Whoopi says its not "rape-rape"

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by orderedchaos

 

Firstly, you are mistaking some of the people in the thread as "Polanski Defenders", when some of us are not defending Polanski as much as ridiculing society's take on certain things tangentially related to the Polanski situation.

And why should you ridicule society? You, perhaps, know better than an organic consensus of peers?

You've brought up other cultures, modern and ancient. My field of doctoral study was the Augustan age and its effects on Rabbinic Judaism--historical Jesus stuff. Because this is my area of expertise I tend to romanticize the ancient world a bit and find myself saying to others that I wish we could be "more like the Romans" or "more like the ancients". While I do feel that they have much to teach us in certain respects, there is no perfect society. In order to achieve anything of substance, nay, anything at all, a sacrifice must be made. In order for there to have been no prison system in the ancient world (and save the citizens $$) they had public displays of barbarity to achieve the same results.

You bring up Japanese culture quite a bit as an example of where what we here in the west consider "underage" girls being acceptable manga fantasy. Arguing that it is acceptable in Japan does not mean that it is acceptable. It means that the Japanese have no problem with it. That's all. If Roman Polanski had performed the same act in Japan this might not have been an issue, but he did not. He did this in California, USA.

Had Roman done this in ancient Roman (heh heh, Roman-Roman, heh heh) provinces this could have gone down in several different ways. First, the fact that he was a theatrical performer would have led society to judge him more harshly and characterize him as someone capable of lying easily. Second, had her father demanded his death for stealing from the Geimer household (and his being the son of peasants) he may have gotten to work out his crimes in the arena, consensual or not as the girl was not her own being but property of her father and the father was not asked for permission.

Now, you may wave around other cultures taboos, or lack thereof, as to age of sexual maturity and sex, but you are being disingenuous if you argue that a thirteen year old girl having had sex with a man she was not married to would not have castigated her permanently in Japanese culture. Tell us, if you will, what would have happened to the thirteen year old girl that had sex with a man not her husband and not of her country?

Do you recall the incident of the twelve year old Okinawan raped by the three African Americans? Please tell us how it was written about. Did they or did they not state in Japanese and Okinawan papers how horrible it was because she would be considered "dirty" and un-marriable? How did they describe the black men? Please tell us the wording, if you will.

Regardless of whether or not people may have a fetish for something or drawn to an image sexually, societies the world over have frowned upon people doing anything at all about it. Those societies that were permissive tend to be frowned upon by other societies. The court of public opinion has ruled on this subject matter.

Now, if you wish to disregard "culture" as a justification and talk purely behavioral science that is another story altogether.

There seem to be two groups of people, the people who think a thirteen year old is a child and the people who don't.

That is very black and white. Age and maturity are too different things. Experience, physiology, and even mental capacity all affect the type of maturity (mental over physical) that allows wise decision-making, hence why there are laws.

From a rationalist standpoint, ignoring what culture and society thinks is black and white, every human being deserved equal treatment from the justice system.
This doesn't necessarily happen, but it is something that should happen. The problem is that large sections of the populace do not want equal justice for certain types of crime, such as anything to do with harming a child.

Equal application of justice. Not all crimes are equal. He should have the same application as a poor man or a minority, or conversely, they have the same application given to him: rehab. *eyeroll*

It is worse to have consensual sex with an underage girl than it is to murder an underage girl to most in society.

Not true, speculative.

Murder carries a lighter sentence.

Not true, child rape receives 100 days in rehab. Ask Polanski. You are creating an argument and then refuting it. Try killing a child in a "red" state. You will get the death penalty. You can't get much harsher than that.

Even more disturbing, Rape means basically anything nowadays... rather than forceful, coercive sex against an unwilling partipicant and generally with violence involved, it can be any consenting individual who is of an age disparity with the accused or whom is below the states legal age of consent.

