As you are most likely aware, last week director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on an outstanding warrant for his arrest in the U.S. He fled to Europe in the 1970s after being charged with giving prescription drugs and liquor to a 13-year-old girl, then raping her. He plead guilty to a lesser charge of improper sexual conduct with a minor (and said he wasn’t aware she was 13 Reader Lucy pointed out that while he at times claimed not to have known her age, he later acknowledged that he did), then left the country and generally avoided countries with an extradition agreement with the U.S. (and skipped the Academy Awards when “The Pianist” was nominated).
Anyway, the reaction from Hollywood has been generally supportive of Polanski. Many film industry notables signed petitions last week opposing his extradition and asking that the charges be dropped. Melissa at Women & Hollywood suggests that this might be, in part, because:
…the issue touches close to home for many a director who has probably employed the “casting couch” and may have committed an action similar to Polanski’s sometime in his career. Plus, I’m sure there is pressure being applied to people to get on board and support the artist.
In an example of how many in Hollywood are defending Polanski, Whoopi Goldberg explained on The View that it wasn’t “‘rape’ rape”:
Notice that part of her defense (about about 0:30) is that they’d had sex before, which seems to preclude the possibility that he could have raped her (and assumes that those previous times were consensual and that sex with a 13-year-old is okay as long as it was consensual).
At about 2:05 she appears to make a sort of cultural relativist argument, saying that we’re a “different kind of society,” while in other places, including “the rest of Europe,” 13- and 14-year-olds are sexualized. That is, of course, entirely true (that girls at 13/14 have been treated as marriageable/sexual, not that this is specifically true “in the rest of Europe”), both historically and now (my great-grandma married a 22-year-old man when she’d just barely turned 15). There are a lot of interesting points there, but Goldberg doesn’t seem to be making a complex argument–she seems to be saying “in some places this would be okay, so we shouldn’t punish him.”
At 3:15 they discuss the responsibility of the mother, asking what kind of mom would let a young girl go alone with an older man. It’s a very appropriate question to ask. And my guess is: lots of parents in Hollywood, if the older man was an influential director who said he had set up a photo shoot for a major fashion magazine for your daughter. That, of course, is horrid; at the very least it’s extreme denial (“oh, he’s so nice, he just wants to help her get her big chance because he sees something special in her”), at worst it’s actively offering sexual access to your child for a chance at stardom.
I can’t see, however, that it in any way changes the situation regarding Polanski. And the use of excuses like “they’d had sex before, so it couldn’t be rape” is stunning to me.
Melissa at Women & Hollywood adds:
The thing about the Polanski case and why it is resonating across the country and the world is that lots of people don’t like the double standard that Hollywood is showing here. Hollywood is liberal when it feels like it like with the environment, but not when it comes to women.
Also check out Jillian York’s discussion of Hollywood’s support of Polanski.
Jezebel has a video of Chris Rock on the Jay Leno show criticizing the support for Polanski, one of the few celebrities to very openly do so.
UPDATE: Here’s the ever-awesome Jay Smooth on the topic:
In a random tangent, when I was searching for the video clip from The View I saw another version posted to YouTube with this description: “Disgusting Obama-type of Morals/Values—Whoopi Goldberg DEFENDS Roman Polanski: It Wasn’t Rape-Rape.” It reminded me of my recent post about Rush Limbaugh’s description of “Obama’s America,” in which Obama has become the symbol moral decay.
Comments 90
Jillian C. York — October 5, 2009
Well said. This is a tough one for a lot of people to grasp - on the one hand, there are arguments for why statutory rape laws need reform (the Economist did an excellent piece recently detailing people whose lives have been destroyed because of errors in judgement, e.g. a 17 year old fellating a 15 year old, that sort of thing). On the other hand, all a rape charge should require is the victim calling it rape - which Samantha Gailey quite clearly did in the original testimony.
Also, if I may have 5 seconds of shameless self-promotion, I wrote here about columnist Anne Applebaum's disgusting defenses of Polanski (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jillian-york/anne-applebaum-child-rape_b_305814.html).
Posts about Rush Limbaugh as of October 5, 2009 » The Daily Parr — October 5, 2009
[...] about Rush Limbaugh as of October 5, 2009 What Counts as Real Rape? – thesocietypages.org 10/05/2009 As you are most likely aware, last week director Roman Polanski was [...]
