"There were literally a million cases in the USA during the wild 70s where 13 year-olds partied it up with older men and they ended up having sexual relations."
What's your source for that?
I don't need a source; it's obvious reality. Besides, it's not something respectable adults are going to admit to, even four decades later. But I know of one woman who, when she was 13 year-old girl (or 14), willingly had sex with an adult man in the late 70s. In this particular case the man was in his friggin' 50s. She was drunk, yes, but she wanted it. She wanted the sexual experience and the gratification. She's not going to jump on the me-too witchhunt because -- drunk or not -- she wanted it and the man was simply giving her what she wanted (and obviously what he wanted).
This type of thing happened in every significant community all over the USA in the wild 70s. If you don't acknowledge this, you're quite naïve.
I'm not defending the adult in these situations. They're way out of line and should be punished when caught in accordance with our laws.
I'm just explaining Tarantino's viewpoint: It's not out of the realm of plausibility that Samantha "wanted it" since she enjoyed her relationship with this famous director and willingly hanged out alone with him, including to have dubious photo shoots.
Tarantino's not a "monster" by his frank words in this interview. He simply refused to be politically correct and honestly (boldly) conveyed how he thought it went down in 1977 with Polanski and Samantha. What Polanski did was wrong, obviously, but Samantha probably knew what she was getting into and consciously/subconsciously "wanted it" because she was curious -- probably a little excited -- and valued the famous, rich director.
But you obviously believe that Samantha had absolutely zero part to play in what happened and that every word of her testimony is supreme truth. So be it, but I doubt you have much life experience with 13-15 year-old girls.
Of course you're going to argue that Roman was the adult in the situation and so the responsibility for what happened lies in his corner -- and I agree 100% (and he's paid for it for over 40 years now). But this doesn't change the likelihood of Tarantino's position -- that she was down for what happened, consciously or subconsciously, and she communicated that to Polanski in the days/weeks (whatever) leading up to the incident, even if she said "no" in the last millisecond.
It's the proverbial "he said/she said" situation. And you clearly believe everything "she said" to a 't.' That's fine. I'm more realistic and, therefore, in the middle: The fault for what happened clearly lies with Polanski, as noted, but let's not kid ourselves about Samantha being Little Miss Innocent who would never wever bend the truth about what really happened.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
6 years ago
"I don't need a source; it's obvious reality. Besides, it's not something respectable adults are going to admit to, even four decades later. But I know of one woman who [...]"
Yes, you do need a source for such an outrageous and patently untrue statement. Sorry you don't like that. So the reality is you knew ONE woman who allegedly willingly, albeit drunkenly, had sex with a 50-year-old when she was 13. This translates, in your mind, to "literally a million cases of the same. On top of this you repeatedly refer to the 70s as "the wild 70s," to try to bolster up your claim. I have news for you, for most it wasn't especially wild. The whole world wasn't Studio 54. Far from it.
I came of age in the 70s, in LA, and had lots of friends. Guess how many young teens I knew who'd done that? Right, not even one. None since then either.
We're in agreement that the adult in these situations should be held accountable and punished according to the law.
"I'm just explaining Tarantino's viewpoint: It's not out of the realm of plausibility that Samantha "wanted it" since she enjoyed her relationship with this famous director and willingly hanged out alone with him, including to have dubious photo shoots."
Samantha has said over and over again, she did NOT want it, it was NOT consensual. She said NO, and asked to be taken home *multiple* times. She testified to this, under oath, in court.
She did *not* enjoy their "relationship" (they had none), or "willingly hang out with him." The sole reason she went with him the first time, and the second, is because he'd asked her mother if he could photograph her, for a piece he was doing for French Vogue. Jesus, the facts are out there right at your fingertips, as they were to Tarantino.
But instead, he defended Polanski, and *lied* in doing so, not bothering to find out the facts before speaking. He should have just said he didn't know, admired him as a filmmaker, blah blah.
(cont'd)
reply
share
Wuchak (8292)
6 years ago
It's like Rorikon said elsewhere on this thread in his blunt-but-street-smart manner: "Young people do stupid things and women in some general form or another like to date/fuck older men... and shit. She probably changed her story or now regrets saying what she said in the past or something cause of how society will act based on what she wanted as a kid from before."
This happened a million times in the 70s all over the USA in practically every community. You're quite naïve to think otherwise. And how exactly would I get legitimate stats to prove it? Few respectable people currently in their 50s are going to admit to these types of shameful activities.
I came of age in the 70s, in LA, and had lots of friends. Guess how many young teens I knew who'd done that? Right, not even one. None since then either.
That's great; I myself favor a conservative (wise) lifestyle. But in my teens I unfortunately grew up on the rebellious, unruly side and I saw way worse than some 13-14 year-old getting it on with a dude in his 40s-50s.
Like I said, it's the classic "he said"/"she said" situation. You weren't there and didn't see a film of the actual events so you can't verify that she's speaking the absolute truth. It's not out of the realm of plausibility that she bent the facts to her benefit. It's called self-preservation. Teen girls are known to lie if it benefits them. Or do you absurdly think all teen girls are sterling examples of purest nobility?
