 2009 at 1:05 AM
(from HA:”Video: Ron Paul spins for Iran, of course”, yesterday)
At least we know where you get your “morals” from – Hamas.
No “most” men are not attracted to a 16 year old. Most grown men can tell the difference. Men who lust after a child – that is not “attraction” it’s violence. You lust after violating a child.
You and your fellow pedophile friends have argued for 3 days now for the rape of children. Yes it’s rape. They cannot consent – you cannot keep making up arguments to lower the age to convenience yourself into thinking it’s okay to look at a child & imagine violating them. Your premise is based on the violent desires of the pedophile and has nothing to do with the victim.
Children, be they 5, 13 or even 17 are not adults. They do not want the memory you want to give them. They want to be children, going to school, being with their friends, their family, normal day to day events… not have you end their childhood with your rationalized pedophilia.
All of you who so vigorously claim there is nothing wrong with you for your feelings – why don’t you ever talk about the feelings of the victims?
Thank you for speaking out. What that man did to you was wrong, you are a strong person to be able to have the insight to see it was not your fault. A lot of kids carry the burden of abuse, shame & a misplaced feeling of responsibility their while lives.
batterup on October 3, 2009 at 1:12 AM
somewhat related:
Obama’s “Safe” Schools Czar admires perverts:
agmartin on October 3, 2009 at 1:24 AM
Damn, Allah.
You’re hitting on all cylinders today.
BallisticBob on October 3, 2009 at 1:36 AM
According to the victim, who I believe, in her testimony, he said he had promised himself he wouldn’t do this with her, but of course he did.
It is the talk of an addict, who promised himself not to take this drink, or this hit, but did anyway.
I have no doubt he had done this many times before, and went on to do it many times again. This was just the time he got caught and couldn’t make his problem go away.
David Blue on October 3, 2009 at 1:40 AM
If asked at 13, my answer would’ve been, “Hell yes!” As a middle-aged mother with grown daughters, I can say with absolute certainty that that is precisely the problem.
NightmareOnKStreet on October 3, 2009 at 1:41 AM
If Polanski had any decency he wouldn’t have fled.
Now he needs to pay for both his cowardice and crime.
profitsbeard on October 3, 2009 at 2:08 AM
I caught Andrew Breitbart on Red Eye the other night. He seemed to be suggesting that there were more stories out there. I don’t know if he knew something or just thought it was likely based on the guy’s character.
But it made me wonder if Big Hollywood might have some scoops in store.
John on October 3, 2009 at 2:09 AM
Yikes. Did you read that old article. Steyn seemed to borrow a lot more than that one quote.
Heywood U. Reedmore on October 3, 2009 at 2:28 AM
Maybe Polanski can be Charlie Manson’s new roomie. I think we know who would end up as the “bitch” in the battle of the felonious midgets.
Travis Bickle on October 3, 2009 at 2:53 AM
Or those older than 18. If they could, AIDs would be virtually nonexistent, as would most stds, and unwanted pregnancies.
Frankly, this thread is an eye-opener. There are clearly a lot of naive parents out there. What you believe kids should be interested in and what they actually are interested in aren’t always the same thing. I hate to break it to ya….14-17 year old kids are interested in sex.
xblade on October 3, 2009 at 3:44 AM
FIFY.
He raped a child. He has no decency. This is a child rapist, not a man. If he had dragged your child off the schoolyard and raped them in the back of a van, it would’ve been functionally no different, except that this child rapist’s crimes are forgiven by the left as “acceptable losses” for his art, much like Mary Jo’s death was “a sacrifice” for Kennedy’s “greatness”.
I’m reminded of a joke that helps one regain perspective:
Q. What’s the difference between Neil Armstrong and Michael Jackson?
A. Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon, and Michael Jackson FUCKS LITTLE BOYS!
(That’s a great one to tell out loud to your friends. Much better spoken effect than written.)
Polanski rapes children. He pled guilty. There’s nothing remotely hinting at innocence. He’s not even lying to us and saying “he’s looking for the real rapist”. He’s just saying he should be able to – and other people are supporting him – since drugging and raping a child isn’t “rape-rape”, and that he’s right to do it, has done it many times, and that “everybody does it“.
Let’s not lose sight of what’s important here. This is a child rapist we’re talking about. There’s no question of guilt when pled guilty and now he’s trying to justify child molestation as acceptable to evade punishment.
CPL 310 on October 3, 2009 at 4:07 AM
Excellent point…goes back to at least Brooke Shields.