Craig — October 5, 2009
Revolting beyond words. Do these people think about what they are actually saying? Doubtful. All they know is Polanski is "one of them"--he's an _artist_, for crying out loud. He has a _soul_. He directed "The Pianist." No way he could be a sex criminal.
Sad. So sad and disappointing.
But at least it wasn't "rape rape." "Rape rape" is when you know the _victim_, not the _perpetrator._
Emily WK — October 5, 2009
I don't think that this case is anything like an example of why statutory rape laws need to be reformed. He was 44 years old and she was 13. This isn't two teenagers who are fooling around with each other.
I liked Melissa McEwan's take:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/28/roman-polanski-rape-arrest-switzerland
"They make an exception for Polanski for the same reason exceptions have been for other famous, artistic men... who have been known to sexually assault women and/or children: Because geniuses get special dispensation.
Because there's only one Roman Polanski.
So goes the breathless defense of the artiste, while the flipside of that particular coin, because thirteen-year-old girls are a dime a dozen, goes unspoken."
Reanimated Horse — October 5, 2009
I can't believe Whoopi Goldberg gets to keep her job after promoting such a dangerous point of view. What's even more terrifying is that someone who makes a distinction between "rape" and "rape-rape" feels that this situation qualifies as the former. Perhaps women are sexualized earlier in European countries - but do any of those countries condone assaulting those young women?
I could talk for miles about this, but I'd like to point out one argument that doesn't seem to be coming up. The crime he ended up pleading guilty to was called non-consensual sex with a minor.
A minor by definition doesn't have the power to consent. Even if she liked it and wasn't saying no, even if there were no drugs or force involved, and even if the victim has moved on and truly forgiven him - it is still unquestionably wrong and it is not unfair to bring him here and sentence him. The fact that he dressed it up with drugs, with ignoring her protests, and by passing the buck because (in his words) "everybody wants to f*** young girls" is just sickness piled on top of sickness.
(Sorry to go on about it but there's one more important fact: The prosecutor who said the judge reneged on Polanski's plea bargain has come out and confessed to having lied about that too, so in Polanski's case, there is officially no excuse left.)
chuk — October 5, 2009
I don't think we're really seeing "Hollywood in defense of Polanski", as much as we are really seeing "people that know and quite like Polanski as a colleague and friend...who happen to mostly be associated with Hollywood...in defense of Polanski". This is unfortunate for everyone in Hollywood that doesn't know him, not to mention most liberals and lefties that are oft associated with Hollywood's dominant point of view--Obama too. I don't think this kind of denial is that unusual amongst the friends and neighbors of liked individuals that commit heinous acts. I think it's informative because it points out how much these kinds of ties effect the way we interpret actual/ real events.
There is also a story about who has more powerful friends, and what effect this has on whether people are held accountable for their actions. These dynamics could apply as much to those between the unfamous and famous, as it could to other categories, like... say... women and men.
lucy — October 5, 2009
Re: "He plead guilty to a lesser charge of improper sexual conduct with a minor (and said he wasn’t aware she was 13), "
Didn't his guilty plea actually include acknowledging that he knew she was 13 at the time? The transcript is available here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html
It doesn't come across completely clearly in the text, but if you watch the (generally horrifically rape-apologistic, yet also somewhat enlightening) documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” it is clear that knew she was 13. He didn't think that was a problem.
The myth that Polanski was tricked into believing his victim was older (i've seen quotes up to 25 years) is completely fabricated. It's just something journalists have picked up on because they want to excuse someone for assaulting a child.
Interestingly, whilst both are often mentioned along side one another, this myth actually somewhat contradicts another myth that his behavior was simply typical of European culture at the time.
larry c wilson — October 5, 2009
This is just a way of victimizing the victim all over again.
Nataly — October 5, 2009
Statutory rape is always rape, because children cannot consent. Regardless of if she'd said yes (which she didn't), he still raped her. Why is that so hard to get?
Monday Blogaround « The Gender Blender Blog — October 5, 2009
[...] What Counts as Real Rape? – More from Gwen on the Roman Polanski case [...]
CoryBetty — October 5, 2009
Polanski raped a child. He admitted it. Then he ran to escape paying for that crime. There are no gray areas.
On another note, the next time someone tells me that feminism is "over" because all the problems have been solved, I'll just direct them to all this Polanski mess. Ugh.
