Is Roman Polanski a criminal?

[Burgermeister]

Pedophilia seems to be taking the same path as homosexuality in Hollywood. Accepted, accepted with a wink, normalized, celebrated. Tons of stories about pedos in Hollywood. Here's just one - Elijah Wood Says Hollywood Has a Pedophilia Problem

Before Elijah Wood starred as Frodo Baggins in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, he was a child actor — and now he’s making some explosive allegations about the state of Hollywood.

The actor, in a new interview with the Sunday Times, is accusing Tinseltown of having a pedophilia problem, saying “a lot of vipers” are preying on children in the business.

“Clearly something major was going on in Hollywood. It was all organized. There are a lot of vipers in this industry, people who only have their own interests in mind,” he said. “There is darkness in the underbelly. What bums me about these situations is that the victims can’t speak as loudly as the people in power. That’s the tragedy of attempting to reveal what is happening to innocent people: they can be squashed, but their lives have been irreparably damaged.”

 

[Votto]

Democrats are pro pedophile, pro sexual predator, pro a child's right to choose their sex and pro child sex trafficking across our southern border. So it shouldn't be a surprise that they admire and support Polanski.

We see on this thread the Left coming out to defend pedo's.

Very sobering, as it tells us what is next for society.

Pedo's reading to children in kindergarten giving lap dances maybe?

 

[zaangalewa]

No, he fled the US judicial system and cannot return or be recaptured and put back in prison.

I call normally the system of justice in the USA "system of injustice". In general I do not see any sense in a system basing on revenge and not basing on prevention. What had happened had happened. No one is able to change this any longer - much more important is what the future will bring. In Germany for example exists a period of limitation from 3-30 years in case of sexual delicts. Do you really expect Roman Polanski will rape a very young girl again after he did not do so in the last 46 years while he lived in freedom?

 

[zaangalewa]

And Bill Cosby was a genius at comedy.

Not only this. Bill Cosby - if he did do what is said about him - made one of the worst spiritual crimes which only god is able to evaluate. He was seen as a prototype of "the black father" - worldwide - and I fear he had destroyed a lot of hope. But only god will know.

And he made much more crimes. One for example in 2004 - less than 20 years in the past.

But no one who calls Bill Cosby a genious in comedy is wrong. But he destroyed what he made. No one can laugh any longer about his jokes.

 

[zaangalewa]

Well, Mr. Polanski didn't go to prison for it.

So what? To like to live in freedom is no crime. The motivation to like to live in peace and freedom is also a motivation not to do a crime.

I guess its "no big deal" in an entertainment industry that gave us R. Kelly, Harvey Weinstein and Al Franken, among other Sex Offenders.

But its still offensive to the people.

Do you think in other industries the situations in the leading offices is better? I remember for example a story about a female worker in China. Her very big boss stopped and suggested to her to be his whore this day. She did not like "to honor" herselve in such a way. Next day she was fired.

 

[luiza]

Why is Polanski treated so much better by the Left?

I hinted earlier
Look at his bloodlines . He is Hollywood" A "list .
Untouchable .

It's in large part what Khazaria ( Ukraine) is all about but they will not tell you that .

 

[zaangalewa]

I have not read any outrage from the mother despite her daughter being drugged by him and raped by him.

Aha.

Maybe she is afraid to speak, or maybe she does not care, or maybe the media suppressed her voice

Which other options are there and which one do you think it is?

Perhaps she is just simple doing what she is doing.

 

[Doug1943]

There are several issues here. It's important not to just have a reflex response based on your politics, difficult as that is nowadays.

(1) When is someone old enough to make the decision to have sex? And how is that related to 'approved sex', ie within marriage, as opposed to sex outside of marriage?

In primitive societies, including those existing today, sex with children is common. It's a major problem in Aboriginal communities in Australia, for example; also in Africa. And the backward sections of modern society, like the Southern states in America, were no exception. Thus the 'marriage at 12' laws.

Leftists are correct to point out Rightist hypocrisy here.

However, as humanity has advanced, we've increased the age at which children can engage in adult activities: so civilized societies have child labor laws, as well as advancing the age of marriage, and defining something called 'statuatory rape' -- ie 'consensual sex' with a child.

