Polanski victim to publish memoir

posted at 11:01 am on July 28, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Samantha Geimer, the childhood victim of convicted rapist Roman Polanski, is releasing her own memoir in September. In it, she promises to finally tell her side of the story and how the attack by the perverted monster Polanski has affected her life. In an interesting twist, some of the pre-release attention being paid to the book is focusing on the long lost photo – shot by her rapist – which she chose to use for the book cover.

Two months before its release, Samantha Geimer’s memoir is already making headlines, after the release of its striking cover image.

The book, “The Girl: A Life in the Shadow of Roman Polanski,” features a photograph of a young Samantha (then known as Samantha Gailey, her maiden name) taken by Polanski himself on Feb. 20, 1977…

Atria’s vice president and director of publicity, Paul Olsewski, told TODAY that Geimer’s lawyer, Lawrence Silver, demanded all photographs of Samantha be handed over during civil litigation. While Polanski had turned over prints of Geimer, Silver believed there were more, and ultimately was able to uncover a series of images, including the one that now appears on Geimer’s book.

You can see the full photo at the link. This is just such a disturbing story on so many levels, and one which we’ve covered here before on a number of occasions. Geimer has been victimized repeatedly over the course of her life, not only by the monster who defiled her, but by Hollywood and the wider national media who can’t quite seem to bring themselves to admit that their “hero” Polanski could have been all that bad. Ed described this succinctly back in 2009 when the US was trying unsuccessfully to extradite Polanski back from France to finally pay for his crimes.

Over thirty years ago, Roman Polanski fled the US after being charged with statutory rape. The victim, a 13-year-old girl, accused the then-44 film director of forced sexual intercourse and sodomy. After getting generous terms of release during the pretrial procedures, he fled to France in 1978 and has never returned. A Los Angeles court convicted Polanski in absentia…

In some ways, it should hardly surprise anyone that the film industry would try to rehabilitate Polanski. His annual appearances at Cannes always come with the wistful reminder that he cannot travel to the US or practically anywhere else without fear of extradition. These usually neglect to mention Polanski’s conviction, and also the brutal nature of the crime against a girl who could barely be called adolescent.

That was more than four years ago, and sadly not much has changed since then. Take a look at how the LA Times chooses to describe the release of this new book. (Emphasis mine.)

Samantha Geimer, the woman Roman Polanski was convicted of having sex with when she was 13, has released a provocative cover for her new memoir, “The Girl: A Life in the Shadow of Roman Polanski.”

The image is a photograph that the “Chinatown” director took of Geimer in 1977, three weeks before the notorious night that changed both of their lives.

Are. You. Kidding. Me?

He didn’t “have sex with” her. He raped and sodomized a confused, star-struck child after drugging her. And describing the brutal, animal assault as “the night that changed both of their lives” is insulting beyond belief. But somehow the press in LaLaLand can’t shake free of this narrative. And the monster remains on the loose in Europe, frequently feted by his adoring army of supporters in California. It is to weep.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Based on a long history of this commenter’s threads of choice and the “arguments” put forward, I would say we are cramping his style. People don’t rationalize this hard without a reason.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 10:26 AM

CAL. PEN. CODE § 261 : California Code – Section 261 – Rape

(a)Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:

(1)Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving consent.

(2)Where it is accomplished against a person’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.

(3)Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.

(4)Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:

(A)Was unconscious or asleep.

(B)Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.

(C)Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraud in fact.

(D)Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.

(5)Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is the victim’s spouse, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.

(6)Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph, “threatening to retaliate” means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death.

(7)Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used in this paragraph, “public official” means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.

(b)As used in this section, “duress” means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress.

(c)As used in this section, “menace” means any threat, declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Being falsely accused of rape is much worse than being actually raped. Given the choice of doing 6 years in prison or putting out to someone you didn’t want to, I’d say that 99% of people would choose the rape over losing 6 years of their life.

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 7:54 AM

Spoken by someone, who have obviously never been raped.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 10:19 AM

kaltes’ statement qualifies as one of the bizarrest I’ve seen at HA – what kind of person would come up with a thought like that? Wow…

Anti-Control on July 29, 2013 at 10:33 AM

How do you know she was drugged and didn’t take them voluntarily?

nonpartisan on July 28, 2013 at 11:57 PM

She couldn’t take them voluntarily under the law. When an adult supplies a child with drugs and alcohol, IT IS A CRIME.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 10:34 AM

In a sane world Hollywood and reporters were spontaneously combust or be struck with lightning. Since this world is insane then the way I’ve chosen to bring down my own lightning storm is to refuse to purchase any of their products. I very rarely go to the movies and don’t ever purchase newspapers or magazines. Everything I need to know I can get on the blogs and internet news sources.

