because everyone is talking about it

Roman Polanski.

Warning for rape and child abuse.

Warning for triggery subject matter in comments.



So I've read sf_drama and stupid_free covering this like, multiple times because there is that much stupid, especially from the joy and the light that is ohnotheydidnt. Besides the problem with using the word rape when defending him--and I mean, just from a language perspective, it's fascinating to watch that shit--there's a real breakdown problem in the meaning of statutory rape, because when those words are used together, we tend to associate it with shitty lawsuits about two teenagers getting it on, so it reads as consensual, but for those meddling parents and that nasty judge!

So stat rape is like, rape-lite in common parlance--God strike me dead, but I might have actually read that somewhere and not something that's all that bad, because again, our associations via media are eighteen year olds who sleep with their sixteen year old girlfriend, and Mom and Dad were racist/classist/religious/pick-one. Added to that, people who are teenagers and people who remember being teenagers who have had/had/are going to have sex with someone during that period of sexual maturity before age of consent really get twisted out of shape, because honestly, I don't think anyone wants to hear they were OMG RAPISTS. Hence, statutory rape == not real rape.

We all know this. And I'm getting the feeling that combined with the fact the victim is now in her forties, everyone is visualizing some kind of bizarre May-December love affair of a broken-hearted Polanski and an overdeveloped Hollywood ingenue who totes knew what she was getting into while her mother cackled in the background. By the way, if you have read Godfather, you remember that chapter?

[I remember that was a wtf moment for me; here I am reading about gangsters and Surprise!Child Rape! With Mommy orchestrating! And there was a plane! Then later, there was a horse's head. I mean, at that point, the horse's head didn't even like, penetrate. I was still hung up on the before and after of the little girl. It's been about five years since my last read and I still remember how she was described before and after. I have never been able to really understand how horrible the horse's head was supposed to be; I was still numb from the kid.]

So most people remember their teens, but they don't remember thirteen. So. I thought maybe at some point, somewhere, someone will go look at a seventh grade playground. A seventh grade playground. Eleven to fourteen is when you hit menarche, get your first period. It's when you discover boys. It's when you discover hair care products are a life decision. Mom may let you wear lipstick if you really beg. Dad does not like your sudden interest in tighter skirts. You may have snuck Cosmo out at a slumberparty. There's a fairly good chance you secretly still play with Barbies and will never admit it to anyone. Sometimes, you might still be wearing a training bra or graduating to your first bra. You may have gotten text messaging activated on your phone. And maybe you might try to do a cartwheel and realize it's been like, a foot and a half of height since you could do one of those.

The victim was a Hollywood actress and probably wouldn't have had a chance to go anywhere near any of this, if reports are right. For reasons I don't entirely understand, she was alone without anyone who should be responsible for her safety adn security (and one day, I want to freak out about this, because the circumstances alone make me want to become a helicopter parent). There's a better than average chance she was forced to know a shitload more about sexuality than she should have at her age.

That doesn't change her age and maturity from thirteen. Brain development doesn't work like that. You can't really fast forward the overall maturity to make decisions, like you really can't fast forward puberty, because let me tell you, I sure as fuck would have gotten that shit over with a hell of a lot faster. It may have changed how she thought of the world, how she thought of herself, but it's still thirteen. Even if she was a miracle of maturity and understanding of the world, it's still a maturity in a thirteen year old brain. And there is a huge difference in a thirteen year old brain and a sixteen, a twenty, a thirty. We can argue emotional maturity forever and ever, but I'm going to say the chances that this one girl was somehow able to be emotionally mature enough to be able to consent at the same level as a woman over the age of eighteen really fucking insane.