(2) This is a field where demagogues run wild. Just one note: there is a difference between having sex with a pre-pubescent child, on the one hand, and a post-pubescent child on the other. We casually use the word 'paedophile' to describe a man who has sex with an 8 year old, and also a man who has sex with a 16 year old. But there is a serious distinction to be made here.

Darwinian evolution has made normal males single-minded in their pursuit of females with whom to copulate, although 'mind' is probably the wrong word here. It's just a deeply-rooted reflex, which social taboos and punishments exist to curb. What's good for a genome -- replicate yourself whenever you can! -- is not good for a cohesive society.

Further complicating matters is this: We establish an age at which someone can vote, can drive, can decide to have sex -- but whatever age we choose is necessarily somewhat arbitrary. You're not a child at one second before midnight of your 18th birthday and an adult one second thereafter.

And even further complicating matters is this: there is a difference between men and women, boys and girls. I've always thought that the 23-year old female teachers sent to prison for having sex with a sixteen-year old male pupil should not have been punished that way. Expelled forever from the teaching profession, yes. But the boy she had sex with is not not the same, psychologically, as a girl of that age: the teacher's power played no role in what happened -- in fact, he was no doubt delighted, and bragged about it to his pals. With women, it's different.

Power is key here. It's one of the reasons we don't punish an 18 year old who has sex with a 15 year old in the same way we punish a 48 year old who does.

In short: although everyone -- including me -- would like to just say, "See, people on the [Left/Right] are pro-paedophile!", the issue is more complicated than that.

(3) There is no doubt that the post-modernist Left, which considers all social restrictions and barriers as simply reflecting power relations, is moving towards legitimizing sex with children of all ages. They want to normalize sexual deviance, to make it banal. Some of them are probably genuine paedophiles, but others of them just see this as one more traditionalist barrier to be brought down, as they've brought down so many others over the last few decades.

There is an art gallery in Paris which at the moment is featuring a painting showing a naked, bound child fellating an adult. It caused a bit of a stir, but has not been prohibited. These people know how to move step by step. Drag Queen Story Hour is just one more step. Further steps will come.

(4) There are people on the Left who are not happy with this. The premier serious Leftist magazine in the United States is The Nation. Here's what its editor, Katha Pollit, had to say about Mr Polanski and his friends in Hollywood.

"If a rapist escapes justice for long enough, should the world hand him aget-out-of-jail-free card? If you’re Roman Polanski, world-famous director, a lot of famous and gifted people think the answer is yes. Polanski, who drugged and anally raped a thirteen-year-old girl in 1977 in Los Angeles, pled guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sex with a minor and fled to Europe before sentencing. Now, 32 years later, he’s been arrested in Switzerland on his way to the Zurich film Festival,prompting outrage from international culture stars: Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera, Martin Scorsese, Pedro Almodavar, Woody Allen (insert your own joke here), Isabelle Huppert, Diane von Furstenberg and many, many more. Bernard-Henri Levy, who’s taken a leading role in rounding up support, has said that Polanski “perhaps had committed a youthful error ” (he was 43). Debra Winger, president of the Zurich Film Festival jury, wearing a red “Free Polanski” badge, called the Swiss authorities' action “philistine collusion.” Frederic Mitterand, the French cultural minister, said it showed “the scary side of America” and described Polanski as “thrown to the lions because of ancient history.” French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, co-founder of Doctors Without Borders, called the whole thing “sinister.”

Closer to home, Whoopi Goldberg explained on The View that his crime wasn’t ‘rape rape,’ just, you know, rape. Oh, that! Conservative columnist Anne Applebaum minimized the crime in the Washington Post. First, she overlooks the true nature of the crime (drugs,forced anal sex, etc), and then claims “there is evidence Polanski did not know her real age.” Talk about a desperate argument. Polanski, who went on to have an affair with 15-year old Nastassja Kinski, has spoken frankly of his taste for very young girls. (Nation editor-in-chief Katrina vanden Heuvel, who tweeted her surprise at finding herself on the same side as Applebaum, has had second thoughts: ”I disavow my original tweet supporting Applebaum. I believe that Polanski should not receive special treatment. Question now is how best to ensure that justice is served. Should he return to serve time? Are there other ways of seeing that justice is served? At same time, I believe that prosecutorial misconduct in this case should be investigated.”) On the New York Times op-ed page, schlock novelist Robert Harris celebrated his great friendship with Polanski, who has just finished filming one of Harris’ books: “His past did not bother me.” This tells us something about Harris’ nonchalant view of sex crimes, but why is it an argument about what should happen inPolanski’s legal case?