An industry that advocates for the biggest crook ever to sit in the oval office, that advocates for abortion and pedaphilia is nothing I want to support.

F em!

neyney on July 29, 2013 at 10:34 AM

would not were…geesh

neyney on July 29, 2013 at 10:35 AM

kaltes’ statement qualifies as one of the bizarrest I’ve seen at HA – what kind of person would come up with a thought like that? Wow…

Anti-Control on July 29, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Someone who has never been raped.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Based on a long history of this commenter’s threads of choice and the “arguments” put forward, I would say we are cramping his style. People don’t rationalize this hard without a reason.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Indeed.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Someone who has never been raped.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 10:35 AM

There is a lot more to it than that…

Anti-Control on July 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Sure but maybe someone who has been accused of rape?

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Folks, it is useless to reply to kaltes. This is a person who comments exclusively on threads about the age of consent, which apparently should be lowered to six in this person’s opinion. Yes I am exaggerating (I hope) but there has to be something wrong with someone who has to coerce young girls to have sex and it would appear it is our co-commenters only option.
Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Not surprised in the least to learn that kaltes has a history of being attracted to threads that discuss sex with children.

I got a very funny feeling from just his comments here.

Beware anyone who tries to minimize harm done by child rape and molestation. That should raise all kinds of red flags.

In my opinion, saying, “having sex with young teens and children doesn’t do the harm you fuddy-duddies think it does, so let the kids experiment and express their sexuality!” can be translated as, “I’d like to try it with the youngsters. What a shame those puritanical, judgey laws prevent me from giving it a go.”

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Yep, that’s my take. Let’s just hope your last sentence is true and it is indeed a deterrent.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Beware anyone who tries to minimize harm done by child rape and molestation. That should raise all kinds of red flags.

In my opinion, saying, “having sex with young teens and children doesn’t do the harm you fuddy-duddies think it does, so let the kids experiment and express their sexuality!” can be translated as, “I’d like to try it with the youngsters. What a shame those puritanical, judgey laws prevent me from giving it a go.”

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I don’t agree with you very often, but today I do.

Kaltes and his ilk give me the willies. Makes me want to hug my children tighter to me.

melle1228 on July 29, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Not surprised in the least to learn that kaltes has a history of being attracted to threads that discuss sex with children.

I got a very funny feeling from just his comments here.

Beware anyone who tries to minimize harm done by child rape and molestation. That should raise all kinds of red flags.

In my opinion, saying, “having sex with young teens and children doesn’t do the harm you fuddy-duddies think it does, so let the kids experiment and express their sexuality!” can be translated as, “I’d like to try it with the youngsters. What a shame those puritanical, judgey laws prevent me from giving it a go.”

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM

100% correct. The psuedo-intellectual closet child-fckers on here that are attempting to argue the “nuances” of the case need to be curb stomped.

Sometimes issues are black and white. A child was abused by a sniveling little, pvssy, leftist artist. End of story. Him and the mother of the victim should be community property at the worst prison possible in Saudi Arabia.

ClassicCon on July 29, 2013 at 11:21 AM

She couldn’t take them voluntarily under the law. When an adult supplies a child with drugs and alcohol, IT IS A CRIME.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 10:34 AM

No Doubt.

Perhaps the HBO doc has been mention ed in the thread – but I recall seeing that and learning that Polanski did not, as I always thought, flee arrest. In fact he turned himself in faced the charges fully.
The story then gets a bit more complicated. The juge on the case was a buffoon and a liar – even the former prosecutors admit Polanski’s trial was a mess.
This doesn’t absolve him of his actions, but the story about his fleeing etc. has for most part been false.

verbaluce on July 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM

verbaluce on July 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Then it sounds that he had grounds for appeal. Although mess or not, justifying having sex the a thirteen year old sounds like an uphill battle to me. Or at least it should be. The same argument is made about SCOTUS’s decision on Roe V. Wade and yet it remains the law of the land. Stuff happens.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 11:35 AM

verbaluce on July 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM

The facts of the story have been repeatedly misrepresented…even Morrissey got them wrong in his 2009 article referred to in this HA post, which I pointed out early on in this thread.