We live in a Democratic Republic. Those laws are made by elected state representatives, ergo the will of the people has spoken. They were made to protect young people who are easily influenced by older people from being put in a position where they would have difficulty saying "no". For the sake of argument, those few girls mature enough to make the same decisions about their body as an eighteen year old would also be mature enough to understand "law" and not be irresponsible with the freedom of the older person. If not, they were probably not mature enough to have sex in the first place, eg not mature enough to understand what "yes" meant.

Are you saying that people are not allowed to forgive criminals unless the law and society has already had their shot at punishing the individual?

Who is stopping them from forgiving the criminal? Forgiveness is emotional. They are punished by society to prevent similar crimes from others or continue on with the same behavior.

It is alright to forsake the foundations of thought and reason for the desire to punish and perpetuate a deep seated societal hatred for individuals that have been branded as human trash?

Society has decided that it values and protects children, those who do not are regarded as "trash" by that society. It is how it has always been. He could have moved to another society, Tanzania, perhaps where this is a non-issue. But he wanted the "everything else" that came with living in Hollywood. Eventus stultorum magister!

And not only that, you feel it is fine to ridicule and associate people who defend individuals with an aberrant sexual proclivity with whom they defend, demonstrating a lack of dissemination between the defender and the item they are defending?

It is called the court of public opinion. You won't be thrown in jail for your words on these threads, but you will receive the barbs and stings that come with it. That is how humans have worked since tribal societies. I've been called worse than a rapist. I could allow it to sway me, but I don't because I keep my own counsel. In fact, I now wear it as a badge of honor. WORSE THAN A RAPIST ought to be my signature! What do you care what I, or anyone else, thinks about you? I, for one, do not.

Homines libenter quod volunt credunt!



[edit on 5-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

reply to post by Aeons


Wow, thanks for posting that full list.... its going to take a while to sift through the names and IMDB everyone to find out which movies I own I can still watch with impunity. I wonder how many of the names on that list truly support Polanski, and how many of the names are people who were asked to sign by some powerful hollywood director/producer and were too afraid to say "no!". Not that it makes a difference, but living in Los Angeles and knowing how narcissistic and egocentric these celebs are, I'm willing to bet that some of the names on that list only included themselves because they will probably never see their names alongside the A-listers again. Or, maybe they're hoping Polanski will be freed, see some C list actor who supported him, and place him in his next picture out of thanks. What a sick town. By the way, its not just the movie industry that protects its own, soldiers, cops, and a few other professions have been known to vouche for each other when a serious crime has been committed.

CRIME: statutory rape of a minor

PUNISHMENT: see below

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Mr Matrix,

First, you assume I am without sympathy for Mr Polanski. I am a spiritual person and believe in ultimate redemption for everyone and I believe in forgiveness. I may forgive someone, but I still expect when people break the laws in a country whose very foundations are bedded upon equal justice under the law the justice is equally applied.

Wait, where is this mythical land of wonderment and magic where equal justice is applied under a just system of jurisprudence?

Aside from that comment (Because we have no such system), I think the equivalent of what you are saying is "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."

A pragmatic way of looking at it, certainly.

Those who are prevented from violating others always think they are victims of an oppressive society.

reply to post by crimvelvet


Actually, this is the suggested punishment locale for unlawful sex with a minor

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e8f7ae532cdf.jpg[/atsimg]

Paris Hilton spent 22 days in County for drunk driving, Michael Vick spent 14 months in a federal penitentiary for animal cruelty, and Roman Polanski gets to scrump teens the world over while sipping champagne and when apprehended offers us this suggestion of how to serve his time--getting to twirl on mountain tops like Maria in Sound of Music.

Yes, how unfair and cruel we are to demand he finish his 45 day stint in jail (whereupon he will probably be let out within 48 hours for overcrowding).

reply to post by TheColdDragon


You've made your stance clear, and you rationalize sex with children quite well.

Unfortunately for you, Homer Wells, society has rules and it has them for a reason.

