MovieChat Forums > Roman Polanski Discussion > Celebrities who defended Roman Polanski

Celebrities who defended Roman Polanski

posted 3 years ago by TMC-4 (19418)
66 replies | jump to latest

https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/celebrities-who-defended-roman-polanski.4491629/

Mia Farrow: 'maybe Roman's judgement was off on this occasion', but he was 'hounded'

Shelley Winters: There was a 'witch-hunt involved ... Roman was persecuted because, being foreign, talented and opinionated, he was an easy mark.'

Catherine Deneuve: "a very young girl can look much older than she is, and that was the case here'

Jacqueline Bisset: 'a lot of these kids are really hip - they know exactly what they're doing',

Andy Warhol :"As I looked around at how young the girls were, all I could think about Roman Polanski, how the poor guy could make a mistake because these young girls could be as young or as old as they wanted to look."

Martin Scorsese on losing the Oscar for Roman:

‘I’m so happy right now. Of all the people in the world that I’d want to lose to, it’s Roman. You have to understand that Polanski’s films have influenced me as an artist all these years and his terrible political situation has been something we have all had to suffer through. We won because Roman won.’”

Johnny Depp:

“Roman is not a predator,” continuing, “He’s 75 or 76 years old. He has got two beautiful kids, he has got a wife that he has been with for a long, long time. He is not out on the street.” Why now? Obviously there is something going on somewhere. Somebody has made a deal with someone. Maybe there was a little money involved, but why now?”

Madonna

"if I'm president: Howard Stern would be kicked out of the country, and Roman Polanski welcomed back in."

Meryl Streep

"I am Really Sorry That He is In Jail"

Debra Tate (Sharon Tate's sister: Polanski) :

"There's rape and then there's rape," she said. "It was determined that Roman did not forcibly have sex with this woman. It was a consensual matter."

"I was under the impression that there was misconduct in the political genre itself and that based on that perhaps he could get a fair trial here," she said. "Since then, speaking with the district attorney's office, I agree that Roman could not necessarily be dealt with in a fair manner here in the US. I think that this matter better be served in France."

Anjelica Huston:

“Well, see, it’s a story that could’ve happened 10 years before in England or France or Italy or Spain or Portugal, and no one would’ve heard anything about it. And that’s how these guys enjoy their time.

“It was a whole playboy movement in France when I was a young girl, 15, 16 years old, doing my first collections. You would go to Régine or Castel in Paris, and the older guys would all hit on you. Any club you cared to mention in Europe. It was de rigueur for most of those guys like Roman who had grown up with the European sensibility.”

"My opinion is: He’s paid his price, and at the time that it happened, it was kind of unprecedented. This was not an unusual situation.”

Sigourney Weaver:

“I have to say, looking back, and I wasn’t really in Hollywood , but things that I would hear, it was a much different time but all I’m saying is it stands out more now than it did at the time because people were desperate to be in movies and I think it’s unimaginable now for a mother to drop off a thirteen-year-old with someone like Roman,”

“Death and the Maiden” was probably a therapeutic experience for the filmmaker. “The story we were telling was a very personal story. He had been the accused, he had been the victim in Poland and he been the absolutely helpless husband. So, I felt that a lot of what his feelings about this issue were going right into this film, [‘Death and the Maiden’],” she said.

Weaver continued, “He’s changed his life. He’s doing this film about the Dreyfus affair, a very important story to tell. Apparently he’s getting some push back about that. It’s tricky but I learned a lot from Roman…"

The ‘Alien’ actress was asked if she’d work with the controversial filmmaker in the future. “Yes, I think I would. To be quite honest I think I would. He’s now happily married; he has two children. I’m sure that he and the children have had some interesting conversations about it. He pled guilty. Does he regret it? I’m sure he does,” she says.

Quentin Tarantino:

“I don’t believe it’s rape, not at 13, not for these 13-year-old party girls,” said Tarantino. “He had sex with a minor, that’s not rape. To me when you use the word rape you are talking about violent, throwing down, it’s one of the most violent crimes in the world. Throwing the word rape around is like throwing the world racist around. It doesn’t apply to everything.”