Polanski didn’t flee arrest. He fled sentencing. He pleaded guilty to one charge in exchange for the prosecution dropping the other 5. He was ordered to undergo and psychiatric evaluation, which must have been resulted in some problematic ‘findings’ (and were going to be included in the sentencing report), because he had thought (I don’t know whether it was based on actual negotiations, his counsel’s opinion, or delusion) that he would be sentenced to probation. When he learned that he would almost certainly be sent to prison and then deported, he fled to Europe.

I do recall reading that there were a lot of behind the scenes hijinks going on in the Polanski criminal justice proceedings, but I don’t recall all of the details and whether it would be fair of me to say that they were all anti-Polanski.

Having said all of this, Polanski was guilty of statutory rape because there was no real defence available to him given her age. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. Thus, he admitted his guilt on some level, at least. Those that make the ‘it wasn’t rape-rape’ are excusing his criminal and immoral behaviour.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 11:43 AM

verbaluce on July 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Then it sounds that he had grounds for appeal. Although mess or not, justifying having sex the a thirteen year old sounds like an uphill battle to me. Or at least it should be. The same argument is made about SCOTUS’s decision on Roe V. Wade and yet it remains the law of the land. Stuff happens.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 11:35 AM

His defense wasn’t to justify his actions.
As part of a plea, he served 40 days or something.
As his side tells it, he was then to be released or given a lighter sentence than what was allowable. Then reportedly, the media craving judge reneged/blocked the deal the defense/prosecution had worked out. And that’s when Polanski fled.

I don’t have any sympathy for RP. He’s lived a charmed life, despite any claims he might make to the contrary. I’ve never seen him express any sincere remorse for his actions.
That said, it seems that he indeed was not treated fairly and honestly by the court he surrendered himself to.
So jeers to them too.

verbaluce on July 29, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Those that make the ‘it wasn’t rape-rape’ are excusing his criminal and immoral behaviour.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Even if she showed up naked and brought the drugs with her – it’s rape. And not just in the legal sense.

verbaluce on July 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Even if she showed up naked and brought the drugs with her – it’s rape. And not just in the legal sense.

verbaluce on July 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Agreed. He was 44 and she was 13. That’s not only illegal, it’s immoral. One doesn’t even have to get into the ‘Puritanical sex code’ weeds either. It is flat out child abuse, which I consider to be immoral.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Oh, I bet you did read that deposition. I bet you also saved a copy to your phone and read it many times for some “satisfaction.” Enjoy all those details about a 44 year old man raping a 13 year old girl. Did you imagine yourself as Polanski while you read it? Fun fantasy for you?

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 9:03 AM

I honestly believe that people like you are engaging in what is called PROJECTION, as in: you have those sick thoughts in your own mind, and your brain backlashes against your own sick, perverted thoughts, so you come online and accuse everyone else of being a pervert because deep down, that is exactly what you are.

I have never seen such perverse thoughts, as those expressed by so-called zealots who are supposedly anti-pervert.

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Oh you got me, I spelled something wrong as I was dashing off to work. Do you understand that auto-correct sometimes corrects things wrong. Probably not.

melle1228 on July 29, 2013 at 9:03 AM

No, you are just a dumb person who spelled exactly what you intended, and simply didn’t understand the difference between the words.

You have NO IDEA what it is like to be raped, so please don’t tell me what would have “been worse” for the girl. Sometimes women have more of a time coming to grips with the rape if they weren’t beaten.

So violent rape is not worse than non-violent rape? LOL you are an idiot.

Wow, you are making a moral equivalent of being falsely accused of being raped and being raped. How the HELL do you know what is worse? Do you know what it is like to be raped? Probably not, since most of the time you troll the boards that talk about minor sex, age of consent, and child rape on Hot Air. We ALL know that you identify MORE with the rapist than the rape victim.

melle1228 on July 29, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Actually no, I talk about a lot more than “minor sex, age of consent, and child rape” but you wouldn’t know, since you and your cadre of “child sex regulars” ONLY click the child sex articles, so you’ve never seen my posts elsewhere.

I didn’t make a moral equivalent, idiot, I said going to prison for many years is WORSE than being raped.

I think any human being, male or female, can conceptualize what being raped would be like. After all, I’ve had to fight off some pretty horny girls before!