She was a child in the presence of an adult, a, a female with a man, b, an aspiring actress with a director, c, a daughter left there without parental protection, d, unable to drive or remove herself under her own power without undue difficulty, e, drugged and stripped of what rational decisions could be made, f, making e impossible anyway. At no point did this child have power in the situation and that was the goddamn point. Rape isn't because they're pretty, though there can be attraction because they are pretty; rape isn't because they dress provocatively, though there can be attraction because of how they are dressed--rape is an act of power dressed up as sex with the lack of ability to say no being the goddamn point.

She still said no, which kind of blows my mind, because at thirteen, reading that, I'm not sure I would have known I could.

He was convicted for statutory rape, and if he pled it out because he wanted to avoid putting her on the stand, fine, if he felt bad about it, okay, but that doesn't actually change that he raped a child. It doesn't negate it, or cancel it out, or make it better. It doesn't gain him points. Because this isn't a video game and you can't get a -5000 for rape but fix it by +10 for plea bargain and +50 for being just this cool guy and +1000 for horrible past. You can't make up for that shit. You can repent, and you can atone, and you can seek forgiveness, but that doesn't clear the crime.

There is so much wrong with the defense that it's disturbing, from his character to his talent to his past suffering to his trauma from the death of his wife to his current age to the sexual freedom of the seventies, to the child's clothing and occupation, to the mother's speculated collaboration. It's not rape apologia, which I was calling it earlier; most aren't trying to say there was no rape; they are saying rape isn't really criminal. Even if they don't acknowledge it, or really say it, or dismiss it, the fact of the matter is, rape is still not a real crime. And stat rape is the least criminal of them all.

I'm sorry, was I supposed to be shocked? I want to be. I think the only thing that actually shocked me is that it's taken a couple of days to realize that I really, really need to be.

Comments

[amireal.livejournal.com]

*points* What you said.

[arboretum]

thank you... for saying exactly what I'm thinking. :|

[thepouncer.livejournal.com]

I think he's a tragic figure. That does not negate the fact that he drugged and raped a protesting child. And even if she had said "yes," she wasn't competent to give consent! I am baffled and outraged that anyone is defending him on this point. He skipped the country and eluded justice for decades, but now the legal process will have a chance to play out the way it should have when that girl was still young.

[annaalamode.livejournal.com]

See, people think teenagers as this one lump category but there is a hell of a lot of difference between a 13 year old and a 17 year old. Regardless of any other circumstances (drugging, absence or presence of consent, etc) an adult having sex with a 13 year old is fucked up and wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG. 13 year olds aren't much more than babies. And, you know, everyone who signed that petition, my question is, how would you feel if an adult had sex with your 13 year old son/daughter?

Take away all the other things that Polanski did wrong (drugging her, having sex with her after she said no, etc.), and it would STILL be wrong for a 42 year old to have sex with a 13 year old. The end. Full stop. Let's all go home and stop being outraged at the poor, misunderstood child rapist.

[bonniebb.livejournal.com]

Thank you for expressing everything I have been feeling. I just *cannot* understand how so many people can just hand-wave away RAPE of a CHILD.

[alestar]

If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But... fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!

~ Roman Polanski, 1979

[puckling.livejournal.com]

...What? Seriously? Seriously?

I think what makes this quote the cherry on the extreme extreme amounts of fail is that it he doesn't even seem to realize what he did WRONG in the first place.

And God, I hope he's deeply deeply mistaken, but I fear that he's not.

[lazar-grrl.livejournal.com]

I agree with this so much. So, so much. When I try to think about the "debate" over his actions, my mind just keep coming back to she was 13 years old. That trumps everything. His oh-so-tragic history, because obviously he's suffered more than anyone in the world--13 years old. Brilliant artist--13 goddamned years old.

I am also reminded of reading of an interview he gave in 1979, where he said, "Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"

No respect. No sympathy. I hope he rots. Preferably while still living so he can really enjoy it.

[sage]

This. Never mind that he was in his 40s perving on a thirteen year old kid.

And the stupid way he left in the first place? The night before his date to show up and be released for time served, THEN he flees the country?? Makes me wonder if LAPD has a list of other young girls he fucked -- ONLY because fleeing cast suspicion on himself.

