Whoopi Goldberg: Polanski Child Rape Wasn't Rape, Rape

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: intrepid

Barf.

No material difference.

Maybe to you but it's a difference in the courts. Backpedaling are we?

a reply to: Butterfinger

Not left not right Ailes, O'Riley, Clinton, Trump, every single TV evangelical pastor, countless politicians, CEOs, predators are everywhere. Who were HWs assistants that allowed this? They need to be held accountable.

a reply to: windword

I think the thing here is, there are 2 gates that are being passed:

- legal
- moral

Im not sure people really care about the legal stuff, excepting those who equate legality with morality and those who feel that when they follow a law you have a moral imperative to make sure life is fair for them by following the same law.

WIth that said....while it may or may not have been against the law to coerce young women into sex in 1977....it was absolutely in violation of the morals of the day. And the outrage seen has more to do with moral outrage than being outraged at a hooligan breaking the law.

In that regard, I don't think the law matters.

a reply to: intrepid

No judging.



From the article:

Polanski pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a minor. What's the difference between that and statutory rape?

They're synonymous. Only a few states—Georgia, Missouri, and North Carolina—actually use the term "statutory rape" in their penal codes. Other legal euphemisms for having sex with someone who's underage include "Rape in the Third Degree" (New York), "Felonious Sexual Assault" (New Hampshire), and "Carnal Knowledge of a Child" (Virginia).

a reply to: loam

Exactly. So what's the problem?

a reply to: loam


I'm embarrassed that she lives in the same town as me. She is a scummy child-rape apologist.

Roman Polanski Rape Victim Unveils Startling, Disturbing Photo for Book Cover

"The Girl," Samantha Geimer's memoir about being raped by Roman Polanski in 1977 at age 13, features a picture the director took of her days before his assault.

It is a frank, convincing book, more shocking in its straightforwardness and apparent good humour than a more obviously manipulative account. That day in Los Angeles in 1977 when Polanski picked her up in his car for a photo shoot he said he was doing for French Vogue, she wasn't wearing a bra, she writes, because she was built like a child (she still wore vests). She was eager to please, because she was a child. She did as she was told – took the Quaalude, drank the champagne, got into the Jacuzzi – because she was a child. She took her clothes off when he asked, because she was a child and, without even factoring in his celebrity, went along with his demands in drugged acquiescence, because he was an adult and she was a child. At one point she asked to go home, but her request was denied. "I didn't want to have sex," says Geimer with brittle levity. "But apparently that is what was going to happen."

...

Now, she says: "The word 'rape' brings up vastly different things in people's minds. When I was 13, there was no discussion about rape; there was no date rape; I didn't perceive what happened as rape. I thought rape had to be violent. I think that's all worth talking about. If you don't talk about these things, particularly to younger people, how do they protect themselves from it? And how do you teach people that it's wrong to do?"

Details from the deposition – primarily the fact that Polanski had anal sex with Geimer...

Link.

She was 13.

originally posted by: loam

Roman Polanski Rape Victim Unveils Startling, Disturbing Photo for Book Cover

"The Girl," Samantha Geimer's memoir about being raped by Roman Polanski in 1977 at age 13, features a picture the director took of her days before his assault.

It is a frank, convincing book, more shocking in its straightforwardness and apparent good humour than a more obviously manipulative account. That day in Los Angeles in 1977 when Polanski picked her up in his car for a photo shoot he said he was doing for French Vogue, she wasn't wearing a bra, she writes, because she was built like a child (she still wore vests). She was eager to please, because she was a child. She did as she was told – took the Quaalude, drank the champagne, got into the Jacuzzi – because she was a child. She took her clothes off when he asked, because she was a child and, without even factoring in his celebrity, went along with his demands in drugged acquiescence, because he was an adult and she was a child. At one point she asked to go home, but her request was denied. "I didn't want to have sex," says Geimer with brittle levity. "But apparently that is what was going to happen."