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Folks, it is useless to reply to kaltes. This is a person who comments exclusively on threads about the age of consent, which apparently should be lowered to six in this person’s opinion. Yes I am exaggerating (I hope) but there has to be something wrong with someone who has to coerce young girls to have sex and it would appear it is our co-commenters only option.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Actually no, as I told your other pervert comrade, I comment on a wide variety of topics here at Hot Air, you perverts just don’t see them because you ONLY visit topics that have to do with child sex. So ironically, you just indicted yourself with the very accusation you intended to level at me. lol

As for my thoughts on the age of consent, I’ve never called for it to be lowered. I’m sure you will feverishly search through my post history looking to prove me wrong. Feel free. I’ve also never defended Polanski, and have quite clearly called him a rapist.

I think you perverts who come to these topics calling for blood have profound guilt issues. Maybe you molested a child in the past, and now you feel so much guilt you try to make up for it by raging on topics like these. Pretty disgusting, really.

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Polanski is no better than that kidnapper in Cleveland, Ariel Castro. Why do the idiot lefties just walk in lock step to defend the cretin?

kirkill on July 29, 2013 at 1:29 PM

I said going to prison for many years is WORSE than being raped.

Have you ever been raped?

I have…so please don’t tell me what is ‘worse.’

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM

This:
kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Somehow defends this bizarre statement?

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 7:54 AM

kirkill on July 29, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Being falsely accused of rape is much worse than being actually raped. Given the choice of doing 6 years in prison or putting out to someone you didn’t want to, I’d say that 99% of people would choose the rape over losing 6 years of their life.

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 7:54 AM

You are a brain dead, pathetc excuse for a human being…

jimver on July 29, 2013 at 2:13 PM

I think any human being, male or female, can conceptualize what being raped would be like. After all, I’ve had to fight off some pretty horny girls before!

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Hhaha :)…in your head, sure, in reality no female (or human being in general) would give a second thought or look to a sick individual such as yourself…go get help, though you seem helpess based in yiur comments here…

jimver on July 29, 2013 at 2:24 PM

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Look and you’re a fibber to. Who would have thought?

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I think any human being, male or female, can conceptualize what being raped would be like. After all, I’ve had to fight off some pretty horny girls before!

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM

F*ck off with your ‘conceptualisation.’

When you are raped, then you can tell me that it isn’t as bad as going to prison.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Slushfund is a perv and an enabler.

CW on July 28, 2013 at 2:40 PM

He was born that way doncha know so dont be a bigot!

/s

Nutstuyu on July 29, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Even if she showed up naked and brought the drugs with her – it’s rape. And not just in the legal sense.

verbaluce on July 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Agreed. He was 44 and she was 13. That’s not only illegal, it’s immoral. One doesn’t even have to get into the ‘Puritanical sex code’ weeds either. It is flat out child abuse, which I consider to be immoral.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Wait, what? Something is immoral?? Funny we’re not allowed to say that about homosexuality. Just remember, “adult” is a legal term that has been changed often over the centuries.

Nutstuyu on July 29, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Maybe you molested a child in the past, and now you feel so much guilt you try to make up for it by raging on topics like these. Pretty disgusting, really.

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 1:23 PM

And so what if they are? Often the biggest advocates for cracking down on something are those guilty of it in the past and who survived the consequences.

Nutstuyu on July 29, 2013 at 2:55 PM

I am going to pop back in to apologize to kaltes for saying he comments exclusively on age of consent threads. That isn’t true, he has visited other subjects as well with reasoned arguments, therein lies the difference. I still find that I disagree with him most of the time but that isn’t criteria for being inaccurate.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Hhaha :)…in your head, sure, in reality no female (or human being in general) would give a second thought or look to a sick individual such as yourself…go get help, though you seem helpess based in yiur comments here…

jimver on July 29, 2013 at 2:24 PM

In reality, one of those women I had to fight off was your mother. :)

Look and you’re a fibber to. Who would have thought?

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Look and you’re a pedo-raper like Polanski. Who would have thought?

When you are raped, then you can tell me that it isn’t as bad as going to prison.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 2:28 PM

I was raped before. A girl told me that if I didn’t have sex with her right away, I’d have to drive her home. I felt duress since this would be retribution on her part that made me do something I otherwise would not have done. After all, I was tired. This meets the legal definition of rape, as well as the liberal one.