I just don’t get this. I understand that Polanski has had numerous tragedies in his life, that he’s made some terrific movies, that he’s76, that a 2008 documentary raised questions about the fairness of the judge (see Bill Wyman in Salon, though, for a persuasive dismantling of its case.). I also understand that his victim, now 44, says she has forgiven Polanski and wants the case to be dropped because every time it comes up she is dragged through the mud all over again. Certainly that is what is happening now. On the Huffington Post, Polanski fan Joan Z. Shore, who describes herself as co-founder of Women Overseas for Equality (Belgium), writes: ” The13-year-old model ‘seduced’ by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California.(It’s probably 13 by now!).” Actually, in 1977 the age of consent in California was 16. Today it’s 18, with exceptions for sex when one person is underage and the other is no more than three years older. Shore’s view–that Polanski was the victim of a nymphet and her scheming mother–is all over the internet.

Fact: What happened was not some gray, vague he said/she said Katie-Roiphe-style “bad sex.” A 43-year-old man got a 13-year-old girl alone, got her drunk, gave her a quaalude, and, after checking the date of her period, anally raped her, twice, while she protested; she submitted, she told the grand jury “because I was afraid.” Those facts are not in dispute–except by Polanski, who has pooh-poohed the whole business many times (You can read the grand jury transcripts here.) He was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, like many accused rapists, to spare the victim the trauma of a trial and media hoopla. But that doesn’t mean we should all pretend that what happened was some free-spirited Bohemian mix-up. The victim took years to recover.

Fact: In February 2008, LA Superior Court Judge Peter Espinosa ruled that Polanski can challenge his conviction. All he has to do is come to the United States and subject himself to the rule of law. Why is that unfair? Were he not a world-famous director with boatloads of powerful friends, but just a regular convicted sex criminal who had fled abroad, would anyone think it was asking too much that he should go through the same formal process as anyone else?

It’s enraging that literary superstars who go on and on about human dignity, and human rights, and even women’s rights (at least when the women are Muslim) either don’t see what Polanski did as rape, or don’t care, because he is, after all, Polanski–an artist like themselves.That some of his defenders are women is particularly disappointing .Don’t they see how they are signing on to arguments that blame the victim, minimize rape, and bend over backwards to exonerate the perpetrator? Error of youth, might have mistaken her age, teen slut,s tage mother–is that what we want people to think when middle-aged men prey on ninth-graders?

The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they’re just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they’re accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.

No wonder Middle America hates them. "

[ Roman Polanski Has a Lot of Friends ]

 

[zaangalewa]

... No wonder Middle America hates them.

Asides that "Middle Amerca" is a geographic location and not able to hate - Who hates whom on what reason and what means this?

 

[Votto]

Not only this. Bill Cosby - if he did do what is said about him - made one of the worst spiritual crimes which only god is able to evaluate. He was seen as a prototype of "the black father" - worldwide - and I fear he had destroyed a lot of hope. But only god will know.

And he made much more crimes. One for example in 2004 - less than 20 years in the past.

But no one who calls Bill Cosby a genious in comedy is wrong. But he destroyed what he made. No one can laugh any longer about his jokes.

Bill Cosby is a comedic genius. His comedy is no worse than it was back then. His success bears that out.

So why single him out over Polanski? Is it because he is black? Are those in Hollywood that racist? Or is it the fact that Bill was critical of Black culture, urging them to be fathers instead of foster all the single partent homes?

Being black and a conservative is worse than being white and a conservative. Black conservatives will be tarred and feathered every single time by the Left, just look at Clarence Thomas to see that.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Closer to home, Whoopi Goldberg ...

Bill Cosby was a friend of her. And she was totally right to remember to the principle that everyone has the right to be seen innocent as along as he is not judged. On the other side I fear she is one of the people who lost a lot of trust on her own because of his crimes.

