Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[skeptifem]

One upside is all the rape apologists and other creeps making themselves known because of this story. It's easier to avoid them that way, no surprises later.

Anyone notice how often news stories say that he "had sex" with her? Very no. Rape=/sex, just like assault=/=sparring.

 

[skeptifem]

She was underage and claims to have sex. Polanski agreed she was underage and claims to have sex. At most, you would be claiming she got the orifice wrong. Are you really saying identifying the wrong hole is a serious matter? Really?

Clearly, she should have focused harder on being raped, instead of being drugged.

 

[gtc]

For the rest of you: Underage sexual activity is not a simple issue. Research into underage sexuality and its effects is not simple either, and neither are the conclusions of that research.

This has been the problem throughout the thread.

You want thread to be about the sexuality of young girls when the issue is the sexuality of adult men who want to have sex with children.

No one wants to know your theories about how the children somehow might enjoy this.

 

[Checkmite]

If you have the time and the chops you can do what I've done and attempt to read a reasonable selection of the best available papers on the issue, and get a clear understanding of what that data actually means.

"You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do."

 

[johnny karate]

Hey, Kevin? You carried on in this thread for pages about the veracity of the girl's sodomy claims. At least twice you were offered a concession on this point in order to move the discussion forward, which you steadfastly ignored.

I'm sorry if you feel that anything outside of the specific framework of a debate as dictated by you is not worth your time, but honest debate simply doesn't work that way.

 

[Sledge]

For the rest of you: Underage sexual activity is not a simple issue.

It is in as much as it relates to this particular topic: it's illegal. It doesn't matter whether you think it should be, or why. It is. Polanski broke the law, raped an underage girl, ADMITTED IT, then fled prior to sentencing. I don't see how a hypothetical discussion on whether a 13 year old girl might enjoy having sex with a middle-aged man is at all relevant.

 

[Information Analyst]

One upside is all the rape apologists and other creeps making themselves known because of this story. It's easier to avoid them that way, no surprises later.

That sort of unwarranted projection encapsulates the inherent problem with discussing such an issue as in a global forum. Most of the industrialised West has ages of consent lower than 18, and consequently people's attitudes vary. In most countries it is recognised that in the case of someone being a few years below the AoC, while consent may not be legally binding, it is a factor to be taken into consideration, so the question of whether or not consent was actually given is a valid one. Example:

Rapist spared jail as judge agrees girl, 10, looked older

Too many people here have operated from the simplistic viewpoint that underage = no consent = "rape" thus de facto discounting Polanski's claim that the girl did actually consent.

I don't think anyone here has claimed either that what Polanski did was not or should not be a crime, or that he should not be punished for it, so you using terms like "apologists" is uncalled for and intellectually dishonest.

As an afterthought, and interesting observation from a British perspective, which will no doubt horrify some people:

Sex is not just for grown-ups

 

[Information Analyst]

When a witness has a vested interest -- as Huston did being that she was friendly with Polanski -- it makes sense to assign more weight to statements that are contrary to vested interest than statements that align.

That sounds suspisciously like the traditional conspiracy theorist viewpoint that whatever the "official" story on something is, the "truth" must be the opposite.

 

[Sledge]

I don't see how the issue of consent comes up. Or are we now disputing that Polanski drugged the girl before attacking her?

 

[varwoche]

If you have the time and the chops you can do what I've done and attempt to read a reasonable selection of the best available papers on the issue, and get a clear understanding of what that data actually means.

And yet you've not managed to cite so much as one of these best available papers that actually supports your position, in this thread or the earlier one. (Including your cite that infamously contradicted your claims -- a debate tactic otherwise known as "I hope nobody bothers to follow the links I post".)

I mean, seriously? "She was drunk, she probably couldn't tell her vagina from her anus"?

I mean, seriously Kevin. Are you so zealous about this topic -- so willing to interpret events in a postive light for Polanski -- that you're unable to envision gray area? Something less than full on anal penetration perhaps?

Chops? I call it pseudo-skeptical posing.

 

[Checkmite]

In most countries it is recognised that in the case of someone being a few years below the AoC, while consent may not be legally binding, it is a factor to be taken into consideration, so the question of whether or not consent was actually given is a valid one. Too many people here have operated from the simplistic viewpoint that underage = no consent = "rape" thus de facto discounting Polanski's claim that the girl did actually consent.

This crime was not committed in "most countries". It was committed in a country where "underage = no consent = rape" is a general cultural truism. That things may be different on the other side of the world, or may have been different in a long-dead civilization over 2,000 years ago, are equally irrelevant. In California, a judge rules according to California law - not Mississippi law, or French law, or classical Byzantine law.