And doing away with age of consent completely doesn't do so much for children that would swiftly be exploited by adults, than it does the sick, twisted adults that can't contend with women their age so they feel the need to prey on small kids or pubescent kids.

Make no bones about it, they're kids until they cross the 18 yr. mark and legally become adults.

And by the by, you might not (in your eyes) be defending Polanksi, but you sure as hell condone his sick action. Or maybe it's envy.

It's so easy to blame it on society, isn't it?

I guess even a monster has to lay blame somewhere.

reply to post by orderedchaos


Just because I find nothing particularly wrong with Paedophiles, hebephiles and ephebophiles is no reason to label me a monster, just like it is completely wrong for someone to label A Fortiori no better than a Rapist only because she believes very strongly about the subject matter.

I don't believe I've overtly supported Polanski's stance on the subject matter as much as pointed out what other people are arguing. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.

But I suppose if it comforts you to call me a monster, you are welcome to do so. It is harder to critically consider things outside of what Society expects of you than it is to just go with what everyone else says. I've argued these topics time and again, and I likely will argue them ad nauseum at some point in the future.... when it comes down to it, people ignore facts in favor of their own religious viewpoint of reality being a certain way.

Such as the notion that all Sex Offenders have the worst Recidivism rate amongst criminals who re-offend, nevermind that I posted a five and ten year study several posts back which refutes this common urban myth.

You say that 18 is the Legal age, well, guess what? There are states where it is 14, and many that are 16... so even the U.S.A. Doesn't have a consistent track record as to what a "CHILD" is. I think what you mean to argue is that in your point of view that all people below the age of 18 should be considered children who are incapable of consenting... in which case, all teenagers that have sex during their teen years should be held accountable for the crimes they are committing against each other. And since they are all sexual perverts, they should all be listed on the Sex Offender Registry for raping each other.

Where Polanski is concerned in all of this? I am ambivalent. I care not whether he is punished or not, it is a crime so old that the only people outraged are those who want some form of societal penance that must be paid. Even you, A Fortiori....

If people who society feels it has been wronged by are the sole reason for jurisprudence, then I myself need to be brought up on charges for offending the natural sensibilities of the public... just as Socrates was castigated for his corruption of the youth and disruption of the common good.

And just like Socrates, I cannot apologize for my positions. It would be wrong of me to do so... but with the Justice you call for, I would be forced to face punishment because it would be what society demands for my heinous viewpoints on subject matters vile and profane.

And just as Socrates, I would argue for my own tortuous death rather than persist in a world where the body of law is ruled by the body of people rather than by the foresight and wisdom of blind justice... whereby if a party recognizes no wrong unto themselves, then no wrong was committed.

It is not the public's place to seek retribution for the sake of it's own satisfaction. The Law does not exist for satisfaction, it exists to correct wrongs done unto victims and individuals and seek recompense unto they that are victimized. It seeks to fashion for society what is best for it, despite what Society itself would think.

So... in closing, no, I do not feel ashamed at defending Paedophiles, Hebephiles and Ephebophiles. I feel no shame defending those who are too scared and terrified of the public to say anything in their own defense, our modern day heretics and witches. They deserve just as much humanity as anyone who has posted here, and anyone whom you socialize with on a daily basis.

Where I feel shame is on behalf of all of you who are unable to see yourselves in these lives you revile. Who cannot fathom that, a different path taken, might have led you exactly to where Roman Polanski is today. I feel shame for those without pity, remorse or compassion... because they are qualities that are required when they are least desired by the person that must display them. It is easy to hate, it is easy to condemn and it is easy to let anger, fear, and a lack of understanding rule your reason. It is easy not to want to understand what others never bother to.

And it is easy to defend a position where everyone else shares your same viewpoint, and repeat the same arguments that everyone has before. It is easy to rant, rave and decry those whose positions terrify you... not so easy to accept that a point may have been made which doesn't fit in your world view.