Emily — October 5, 2009
On Jezebel there is an article about rape on the popular TV show Mad Men, pointing out that there are far too many people not willing to call rape exactly what it is: rape.
http://jezebel.com/5374654/on-mad-men-when-is-it-rape?skyline=true&s=i
angie — October 6, 2009
Not that I want to defend this crime that Polanski committed but this whole practice of how USA treats him is rather ridiculous and only demonstration of backwards yank legislation and backwards yank attitudes and backwards and hostile yank policies. It is absurd that he would be captured after 30 years (in European soil of all places) and perhaps send to this corrupt and dysfunctional yank legal system. Especially absurd when we know that this type of crime should have gone old already in any civilized nation and the victim herself has forgave the crime and begs Polanski not to be sentenced. This really is what one would call a cultural and legal travesty. USA really should have no business to interfere with sovereign European people and European nations to begin with. Stay out of Europe yanks, you are not welcome. It is because of things like these that the world hates you.
Raksha — October 6, 2009
The outpouring of support for Polanski is completely nauseating, but I wish I could say I was surprised. Pathetic.
For what it's worth, Kate Harding's fantastic piece "Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child" has gotten a shitload of attention as well (which she talks about here).
msruth — October 6, 2009
"while in other places, including “the rest of Europe,” 13- and 14-year-olds are sexualized. That is, of course, entirely true, both historically and now"
Are you being sarcastic here? It is statuary rape to have sex with a thirteen year old in the rest of Europe (apart from Spain, which does have 13 as the age of consent but with some caveats re coercion). In every single country in Europe the marriageable age is 18, dropping to 16 in most places if you have parental consent. I find Goldberg's argument is incredibly insulting, she's basically saying 'well in America we think it's wrong to rape children but those Europeans are fine with it'. She's talking rubbish.
Rachel Kennedy — October 6, 2009
Original post was well-stated. Obviously Woopi has not been raped before. It IS a very interesting point that no one is really bringing up the drugging part of the issue. If I were her parent, I would be all up on that. It seems that the attention of the rape charge is shadowing any other problem there is since they are "lesser evils." Unbelievable.
Rachel Kennedy — October 6, 2009
I started reading back in the comments some and wanted to give my two cents. Quoting Lucy:
"Defending Polanski tells children they are not worth protecting if their rapist is a ‘great’ man. It tells men they may rape people if they are ‘great men’."
If anyone on this forum knows anything about mental health, they know that is true. Children are very easily damaged at 13 years of age, and the potential for one "small mistake" as Polanski's friend put it, could severely damage their psychological state for the rest of their lives.
Also, whether you guys like it or not, if you break a law while you're in America, it's your fault. It's up to the individual to know what he is doing and when he is breaking a law. I don't think it would be very hard to figure out, because of all of his time spent in the US, and all of the work he has done here, that something like that is illegal in our country.
He is also probably very familiar with the drinking laws. I would find it hard to believe that he didn't know he was doing something wrong. So I don't think we should make the argument that because it's not illegal in HIS country, he should not be charged for it.
Michelle E — October 6, 2009
I have been closely monitoring the Polanski case mainly because it applies to me on a lot of levels.
I like how hollywood picks and chosing those who are worth defending and those who are not. For example they will defend Polanski who raped a girl and should just give up and face what he has done. This is important because him running away makes it look like he did not care. I also question... he really has never done this again... or did he just get smarter about how he did it. I do not get it... It is like Woody Allen all over again. Polanski had a hard life I know, but many of those in jail for the same thing have had a hard life too...
It just seems like people are missing the point. He raped a girl and has yet to recieve any punishment for it. I am very sad with Whoopi because I ussually like her, and think she knows whats up and up. If that was her kid I think it would be a different story... What makes us defend those who are most guilty.
I do believe that if it was discovered that he was actually GAY that there would be no one defending him and his career will be greatly harmed.
naath — October 6, 2009
I think that if *all you knew* was that he had pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor* then you might reasonably question whether this was actually dreadfully wrong. I think it is reasonable to ask whether the age of consent is "right", whether the reasoning behind it is equally applicable to all people and so forth - personally I think that declaring all 13 yearolds too immature to consent and all 18 yearolds mature enough is a gross oversimplification of the realities of human development; it's a question that I feel could do with revisiting and looking at more analytically. Although one might also reasonably say that if one breaks the law knowingly because one believes it to be a crap law then one should be willing to face the consequences of doing so gracefully (with of course, well presented arguments to the court as to why you are right), it makes one's point much better.
*if you had read the whole case you would also know that he drugged her and raped her while she told him to stop; knowing this makes it far more clear cut! Whether or not she could have consented she clearly did not, and these actions would be reprehensible whatever her age.