“She was trying to take care of her mom who is pissed off at her,” said Tarantino. “Her mom is now on her, now she has to say he did this, he did that. Now that she’s an adult she has a whole different story.”

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

Mia Farrow! Imagine the gall of somebody making her late-career persona about demanding justice for the victims and stringing up Woody Allen and she's defending Polanski!

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

My thoughts exactly, but some of these other quotes are hard to believe. Why would these celebrities say this, and more to the point, why would they allow themselves to be quoted saying this. Those quotes should be documented, I think at least some of them must be fake.

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

Some of them it's from older time periods or different cultures, I think. So, in an older time, people wouldn't have felt safe taking a stance against Polanski for fear of losing out on Oscar gold. These days it's the opposite. It's still Hollywood choosing who's "in" and "out", of course.

Others it's culture. Catherine Deneuve, for instance, and of course, time periods have culture, too. So, she's from a free-love generation of French/European background, and those times and places make her feel it's more important to ban the bomb and just love one another, man. I'm not saying that makes her comments right, but one understands why she'd make them or take that stance.

I *think* Tarantino's was from the Howard Stern show. Howard has a magical ability to get people to say stupid things. Doesn't make the things any less dumb, doesn't mean that isn't Tarantino's real view, nor does it justify his viewpoint as morally correct, but it does explain why he'd "allow" the quote. I think he might have walked that one back, too.

There's another category up there, too, and that's people who are drawing a distinction (as they should) between rape and statutory rape. I think there's a difference there, depending on the age and maturity, and depending on what the (statutory) rapist believed the age of the person to be.

That said, my understanding is that Polanski was aware of her age, she had been at least drinking if not on drugs, and he should not have done what he did. Indeed, I've heard conflicting reports about the level of consent to begin with, so it might have been both statutory rape and rape.

At the end of the day, my feeling is that Polanski might be one heck of an artist - and I'll never stop loving Chinatown - but he shouldn't have fled the country and should have been locked up for his crime.

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

I think that was all of rape, statutory rape. parental abuse and prostitution.
Polanski made some kind of monetary deal with the girl's mother.
To me, Polanski is cancelled. I remember seeing Chinatown and being entertained,
but to me these kinds of movies are creepy and useless.
Then also, in the same way that I personally think actors get way too much credit
for movies for just being the face of the writers and directors, I think directors get
too much credit and that good movies come from good writing. Of course good
acting and good directing are necessary but the source is mostly the writing.

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

Writing is the foundation. You can't build a great (or even good) building with a bad foundation. So you cannot tell a great story with a poor script. As far as I'm concerned, the script is the story, the rest (direction, editing, etc.) breathes it to life. Now, a poor script can be extremely well-executed, and then you get Sucker Punch, and it's entertaining, but it's not a great movie.

That's one of the big reasons I love Chinatown is that its script is so tight.

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

The reason I find Chinatown pointless is the theme that has no reality and is just another scared of government themed BS story. It says nothing and it leads nowhere - I have no use for movies or media like that.

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

Well, in the main "surface" level, it is a mystery, and it definitely leads somewhere.

I'd argue that it does go somewhere thematically, too, but I don't see it as a "scared of government" thing, but a commentary on the sinister nature of evil and power.

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

But can't the "commentary on" thing be used on absolutely anything?

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

Maybe, but I think it would hold more or less water depending on the property.

Sharknado isn't a "commentary on sealife". Maybe it's got something to say about bad movies?

Chinatown shows us twisted evil and the effects that power have on justice. We start in a world where Jake is outing cheating spouses and we end in a world where his actions can't bring down something far worse. Jake starts as an apathetic guy looking to make a buck and sneer a bit while he gets his dollar, and he turns into somebody who cares, but the question is: can he care and accomplish something?

It might be dark at the end, but I think it's got some real "mirror-up-to-nature" stuff in there that makes the movie worth watching.

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

> Sharknado isn't a "commentary on saline".