So as someone who has been raped, I can say it was quite enjoyable, once I got into it. Since you seem to think that being raped gives a person the Absolute Moral Authority to have an Opinion, consider my opinion to carry enormous weight now.

Needless to say, I drove her home in the morning, and didn’t press charges.

Often the biggest advocates for cracking down on something are those guilty of it in the past and who survived the consequences.

Nutstuyu on July 29, 2013 at 2:55 PM

I agree. That was my point.

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 3:25 PM

I was raped before. A girl told me that if I didn’t have sex with her right away, I’d have to drive her home. I felt duress since this would be retribution on her part that made me do something I otherwise would not have done. After all, I was tired. This meets the legal definition of rape, as well as the liberal one.

So as someone who has been raped, I can say it was quite enjoyable, once I got into it. Since you seem to think that being raped gives a person the Absolute Moral Authority to have an Opinion, consider my opinion to carry enormous weight now.

Needless to say, I drove her home in the morning, and didn’t press charges.

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Something is truly wrong with you.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 3:30 PM

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Oh good, you accepted my apology, good for you.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Wait, what? Something is immoral?? Funny we’re not allowed to say that about homosexuality.

Nutstuyu on July 29, 2013 at 2:53 PM

I’ve never said that nothing was immoral. You can say whatever the f*ck you want about homosexuality.

Just remember, “adult” is a legal term that has been changed often over the centuries.

Because of society. It wasn’t all that long ago, when as a woman, I wouldn’t have been allowed to own property or vote either. I wouldn’t have been considered to be an ‘adult.’ Fortunately, society left Neanderthals like you behind.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Sure and we could have been married by 14 and had children and died at 40. It must have been so cool in the olden days.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Something is truly wrong with you.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 3:30 PM

It’s much more worthwhile to passively watch kaltes disgourge his whacked-out & self-absorbed thoughts than it is to directly interact with him! :)

Anti-Control on July 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Sure and we could have been married by 14 and had children and died at 40. It must have been so cool in the olden days.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 3:40 PM

lol

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 4:39 PM

It’s much more worthwhile to passively watch kaltes disgourge his whacked-out & self-absorbed thoughts than it is to directly interact with him! :)

Anti-Control on July 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Indeed.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Fathers Without Borders, aka Fathers Who Don’t Need Extradition.

Lifetime member.

Geministorm on July 29, 2013 at 5:40 PM

No, you are just a dumb person who spelled exactly what you intended, and simply didn’t understand the difference between the words.

4

Sure that is it genius.. I don’t know what a deposition is.. Even though I have worked as a family law Paralegal for years.. Yep, that must be it.

So violent rape is not worse than non-violent rape? LOL you are an idiot.

Again with the moral equivalents. Yes, sometimes it is EASIER for a rape victim to get over being raped if there is physical force. It is easier to justify why she was raped. You are quite dense. I have been raped. I have also worked with rape victims.. And you? Well beside having to get a girl home and all..

I didn’t make a moral equivalent, idiot, I said going to prison for many years is WORSE than being raped.

I think any human being, male or female, can conceptualize what being raped would be like. After all, I’ve had to fight off some pretty horny girls before!

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM

No, you said being ACCUSED OF RAPE is worse than being raped. Learn to read yourself sport. And no, until you are raped, you can’t conceptualize what it is like. The fact that you make fighting off “horny girl” comparison just shows how out of touch you actually are.

melle1228 on July 29, 2013 at 6:05 PM

I was raped before. A girl told me that if I didn’t have sex with her right away, I’d have to drive her home. I felt duress since this would be retribution on her part that made me do something I otherwise would not have done. After all, I was tired. This meets the legal definition of rape, as well as the liberal one…[snip]

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 3:25 PM

You’re joking that you think this is rape…right?

kaltes can’t be that ridiculous. Can he?

inviolet on July 29, 2013 at 7:13 PM

kaltes can’t be that ridiculous. Can he?

inviolet on July 29, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Sure he can.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Being falsely accused of rape is much worse than being actually raped. Given the choice of doing 6 years in prison or putting out to someone you didn’t want to, I’d say that 99% of people would choose the rape over losing 6 years of their life.

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 7:54 AM

I had to log in for the first time in a very long while (habitual lurker) to address this. I have been raped twice in my life, once as a minor (at 16). I am quite positive I’ve lost more than 6 years off of my life from my experiences. I don’t know a single victim of rape who would choose rape over any amount of time in prison. It’s so much more than just “putting out to someone you didn’t want to.” It’s not about sex at all, it’s about domination, control, and power.

