~Di Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Also I don't know if it's been said (just skimming over the thread) but the whole argument over a reasonable age of consent is kind of pointless in this case because the victim expressed a desire to leave and said no repeatedly, which Polanski answered with more and different varieties of sex. You can read the Grand Jury testimony here, and it goes on for a few pages. Not for the faint of heart. Disturbing stuff. Even more disturbing is she admitted she had sex twice before being raped by Polanski. That's three times she's been raped. Whether consensual or not, it's still rape. What happened to the other person(s) that had sex with her. Why the outcry over Polanski and not the one(s) before Polanski? Could you give a source for your allegation? For example, the page of the trial transcript in which the admission was made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 Also I don't know if it's been said (just skimming over the thread) but the whole argument over a reasonable age of consent is kind of pointless in this case because the victim expressed a desire to leave and said no repeatedly, which Polanski answered with more and different varieties of sex. You can read the Grand Jury testimony here, and it goes on for a few pages. Not for the faint of heart. Disturbing stuff. Even more disturbing is she admitted she had sex twice before being raped by Polanski. That's three times she's been raped. Whether consensual or not, it's still rape. What happened to the other person(s) that had sex with her. Why the outcry over Polanski and not the one(s) before Polanski? Could you give a source for your allegation? For example, the page of the trial transcript in which the admission was made? from linked transcript: page 13, line 28. "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Di Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Pop: It wasn't "date rape." They weren't on a date. Polanski told the girl and her mother that he wanted to do a private photo shoot of her. Yes, I have huge issues with the mother giving her approval for her 13 year old daughter to have a private photo shoot with a 44 year old man... but the fact remains that it was never a "date". mom were foolish. 'course if setting were dirt water missouri and we were talking 'bout private math lessons or private piano lessons, most parents probable wouldn't be over concerned. hollywood "photographer" wants to take photos o' your 13 year old girl? yeah, some warning bell shoulda' gone off in mom's head. woulda' been another reason why victim's family didn't want trial at the time... mom/daughter/family woulda' been raked over coals til you weren't certain who were on trial no more. before rape shield, the victim's prior sexual experience were fair game. girl and family woulda' been violated in court and in press over and over again. HA! Good Fun! Absolutely why they didn't want a trial back then, and why the plea bargain was struck. It's also probably why they want the matter dropped now. Every facet of salaciousness about what was done to her is now dredged up in the media and internet. The victims' children are probably reading about it, along with allegations of whether their young teen mom had been sexually promiscuous, perhaps even a prostitute, whether she had seduced the guy, had "asked for it", etc. And folks like me wondering what in hell their grandparents were thinking to have allowed a situation where this could have occurred. Then of course, there's the matter of the cushy settlement the family got from Polanski way back when... a new trial would make the entire bunch look like they pimped their daughter for the cash. No wonder the victim wants this to go away. No matter which way it ends up, her family would be publicly trashed. It's already happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Di Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) Also I don't know if it's been said (just skimming over the thread) but the whole argument over a reasonable age of consent is kind of pointless in this case because the victim expressed a desire to leave and said no repeatedly, which Polanski answered with more and different varieties of sex. You can read the Grand Jury testimony here, and it goes on for a few pages. Not for the faint of heart. Disturbing stuff. Even more disturbing is she admitted she had sex twice before being raped by Polanski. That's three times she's been raped. Whether consensual or not, it's still rape. What happened to the other person(s) that had sex with her. Why the outcry over Polanski and not the one(s) before Polanski? Could you give a source for your allegation? For example, the page of the trial transcript in which the admission was made? from linked transcript: page 13, line 28. Thank you. God, what a terrible thing for that family to see those details splashed all over the net. I feel so sorry for them. Pages upon pages of rape, where she said no and he did it anyway, and some people look at those couple of lines that indicate she'd had sex before, and ignore everything else. Edited October 2, 2009 by ~Di Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Protagonist Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) Also I don't know if it's been said (just skimming over the thread) but the whole argument over a reasonable age of consent is kind of