It could be to some insane person. Chinatown was sensationalist, violent programming. I don't see much commentary in it, and if there is commentary it is a defeatist one ... "It's Chinatown, Jake" ... that is, you cannot do anything about it.

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

I do see commentary in it, and I wouldn't call it sensationalist, but to each their own.

Sometimes I like a tragedy. I love blues music. So, sometimes something that ends on that downbeat, defeatist note can be cathartic.

In Chinatown's case, I believe that it leaves that horror with the viewer and, hopefully, spurs the viewer to act. If the powerful elites are a problem and they can get away with murder (and worse), what should we be doing to prevent it?

It could be a wake-up call.

I guess I like it mostly, though, because sometimes life is messy and ends in a way where there is no second-chance, no recovery, and you just...well, that's Chinatown.

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

> hopefully, spurs the viewer to act.

Chinatown was released in 1974, which is when I saw it ... don't see many spurred to action people. ;-)

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

I wouldn't expect one movie to shoulder the burden alone.

[–] ColumboKate (5310) 3 years ago

He paid the mother?! Before or after?

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 3 years ago

Since Polanski and his victim made a settlement, why not leave it at that?

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

Maybe you are ignorant of American law but civil court is not criminal court, and Polansky broke his bail and ran, and I hope he is caught and jailed for that at some point.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Reading these I have to wonder if half the idiots are actually aware of all the facts surrounding his rape conviction. I mean he gave drugs and alcohol to a 13 year old that he knew was 13. When she was passed out he fucked her. He entered a plea of GUILTY in open court to the judge. How in the fuck do these idiot come up with these thoughts? You can't possibly think these things if you have seen the the evidence that was presented in court or the simple fucking fact that he himself said he was guilty.

When I read these quotes the only possible explanation is that these idiots have accepted some bullshit story they heard about him being railroaded and were too lazy to look at the facts.

[–] TimMC (9143) 3 years ago

Same story every time. It's OK when they do it.

[–] breathfromanother (749) 3 years ago

You forgot "it wasn't 'rape' rape/they view these things differently in European countries" from Whoopi Goldberg.

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

And just because they do view it that way, does that mean they have to and its right, aren't sex laws the same as well as rules for ALL of humanity?

[–] breathfromanother (749) 3 years ago

You'd have to ask Whoopi since she's the one who said that.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 3 years ago

Laws vary from country to country and morality is a matter of opinion.

[–] nelstar (359) 3 years ago

One of the dumbest things that moron has ever said. And there are quite a few.

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3554) 3 years ago

And what's your take on this matter? Or are you just a spambot creating these links automatically? Let's see.
I'm not a robot
Yes or no?

[–] TMC-4 (19418) 3 years ago

If you agree with literally everything those people have to say and feel that Polanski has gotten an unfair shake, then just say so!

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3554) 3 years ago

Ok Robot, I'll rephrase my question. What is YOUR opinion regarding the numerous statements surronding this case?

[–] TMC-4 (19418) 3 years ago

You have to be a fucking idiot to support Roman Polanski! It's pretty open and shut that he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and then fled the United States to escape justice.

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3554) 3 years ago

At last something to work with. So what you're trying to say is something like "Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and fled the United States". I guess you're one of those so-called "Millennials", a generation of kids with poor reading and comprehension skills. You see, kid, posting links isn't a surrogate for using your own brain. At no point I have "supported" someone in my statement who allegedly raped a minor. To be honest, I have never really cared for this whole case. From what I know, Polanski commited a serious crime having sex with that 13 year old girl. Was it "rape"? Possibly, depending on the defenition of this term. Should he be punished? Definitely. But as far as I know he faced a very prejudiced jugde back in those politically heated-up days and would probably have gotten a very harsh and disproportionate verdict. Should he have come back to take responsibilty and come clean with the matter? Probably yes. But who am I to jugde Roman Polanski.
There you have it kid. Sometimes it takes a little more effort putting your thoughts into words than simply spamming around some random links and hoping that something will stick.