...

Now, she says: "The word 'rape' brings up vastly different things in people's minds. When I was 13, there was no discussion about rape; there was no date rape; I didn't perceive what happened as rape. I thought rape had to be violent. I think that's all worth talking about. If you don't talk about these things, particularly to younger people, how do they protect themselves from it? And how do you teach people that it's wrong to do?"

Details from the deposition – primarily the fact that Polanski had anal sex with Geimer...

Link.

She was 13.

Anyone here want to apologize for Polanski's actions in the above account, from the victim?

Right.

a reply to: FarEastManor

Apparently, some do.

originally posted by: FarEastManor

originally posted by: loam

Roman Polanski Rape Victim Unveils Startling, Disturbing Photo for Book Cover

"The Girl," Samantha Geimer's memoir about being raped by Roman Polanski in 1977 at age 13, features a picture the director took of her days before his assault.

It is a frank, convincing book, more shocking in its straightforwardness and apparent good humour than a more obviously manipulative account. That day in Los Angeles in 1977 when Polanski picked her up in his car for a photo shoot he said he was doing for French Vogue, she wasn't wearing a bra, she writes, because she was built like a child (she still wore vests). She was eager to please, because she was a child. She did as she was told – took the Quaalude, drank the champagne, got into the Jacuzzi – because she was a child. She took her clothes off when he asked, because she was a child and, without even factoring in his celebrity, went along with his demands in drugged acquiescence, because he was an adult and she was a child. At one point she asked to go home, but her request was denied. "I didn't want to have sex," says Geimer with brittle levity. "But apparently that is what was going to happen."

...

Now, she says: "The word 'rape' brings up vastly different things in people's minds. When I was 13, there was no discussion about rape; there was no date rape; I didn't perceive what happened as rape. I thought rape had to be violent. I think that's all worth talking about. If you don't talk about these things, particularly to younger people, how do they protect themselves from it? And how do you teach people that it's wrong to do?"

Details from the deposition – primarily the fact that Polanski had anal sex with Geimer...

Link.

She was 13.

Anyone here want to apologize for Polanski's actions in the above account, from the victim?

Right.

Are...are you asking if anybody here on ATS wants to apologize to the victim on behalf of Polanski for what he did to her?

Kinda weird.

I'd call her an ignorant pig, but some Leftist might call me a racist, misogynist.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I read that as excuse his actions.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Shamrock6

I read that as excuse his actions.

In that case, can you quote whomever it is you think is excusing his actions?

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: FarEastManor

originally posted by: loam

Roman Polanski Rape Victim Unveils Startling, Disturbing Photo for Book Cover

"The Girl," Samantha Geimer's memoir about being raped by Roman Polanski in 1977 at age 13, features a picture the director took of her days before his assault.

It is a frank, convincing book, more shocking in its straightforwardness and apparent good humour than a more obviously manipulative account. That day in Los Angeles in 1977 when Polanski picked her up in his car for a photo shoot he said he was doing for French Vogue, she wasn't wearing a bra, she writes, because she was built like a child (she still wore vests). She was eager to please, because she was a child. She did as she was told – took the Quaalude, drank the champagne, got into the Jacuzzi – because she was a child. She took her clothes off when he asked, because she was a child and, without even factoring in his celebrity, went along with his demands in drugged acquiescence, because he was an adult and she was a child. At one point she asked to go home, but her request was denied. "I didn't want to have sex," says Geimer with brittle levity. "But apparently that is what was going to happen."

...

Now, she says: "The word 'rape' brings up vastly different things in people's minds. When I was 13, there was no discussion about rape; there was no date rape; I didn't perceive what happened as rape. I thought rape had to be violent. I think that's all worth talking about. If you don't talk about these things, particularly to younger people, how do they protect themselves from it? And how do you teach people that it's wrong to do?"

Details from the deposition – primarily the fact that Polanski had anal sex with Geimer...

Link.

She was 13.