Andrew — October 6, 2009
I fully agree that rape itself should not be tolerated regardless of the wealth and talent of the perpetrator. However, I also believe that the well-being and privacy of the victim must remain an absolute priority in the prosecution and the media surrounding a rape case.
This is a peculiar situation in which those two ideals are not very compatible. It's been widely reported - and correctly, as far as I can tell - that Polanski's victim has repeatedly asked for the charges to be dropped. In more recent statements, she's insisted that she has healed from the trauma of the rape, but is persistently harmed by being forced to revisit its horror in interviews. She now, apparently, believes the judicial nightmare and the press nightmare to have damaged her life far more than the original crime. In this respect, it seems far more important to honor the needs of the victim than to "make an example" of Polanski, unless there is a convincing case that he is in any way likely to re-offend.
In discussions like these, it's easy to get caught up in the symbolism of the narrative and train our feelings on some myth about social justice. But is it appropriate for us to be forcing this victim's name and horrible story back into the spotlight against her will, just to quench our outrage at rape itself? At this point in time, would anyone still benefit or be made safer by Polanksi's prosecution? And at what point does a rape become such an unforgivable offense that we can't honor the victim's desire to drop the charges? I wish Whoopi et. al. had been focusing on these questions, rather than using some horribly twisted logic about "rape rape" (which it was) and sexualized Europeans (which is bollocks).
(Notwitshtanding the fact that fleeing a criminal sentence should be the more relevant crime in the discussion...)
Roving Thundercloud — October 6, 2009
I can't help thinking that if the victim had been a 13-year-old *boy*, people would be falling all over themselves to condemn Polanski as a completely evil. But 13-year-old girls--well, that's what women are for, sooner or later, right?
Victoria — October 6, 2009
I wonder if she'd be singing the same tune had that 13 year-old been her daughter.
jenny — October 7, 2009
has anyone read the transcript of victims testimony from the original case? NIGHTMARES
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
mllesatine — October 7, 2009
"That is, of course, entirely true (that girls at 13/14 have been treated as marriageable/sexual, not that this is specifically true “in the rest of Europe”), both historically and now (my great-grandma married a 22-year-old man when she’d just barely turned 15)."
Well, childhood is a very young, social construct. Childhood as we understand it today was fully introduced/enforced with the abolishing of child labour in the early 20th century. You can't argue that the sexualization of girls is a historical fact because childhood didn't exist at all times. For a long time children were "miniature adults".
Brigid — October 7, 2009
I think it's also interesting that the issue of the girl's mother comes up. Even the people on The View who said they thought Polanski should be brought to justice were ready to blame the survivor's mother - a woman - for the crime committed by Polanski - a man. I see this as a sort of victim blaming by proxy: they can't blame a 13 year old girl who was drugged, but they'd still rather blame another woman than the male rapist.
Jesse — October 7, 2009
Well, childhood is a very young, social construct.
How on earth is this true? In most societies in history, children have been highly dependent on their parents, unable to provide for themselves, not very useful for work, and considered not fully capable of making their own decisions, especially in matters of sex and marriage.
Mary — October 8, 2009
While I'll start by stating unequivocally that Polanski deserves to stand for the charges against him, no matter how freakin' famous he is, there's something else about all of this that I find interesting: all the other famous people who had sex with adolescent girls in the 1970s who nobody is freaking out about.
Iggy Pop, David Bowie, most of Led Zeppelin... I've read my share of rock and roll biographies and oral histories, and the fact that these guys were having sex with underage girls is very much on the record and doesn't really evoke the skeevy horror that it ought to. Everyone's just kind of, like, well, there were just a lot of very young groupies...
That business would not fly today.
Alessandra — October 8, 2009
...
Alessandra — October 8, 2009
Is there a single Polanski defender who does not have liberal views on sexuality?
Alessandra — October 8, 2009
As for the Polanski "defenders" and rape-excusers, they must be repeatedly criticized until they shut up.
However, I do have to say that in this case, I think the mother's role could have been of a partial enabler of exploitation and abuse. I didn't read the court papers, but why wasn't the mother present with the girl that night, when it was very late and this was a 44 yr old man taking photos of the girl???
Something is really not right here. Do not misunderstand me, I am not saying the mother's behavior alters Polanski's crimes in any way or his responsibility for what he did. However, in many cases of child exploitation, there is more than one adult involved in making sure the conditions are appropriate for the abuse to take place.