 

[Doug1943]

Asides that "Middle Amerca" is a geographic location and not able to hate - Who hates whom on what reason and what means this?

"Middle America", in American linguistic usage, means, roughly, the established middle class.

Katha Pollit is saying, here, that the American middle class -- who are not, as she is using the term here -- liberal, like she is, loathes Hollywood. Remember, this was written nearly 25 years ago, and might not be so true now.

"Middle America" is, or was, a term often used by Leftist intellectuals as term carrying a connotation of faint derision, even contempt -- 'philistines', people who voted for Republicans or conservative Democrats. But here, she is showing some sympathy for their attitude to Hollywood. Now the established Left are middle class and have this attitude towards their own working class.

Far Leftists often had this view of middle-class America. As did your own Baader-Meinhoff group and similar radicals, for middle-class Germany in the 1960s, who were interested only in consumption, rather than in fighting American imperialism.

 

[zaangalewa]

Bill Cosby is a comedic genius. His comedy is no worse than it was back then. His success bears that out.

So why single him out over Polanski?

What do you compare?

Is it because he is black? Are those in Hollywood that racist? Or is it the fact that Bill was critical of Black culture, urging them to be fathers instead of foster all the single partent homes?

?
Nonsense statement.

Being black and a conservative is worse than being white and a conservative. Black conservatives will be tarred and feathered every single time by the Left, just look at Clarence Thomas to see that.

 

[Doug1943]

Bill Cosby was a friend of her. And she was totally right to remember to the principle that everyone has the right to be seen innocent as along as he is not judged. On the other side I fear she is one of the people who lost a lot of trust on her own because of his crimes.

Yes, Bill Cosby was gulity as hell, and he also told his own people the truth. The two things are not incompatible. In fact, they're probably common. That old Darwinian drive to spread our genes as widely as we can is hard to resist.

But there you are. Karl Marx impregnated his maid, and Engels took the fall for him. There aren't many saints around. And even the real saints, if we examined their lives closely, probably had a skeleton or two in their closet.

 

[Votto]

There are several issues here. It's important not to just have a reflex response based on your politics, difficult as that is nowadays.

(1) When is someone old enough to make the decision to have sex? And how is that related to 'approved sex', ie within marriage, as opposed to sex outside of marriage?

In primitive societies, including those existing today, sex with children is common. It's a major problem in Aboriginal communities in Australia, for example; also in Africa. And the backward sections of modern society, like the Southern states in America, were no exception. Thus the 'marriage at 12' laws.

Leftists are correct to point out Rightist hypocrisy here.

However, as humanity has advanced, we've increased the age at which children can engage in adult activities: so civilized societies have child labor laws, as well as advancing the age of marriage, and defining something called 'statuatory rape' -- ie 'consensual sex' with a child.

(2) This is a field where demagogues run wild. Just one note: there is a difference between having sex with a pre-pubescent child, on the one hand, and a post-pubescent child on the other. We casually use the word 'paedophile' to describe a man who has sex with an 8 year old, and also a man who has sex with a 16 year old. But there is a serious distinction to be made here.

Darwinian evolution has made normal males single-minded in their pursuit of females with whom to copulate, although 'mind' is probably the wrong word here. It's just a deeply-rooted reflex, which social taboos and punishments exist to curb. What's good for a genome -- replicate yourself whenever you can! -- is not good for a cohesive society.

Further complicating matters is this: We establish an age at which someone can vote, can drive, can decide to have sex -- but whatever age we choose is necessarily somewhat arbitrary. You're not a child at one second before midnight of your 18th birthday and an adult one second thereafter.

And even further complicating matters is this: there is a difference between men and women, boys and girls. I've always thought that the 23-year old female teachers sent to prison for having sex with a sixteen-year old male pupil should not have been punished that way. Expelled forever from the teaching profession, yes. But the boy she had sex with is not not the same, psychologically, as a girl of that age: the teacher's power played no role in what happened -- in fact, he was no doubt delighted, and bragged about it to his pals. With women, it's different.

Power is key here. It's one of the reasons we don't punish an 18 year old who has sex with a 15 year old in the same way we punish a 48 year old who does.