Also, I don't get how people can be so fame-blind to defend celebrities who are clearly and admittedly guilty. Being famous = / = immunity!

[shartyrant.livejournal.com]

I can't believe anyone would defend him. He has ADMITTED that he is GUILTY of raping this pre-teen. He doesn't even sound sorry about it. Sorry about getting caught and it making his life semi-difficult. I don't care what his past is. Just because you were hurt or a victim in your past is no reason to hurt others. Just because he is famous does not mean he isn't a monster. I hope he gets shipped to the U.S. and has his day in court. The fact he fled the country like he did just shows how selfish he is and a coward.

And anyone who talks about this being "Rape-lite" and not rape or it is okay now that the gal is older needs a reality check. Rape is rape. Not matter the age, outfit, celebrity status or what have you. Gah...humans!

[gwendolynflight.livejournal.com]

And shit like this is why I'm a militant feminist. Goddamnit.

[ladyholder.livejournal.com]

I find, after reading your argument, that I agree with what was said.

Now due to RL eating my brain & a dose of the flu taking the rest, I haven't been watching the news at all. So I am in the dark about some of the background. Despite that handicap, I can say in all honesty, if an adult drugs and rapes a child, they are committing a crime. So... I agree with all of the above.

Thank you for putting the whole argument out in a way that makes sense and doesn't sound like the incoherent rage inside my head. Thank you.

~L

[norabombay.livejournal.com]

I am finding it refreshing that the only Polanski discussion to show up on my friends list was variants of "WTF? He RAPED A CHILD. Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Jail. Now.".

He may be a great artist. But this case wasn't about art, it was about raping 13 year olds.

And to some extent the level of defensiveness, and the articles I've read about it make me wonder how many other people were drugging and raping 13 year olds in 1970's Hollywood, and the answer is probably "far too many". I mean one is far too many.

But add this in with the McKenzie Phillips story- also about rape, the 70's, drugs, and hollywood. Add in the bit where Ryan O'Neal accidentally hit on his own daughter at Farrah Fawcetts funeral.

And I think there is a deep vein of bad where this comes from. Not in the conservative sense of "oh noes, hollywood" but in the sense that raping 13 year olds is flat out wrong. Except, wasn't that what Bill Wyaman of the Rolling Stones did? His SON wound up marrying the girls mother, as they were the same age.

[viggofest.livejournal.com]

I had not heard about the Ryan O'Neal thing. How lovely. What a coda to Farrah's life, when what so many remember is that beautiful smile at its peak.

[viggofest.livejournal.com]

The sad fact is that many of his defenders ARE waving away the rape charge, when that isn't what he's being extradited for. He already pled guilty. He fled to avoid a situation where he believed corruption/media politics were going to affect his sentence. He's guilty of jumping bail, or whatever. He's not being brought back to the US to stand trial for rape. That case is done and fact.
So it becomes what, a discussion of US morals? Which is so not the point of his arrest. But his defenders focus on the rape to cast doubt on the sentence. (My favorite defense statement? "He wasn't even allowed to receive his own Oscar!")
Now once again the world at large, and those oh-so-progressive French, make this about sex. When it is really about punishment.
I wonder how Emmanuelle (?) his wife feels or felt when their first child turns/ turned 13.
Set aside the case itself. What if this was Timothy McVeigh? The Unabomber? The guy in Georgia who allegedly killed 7 people in a trailer, including a child and a disabled person? Am I equating rape with murder? You betcha! Anything less devalues the trauma, in my opinion. YMMV.
Anyway, thanks for putting an exclamation point on all of this. What bugs me the most is the argument being made that it was so long ago. Which, in my mind, undermines all the important work being done to extend the statute (?) of limitations on rape--which there are--to that of murder--of which there is no limitation.

[trea-.livejournal.com]

Yes. This. Exactly.