But, there are thousands and thousands of young underage girls out there in this country alone that are seduced, raped, whatever by boys their own age…and we consider that to be a ‘right of passage’ somehow. When there is a disparity of X number of years then it becomes an outrage.
Can’t figure out how that works.
Dr. ZhivBlago on October 3, 2009 at 4:26 AM
Probably most 18-year-olds can’t even make “intelligent, competent choices about sex” either.
mr_B
Or those older than 18. If they could, AIDs would be virtually nonexistent, as would most stds, and unwanted pregnancies.
Frankly, this thread is an eye-opener. There are clearly a lot of naive parents out there. What you believe kids should be interested in and what they actually are interested in aren’t always the same thing. I hate to break it to ya….14-17 year old kids are interested in sex.
xblade on October 3, 2009 at 3:44 AM
Jeff from WI on October 3, 2009 at 6:31 AM
If incendiary Right wing talk radio comments are responsible for the Kentucky census-taker’s death,
does that mean Left wing Hollywood’s incendiary pedophilia statements are responsible for any subsequent child rapes and murders? And shouldn’t magazines such as Time and Newsweek, that reported such hate speech, be prosecuted for hate speech themselves?
And the answer is, of course not, only Republicans and Conservatives can be guilty of provoking violence. Left wing loons like Mao and Stalin (responsible for 150 million 20th Century deaths) must always be excused (by Left wing MSM loons) because the guilty parties’ ends are pure.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 3, 2009 at 6:49 AM
You know this was a pattern of behavior that went on for years, and people in Hollywood and elsewhere just ignored it, as if it were some artistic quirk.
The man is a pervert.
Terrye on October 3, 2009 at 7:06 AM
I HOPE THEY FIND ALL OF HIS VICTIMS.
Once you step into sexual deviance like this, there is virutally no point of return, apart from an extreme intervention by God Himself. True child molestors such as this should be locked up and the key should be thrown away. I’d like to see them get the death penalty. Just think — that might “cut down” on these heinous acts against children & teens.
These people have no conscience.
balkanmom2 on October 3, 2009 at 7:08 AM
Makes one confirmed in the licentiousness of Hollywood stars. Why won’t they stand up? Skeletons? Scarred consciences? Dare I see it could be commonplace?
balkanmom2 on October 3, 2009 at 7:15 AM
Didn`t Polanski admit he was guilty and skipped the country before he was to do time or whatever?
albill on October 3, 2009 at 7:30 AM
yep, below is a quote via Hotair, from the source, Washington Post:
balkanmom2 on October 3, 2009 at 7:42 AM
mr_B on October 2, 2009
—
It is quite clear with mr_B’s reaction to this story that he is ill. He goes a long way to explain away child rape. Previously in a thread on atheism he derided the rules of religion. Hmmm make your own deduction.
CWforFreedom on October 3, 2009 at 7:44 AM
See my 744am post
CWforFreedom on October 3, 2009 at 7:46 AM
Dr, who in their right mind would consider the rape of an underage girl by a boy her own age a “right of passage?”
Can’t figure out how that works.
Gang-of-One on October 3, 2009 at 8:11 AM
It doesn’t work. Not in the United States of America.
Rape is prosecuted. Rape has never been a rite of passage. It is a crime, even between teenagers.
balkanmom2 on October 3, 2009 at 8:19 AM
No doubt. It sure as hell don’t work in my world.
Maybe DrZ isn’t in his right mind this morning due to the early hour and lack of coffee, or something. I hope that’s the case.
Gang-of-One on October 3, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Dr. ZhivBlago on October 3, 2009 at 4:26 AM
Can we get a squad car to go by Dr Zhit for brains’ house. Make sure to check the basement.
ronnyraygun on October 3, 2009 at 8:40 AM
I’m sure Jack Webb and Sgt Friday would get to the bottom of it.
Gang-of-One on October 3, 2009 at 8:43 AM
How can men who find any kind of relationship with a child so repugnant that they’d literally strangle the guy with their bare hands if they could get the chance, get that point of importance across to people if WOMEN find some stupid convoluted way to defend it???!!!
Jeff from WI on October 3, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Society is so sick it’s gone beyond justice being served by law enforcement. It’s quickly going to a point where vigilante justice will need to prevail to find justice against societies creeps.
Jeff from WI on October 3, 2009 at 8:55 AM
Ya’… What he said.
ronnyraygun on October 3, 2009 at 9:02 AM
That’s a really scary thought, dude, buuuuut…our future just might be that dark.
In the mean time I’d prefer we rethink our revolving-door penalties for sexual predators of any stripe.