In short: although everyone -- including me -- would like to just say, "See, people on the [Left/Right] are pro-paedophile!", the issue is more complicated than that.

(3) There is no doubt that the post-modernist Left, which considers all social restrictions and barriers as simply reflecting power relations, is moving towards legitimizing sex with children of all ages. They want to normalize sexual deviance, to make it banal. Some of them are probably genuine paedophiles, but others of them just see this as one more traditionalist barrier to be brought down, as they've brought down so many others over the last few decades.

There is an art gallery in Paris which at the moment is featuring a painting showing a naked, bound child fellating an adult. It caused a bit of a stir, but has not been prohibited. These people know how to move step by step. Drag Queen Story Hour is just one more step. Further steps will come.

(4) There are people on the Left who are not happy with this. The premier serious Leftist magazine in the United States is The Nation. Here's what its editor, Katha Pollit, had to say about Mr Polanski and his friends in Hollywood.

"If a rapist escapes justice for long enough, should the world hand him aget-out-of-jail-free card? If you’re Roman Polanski, world-famous director, a lot of famous and gifted people think the answer is yes. Polanski, who drugged and anally raped a thirteen-year-old girl in 1977 in Los Angeles, pled guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sex with a minor and fled to Europe before sentencing. Now, 32 years later, he’s been arrested in Switzerland on his way to the Zurich film Festival,prompting outrage from international culture stars: Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera, Martin Scorsese, Pedro Almodavar, Woody Allen (insert your own joke here), Isabelle Huppert, Diane von Furstenberg and many, many more. Bernard-Henri Levy, who’s taken a leading role in rounding up support, has said that Polanski “perhaps had committed a youthful error ” (he was 43). Debra Winger, president of the Zurich Film Festival jury, wearing a red “Free Polanski” badge, called the Swiss authorities' action “philistine collusion.” Frederic Mitterand, the French cultural minister, said it showed “the scary side of America” and described Polanski as “thrown to the lions because of ancient history.” French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, co-founder of Doctors Without Borders, called the whole thing “sinister.”

Closer to home, Whoopi Goldberg explained on The View that his crime wasn’t ‘rape rape,’ just, you know, rape. Oh, that! Conservative columnist Anne Applebaum minimized the crime in the Washington Post. First, she overlooks the true nature of the crime (drugs,forced anal sex, etc), and then claims “there is evidence Polanski did not know her real age.” Talk about a desperate argument. Polanski, who went on to have an affair with 15-year old Nastassja Kinski, has spoken frankly of his taste for very young girls. (Nation editor-in-chief Katrina vanden Heuvel, who tweeted her surprise at finding herself on the same side as Applebaum, has had second thoughts: ”I disavow my original tweet supporting Applebaum. I believe that Polanski should not receive special treatment. Question now is how best to ensure that justice is served. Should he return to serve time? Are there other ways of seeing that justice is served? At same time, I believe that prosecutorial misconduct in this case should be investigated.”) On the New York Times op-ed page, schlock novelist Robert Harris celebrated his great friendship with Polanski, who has just finished filming one of Harris’ books: “His past did not bother me.” This tells us something about Harris’ nonchalant view of sex crimes, but why is it an argument about what should happen inPolanski’s legal case?

I just don’t get this. I understand that Polanski has had numerous tragedies in his life, that he’s made some terrific movies, that he’s76, that a 2008 documentary raised questions about the fairness of the judge (see Bill Wyman in Salon, though, for a persuasive dismantling of its case.). I also understand that his victim, now 44, says she has forgiven Polanski and wants the case to be dropped because every time it comes up she is dragged through the mud all over again. Certainly that is what is happening now. On the Huffington Post, Polanski fan Joan Z. Shore, who describes herself as co-founder of Women Overseas for Equality (Belgium), writes: ” The13-year-old model ‘seduced’ by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California.(It’s probably 13 by now!).” Actually, in 1977 the age of consent in California was 16. Today it’s 18, with exceptions for sex when one person is underage and the other is no more than three years older. Shore’s view–that Polanski was the victim of a nymphet and her scheming mother–is all over the internet.

