No - but that Huston thought she was "sullen" does corroborate the victim's testimony that she was not happy about what had transpired. It's two words against Polanski's one.
Perhaps 1.01 to 1. It would be 2 to 1 if Huston witnessed the entire thing and corroborated the girl's testimony.
But you just said this topic is interesting and important to you. Yet not even worth a mention, until somebody brings up things you said previously?
Believe it or not the JREF forums is not my blog. I don't post everything that crosses my computer screen here, even if it's relevant to an acrimonious discussion I had here a year ago (or whenever).
What are you insinuating anyway? Would it make a difference if I reviewed the literature and changed my mind on that particular issue last week instead of months ago, and if so why?
And in everybody else's opinion (save yours), thinking it's okay to "boink" kids makes one an exploitative sleazebag. See the difference?
Okay, suppose we've got two teenagers, Al and Bill. They have this conversation:
AL: Bill, if your sister wasn't your sister, would you sleep with her?
BILL: Sure, she's hot.
AL: EWWWW! SHE'S YOUR SISTER YOU SICKO!
What's going on there? It's not that Bill is sick, it's that Al is thick. He's unable to remember the hypothetical scenario from five seconds ago and thinks he can legitimately apply Al's answer to the non-hypothetical world.
Compare:
GTC: Would you sleep with an implausibly mature twelve year old, if the relationship was mutually fulfilling and in no way exploitative?
DD: Sure, why not?
GTC: EWWWW! SHE'S TWELVE YOU SICKO!
Same problem. You want your witch hunt so badly you forget the constraints of the hypothetical scenario. You're making exactly the same cognitive error as the people who lambasted DD in the first place.
So...a collated set of enough first-hand anecdotes, then.
Yes. You are beginning to grasp the scientific method. If you have enough properly collected, first-hand anecdotes from an unbiased sample you can reach a tipping point where confidence in the data is justified. If you don't have enough such anecdotes you just have worthless anecdotes.
Unless they had sex with Polanski. Then their word isn't good enough, and they have to prove that they didn't like it. Somehow.
That's too stupid to dignify with a response. Act your age.
And where is the evidence that has "convinced" you that all kids are able to shrug off singular incidents of abuse? Saying such "is not supported by the evidence" is a rather positive statement for someone who's pretending to be agnostic.
If you care enough go back and read the threads that got linked to before, I'm pretty sure all the links are there. Or do your own research. You've demonstrated enough bad faith so far I'm in no way inclined to do your homework for you about an issue which is mostly irrelevant to the Polanski case.
But in any case, I don't understand what you're trying to imply. You've already said that sexual abuse shouldn't qualify as "abuse" if there's no damage. So...one incident is okay, since it doesn't screw up a kid's life. Okay...so based on the "evidence", how many times can a kid be molested before damage occurs and the exact same "safe, non-distressing sex" that was okay the first time becomes a bad thing that actually SHOULD be a criminal offense?
Has this got anything to do with Polanski, or have you abandoned relevance completely in favour of trolling for some response you can get outraged about? Also, the claim that one incident of child sexual abuse is "okay" is completely your own invention, and trying to attribute it to me is both disgusting and dishonest.
What if a person does claim damage from a single instance? Are they dismissible because "the evidence shows" they shouldn't have been affected that way? Is there now "reasonable doubt" that they're being truthful, and now they have to prove the incident was traumatic?
All we can say is that in properly controlled studies the evidence of harm does not rise to a statistically significant level.
You really are a piece of work, aren't you? You said
That's, "Do A; if you can't, then do B". I've done A, so I don't owe you B also. Your whiny protestations about having changed your mind off-stage when nobody was looking don't invalidate the links and specific quotes I used to back up my "defamatory" claims. Your bluff was called - you'll just have to square with it.
Nice try, but there was a point to that challenge. The point was that when you actually had to explain my position in your own words you got it almost completely wrong, and when you were corrected you had nothing left to be outraged about. I had the evidence on my side at the time, you have certainly not been able to show otherwise, and I'm perfectly comfortable to let the record show that I proportioned my belief to the available relevant evidence at the time. That's what skeptics do.
Then (unlike the witch-hunting idiots) I made some effort to keep abreast of the issue, and changed my mind when better evidence became available. That's also what skeptics do.
I might feel bad about being characterized this way if every other person in the thread didn't "inaccurately" "misrepresent" your claims in the exact same way. When so many people misunderstand you, perhaps it's time to at least consider that the communication failure is yours.
That or these threads attract a self-selecting population of people who want so badly to be self-righteously outraged that it colours everything they read, and they end up turning these threads into echo chambers where they hear nothing but each other's outraged noises.
It doesn't help that these people tend to have done no real research and have all kinds of non-evidence-based beliefs about underage sexual issues which they hold as articles of faith.
My experience has been that in these threads the bad posters tend to drive out the good.