I'm not "blaming her." I plainly said I'm in the middle, but with the blame in Polanski's court since he was the adult. Samantha no doubt enjoyed the attention and her blossoming womanly powers, but then the situation got out of hand.
A word of wisdom for teen girls: Don't participate in dubious private photo shoots with adult men because they probably have something else in mind than just taking pics, particularly when he asks you to take your top off.
What is it about this don't you get?
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
6 years ago
Tarantino has recanted and said he was entirely incorrect and WRONG saying what he said, that Polanski did RAPE Samantha Geimer and he's profoundly sorry for what he said. He's publicly apologised to her.
So yeah. You've got what to say about that?
reply
share
Wuchak (8292)
6 years ago
It ties into what I just said: Self-preservation. With the me-too witchhunt happening Tarantino stands to lose too much to stick to his guns. The loss of one's fortunes can be a great motivator.
Besides, I never said I wholly agree with what Tarantino said in the interview. He was clearly too dismissive of Polanski's blatant transgression. I just pointed out that Tarantino's viewpoint is a legitimate position (that Samantha was likely down for getting it on to some degree), albeit unpopular in the current climate.
In response to another one of your replies elsewhere on this thread:
Sorry, but you've proven you and reason, let alone common sense, aren't on speaking terms.
Actually what I'm saying (and Rorikon) is the voice of reason on this thread. You're the fanatic who insists that Samantha speaks nothing but God's own truth and had absolutely zero culpability for what went down with Polanski in 1977. Why Sure!
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
6 years ago
So you think his apology was BS? That he's now lying to weasel out of what he said in 2004 to regain the good graces of the public and his industry?
Do you also think his apology to Uma Thurman was a lie?
I don't, on either score.
Those guns are sh!tty, ignorant ones to stick to; there's hardly any honour in it.
Maybe this will make it clearer to you.
Let's say there's a priest who similarly seduced and raped a 13-year-old boy. The priest's defence was that the boy "wanted it." The press at the time also went and ran with that, accusing the boy of being promiscuous. The boy told the priest No many times, said he wanted to go home, but the priest refused to take him home, or to stop his sexual advances. A celebrity in an interview says the same thing, that the boy wanted it, years later, and adds that they were dating. Many others jump on that and say yes, that's a valid viewpoint, the boy was likely down for getting it on with him, consciously or unconsciously.
That would surely be an unpopular undefencible position, as it should be.
reply
share
Wuchak (8292)
6 years ago
You seem like a quality person, Cat. I stand with you on the important points; sorry if I came off as bit of a smartaxx. :)
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
6 years ago
Thanks, Wuchak. I try to be fair, because I think it's important to be. Good to know you stand with me on the important points, and apology accepted :)
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
6 years ago
Young people do stupid things; that's a given. Not all young people, but certainly the majority.
In your opinion this means Polanki's victim lied, changing her story (which has never varied in any meaningful way, to the police or under oath in court), because she, like many other 13-year-olds, according to your opinion, can't WAIT to be fvcked by men twice or more their age. Or fvcked in the ass too. I mean seriously, what teen doesn't fantacise about *that*?
I didn't favour a particularly conservative lifestyle, or liberal. It was pretty average/middle of the road, despite growing up in LA during the "wild 70s," and in LA. If you grew up seeing young teen girls
*wanting to* "get it on with men twice or more their age, or worse, I say, out of experience, you and they are in a minority. Oh sure, teen girls are regularly known to lie, particularly about rape. Even though it's known that most rape victims don't report rapes. Same for teen boys, or are boys more credible to you merely by virtue that they're male?
Polanski's actions, simply put, aren't defensible. If you find the photo shoots to be dubious, that's entirely on him and no one else. It was he who abused that trust.
Yes, you are blaming her. It's disturbing to me you're unable to see it. Of course he was the adult, but Samantha anything BUT enjoyed the attention post- and pre-rape, and has been abundantly clear about that for all of these decades.
A word to the wise for men who want to seduce and rape minors, or those over the age of legal consent: don't. You shouldn't even have to be told this, by anyone.
Wuchak, you and I have reached an agreement, which is great. But I couldn't let what you said here go by without comment.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
6 years ago
They never "dated." The sum and total of their "relationship" consisted of however many hours during those two days.
If you think the photo shoots were dubious, that's on Polanski and no one else.
I never said I think Tarantino is a monster. His words aren't just frank, they're outrageously sexist, and some are out and out lies. There is no excuse for it.
... Ah, I see you've now edited your post, and added more of the same BS victim blaming.
You doubt I have much life experience with 13-15 year old girls? Hilarious. Buddy, I WAS ONE, and knew lots of them. It's obvious to me it's you who lack experience with and understanding of teen girls.
She didn't say no in the "last millisecond." She said no many times, throughout. She asked him to take her home, many times. If you want to continue to blame her and say things that not only contract her testimony given under oath, but what Polanski himself has said, hey, whatever blows your hair back. But don't expect to not be called out on it.
reply
share