I don't make a lot of friends with the positions I take, but I am uninterested in sycophantic ditto's who think that if they share one opinion with me that somehow I must be an alright sort. I dislike being compared, categorized and compartmentalized into groupings, separations and simplifications. It's not my goal to win friends and influence people.

It is my goal to always seek the Truth, regardless of what that Truth might be or how unpleasant it may appear or feel.

So, call me a monster, I've certainly got the title. I've made it easy for you, because it is easy to do what you and others do. I swear by the divine Creator on this though; you do not understand me, and cannot pretend to... so you simplify me into a category you can fathom; unwanted other whose opinions are abhorrent to you.

Call me monster; it recuses you from having to digest my sentiment or words.

reply to post by Aeons


No, I'm merely saying that the whole damn system is broken, every part of the court system... in and outside of this Polanski case. Justice is rarely just in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Justice instead is bought and sold on the open market.

And woe be to they who cannot pay.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by TheColdDragon]

reply to post by A Fortiori


On the subject of Japan, no, I had previously commented on their society for it's fetishism and the sexual age of consent.

That being said, Japan is extremely Xenophobic. A Japanese salary man paying a thirteen year old for sex by buying her Sanrio products in order that she can compete with her female peers in the Japanese Social Game is far more accepted than a Gaijin of any color doinking a Japanese thirteen year old... because the Japanese are Xenophobic.

They are also irrepressible perverts, as evidenced by Saya Yuri... a twelve year old with C cup size breasts who was lusted after by Chinese, Korean and Japanese alike, and did many rather revealing (But not naked) shoots until she learned that boys were whacking off to her, which is when she quit the public scene...

And Saya Yuri is not the only young teen female who is lusted after by a populace, even America is not guiltless of any of this. I'd previously mentioned the number of female actresses who had countdown's for their age of legality, do you imagine that the countdown existed because boys could not physically find them hot before they turned 18 or was the point that when they turned 18 then there was no fear of punishment for doinking them or downloading porn of them? To which, did the desire exist before that point? Most assuredly YES.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Well, if Whoopi says it, then it must be true

2nd Line

Mod Edit: Adding "2nd line" to a post doesn't make it any less of a 1-liner.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Gemwolf]

lol


busted


but yeah whoppi shoulda known better.

Mod Edit - and your post isn't any more on topic or much more of a one liner.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by elevatedone]

reply to post by John Matrix

Originally posted by John Matrix
Apparently, the sex was consensual.

Where did you hear that from?

Originally posted by John Matrix
There is more to this case than has been discussed here.
I'm watching CNN right now:
Here is a link to a video on CNN:
polanski.cnn

Sorry, scroll down when the page open's and click on the video: "Polanski's Plea Deal"

That talks about the judge reneging on his plea deal. It doesn't state that the sex was consensual. Someone else here pointed to an article where the former minor in question explicitly states that it wasn't consensual:
ac360.blogs.cnn.com...

Someone else here -thinks- that that she was coached and offered this link:
www.ipt-forensics.com...

My take, however, is that she wasn't coached. It's one thing for a bunch of kindergarten kids to be manipulated by shrinks, but it's another for the minor in question to state as a woman that no, it wasn't consensual. But though she stated that it wasn't consensual, even -she- doesn't want to pursue all of this. Seriously, the guy fled his home country 25+ years ago for this, while the victim seems to have been ok with the original plea bargain he reached, which he seems to have already served. If anything should be done, I think an apology and perhaps more monetary compensation to the victim would be far better than continuing with all of this. Heck, she even stated that whether or not he should get an academy award shouldn't be based on how popular he was, but how good his movie was.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by A Fortiori

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by crimvelvet

 

Actually, this is the suggested punishment locale for unlawful sex with a minor

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e8f7ae532cdf.jpg[/atsimg]

Paris Hilton spent 22 days in County for drunk driving, Michael Vick spent 14 months in a federal penitentiary for animal cruelty, and Roman Polanski gets to scrump teens the world over while sipping champagne and when apprehended offers us this suggestion of how to serve his time--getting to twirl on mountain tops like Maria in Sound of Music.