Fact: What happened was not some gray, vague he said/she said Katie-Roiphe-style “bad sex.” A 43-year-old man got a 13-year-old girl alone, got her drunk, gave her a quaalude, and, after checking the date of her period, anally raped her, twice, while she protested; she submitted, she told the grand jury “because I was afraid.” Those facts are not in dispute–except by Polanski, who has pooh-poohed the whole business many times (You can read the grand jury transcripts here.) He was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, like many accused rapists, to spare the victim the trauma of a trial and media hoopla. But that doesn’t mean we should all pretend that what happened was some free-spirited Bohemian mix-up. The victim took years to recover.

Fact: In February 2008, LA Superior Court Judge Peter Espinosa ruled that Polanski can challenge his conviction. All he has to do is come to the United States and subject himself to the rule of law. Why is that unfair? Were he not a world-famous director with boatloads of powerful friends, but just a regular convicted sex criminal who had fled abroad, would anyone think it was asking too much that he should go through the same formal process as anyone else?

It’s enraging that literary superstars who go on and on about human dignity, and human rights, and even women’s rights (at least when the women are Muslim) either don’t see what Polanski did as rape, or don’t care, because he is, after all, Polanski–an artist like themselves.That some of his defenders are women is particularly disappointing .Don’t they see how they are signing on to arguments that blame the victim, minimize rape, and bend over backwards to exonerate the perpetrator? Error of youth, might have mistaken her age, teen slut,s tage mother–is that what we want people to think when middle-aged men prey on ninth-graders?

The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite atits preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they’re just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they’re accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.

No wonder Middle America hates them. "

[ Roman Polanski Has a Lot of Friends ]

I've always thought that the 23-year old female teachers sent to prison for having sex with a sixteen-year old male pupil should not have been punished that way. Expelled forever from the teaching profession, yes. But the boy she had sex with is not not the same, psychologically, as a girl of that age: the teacher's power played no role in what happened -- in fact, he was no doubt delighted, and bragged about it to his pals. With women, it's different.

Power is key here. It's one of the reasons we don't punish an 18 year old who has sex with a 15 year old in the same way we punish a 48 year old who does.

I disagree with this confusing logic. First you say that power is the key, but then distance the power the female has over the male student?

Makes no sense.

But at the end of the day, no can defend drugging and raping anyone, let alone a minor.............that is..........until Leftist love affair with Polanski.

 

[Votto]

Yes, Bill Cosby was gulity as hell, and he also told his own people the truth. The two things are not incompatible. In fact, they're probably common. That old Darwinian drive to spread our genes as widely as we can is hard to resist.

But there you are. Karl Marx impregnated his maid, and Engels took the fall for him. There aren't many saints around. And even the real saints, if we examined their lives closely, probably had a skeleton or two in their closet.

Congress paid out $17 million in settlements. Here's why we know so little about that money. | CNN Politics

Two things have become painfully clear on Capitol Hill this week: Lawmakers and staffers say sexual harassment is "rampant" -- but even members of Congress have no idea just how widespread the problem is.

www.cnn.com

The hypocrisy of being upset Trump paid his whore to keep quiet, which was consensual, and the media outrage for it, compared to the virtual media silence of Congress paying $17 million to women in Congress who have been sexually assaulted in some form or fashion comes to mind as being the main issue. Congress did not even use their own money as where Trump did. Moreover, Trump was not accused of sexual assault as where Congress was.

Not only does the media focus on the moral shortcomings of Trump, they won't pressure Congress to disclose the criminals in Congress who paid women off to keep their illegal activity quiet.

The media has fostered a sick culture and Leftist despotism and moral bankruptcy.

Scary stuff.

 

[Dragonlady]

MSN

www.msn.com

The victim of a rape at the age of 14 years old says that the incident was "no big deal" and that Roman Polanski should not have gone to jail for it. She said it did not negatively impact her at all.

What has gone so wrong with society?

Put another way, why does Hollywood and the Left worship Roman but flushed Bill Cosby down the sewer for essentially the same thing, only, Roman preyed on minors.

Thoughts?

Roman Polanski didn't drug and rape young women. He seduced them, had long term relationships with them. And he made them rich and famous. I'm not saying that what he was doing was OK, or that he shouldn't have been charged, just that it's an entirely different dynamic than Bill Cosby. He didn't force himself on anyone.