 

[varwoche]

That sounds suspisciously like the traditional conspiracy theorist viewpoint that whatever the "official" story on something is, the "truth" must be the opposite.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

 

[Information Analyst]

This crime was not committed in "most countries". It was committed in a country where "underage = no consent = rape" is a general cultural truism. That things may be different on the other side of the world, or may have been different in a long-dead civilization over 2,000 years ago, are equally irrelevant. In California, a judge rules according to California law - not Mississippi law, or French law, or classical Byzantine law.

You are spectacularly missing this point. This thread started with the implict questions of: "What do you guys think? Free Polanski or off with his head?"

This is a global forum, so there are going to be global responses.

IIRC, however, someone did post the relevent statute as it stands in California now, and it was not as black-and-white as you suggest.

 

[Information Analyst]

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Is that all you've got? How sad.

 

[johnny karate]

IIRC, however, someone did post the relevent statute as it stands in California now, and it was not as black-and-white as you suggest.

You feel the statute is somehow open to interpretation? Please expound.

 

[Pardalis]

I mean, seriously? "She was drunk, she probably couldn't tell her vagina from her anus"? "Who cares whether or not she lied on the stand to frame Polanski for sodomy, how on Earth could something like that matter?". "I see no reason for her to have lied, so I conclude that the forensic evidence must be lying instead". "The girl's uncorroborated statement said that Polanski asked about her period, which confirms the girl's falsified statement that he anally raped her, so the forensic evidence must be lying". "It's the kind of thing Polanski would do, so the forensic evidence must be lying".

You misunderstood my argument.

Rapists who know their victims often sodomize them to avoid getting them pregnant, that is a known behavior (by those who work with rapists and incest victims). The 13 year old girl cannot have known about that behavior unless she was a victim. She couldn't have invented it unless he did this to her. It's too specific about rapists for her to have made it up.

and since he admitted to it anyway...

 

[varwoche]

Is that all you've got? How sad.

Maybe I should have considered the possibility that a bug in the forum software is causing posts to bleed over from unrelated thread, rather than assume you're unable to follow a conversation.

It is elemental that the potential bias of a witness be factored in. It is also elemental that when a witness testifies contrary to bias, that it should be given more weight.

("More weight" doesn't translate to "rule out all else", which should be obvious to anyone who isn't playing infantile parsing games.)

Huston said that the girl could have been as old as 25. (I've never seen a 13 year old who could pass as 25. You?) This impresses me as a biased observation coming from a friend of Polanski.

Huston also said the girl looked sullen when she emerged from the room where she was abused. Because this statement doesn't favor Polanski, I'm less concerned about bias.

This is so elemental that I'm surprised you're taking issue. But what is truly inane is to extrapolate this into something akin to conspiracy theory. It makes it hard to take you seriously.

 

[gtc]

Rapist spared jail as judge agrees girl, 10, looked older

That man has to now register as a sex offender so he didn't get off and the case is not relevant because Polanski knew she was 13.

 

[RandFan]

For the rest of you: Underage sexual activity is not a simple issue. Research into underage sexuality and its effects is not simple either, and neither are the conclusions of that research.

I find child molestation to be so abhorrent as to not want to agree with Kevin but intellectual honesty dictates that I must. Not completely but I agree with some of his points. It's not black and white. As for me, I'm happy to put a bright line in the sand and prosecute based on that line. I would rather err on the side of safety for children but I will accept Kevin's contention here.

 

[LostAngeles]

That sort of unwarranted projection encapsulates the inherent problem with discussing such an issue as in a global forum. Most of the industrialised West has ages of consent lower than 18, and consequently people's attitudes vary. In most countries it is recognised that in the case of someone being a few years below the AoC, while consent may not be legally binding, it is a factor to be taken into consideration, so the question of whether or not consent was actually given is a valid one. Example:

Rapist spared jail as judge agrees girl, 10, looked older

Too many people here have operated from the simplistic viewpoint that underage = no consent = "rape" thus de facto discounting Polanski's claim that the girl did actually consent.

I don't think anyone here has claimed either that what Polanski did was not or should not be a crime, or that he should not be punished for it, so you using terms like "apologists" is uncalled for and intellectually dishonest.

As an afterthought, and interesting observation from a British perspective, which will no doubt horrify some people:

Sex is not just for grown-ups

Cool, so you'll address what Kevin refused to, that is the issue of maturity, power, and reasons for the cultural difference and shift?