I have read a lot of nonsense on the internet, but this is beyond nonsense. It’s a sick, twisted way of looking at rape. I’ve typed and erased several things at this point: I just cannot find the appropriate words for what I want to say. I guess I never imagined having to search for them in the first place.

As to the memoir, I won’t be reading it (not my thing), but I hope she’s found some closure. I also hope Polanski falls off the face of the earth unceremoniously.

Anna on July 29, 2013 at 8:37 PM

I have been raped twice in my life

you know what they say, rape me once, shame on you, rape me twice, shame on me.

I am quite positive I’ve lost more than 6 years off of my life from my experiences.

unless those rapists had some ungodly stamina, i’m gonna say your actual lost time was more like 5 minutes.

It’s not about sex at all, it’s about domination, control, and power.

No, it’s actually about sex. Your nonsense about power and control is feminist tripe.

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 9:27 PM

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 9:27 PM

You really are a jackass.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM

you know what they say, rape me once, shame on you, rape me twice, shame on me.

Well, yes and no. The self-destructive behavior from the first rape did eventually lead me to being in the position to be raped again by a different person. I do accept responsibility for my actions, but I know that neither rapist took responsibility for theirs.

unless those rapists had some ungodly stamina, i’m gonna say your actual lost time was more like 5 minutes.

I assure you, longer than 5 minutes is neither ungodly stamina nor unusual at all. Unlike you, I also count the recovery time, both physical and emotional. That’s over 14 years for the latter.

No, it’s actually about sex. Your nonsense about power and control is feminist tripe.

So that 19 year old possibly illegal immigrant who raped the 93 year old woman (who sadly died from the ordeal 2 days later) did it because he found her sexually stimulating? Funny, because he’s already admitted that he did it because he was mad at women. I dunno, though, maybe she was wearing a really short skirt.

I really, really hate those women who cry wolf about rape and those who enable them. They have done a grave disservice to those of us who really have suffered, causing people to discount all rape and to insinuate that it’s not really a big deal. I’m truly sorry if you’ve been falsely accused, kaltes, but you shouldn’t take it out on every other woman – I sure as hell don’t see a rapist in every man I come across.

Anna on July 29, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Anna on July 29, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Please don’t let that horrible piece of garbage goad you into taking any kind of blame for attacks made on you. You don’t owe him or anyone else any kind of explanation. You seem to be a strong person but kaltes isn’t interested in your self preservation only in his needs.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 10:44 PM

How do you know she was drugged and didn’t take them voluntarily?

noforeskin on July 28, 2013 at 11:57 PM

…yep!…another Harvard grad!

KOOLAID2 on July 30, 2013 at 12:13 AM

kaltes on July 29, 2013

…FOADMF!

KOOLAID2 on July 30, 2013 at 12:14 AM

No, it’s actually about sex. Your nonsense about power and control is feminist tripe.

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 9:27 PM

If I wanted binary thinking, I’d talk to my computer. It involves sex, yes, but that’s where it ends.

John the Libertarian on July 30, 2013 at 12:22 AM

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I do not usually agree with you… I do in this matter.

conservative tarheel on July 30, 2013 at 2:21 AM

Please don’t let that horrible piece of garbage goad you into taking any kind of blame for attacks made on you. You don’t owe him or anyone else any kind of explanation. You seem to be a strong person but kaltes isn’t interested in your self preservation only in his needs.

Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Anna, for your sake, please listen to Cindy – conversations with the completely self-centered kaltes go only one direction, and he either doesn’t care or is too stupid to realize it.

People like him just aren’t worth talking to, as all you’ll end up doing is feeding their egos somehow & give them more opportunities to be abusive…

Anti-Control on July 30, 2013 at 2:59 AM

We need to repeal the Hollywood tax cuts and diminish the influence of Hollywood.

A community that treats Roman Polanski as a star is depraved, and allowing a depraved community to shape popular culture ensures moral corruption.

David Blue on July 30, 2013 at 3:12 AM

you know what they say, rape me once, shame on you, rape me twice, shame on me.