As I said, I have not read the court records, but I also didn't see any explanation in the media (even from people who did read the records) about the very negligent actions from the mother's part. As well as it is true that the girl did not have that minimum age (in terms of maturity, aside from legal determinations) to consent to have sex, she could not have properly consented to take nude or semi-nude photos at night with a 44 yr old ephebophile (even without the sex).
I think this unwillingness to examine the role of the mother is a very prevalent type of denial regarding women's involvement in sexual exploitation of minors.
In many cases, society prefers to focus only on the male perpretator and not on all the other people involved in an abuse situation, who could have prevented the abuse or aided the minor, but who chose not to.
Alessandra — October 8, 2009
and from another blog:
"polanski IS an honorary lesbian of the vagina monologues type"
Liberal women have nothing to complain about Polanski since they are all in favor of a lesbian turd like Eve Ensler.
from wikipedia:
The Vagina Monologues includes a section entitled "The Little Coochie Snorcher that Could". This portion of the play, as originally performed, has been criticized for including a lesbian rape scene of a 13-year-old girl by a 24-year-old woman who uses alcohol to lower the inhibitions of her victim.[3] At the conclusion of the segment, the narrator (the grown-up thirteen year old girl) fondly reminisces about the rape, claiming that it helped to nurture her and help her grow as a woman, and finishes the play with the line, "If it was rape, it was good rape". The segment received criticism not only for depicting any rape as "good", but also for forming a double standard, as elsewhere in the play, male-on-female rape is depicted as not only inexcusable but the ultimate act of violence against women.
The scene was modified in later performances; the young girl's age was changed to 16, and the "good rape" line was omitted.
Alessandra — October 8, 2009
And isn't Ensler such a great example for investigating why some women develop a homosexual mindset? Amid a constellation of reasons, unable to sexually harass young men because of power issues (including psychological ones), they turn to females, which are much more targetted for all kinds of sexual violence and have less power in many ways. Secondly, in this case, there's the pedophile issue (in the larger 'minor' age sense of the word), but which is along the same dynamics. A child is more of an easy target of violence than an adult. And there is the clearly stated fantasy that the child wants the (lesbian) rape even more than the adult does.
Let's put Ensler's words into Whoopi's: "*IF* if it was rape, it wasn't rape-rape, it was good rape. "
What will we hear next from Samantha Geimer, "The good rape from Polanski helped to nurture her and help her grow as a woman?"
Liberals are too monstrous for words.
Nessa — October 8, 2009
I find it insulting to claim that a homosexual mindset develops from abusing children, a gross and extremely homophobic overgeneralization based in ideology rather than reality. Pedophilia is a completely different orientation from the homosexuality between consenting adults. Rape is committed by people of all sexualities and all genders; are we to believe that straight women "develop" straightness through raping young boys? To take one fictional, radical example (one that I and most reasonable people including lesbians, heterosexuals, gay men, etc would not condone) and attempt to use that to pass judgment on an entire category of people - defining them solely by the gender of the person they love, as if that could form the entire basis of one's personality, character, beliefs, and criminal record - truly astonishes me.
Normally, when we find someone's opinion disagreeable, we attribute that to the PERSON rather than to some larger group, which by the nature of its size generally cannot be in full agreement about an issue, much less a whole set of issues. For one thing, each individual will identify with many groups; for another, individuals are actually capable of thinking their own thoughts, rather than repeating everything that other members of one of their groups may say. I don't consider all conservatives abhorrent just because I find many of Bill O'Reilly's opinions abhorrent; I don't consider him to speak for all conservatives, just like I don't think Hollywood speaks for all liberals, much less most. Because most people are pretty freaking complicated, and it's completely meaningless to stick them in one box vs another. (And for the record, all the feminist blogs - which to my knowledge are considered liberal - have been very outspoken in their condemnation of Polanski and the people in Hollywood who support him.)
As for Polanski, I cannot believe this issue is even under debate - it's unclear to me how it is at all justifiable for Polanski to evade punishment for the clear rape of a child. He has already been convicted of the crime, now let him serve the sentence he deserves. I agree that we should respect the wishes of the victim, but it will not spare her attention should he walk free, nor is it a matter for her to decide - the case is criminal, not civil. The case has received so much attention already that like it or not, it has become a pretty Big Deal, one which may well have ramifications for the future if we don't act emphatically.