[harborshore.livejournal.com]

This, oh, thank you.

[thexpuzzler.livejournal.com]

I think the worst are the people who say, "oh, get over it, the girl got over it, so why do you even care".

One... yeah, no.
And two, I am 99,9% sure the girl is so not over it.

But yes, what you said. Rape is so often still considered a 'mere indiscretion', the pure amount of wrong makes me sick.

[lurkerlynne.livejournal.com]

My opinion?

Drugging = jail.
Ignoring the 'no'= jail.
youngster= jail. Possibly castration beforehand, preferably with a dull knife and no anesthesia.

Bastard deserves a taste of his own medicine before spending the rest of his life in prison. Preferably in the open where the rest of the population can get at him.

I do admit I may be letting my own experience color my reaction, but can't really bring myself to care. Kids bring out the vindictiveness in me.

Also, I find myself without an icon to properly convey my disgust at anyone defending him.

[tia993.livejournal.com]

I am so glad that someone is saying this. If you read the newspapers, you'd think that everyone agreed that this is something he can handwave away.

The number of prominent figures in Switzerland and France who are shocked!, shocked I tell you! that someone would dare to do this to such a talented man is disgusting.

Thirteen.Year.Old.Girl. Drugged and forcibly raped (I don't care what he plea bargained it down to).

This is not acceptable and you don't have to be a far right conservative to feel that way even if that is what seems to be suggested by some people.

[druidspell.livejournal.com]

The number of prominent figures in Switzerland and France who are shocked!, shocked I tell you! that someone would dare to do this to such a talented man is disgusting.

... As read, that sentence doesn't make sense in my mind. Not from a grammatical standpoint, just from a human standpoint. To me, it should read The number of prominent figures in Switzerland and France who are shocked! shocked I tell you! that someone would dare to do this to a thirteen year old girl is refreshing


That said: I agree with this comment, hardcore, 100%.

[mahaliem.livejournal.com]

I am increasingly saddened and dismayed at the number of people who don't think he should be extradited.

[cold-poet.livejournal.com]

The problem I have with the whole fucking thing is that SO MANY points are being missed. He raped a child. Which is fucking wrong. No question. Hands down. Major fail. Anyone who tries to handwave that needs a firm kick to the head.

But the persons involved with the case at the time felt a plea bargain was acceptable, and whether or not it's enough to atone for what he did? The decision was made and done and that's the way the judicial system works. Double jeopardy says we don't get to go back and try him all over again for it. No matter how much we may want to.

Frankly? Right or not he was supposed to be done. Time served, story is over. But because some grandstanding judge told people he wasn't going to honor the plea bargain, and because Polanski was a freaking moron and ran, now here we are 30 years later spending a stupid amount of money on what? Prosecuting an international bail jump on a man who was never supposed to set a foot back in prison? With a victim who has been saying to let it go she'd like to get on with her life now too, thanks.

I don't give a shit about his art. I think what he did was wrong, and I think it's a damn fucking shame that he was allowed to get off with a hand slap. And no, I don't think going after him now has a single thing to do with justice. It smacks of someone else grandstanding and making an example, and you know what? The idiots who are saying "oh it was just stat rape, what about his art blah blah blah..." are the ones who NEED the example and it's fucking lost on them.

The whole thing is a cluster fuck from beginning to end and no one in the whole mess is right on this one, except the victim. She's right, whatever her stance is. Her body, her voice. She's the only one I'm interested in hearing from.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

The justice system serves the victim, in bringing her attacker to justice, but it also serves the people, dispensing justice on their behalf when the law is broken. It serves as punishment, rehabilitation, and deterrant. It serves as precedent.

I'm about to cry with rage, so bear with me, because I have a twelve year old son. I have two nieces and a nephew. If in the hallowed halls of justice, it is successfully argued that the victim now says it's okay, the point of the law is lost. It's about the victim to dispense justice, but it also about protecting the public, not just from the perpetrator, but from any perpetrator committing that crime.

