polanski

[Pidesco]

I fully subscribe the content of numbersman's posts.

[Killian Kalthorne]

You are just sick, numberboy.

[Humodour]

Personally I don't advocate the notion that everyone under 16 is a naive baby, so the question is what exactly happened between Polanski and the kid. However, in the eyes of the law he is definitely a criminal, obviously, so he should be punished if caught.

 

The girl seemed to have liked the guy and was a semi-willing participant at first. It was pretty clearly statutory rape, though, and it doesn't help that he sedated her (which I guess would make it full-blown, non-statutory rape). These days she wants the case dimissed - she says he made a big mistake which she doubts he'd ever make again, and that she doesn't want the publicity and media attention.

 

13 is just too young, though. I mean, I know most teenagers first have sex at 13 and 14, but there's just far too much coercion involved in this case (between the age difference and drugging) to have much or any sympathy for this guy.

 

Various countries have different age laws for sex. In Australia it is 16 years equals an adult, in most of Latin America, Western Europe, China, and Japan, it is 13 or 14, while in many states in America it is 18

[Pidesco]

If some 40 year old woman sexed me up when I was 13, I would have been ecstatic, proud and congratulated by my peers and family.

[Hurlshort]

If some 40 year old woman sexed me up when I was 13, I would have been ecstatic, proud and congratulated by my peers and family.

 

Yes, hence the need to distinguish the differences between a male and a female.

[Pidesco]

I'm just pointing out that generalizations aren't very helpful in individual cases. Obviously, Polansky's actions are more than reproachable; however, they don't reflect a universal rule that sex between an adult and a teen is always terrible.

 

Incidentally, I don't think laws regarding sex with minors distinguish between the genders involved. It would be interesting if such a distinction happened to be proposed.

[Guest PoziomyPion]

News flash:

 

I digged into this case a lil more and this whole thing happenned in Jacks Nicholson estate, on a "party" (I'd rather say it was an orgy, we know how show-biz works) and apparently this young lady had her mother permission to be there as a hostess.

 

LOL

 

It still isn't an excuse for rape, but it shows it's not all black and white.

[Blarghagh]

If you pump a 13 year old girl full of drugs and have sex with her it's rape no matter what. If he thought it was all right he would not have fled. I really cannot believe anyone would be defending him. I'd put this greasebag in Folsom or San Quentin and promise one of the big queens there a carton of Marlboros a week to take a special interest in him. He deserves to find out what rape is all about.

 

What I read: "Rape is okay if the victim is a rapist."

 

No, just no. Rape is NEVER okay. Changing your morals for someone you don't like is the root of all discrimination.

[Walsingham]

I was wondering when one of you testosterhunks was going to field the "I would have loved it at 13" argument. I have two responses:

 

1. You only think you'd have enjoyed it. I felt the same way, but I suggest you consider other things you thought would be awesome. I would have given one arm to lose my virginity, and the other arm to have been at Rorke's drift.* The latter would certainly have been terrifying and probably fatal and not at all awesome.

 

2. I know a couple of guys who did, and while they aren't as messed up as the women I've met they've never coped with women well ever since. Could be a coincidence.

 

 

Numbers, if you're simply saying we should discuss it, then fine. But this isn't about whether it's ok for an adult to have sex with a 13 year old kid. It's more to do with the fact that we normally demand harsh justice for someone who drugs up and rapes kids. But for some inexplicable reason if you're an artist then it's suddenly OK. Or are you sugggesting that if he came from some small town in the hills of the massachusetts he would be treated the same way?

 

 

 

 

*The simple fact I would have had no arms at this point and be pretty pointless escaped me.

[Meshugger]

Meh, don't care really.

[213374U]

There are quite a few factors that go into a 13-year old not being emotionally developed enough to handle a sexual relationship, particularly with a 44-year old man

I keep hearing this, but nobody actually knows (or wants to explain) what these are.

 

 

but I will address the cultural issues in comparing Ancient Rome to our modern day. In the past, that was a woman's sole purpose according to society, get married, rear children, rinse, repeat.