pointless in this case because the victim expressed a desire to leave and said no repeatedly, which Polanski answered with more and different varieties of sex. You can read the Grand Jury testimony here, and it goes on for a few pages. Not for the faint of heart. Disturbing stuff. Even more disturbing is she admitted she had sex twice before being raped by Polanski. That's three times she's been raped. Whether consensual or not, it's still rape. What happened to the other person(s) that had sex with her. Why the outcry over Polanski and not the one(s) before Polanski? Could you give a source for your allegation? For example, the page of the trial transcript in which the admission was made? On page 13-14. Q. Had you had sexual intercourse with anyone before March 10th? A. Yes. Q. Approximately how many times? A. Twice. Edited October 2, 2009 by Hiro Protagonist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 hiro's response is perfect example o' why we sympathize with rape victim families. a 13 year old girl is given booze and drugs and then forced to have sex with a middle-aged man, but what really disturbs hiro is that the 13 year old weren't a virgin at the time roman violated her. talk 'bout disturbing. "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 yeah... i guess since polanski got cheated out of the "prize" of a virgin his crime is not as heinous. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 "Whether consensual or not, it's still rape." L0LZ DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Protagonist Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 "Whether consensual or not, it's still rape." L0LZ What's so funny about that? You think say a 25, 30 or 50 year old adult male having sex with a girl under the legal age is okay if it's consensual? It's called statutory rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Protagonist Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) hiro's response is perfect example o' why we sympathize with rape victim families. a 13 year old girl is given booze and drugs and then forced to have sex with a middle-aged man, but what really disturbs hiro is that the 13 year old weren't a virgin at the time roman violated her. talk 'bout disturbing. Stop making up Straw man arguments and making up stuff. What disturbs me is that the Prosecutors haven't done anything to bring ALL the rapists to account. They're only going after one rapist. If you read my posts which you seem you haven't, I said she was raped more than once and Polanski and the other rapist(s) should be brought to justice. What disturbs me is your lack of understanding and comprehension of what I've posted and the fact that you condemn Polanski but it's okay for the other two times when she had sex and dismiss it as 'playing doctor with a neighbour'. Edited October 2, 2009 by Hiro Protagonist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) am thinking you not know what a straw man argument is. "What disturbs me is your lack of understanding and comprehension of what I've posted and the fact that you condemn Polanski but it's okay for the other two times when she had sex and dismiss it as 'playing doctor with a neighbour'." see, now That is a straw man. Gromnir conceded that it were indeed disturbing that a 13 year old girl would had sex. however, we did note that sex 'tween minors is far more common than you seem to believe. quick use o' google reveals statistics such as the following: "The percentage of teens 15-19 who had initiated sexual intercourse before age 14 has decreased in recent years, from a high of 8 percent of girls and 11 percent of boys in 1995 to a low of 6 percent of girls and 8 percent of boys in 2002." http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S...-Fact-Sheet.pdf better than 1 in 20 13 year old girls has "initiated" sex before age of 14? btw, California is pretty typical for "statutory rape". most jurisdictions don't call it statutory rape, but that is kinda beside the point. regardless, in California, sex 'tween minors is a misdemeanor offense that is covered by the same penal code section that deals with "statutory rape". am recollecting that there may be a $70 fine involved. you wonder why the "prosecutors" not hunt down the other rapist(s) that engaged in sex with the victim previous to polanski? most obvious reason is that they not got time or effort to waste on minor misdemeanor offenses that not even have a complaint. sex 'tween minors is unfortunate, but is misdemeanor offense with no teeth... and given the mind-boggling number o' minors who is having sex, we imagine that lots more judges, lawyers and cops is gonna have to be found if hiro is to get justice. *snort* does Gromnir know that the victim's previous sexual experiences were with minors? nope, but you don't know either. you want an explanation? if the victim's previous sexual encounters were with fellow minors, that would explain the reason why those folks weren't hunted. regardless, speaking o' logic fallacies, how does absence o' prosecution of your missing rapists absolve polanski? and please, explain how polanski's forced sex with a 13 year old girl that he got drunk and drugged is less disturbing than fact that the girl admitted to having experienced sex 2x previous to being violated by polanski. HA! Good Fun! Edited October 2, 2009 by Gromnir "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 "What's so funny about that? You think say a 25, 30 or 50 year old adult male having sex with a girl under the legal age is okay if it's consensual? It's called statutory rape. " If it's concensual, it's not rape. I don't care for this redefintion of the term rape. Statuary rape is a lame term invented by cowards. Consensual sex is not rape. Period. btw, This does NOT mean I approve of 50 year olds sexing up 15 year old. And, what does gender have to do with it? Are you sexist like most of the world? DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Consensual sex is not rape. Period. "Honest, judge, this six year old girl said she wanted to have sex with me!" "Oh ok then, no rape. You're free to go. Statutory rape is for cowards!" A brick suddenly seems intelligent. In comparison. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lare Kikkeli Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) Consensual sex is not rape. Period. "Honest, judge, this six year old girl said she wanted to have sex with me!" "Oh ok then, no rape. You're free to go. Statutory rape is for cowards!" A brick suddenly seems intelligent. In comparison. well, a 6-year old cannot give conscent while a 13-year old can. or so some think, i personally think anyone over 20 having sex with anyone under 18 is an immoral pervert and should get locked away, but im not a judge or a politician so my opinion is moot. but yeah having sex with a 6-year old is not rape, its a different crime (child molestation? unlawful sex with a minor? statutory rape? i'm not sure what the legal term is in english). just like copyright infringement isn't theft Edited October 2, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Protagonist Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 am thinking you not know what a straw man argument is. "What disturbs me is your lack of understanding and comprehension of what I've posted and the fact that you condemn Polanski but it's okay for the other two times when she had sex and dismiss it as 'playing doctor with a neighbour'." see, now That is a straw man. Gromnir conceded that it were indeed disturbing that a 13 year old girl would had sex. however, we did note that sex 'tween minors is far more common than you seem to believe. quick use o' google reveals statistics such as the following: "The percentage of teens 15-19 who had initiated sexual intercourse before age 14 has decreased in recent years, from a high of 8 percent of girls and 11 percent of boys in 1995 to a low of 6 percent of girls and 8 percent of boys in 2002." http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S...-Fact-Sheet.pdf better than 1 in 20 13 year old girls has "initiated" sex before age of 14? btw, California is pretty typical for "statutory rape". most jurisdictions don't call it statutory rape, but that is kinda beside the point. regardless, in California, sex 'tween minors is a misdemeanor offense that is covered by the same penal code section that deals with "statutory rape". am recollecting that there may be a $70 fine involved. you wonder why the "prosecutors" not hunt down the other rapist(s) that engaged in sex with the victim previous to polanski? most obvious reason is that they not got time or effort to waste on minor misdemeanor offenses that not even have a complaint. sex 'tween minors is unfortunate, but is misdemeanor offense with no teeth... and given the mind-boggling number o' minors who is having sex, we imagine that lots more judges, lawyers and cops is gonna have to be found if hiro is to get justice. *snort* does Gromnir know that the victim's previous sexual experiences were with minors? nope, but you don't know either. you want an explanation? if the victim's previous sexual encounters were with fellow minors, that would explain the reason why those folks weren't hunted. Again, stop making up stuff on the run. That's TWICE now Gromnir. I said - "Even more disturbing is she admitted she had sex twice before being raped by Polanski. That's three times she's been raped. Whether consensual or not, it's still rape. " You said - "you serious? how many kids has played doctor in basement with a neighbor?" You're the one that's suggested the AGE of the person with this 13 year old girl by dismissing it as two minors having sex. I never said anything about age in the FIRST place and later suggested it may have been an adult? an uncle? WHO KNOWS? Maybe it was an uncle and the family didn't want to make this worse than it already is. You're the one that's suggesting she had sex with a minor and dismissing it as such. What a callous and insensitive thing to say. The most obvious reason? Unbelievable. regardless, speaking o' logic fallacies, how does absence o' prosecution of your missing rapists absolve polanski? I NEVER said it did absolve Polanski. That's the THIRD time you're making stuff up. Show me a post where I said it did. The fact is you can't because I never said that and you never quoted me on saying that. and please, explain how polanski's forced sex with a 13 year old girl that he got drunk and drugged is less disturbing than fact that the girl admitted to having experienced sex 2x previous to being violated by polanski. HA! Good Fun! I NEVER said it was less disturbing. That's the FOURTH time you're making stuff up. Show me a post where I said it did. The fact is you can't because I never said that and you