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 9:27 PM

You are a despicable human being.

inviolet on July 30, 2013 at 7:30 AM

His defense wasn’t to justify his actions.
As part of a plea, he served 40 days or something.
As his side tells it, he was then to be released or given a lighter sentence than what was allowable. Then reportedly, the media craving judge reneged/blocked the deal the defense/prosecution had worked out. And that’s when Polanski fled.

I don’t have any sympathy for RP. He’s lived a charmed life, despite any claims he might make to the contrary. I’ve never seen him express any sincere remorse for his actions.
That said, it seems that he indeed was not treated fairly and honestly by the court he surrendered himself to.
So jeers to them too.

verbaluce on July 29, 2013 at 11:47 AM

All prosecution deals have to be approved by the Court. The prosecution has quite a bit of leeway in crafting deals, but the deals still have to meet statutory requirements, etc. and the Court still has to approve them. If (as Polanski’s team argues) the prosecution tried to give him some kind of illegal sweetheart deal, the Court could not approve it.

I don’t doubt that the prosecutors tried to protect him – we’ve repeatedly seen how stars do not face the same consequences for their actions as regular people – but that does not justify him fleeing.

The bottom line continues to be that he raped a 13 year-old girl, thought he was going to get away with it (perhaps because the prosecutor was trying to help him get away with it) and when the Court pointed out that the law does not allow that – he fled.

So, your “a pox on both their houses” routine is silly at best. Yes, the prosecutors – if Polanski’s version is true – were idiots and corrupt too. But that doesn’t somehow mean Polasnki was treated unfairly or wrong. Instead, it means the prosecution tried to corruptly help him get away with rape and when that didn’t seem to work out, he fled.

I’m not sure why you would want to defend him. (Yes, yes, I know, you “aren’t defending him”. But really, you implicitly are by pretending that his fleeing was somehow justifiable because the prosecutor wasn’t going to be able to keep up his end of the bargain on helping Polanski get away with rape of a thirteen year-old.

Monkeytoe on July 30, 2013 at 8:07 AM

Cindy and Anti-control,
You guys are right. I let my indignation get the better of me; I fed the troll.

I feel better now, at least about this. Thank you two. :)

Anna on July 30, 2013 at 8:39 AM

I feel better now, at least about this. Thank you two. :)

Anna on July 30, 2013 at 8:39 AM

Cindy and Anti-control are good guys. Those of us watching were sorry to see you subjected to that [expletive deleted]; glad you’re feeling better today.

inviolet on July 30, 2013 at 8:51 AM

you know what they say, rape me once, shame on you, rape me twice, shame on me.

kaltes on July 29, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Disgusting and predictable.

Anna on July 29, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Thank you for your story. I am sorry that you got the response you did.

melle1228 on July 30, 2013 at 12:06 PM

“I think any human being, male or female, can conceptualize what being raped would be like. After all, I’ve had to fight off some pretty horny girls before!”

Wow, just … wow.

It is clear to see that society’s norms and mores and your own don’t cross paths.

1. Two people get amorous and one of them attempts to call a halt to the progression, which the other ignores.

2. Someone engages in sexual acts with someone incapable of consent, based upon age, consciousness or mental facilities.

3. An assault, with a sexual component (not necessarily intercourse, sodomy or oral, which the assailant may not even be capable of). The assailant could use inanimate objects or even weapons to perpetrate their assault.

All of these are rape. The first type probably rarely even gets reported, let alone tried in court. And yet, kaltes is stuck in a world where “sex” with a partner you didn’t “want” is all he can grasp.

Plain and simple, Polanski is a pedophile. When partners of consenting age are available (and given Polanski’s fame, wealth, and social standings, probably many were willing), and yet someone chooses a minor to act upon, they are not engaging in acceptable sexual behavior. The person knows what they are doing is wrong (because it’s taboo, or they can dominate, or perhaps just the power trip of being able to force someone do whatever they wish), and yet they engage in the behavior anyway.

Aside from being a moron, and having a limited ability to conceptualize just about anything, I’ll wager that you (kaltes) probably could imagine being in prison and having some men hold you down and force themselves upon you…perhaps that will seem a little more, shall we say, “less desirable”, than just fighting off “horny girls”? There’s a big difference between choosing not to engage in sexual activities with a girl and someone(s) forcing something upon you that you don’t want. Normally, you might not find it enjoyable to have someone stick a phallus in your anus without consideration for any kind of comfort or physical damage that it might bring you, let alone any diseases it might make you susceptable to, but then again you wouldn’t consider it that bad since it was just another person you had sex with…but, like with the girl in the car that raped you, once you got into it, maybe you’d enjoy it.