That's only true in a very strict sense. Remove "according to society" from your statement, and it's plain wrong, actually. Legally they were not a man's equal, but inside the household the woman held power. Socially they were little more than a man's appendix, but relegating them exclusively to the role of baby-making machines is oversimplifying and dishonest.

 

And of course, there's Ancient Egypt where men and women were absolute equals (legally and otherwise), and women were married at 14. I'm sure somebody more versed than me in ancient history could find more counterexamples.

 

 

Today's women, at least in most developed nations, are expected to get an education and to develop as an individual. When an older person gets into a sexual relationship with a younger person, they are creating a very serious reliance and it is a relationship that can easily be manipulated by the older party. The laws are written to protect young people from being manipulated and giving them a chance to get an education and develop as an individual.

Yes, the older party is definitely going to exert a deciding influence on the relationship. But this often happens regardless of age, as well. It also doesn't work very well when talking about two same age minors going at it.

 

So, basically what you are saying (by that and the other paragraph I didn't quote) is that laws are as they are to protect the development of women as individuals, from a personal and possibly academic perspective - unwanted pregnancies mean that a child is no longer a child. An unwanted pregnancy usually also means that the mother needs to quit what she's doing and tend to her baby. That I can understand, but it's far from the published rationale for age of consent legislation - and it doesn't work very well as birth control is readily available. It also may help explain the current population pyramids in developed countries and what they entail.

 

 

You are just sick, numberboy.

Coming from you, I can't think of a greater compliment.

 

 

1. You only think you'd have enjoyed it. I felt the same way, but I suggest you consider other things you thought would be awesome. I would have given one arm to lose my virginity, and the other arm to have been at Rorke's drift.* The latter would certainly have been terrifying and probably fatal and not at all awesome.

 

2. I know a couple of guys who did, and while they aren't as messed up as the women I've met they've never coped with women well ever since. Could be a coincidence.

On the other hand, I know a few guys that scored really early, and they are perfectly happy with their lives. Anecdotal evidence is a bitch, huh?

 

 

Numbers, if you're simply saying we should discuss it, then fine. But this isn't about whether it's ok for an adult to have sex with a 13 year old kid. It's more to do with the fact that we normally demand harsh justice for someone who drugs up and rapes kids. But for some inexplicable reason if you're an artist then it's suddenly OK. Or are you sugggesting that if he came from some small town in the hills of the massachusetts he would be treated the same way?

Did you somehow miss my other posts in this thread where I: a) charge against a govt official who is openly against "Romanski" being prosecuted, and b) make it clear I'm not defending the man? Edited September 30, 2009 by 213374U

[Amentep]

And of course, there's Ancient Egypt where men and women were absolute equals (legally and otherwise), and women were married at 14. I'm sure somebody more versed than me in ancient history could find more counterexamples.

 

It wasn't uncommon in the early part of the last century for men and women who were teens - often young teens - to marry either. Being older - late teens or twenties - when marrying was typically the privilege of the upper class who had the luxury of being able to complete their education before considering family life. Those in the lower or middle class were more inclined to take a job, work at the family farm or business rather than stay in school. They were treated as an adult, and if they married their wife was considered an adult as well.

 

Our modern concept about teens is primarily a shift in society during the post-WWII era, as far as I can tell, and changed faster in urban areas than in rural ones. Even into the 1950s you have examples of, lets say the marriages of Jerry Lee Lewis (23) and Myra Gale Brown (13) or Elvis Presley (24) and Priscilla Wagner/Beaulieu (14) (as both Lewis and Presley came from rural backgrounds, and neither saw any "wrong" in their marriages; Lewis in particular never understood the near career ending backlash that started in London and continued in New York after his marriage).

 

All this is a side point to Polanski, since he wasn't married to his victim; and since he plead guilty, the only real question to my mind (and apparently his claim as to why he fled) is how much time should he serve (if, at this point, any).