Anyone here want to apologize for Polanski's actions in the above account, from the victim?

Right.

Are...are you asking if anybody here on ATS wants to apologize to the victim on behalf of Polanski for what he did to her?

Kinda weird.

No no. Sorry if my wording was weird. Whoopi was an 'apologist' for Polanski's actions. After reading the above from victim Samantha Geimer, my question is why would anyone apologize for Polanski's actions after reading that. Hope that helps.

a reply to: FarEastManor

That makes more sense haha.

To be fair, I do think precision matters when you're talking about legal terms. But the fact remains, to me anyway, that statutory rape is still treated as rape, regardless of the term used in the code. So I think what Whoopi is doing is taking a genuine discussion point (being the use of precise terms when it comes to law) and trying to pivot that in to somehow changing what Polanski did. I don't necessarily think that it's going as far as being an apologist for it. I think it's just extremely ignorant on her part.

At the end of the day, I don't know many folks that wouldn't consider plying a minor with drugs, alcohol, and whatever else and having sex with them as being rape. Or "rape rape" in Whoopi's world, I guess.

Just this week on The View as they were discussing Harvey , Whoopie brought the problem back to women , insinuating that she never got abused this way cause no one would dare cross a tough cookie like her. She basically admonished women for not having the strength to stand up to to sexual oppressors, and be willing to lose their jobs , and be blackballed in the industry.

She also praised Cosby and stood up for him when all the allegations were coming out about him.

I can't stand Whoopie Goldberg and her hypocritical ways. The women's fault , my a$$.🙄

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: FarEastManor

That makes more sense haha.

To be fair, I do think precision matters when you're talking about legal terms. But the fact remains, to me anyway, that statutory rape is still treated as rape, regardless of the term used in the code. So I think what Whoopi is doing is taking a genuine discussion point (being the use of precise terms when it comes to law) and trying to pivot that in to somehow changing what Polanski did. I don't necessarily think that it's going as far as being an apologist for it. I think it's just extremely ignorant on her part.

At the end of the day, I don't know many folks that wouldn't consider plying a minor with drugs, alcohol, and whatever else and having sex with them as being rape. Or "rape rape" in Whoopi's world, I guess.

Yes, she absolutely understands courtroom procedure, so she's right in that regard, especially about Cosby. But when it comes to the court of public opinion, there's a reason she got so many threats. She knows law, though.

My father was a Harvard educated lawyer, and believe me, I know you can get away with all kinds of sh!t with the right legal team in your pocket.

For the kids, this really sucks, though. For the second time in a long time, I watch An Open Secret. I think children in the film industry are extremely vulnerable to some horrible people.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
The American Left ladies and gents!

Major generalization ladies and gents!

originally posted by: Sheye
Just this week on The View as they were discussing Harvey , Whoopie brought the problem back to women , insinuating that she never got abused this way cause no one would dare cross a tough cookie like her. She basically admonished women for not having the strength to stand up to to sexual oppressors, and be willing to lose their jobs , and be blackballed in the industry.

She also praised Cosby and stood up for him when all the allegations were coming out about him.

I can't stand Whoopie Goldberg and her hypocritical ways. The women's fault , my a$$.🙄

I think of some of these female actors, and they're what, maybe 100 pounds? Super skinny, maybe 5'7" or so, and then you have this big monster of a guy forcing himself on them. Man, that's wrong, and he has all the social power.

What made so many stay quiet, I think, was that Harvey was going to sue them if they talked. Only a flock of victims would keep that from happening. One or two could be sued, and though it might not tarnish their career, they would be dealing with a super painful "he said, she said" lawsuit that they easily could lose. Then what?

Remember his first apology? He said he was sorry, but that most of the allegations were bogus, and lawsuits would begin shortly. How about that, Mr. Weinstein? Still wanna sue some people?

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: incoserv

And possibly a sacrificial pawn for a greater agenda.

Meh. He's not that important in the big picture.