Gang-of-One on October 3, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Me too! Extreme consequences. It’s appropriate.
balkanmom2 on October 3, 2009 at 9:26 AM
I agree. But, it’s kind of hard to do when people high up in the BO administration have these kind of skeletons:
“A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an ‘older man.’ At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama’s ‘safe school czar.’ … Clearly, the process for vetting White House employees has broken down,” the Times editorial board said.
That’s our government. No wonder people don’t fear the law.
balkanmom2 on October 3, 2009 at 9:30 AM
The Husband just made a great point about Mr. Polanski that may have been brought up earlier so if I am repeating, sorry. He would have been just as guilty if he had done the same thing to a thirty year old woman. The only difference is that maybe a thirty year old would be a more savvy but considering all the “adults” falling in line to protest his arrest I am not to sure.
Cindy Munford on October 3, 2009 at 9:40 AM
You got it right. Sadly, we could multiply the example you gave by a million and still not run out of examples.
Extreme consequences sounds more than reasonable to me.
Gang-of-One on October 3, 2009 at 10:13 AM
http://www.veteranoutrage.com
ow personally i worked with some persons who were convicted
of various crimes. My dad used to take me to the state prison where he worked with various inmates in prison..
So i know that sometimes there are men who honestly repent
Ok – if they served their time and repented of their evil deeds then they can come back into society..
But when i see ALL of hollywoods actors
supporting these disgusting perverts…
ot because of their repentance because they didnt repent at all no these perverts are out in front of the tv camera
yuking it up about how many young girls they raped,
and this is what hollywood is defending…
Why do you think hollywood is so scared about this creep being busted..
Becasue that was ALL of the celebrities plans..
That if they get busted to run to france.. and hide out..
or thats what they thought..
I hope that justice is served..
veteranoutrage on October 3, 2009 at 10:48 AM
“This is the first time I ever broke the speed limit, officer. Honest.”
Akzed on October 3, 2009 at 12:10 PM
By the time I was 13, I was already my adult height, over 2 years into puberty, and a freshman in high school. At 18, I was a graduate and in the Navy – and dating a man twice my age. 19, I was pregnant (different guy). It wasn’t until I was 20 that I was able to make an intelligent decision about sex. I am now 26, and as a mother, I want my own daughter to be more innocent than I was at half my age – and I actually was pretty darn innocent at that age. It scares me to think of how much things have changed – and I remember how bad the pressure was back then to be sexy as a young teenager.
Polanski is a disgrace to humanity. Dude’s a repeat offender – sexual predators never change.
Anna on October 3, 2009 at 12:36 PM
“It wasn’t long ago that 13-year-old girls were being married off to men much older than themselves.”
-
. . . and women were legally property and wedding night rape was not an uncommon experience. The real meat here is why are the creepy hotair porn-addicts turning a situation where a person was raped — she repeatedly said no even after being drugged — into a discussion about whether a consenting 13 year old having sex is acceptable. The former _is_ always going to be far worse than the latter, even if the latter is unacceptable. The Polanski case is the former and not the latter. It is a captial ‘r’ no qualifiers needed RAPE. It would have been rape at 5 years of age as well as 13, 18, 25, 40, and 80 years of age. There was no consent, so why are we talking about the theoretical consenting 13 year old?
Simona on October 3, 2009 at 1:42 PM
This poll refers to him as a former child sex predator?
http://poll4us.com/opinions/polanski/?a=30750&b=11&c1=
Dr Evil on October 3, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Isn’t Michael Mann coming out with a movie?
Dr Evil on October 3, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Here is what he has in the works I don’t need to watch anything he produces. This link mentions his Free Polanski stance.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000520/
Dr Evil on October 3, 2009 at 5:43 PM
You guys are cracking me up on the history lesson about marrying off 13 year olds. Any discussion about their maturity as individuals is a waste – the concept of marriage had nothing to do with that.
The marriages were property arrangements, the girls were considered available after menstruation, but could be bargained before then, and in many of the aristocratic or royal families, the consumation was put off until the girl was of age – the marriage was a contract – sex was a given and ultimately useful to produce an heir.
You cannot discuss our modern concept of a 13 year old girl’s sexual immaturity as if it was even CONSIDERED in history.
That being said – Polanski is not medieval or whatever. He’s a tired old cliche of a Hollywood jackass who jumps the younger girls and got caught at it.
In short – a pig. A criminal pig.
ace tomato on October 5, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Sorry for the rambling posts – Harrison Ford came out and defended Polanski and I have gone into mourning (ahem liquid mourning). Han Solo. Han Solo defends the perv.
Sigh.
ace tomato on October 5, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2