Yes, how unfair and cruel we are to demand he finish his 45 day stint in jail (whereupon he will probably be let out within 48 hours for overcrowding).

Wait a second there. Where did you get this idea that Polanski would only finish off a 45 day stint? Personally I think that if the judge had stuck with the original plea deal, he would already be finished.

reply to post by dizzie56


I think we can agree it was non consensual. And legally speaking, even if it -was- consensual, it would still be statutory rape. The fact that it wasn't does indeed legally make it rape by 2 definitions of the term. However, rape, in my view, is a term that is over-used. Not all rapes are the same, and this one clearly seems to have been on the lighter side. The victim herself found that the media circus was more traumatic than the event.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by scott3x]

Well this just shows you how utterly insane the people in Hollywood are!
Absolute whack-jobs, incredibly irrational and should be raped, beaten, raped again, only then, burned at the stake.

reply to post by scott3x


Polanski and his lawyer have suggested as part of a bargain they put forth since his being taken into custody that he be under house arrest for the duration of the original "deal" which would be 45 days (since he already spent 45 days in evaluation). The house would be his Swiss house (the one from the picture).

BTW, the psychiatrists in his first evaluation said that he would not repeat the offense and he was not attracted to underage girls. In the context of history, having his memoirs made public they could not have been more wrong.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by dizzie56

 

I think we can agree it was non consensual. And legally speaking, even if it -was- consensual, it would still be statutory rape. The fact that it wasn't does indeed legally make it rape by 2 definitions of the term. However, rape, in my view, is a term that is over-used. Not all rapes are the same, and this one clearly seems to have been on the lighter side. The victim herself found that the media circus was more traumatic than the event.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by scott3x]

Scott, I have to disagree with you here. Anal rape to a thirteen year old is traumatic, and she has not said that the media circus was more traumatic than that. What she stated was that she does not want her husband and children to be put through a media circus. Totally different.

reply to post by dizzie56


Well, on the one hand yes, the crime is obviously deplorable.

On the other hand, it's also 30 years old...

(Roman Polanski: backlash as Whoopi Goldberg says director didn't commit 'rape-rape')
www.telegraph.co.uk...

"He fled the US in 1978 before being sentenced for the crime and has been pursued around the globe by prosecutors ever since."

"The director originally faced charges including rape and sodomy but they were dismissed following plea bargaining and he admitted unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor."

"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out he said 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying'. And that's why he left."

"He fled the US in 1978 before being sentenced for the crime and has been pursued around the globe by prosecutors ever since. "

"Polanski was arrested in Zurich, Switzerland on Sunday and faces extradition to the United States."

"Debra Winger, said it was a 'three-decades-old case that is dead but for minor technicalities.'"

So, yeah... Not sure what to think. He plea-bargained rape and sodomy down to admitting guilt for unlawful intercourse w/minor. So, obviously he's guilty of that, at the minimum. One would think he should be incarcerated for that, since he pled guilty to it. One would assume that evasion or fleeing the country should probably also be tacked on (isn't that a crime in itself?).

The crime WAS over 30 years ago. Remind me why it's taken that long to arrest the guy and ask for extradition?

From other folks on the forum it sounds like he already settled out of court with his accuser. Though that would probably be for a civil complaint, which is a separate proceeding from a criminal case. I guess the question is whether he should be incarcerated on the criminal half of things (considering he already pled guilty), or whether his settlement with the victim and elapsed time (30 years on) is enough to wave it off.

Not saying they should or that Hollywood types should get special treatment. Just saying that if he's already settled with the victim, do we really need to go nuts over a 30 y/o crime?

Granted that would mean that anyone who flees a crime and pays off the victim should be waived from having to do actual jail time for their crimes, right? That's the message it would send.

Guess it just depends on the example we want to set and the message we want to send... Will be interesting to see what happens, I suppose.