Michelle E — October 8, 2009
I still believe many are neglecting the obvious... He really has not reoffended never since this incident raped another or took advantage of girl. After getting away with I still believe he would.
He is guilty, and sparing the women as much as I agree, it is kind of to late. We are constantly saying that by not prosecuting she spared, but the truth is no matter what she will not be spared. He fled, so for her now 45 has been face with media for all this time. It is his fault not hers. If he had not fled he would be convicted (possible that would have lost his status but not likely) done his time and then be released, and the victim would be ready to move on.
He now should be charged for both running and the rape.
I cannot believe anyone is defending him. IT is RAPE. Whether she was 16, 10, 46, 89... it is because she said NO!!!!!
The mother is guilty for not being a great parent and a bit star struck... but she did not rape her daughter.
That is all.
Alessandra — October 8, 2009
Nessa 5:39 am on October 8, 2009 | # | Reply
I find it insulting to claim that a homosexual mindset develops from abusing children, a gross and extremely homophobic overgeneralization based in ideology rather than reality.
=================
Nice strawman. If you would ever like to address what I wrote about sexuality development, please do so.
Now for my questions: How do you explain that a lesbian turd like Ensler advocates raping girls and then puts the words in their mouths that they enjoyed it? Why did young women all over America perform this play claiming this was progress?
"Pedophilia is a completely different orientation from the homosexuality between consenting adults"
You need to get something straight - human sexuality is not definied by age boundaries as it pertains to definitions of sexual orientation ( hetero, bi or homo). Pedophilia is not a separate category from heterosexuality or bisexuality or homosexuality. Polanski has sex with adult women and rapes girls. Is he not heterosexual because of it? Even if he only had sex with 13 yr olds, he would still be heterosexual in his orientation.
The concept of sexual orientation (e.g. having a homosexual mindset) has nothing to do with having consensual sex, nor with orientation towards a selected age group. It refers to the sex of the sexual orientation target as compared to the individual in question. Nothing more.
Alessandra — October 8, 2009
Oh yes! And now in France, leftwing Frederic Mitterrand, the Culture Minister under Sarkozy, is being attacked by the conservative right for jumping out to defend Polanski's arrest. He was one of the first to screech that Polanski's arrest was a "terrible thing and very unfair." Sarkozy's camp (a sleazy liberal right) tried to defend Polanski and the most outspoken member being Mitterand. His heart went out to the director rapist intensely. We can imagine the pained face of Mitterrand when he said, "Seeing Polanski alone, imprisoned while he was heading to an event that was due to offer him praise and recognition is awful, he was trapped."
Boohoo.
The French conservatives are demanding that Mitterand resign. In the latter's half-fiction, half-autobiographical 2005 book, he details nothing less than several trips to sexually exploit boys in Thailand.
Are we surprised?
Mitterand thought he was grandstanding to the (stupid and gullible anti-American) French public when he said, "In the same way there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America, that has just shown its face."
That "scary" America is the one who goes after child sex tourists and throws them into jail. It's true that this America almost doesn't ever do its job, but it sure bothers the heck out of slimy international pedophiles when it does.
Alessandra — October 8, 2009
I found more info on the mother:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-02/the-lost-polanski-transcripts/full/
“In addition to that, there has been some indication that there is some blame to be put on the mother for allowing the daughter to go. However, it appears from the testimony at the Grand Jury—and also from the probation report—that the mother asked to go on that photo assignment, and it was Mr. Polanski who suggested and who indicated that the mother should not go, because it would—it might inhibit the girl in the photo session.”
Still, without more details, that doesn't excuse the mother to me, but it makes her look less of a savage abuser of her own daughter.
You have a 44 yr old guy trying to convince the mother that her daughter will be inhibited if the mother is there, so the mother shouldn't go? Inhibited?! Leave you daughter alone with me?! Red flags right there.
sez — October 27, 2009
She only protects him, because she's jewish to.
[kinsey] April Is Sexual Assault Awareness Month (SAAM) – Are We Aware Yet? | my sociology — April 22, 2013
[...] When they are victimized, the act is justified by stereotyping men as naturally oversexed and women as asexual, or by blaming the victim. Alternatively, others may turn a blind eye, or even deny that it occurred. [...]
How We Talk About Teenage Girls (And Their Bodies) | Introduction to Women's Studies — September 10, 2013
[...] related. Here’s an article analyzing the defenses that Hollywood notables brought for Roman Polanski in 2009. Polanski was accused of drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl in the 1970s. One of the reasons so [...]