Bill Cosby was brutalizing young women, offering to help them in their careers, and then they'd wake up to find he drugged and raped them, leaving them traumatized, and emotionally destroyed.

Both are sexual predators, but the dynamic was entirely different.

 

[Resnic]

People have been cancelled from society for much less. Today you lose your job and friends if you say something like "all lives matter"

Again, he drugged and raped a child, then he fled jail time.

Even you condone it.

I can even see you being Ok with children at school being told they can have sex with adults at some time in the near future

Fascinating.

I wasn't excusing it by any stretch. Regardless of the reasons that is a deplorable crime that there is no excuse for and should be punished and not accepted at all.

Im a staunch hater of people who sexual take advantage of kids in any fashion and want nothing less than execution for them. But in his case part of me feels sorry for him for what happened to him that undoubtedly psychologically ruined him, but I still don't waver on what should be the punishment for the man.

It's a shame though that a man who made several movies I absolutely love had to go and do that but when it comes to something like this I separate the man from his work. He is still a pedophile that should not be allowed to be a part of our world.

Was sleepy last night when I responded so I suppose I should have been more clear on my reply.

 

[Dragonlady]

I've always thought that the 23-year old female teachers sent to prison for having sex with a sixteen-year old male pupil should not have been punished that way. Expelled forever from the teaching profession, yes. But the boy she had sex with is not not the same, psychologically, as a girl of that age: the teacher's power played no role in what happened -- in fact, he was no doubt delighted, and bragged about it to his pals. With women, it's different.

Power is key here. It's one of the reasons we don't punish an 18 year old who has sex with a 15 year old in the same way we punish a 48 year old who does.

I disagree with this confusing logic. First you say that power is the key, but then distance the power the female has over the male student?

Makes no sense.

But at the end of the day, no can defend drugging and raping anyone, let alone a minor.............that is..........until Leftist love affair with Polanski.

I strongly disagree. She destroyed that boy's life. He is now raising their two children on his own and he says he now understands how much different his life would have been if she hadn't messed with him.

His dreams of college and a professional career were dashed, their marriage ended in divorce. He was 12 when she started with him. It changed his entire life, and while he has two lovely daughters, he didn't have much say in that even.

I know a woman who was sexually abused at the same age. She still has PTSD, anxiety attacks, and other mental health issues. Seeing him interviewed, I really felt sorry for what she took from him.

 

[Doug1943]

I've always thought that the 23-year old female teachers sent to prison for having sex with a sixteen-year old male pupil should not have been punished that way. Expelled forever from the teaching profession, yes. But the boy she had sex with is not not the same, psychologically, as a girl of that age: the teacher's power played no role in what happened -- in fact, he was no doubt delighted, and bragged about it to his pals. With women, it's different.

Power is key here. It's one of the reasons we don't punish an 18 year old who has sex with a 15 year old in the same way we punish a 48 year old who does.

I disagree with this confusing logic. First you say that power is the key, but then distance the power the female has over the male student?

Makes no sense.

But at the end of the day, no can defend drugging and raping anyone, let alone a minor.............that is..........until Leftist love affair with Polanski.

I'm assuming that any normal teenage boy will copulate with any reasonable-looking female that he can. (And all the photographs of female teachers sent to prison for this show them to be pretty good-looking -- the media just love these stories, of course).

Girls are different. (As a line in a movie had it, "Women need a reason to have sex, men just need a place.")

And the problem arises, because a teacher has power over a pupil. This is true even when the pupil is above the age of consent, as at university. So, in such a situation, is her 'consent' really consent -- would she have consented if her teacher/professor/supervisor had not had power over her? There is plenty of room here for subtle psychological considerations as well. In any case, most universities strongly discourage professor-student sexual liaisons, for this reason.

It's about the only aspect of the 'woke' movement of which I approve: reining in male power over women in the workplace and in similar situations.

So, when a male teacher is caught having sex with a 16 year old pupil, put him in prison. When a female teacher is caught in the same situation, fire her and put her photograph on the front page of the local newspaper ... and if she's listed in the phone book so that her address is easily available, she'll have to move quickly, because there will be a line of teenage boys outside her house, all keen to be 'abused'.