Edited September 30, 2009 by Amentep

[Killian Kalthorne]

Hey, numberboy, you should get a calender. Last I checked it was 2009 and the crime happened in the US, not in ancient Egypt. If you want to do the whole "it was okay back then" you can justify even genocide.

[Volourn]

One could justify anything; doesn't make it right. What Polanksi did was immoral,m and a crime. He raped a young girl via using drugs, alcohol, and abusing his position of power. He's also been convicted officially of having sex with a minor. There is no defending what he did unless you feel it's moreally okay to rape someone. And, the fact she may have had sex before the incident doesn't make it okay. He should fry.

 

That said,m I don't think we should paint all situations where an adult sleeps with a teen the same. btw, to me, there is a HUGE difference between rape (which this was) and concensual sex (even if it's not cool). The age difference, and abuse of power is enoguh to make this wrong, and as a 44 year old he should have known that.

 

I, also, btw, do NOT think an 18 year old should be considered a rapist for having consensual sex with a 15 year old. Period. Same with a 16 and 14 year old. Or even more ridiculous a 15 with a 15. NO LOGIC THERE.

[Gromnir]

am not gonna touch the suggestion that behavior can be legitimized through historical evidence... and slippery-slope relativism leads to even more unpleasant conclusions.

 

however, am genuinely wondering where folks getting information 'bout the incident. have noticed some pretty varied descriptions o' the girl and the scenario. is you using the grand jury transcript (which is available numerous places online) or is you using newspaper, magazine or film source to get your facts? maybe you use multiple sources... or none. you feel comfortable with your source?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

You may view all 36 pages of the grand jury testimony here.

[Amentep]

You may view all 36 pages of the grand jury testimony here.

 

That's actually just where the victim gives her testimony to the Grand Jury, not the complete transcripts (but I imagine the full transcripts would be relatively huge and cumbersome).

[213374U]

Thanks for the link, Gfted. Transcript is incomplete, though.

 

 

Hey, numberboy, you should get a calender. Last I checked it was 2009 and the crime happened in the US, not in ancient Egypt. If you want to do the whole "it was okay back then" you can justify even genocide.

And this, girls, is why you shouldn't smoke crack during a pregnancy. He could have been a Mozart or an Einstein!

 

 

am not gonna touch the suggestion that behavior can be legitimized through historical evidence... and slippery-slope relativism leads to even more unpleasant conclusions.

 

however, am genuinely wondering where folks getting information 'bout the incident. have noticed some pretty varied descriptions o' the girl and the scenario. is you using the grand jury transcript (which is available numerous places online) or is you using newspaper, magazine or film source to get your facts? maybe you use multiple sources... or none. you feel comfortable with your source?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Nobody's trying to legitimize anything, Grom. There isn't a relativist approach, either. Just discussing the law and its foundations.

 

What's your interest in this, anyway? Know something we don't?

[Gromnir]

There isn't a relativist approach, either. Just discussing the law and its foundations.

 

What's your interest in this, anyway? Know something we don't?

 

no relativist? you is kidding, right? review your homocide comments.

 

our interest, is as we stated already: polanski polarizes. is a curiosity. is very difficult for folks on one side of argument to understand folks on the other side. is an odd issue to result in such divisiveness. kinda like OJ insofar as predictability o' guessing which pov a person will be choosing.

 

as to whether we know something you don't... is another one we won't touch... too easy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Killian Kalthorne]

There is no reasoning with numberboy, Gromnir. He seeks to justify child rape.

[Gorgon]

You are being silly, he said no such thing.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Way back he said that it is "debatable." It is not debatable. It is wrong. Period.

[alanschu]

Well you're the one seeking to charge 15 year old boys with raping their 14 year old girls friends even though it was consensual.

[Trenitay]

The law tells them not to. They shouldn't do it

[Purkake]

Man, Polanski polarizes like no one's business.

 

What's the big deal? If you do something illegal you get punished, whether people agree or not and being and artist doesn't really change that. If you don't like it, get the law changed instead of making double standards and arbitrary exceptions.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Purkake