[–] TMC-4 (19418) 3 years ago

If you don't care about the case, then why are you here!? And what do you mean who are you to judge...? The man point blank, committed rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14. How would you feel if Samantha Geimer was your daughter or your sister? Then you would give more of a damn. Instead of attacking me and my posting style, why can't you face the hard truth, that there's no if ends or buts when it comes to "judging" Roman Polanski. I don't have time for your bullshit, if you aren't 100% against what he did. And if that makes me a so-called "Millennial" with poor reading and comprehension skills, then I rather be that, then a statuary rapist. And if you imply that he faced a very prejudiced judge, then that by design is a way of you defending him (since you apparently feel that he didn't get a "fair trial").

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3554) 3 years ago

Jeezus christ, kid learn how to read... 🙄

[–] TMC-4 (19418) 3 years ago

Since you like to go at me for posting some "random links", I would like to share with you this pertaining to how Polanski faced up to five accusations of sexual assault against a child:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/17/16156902/roman-polanski-child-rape-charges-explained-samantha-geimer-robin-m

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 3 years ago

From that article:

And when he describes the girls, “all between 16 and 19 years old,” who visited him in the late ‘60s while he was grieving the death of his second wife, Sharon Tate, (“not necessarily to make love — although some of them did”) he writes that they were “more beautiful, in a natural, coltish way, than they ever would be again.”

Sharon Tate was murdered on August 9th, 1969. So when Polanski talks about screwing young girls in "the late '60s", he's talking about doing it within a few months of his wife's brutal murder. And since Tate was 8-1/2 months pregnant at the time of her death, he had also lost his unborn child.

That's a sick way to be 'grieving'.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 3 years ago

Girls of 16-19 are more than old enough for sex with anyone they choose.

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 3 years ago

I agree with that statement, but in this case we have a predatory 44-year-old adult male who used his position as someone who could affect these girls' modeling careers to seduce them.

Truly disgusting.

And despite your opinion, statutory rape is illegal.

[–] ColumboKate (5310) 3 years ago

France is very Liberal with it's sex laws. They don't consider it rape unless the person was violently attacked. They also don't have a firm age for consent either.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-56413881

This is happening now. Imagine what it was like when RP's "rape" happened. We shouldn't judge others for what happened in a different era in a different culture.

Do I agree? no, I think it's wrong. But it is accepted as the normal in France.

**EDIT**
My mistake here. I thought the rape happened in France not the US. I'm surprised that so many famous names publicly defend him tbh. It kind of casts a shadow over their conduct too.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Well not only did it happen in the US, but the fact is Polanski stood before a judge in court and entered a plea of guilty. So it becomes really ridiculous when you get celebrities acting shocked that a court could find him guilty.... He fucking admitted that he was guilty. The only thing that he did that has kept this going for years was to flee the country before sentencing was handed down. The only thing the courts did wrong was to provide him time to get his affairs in order before he was sentenced, he should have been remanded to jail pending the sentencing as he was clearly a flight risk given.

[–] ColumboKate (5310) 3 years ago

Thanks for educating me. I never knew that. It is crazy that he was allowed to leave the court after admitting guilt.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

And that's the problem with most all these celebrities that defend him. They never bothered to get the actual facts of the case. They heard from someone they knew that he was railroaded, or heard from someone that the government had it in for him, but never bothered to look for the facts themselves they just accepted what they had heard or been told as facts. Even if you read the wikipedia stuff about Polanski you have to read a down several paragraphs before you even get a hint that he entered a guilty plea and even then whoever wrote the stuff wasn't very clear about it as they continually referrer to a "plea bargain"... but if you understand how the court process work and see that he had already been remanded for psych evaluation prior to sentencing then you know that the so called "plea bargain" involved him entering a guilty plea before a judge. You never do a psych evaluation prior to sentencing on someone unless they have either been found guilty or entered a guilty plea. So I can understand people not really knowing the full story because it is difficult to find the full story on the more common places people look.

[–] sslssg (27794) 3 years ago

But aren't most plea bargains done with a sentence in mind? Like the prosecutor and defense lawyer come to an agreement as they don't want to take the risk in court? And wasn't it the case that they had agreed upon a sentence and then found out that the judge wasn't going to abide by the agreement and make an example out of Polanski with a much harsher sentence?