There are reasons why victims aren't the ones that can choose punishment for the crime committed against their person or their property, and this is one of those reasons.

I hope you'll understand that I need to spell this out: setting a precedent that the victim can decide not to punish is going to be argued on behalf of abusive fathers, mothers, cousins, husbands, boyfriends, name a power dynamic violated in a relationship. It would not be hard to get a kid to say at any time they want to let the assailant be freed. If this is actually taken into account, let's open the jails and be done with it. A rape victim would not be hard to intimidate--we already have that in the before conviction. We cannot revictimize rape victims by giving the world the opportunity to hit them again after.

The law may have been corrupt, but it did not stick it's penis into her vagina, did not stick it in her ass, didn't feed her quaaludes and alcohol, didn't hold her down, didn't ignore her when she said no, stop raping me. Polanski did. The law victimized her when it plea bargained. Then Polanski victimized her again by running away to live a fucking awesome life in France and leave quotes about how everyone wanted to fuck little girls.

Here is the thing--he was convicted of statutory rape on plea bargain. He ran away. It's been thirty years. We don't reward that. The circumstances of why he was arrested, why he was convicted, why he ran away, why they went after him, are meaningless.

The idiots who are saying "oh it was just stat rape, what about his art blah blah blah..." are the ones who NEED the example and it's fucking lost on them.

You're speaking with their voices. The arguments you use are theirs. Polanski's victimization of her has become a reason to excuse his crimes. He raped her, and he ran away, and those are what caused her to be victimized.

[tygress.livejournal.com]

What gets me is the people who are all, well, as you say "But it wasn't really rape-rape."

Excuse me? What are we, in elementary school? Oh he raped you, but did he rape-rape you? WtF, world? Seriously?

Some good articles I've read or things that made my brain implode.

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2009/09/29/whoopi-goldberg-says-about-polanski-i-know-it-wasnt-rape-rape%E2%80%9D/

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/

[sage99.livejournal.com]

I was just about to comment with that salon article -- someone else on my friends list posted it and it was such a relief to read someone say that publically

(Seperis thanks for this whole post too. I'm agahst that this even needs to be said but glad there are people saying it.

[drlense.livejournal.com]

*coughcough*

FUCK YOU HOLLYWOOD. READ A FUCKING NEWS REPORT ABOUT THIS CRIME BEFORE YOU START GOING ON AND ON ABOUT THE TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE THIS IS. POLANSKI RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD. IT'S NOT FUCKING OKAY.

The best thing I read this morning was a NY Times article where the author pointed out that the French government is starting to back away from being so vocally supportive after polls came out showing the 70% of French people think Polanski belongs in jail.

And yeah, Polanski had a tough life. But I bet there are a LOT of people who experienced the horror of the Holocaust who DIDN'T grow up to rape children, and I bet there are a few people who suffered through the loss of a spouse to murder who DIDN'T get over it by RAPING CHILDREN.

And as sorry as I am for the victim (and I have endless, endless reserves of sympathy and compassion for her) she doesn't get to decide if the government drops this, just like POLANSKI didn't get to decide whether or not or for how long MANSON went to jail. That's not how our justice system works. It's not the state or the government making her a victim all over again, it's fucking Polanski and his goddamn supporters, because if he'd gone to jail for this fucking crime like he was supposed to back in 1978, she wouldn't have to live through this over and over and over again.

HE FUCKING PLED GUILTY. IT'S NOT A CIVIL SUIT. THERE'S NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. HE PLED GUILTY AND TOOK THE FUCK OFF BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO JAIL FOR RAPING A CHILD. It's NOT FUCKING OKAY.

[devilishdestiny.livejournal.com]

thank you.

[kathgrr.livejournal.com]

Hear! Hear! Thank you for saying everything you said.

[slythhearted.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Once again you are the voice of reason.