Geministorm on July 30, 2013 at 12:24 PM

“…you know what they say, rape me once, shame on you, rape me twice, shame on me.”

I especially like this post, it really shines a bright light on a disturbed individual’s mind. Perhaps we can all be enlightened by kaltes’ treatise on how rape victims secretly either desire/ask for it or somehow deserve it.

As an aside; I have a close family member that has been raped three times. The first time was by my great-uncle when she was 7. The second time was by her ex-boyfriend who got drunk and came over to her house and forced his way in when she answered the door. The third time was at her place of work when she was working after hours and a serial rapist broke into the office and used a knife on her during “the act”. I guess those last two were her fault? Honestly, if a person said that quote above to her, I’d take a baseball bat and beat their face and head in until they were nothing but a bag of mush.

I’d give a large sum of money if the women in kaltes’ life (surely he has a mother) got the chance to read his little quote. He’s probably real proud of that one…

Geministorm on July 30, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Monkeytoe on July 30, 2013 at 8:07 AM

He wasn’t given a lighter sentence than what was allowable. The prosecution has absolute discretion and can change the charges to whatever it wants. If the prosecutor agrees to let you do probation, the judge has to allow it. The judge in California state court can’t change the time you serve.

The issue here is that the plea deal allowed him to plea to a lesser charge but didn’t specify the time he would serve. Instead that was left to the judge. This is normally fine, because judges are more lenient than prosecutors, since prosecutors care so much about “looking tough”. The charge he pled to would have normally meant probation.

Now, of course, the laws are much tougher and probation is not allowed at all if the girl is under 14.

kaltes on July 30, 2013 at 1:09 PM

I’m truly sorry if you’ve been falsely accused, kaltes, but you shouldn’t take it out on every other woman – I sure as hell don’t see a rapist in every man I come across.

Anna on July 29, 2013 at 10:15 PM

I was thinking more about that West Point student whose life was derailed and who was kicked out of school because of clearly false rape allegations from some slut with regrets. http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/07/27/a-strange-sort-of-justice-at-west-point/

Plain and simple, Polanski is a pedophile.

Geministorm on July 30, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Pedophile refers only to prepubescents. Pedos generally like kids under 10 years old. Polanski is, plain and simple, not a pedo. He was just a dirty old man who liked teens. Although that is illegal, it is not considered to be a psychological problem.

People who can’t tell the difference between psychology and legality, like you gemini, are idiots.

I’d give a large sum of money if the women in kaltes’ life (surely he has a mother) got the chance to read his little quote. He’s probably real proud of that one…

Geministorm on July 30, 2013 at 12:42 PM

I actually showed one of the women in my life, and she thought it was hilarious.

kaltes on July 30, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Polanski is lucky she’s not my daughter/sister.

StevC on July 30, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Anna on July 29, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Please don’t let that horrible piece of garbage goad you into taking any kind of blame for attacks made on you. You don’t owe him or anyone else any kind of explanation. You seem to be a strong person but kaltes isn’t interested in your self preservation only in his needs.
Cindy Munford on July 29, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Yup, Consider the source. He’s got a lot of history here venting about females “wanting it”, even children. According to him, rapists give the gift of sex. (Really. They “give sex”).
A few months back Ladysmith CulchaVulcha tallied up some of it here.

whatcat on July 30, 2013 at 6:02 PM

According to him, rapists give the gift of sex. (Really. They “give sex”).

whatcat on July 30, 2013 at 6:02 PM

I find it hilarious how my opponents on these comments feel the need to group together and form a sort of fan-club against me, because none of them can actually refute the substance of my posts. It is just ad hominem attacks and name-calling because you lot are too stupid to manage anything more.

Whatcat, I did not say “rapists give the gift of sex”. An adult who has sex with a consenting adolescent is not a rapist, and sex is a mutual act, not a gift.

I did compare sex with a sexually mature adolescent to giving that same adolescent alcohol, since the crime is the same: an adult is giving someone something they want, but who isn’t legally allowed to have it. The difference is that with sex, minors ARE allowed to have it, just not with someone some arbitrary amount of years older. A more fitting example would be like saying minors can drink alcohol, but not if it is also mixed with caffeine. It is an arbitrary, nonsensical distinction.

kaltes on July 30, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3