I think the reason why many celebrities would defend him is that quite honestly, it wasn't that uncommon back then. Just look at the rock star groupies. David Bowie, Mick Jagger, Iggy Pop, Jimmy Page, Randy California, Steven Tyler and others all had relations with the "baby groupies" who were like 14 /15. Elvis met Pricilla when he was 24 and she was 14. Jerry Lee Lewis anyone? Melanie Griffith was 15 when she moved in with Don Johnson who was in his 20s.

Now I'm not condoning any of that, but these are the ones who we know about. So my point is that it wasn't uncommon. So those who grew up or spent a lot of time in the industry might not think it a big deal, and have no issue supporting him.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

In any plea bargain the prosecutor will tell the defendant that they will tell the court that they will support probation instead of prison time, 1 year or whatever the two parties agree to, but they prosecutor will also explain quite clearly that the judge has the final say on the sentence and may or may not go along with what the prosecutor suggests. That is how it has been done for decades and any defense lawyer Polanski would have had would have known that and told them up front those very facts. While it isn't common for judges to say fuck the agreement the SOB needs a harsher sentence, it does happen. They would have know who the judge was and what his track record was before making the deal... it is just speculation that the judge would have ignored the agreement as Polanski never bothered to show up and find out what it would have actually been. Now once he fled the country you can guarantee that his action pretty much guaranteed that when or if he ever got hauled back to court that he would be smacked down harder than under the agreement based on his actions.

As for groupies and rock stars... The normal motius operandi for rock stars was sex for backstage passes and shit like that, it wasn't going out finding a 13 year old girl, getting her drunk, giving her drugs and then fucking her while she protested. If you read the full transcripts of what happened and what Polanski admitted to it was far beyond what any rock stars at that time did... It was also in another time than the Elvis and Jerry Lee crap, though in the case of Elvis and Jerry Lee, neither of them drugged the girls and then raped them. The real point that you are missing is the fact that rock stars getting blow jobs from teen groupies are not forcefully raping them... Polanski was not just a statutory rapist he was a full on Bill Cosby drug her and raper rapist and he did it to a 13 year old.

[–] sslssg (27794) 3 years ago

Again, I wasn't condoning the behaviour. I was asking about the plea deals because I really only know what I've seen on tv, and I was suggesting a reason why other celebrities would support Polanski not saying that I support Polanski. Or any of the others that I mentioned for that matter. I mean Steven Tyler convinced one of his groupie's mother's to make him her guardian so she could legally travel over state lines. I also honestly can't say that others haven't drugged and raped teens. I'm saying they haven't been caught.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

The problem is you are throwing out what ifs. There is no what if with Polanski he was arrest and he admitted he was guilty. You can't equate a, "maybe someone did something just as bad" to "he did it and said he did it".

[–] sslssg (27794) 3 years ago

I don’t understand why you are arguing with me. The OP brought up the other celebs. I lumped my replies because I'm lazy. I replied to you as I didn't know about plea bargains.

Of course my guess on why others are making excuses are what ifs and speculations. Well, the rockers I mentioned did have sex with 14 and 15 year olds. So that would be statutory rape. I would also assume that drugs and alcohol were involved. But my point is that if you are in a situation, ie the entertainment industry as these defenders the OP mentioned are,one might not see this as big of an issue as the rest of us.

I'm not equating anything to anything else.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

You continually bring up 14 and 15 year olds as if it is the same as the 13 year old Polanski raped. It isn't. In some states in the 1970's a 14 or 15 year old could legally consent to sex. At that time no state allowed a 13 year old to consent. I don't think I've ever heard of any rock stars making claims of fucking 13 year olds.

[–] sslssg (27794) 3 years ago

My mistake, where I live, even in the 60s and 70s , a 14 year old couldn't consent to sex with an adult.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 3 years ago

If it was of their free will there's nothing to condone.

[–] Stratego (29255) 3 years ago

Yes, but he did only plead guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" (statutory rape) and none of the other 5 charges, which included rape by use of drugs. Just to be clear.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

He entered that guilty plea in exchange for dropping the other charges. There was more than enough physical evidence to nail him for drugging the girl and raping her.