never quoted me on saying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lare Kikkeli Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I know plenty of people, myself included, who had had sex at 13. Is it different because I'm a male? Did I rape my first girlfriend Hiro? Are you calling me a rapist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Protagonist Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) I know plenty of people, myself included, who had had sex at 13. Is it different because I'm a male? Did I rape my first girlfriend Hiro? Are you calling me a rapist? If your first girlfriend was 20 and had sex with her, then I don't see how you're raping the 20 year old. Edited October 2, 2009 by Hiro Protagonist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Nah, she'd be raping him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Protagonist Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 ^ and he might actually enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lare Kikkeli Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Nah she was 13 as well. So if having sex with a 13-year old is automaticly rape, did we both rape each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humodour Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Quick quiz: does anyone here with experience of trying to help victims of child abuse feel the age of consent is too high? Is it just me who feel you chaps are being rather blase? Child abuse is child abuse. Changing the age of consent won't change that. If the victim doesn't give consent, or was coerced, that's extremely illegal under the law, regardless of the age. ... am thinking that you is misreading or missing point. "age of consent". consent cannot be given by persons younger than age of consent. if you have sex with somebody who did not give consent... HA! Good Fun! You missed the point actually Grom - Wals was talking about (in response to me bringing it up) variations in the age of consent across different countries and what he thought was proper, not what the legal definition of consent in America is. I'm fully aware that a 13 year old cannot legally give consent in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Protagonist Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) "Nah she was 13 as well. So if having sex with a 13-year old is automaticly rape, did we both rape each other?" Not sure. Acording to some Laws, if two minors have sex, the older of the two participants is technically guilty of statutory rape. Depends on the country I guess. Edited October 2, 2009 by Hiro Protagonist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lare Kikkeli Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) "Nah she was 13 as well. So if having sex with a 13-year old is automaticly rape, did we both rape each other?" Not sure. Acording to some Laws, if two minors have sex, the older of the two participants is technically guilty of statutory rape. Depends on the country I guess. Not in Finland, and I'm pretty damn sure nowhere else in the western world. At least not in the circumstances we were in. Two 13-year olds dating and having sex the first time is rape? You can't be serious... Edited October 2, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PoziomyPion Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) I wanna ask this question. What good will it do if you put Romanski to jail? It will satisfy only those who would like to see him raped by inmates. To defend Polanski, he had a harsh life, he's a great artis, he never ever again did what he did with miss Geimer, Geimer admitted she wanted to have sex back then, the judge that died and wanted to put Romanski in jail wanted to do so to gain popularity, the case had lots of errors(Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired). What we know for SURE is that he had sex with a 13 year old girl, that is not rape if she wanted that. I do not care if she said different things in her testimony, there were so many cases in Poland when mothers told their children to say they were molested by their fathers so the mothers could get a divorce. I know it is a very sad picture when a child say he she was raped/molested but the thing is chidren lie all the time and there isnt a lot of FACTS to back up miss Geimer. Just trial Polanski and make him pay a lot of money to some organization that helps victims who were assaulted sexually ,it will achieve more than putting old man in jail. Oh and to everyone who are so lawful, Polanski wasnt trialed for rape and he didnt admit to it so how can you condemn him? Law says that if you havent been judged you are innocent. Edited October 2, 2009 by PoziomyPion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lare Kikkeli Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) I think he should serve time just like any other rapist. Money, fame or "having lived a tough life" is no reason not to get punished for drugging & raping someone, much less a 13-year old. And he actually was convicted, not for rape but iirc having unlawful sex with a minor. He pled guilty but fled the country on bail. Thus he deserves to do the time he was sentenced, since he you know, pled guilty and fled. After he's done time I agree that he should pay money to organizations that help rape victims. Edited October 2, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now