[–] Stratego (29255) 3 years ago

If they had more than enough evidence for those charges, they most likely wouldn't have dropped them. I thought it wasn't that uncommon for the prosecuter to "overcharge" to get a more favourable plea agreement.

Anyway, the point is that he only plead guilty to having sex with a minor. Reading the quotes, those people seem to be aware of that, they just don't think it's a big deal for whatever reason.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Actually a prosecutor is unlikely to put up charges he can't support with the evidence because if he does the defense attorney will know the charges will not stick and will most likely simply file a motion for a directed verdict on the outlandish charges and quickly get them kicked out. The prosecutors on the other hand are well aware that even when you have all the ducks in a row for a case that a jury can still bite you in the ass, so most prosecutors never want to actually go to trial and will almost always be willing to give up some greater chargers for the certainty of a lesser charges being admitted to by the defendant. It isn't a good system and is really just the product of lazy prosecutors and prosecutors that have political ambitions and would rather get a iron clad win on a lesser charge rather than go through the process and risk a not guilty.

[–] Stratego (29255) 3 years ago

I've googled it and apparently "overcharging" is not at all an uncommon tactic used by the prosecution.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overcharging_(law)

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

You should remember that Wikipedia is found to be wrong about 15% of the time. This is one of them. Yes you can have instances of overcharging but give the evidence in this case there was no overcharging. Polanski was getting off easy and still didn't have the balls to face the music.

[–] Stratego (29255) 3 years ago

I said I googled it and many legal sites came up explaining this is a common tactic. You could give it a try yourself.

Why would they drop the charge of raping a child if they had "more than enough evidence"???

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Because of pressure from people in Hollywood, overloaded schedule, maybe a bribe, who the hell knows. But it is pretty damn common for certain crimes to get dropped from a serious crime to a near misdemeanor all the time. Very common for a statutory rape charge to get dropped to a much lesser offense even today. Just last year I saw one a case where 2 high school boys raped another player with handle of some sort and it ended up getting dropped to battery. It was a winnable case, but supposedly in that instance they didn't want to force the kid that was fucked to have to testify so the prosecutor gave the 2 SOBs a very lenient out.

If you want to know why the prosecutor let Polanski off so lightly you would have to ask him, I know he retired decades ago but have no clue if he is still alive... but he is the only one that would know why they went light on Polanski.

[–] Stratego (29255) 3 years ago

"If you want to know why the prosecutor let Polanski off so lightly you would have to ask him, I know he retired decades ago but have no clue if he is still alive... but he is the only one that would know why they went light on Polanski"

Well yeah, exactly.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

I absolutely think that Roman Polanski should be held accountable for his crimes. But to be clear, entering a plea of guilty isn't necessarily an admittance of anything. It is legally, but I'm pretty sure that guilty plea was part of a plea bargain. It's just a way of navigating the system.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Entering a plea of guilty is an admission of guilt. You stand before the judge and the charge you are entering a guilty plea to is read and you are flat out asked if you understand that your plea is an admission of guilt. I think you are confusing the guilty plea with a plea of "no contest" where you accept the punishment as if you were guilty but do not admit that you are guilty of the charges. That normally only happens in misdemeanors, often things like reckless driving. I don't think I've ever seen anyone enter a plea of "no contest" for any type of a rape charge.

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

We need HUMAN laws and morals on such matter I tell thee. What's next, not all countries say recognizing murder in the same way? Oh wait, we don't look at murder and sexual offenses in the very same manner, and certain people from different places see it differently including via law? Its really depressing.

[–] ColumboKate (5310) 3 years ago

It does make you wonder what the law makers get up to in their private time 😟

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

Up to no good, as far as my imagination alone goes. Right?

[–] Cognoscente (2463) 3 years ago

Talk about a rogues gallery.

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

All of this also proves just how vulnerable a lot of us in humanity are in the face of sexual abuse in general. An unfortunate fact of reality.

Yeah - why don't all or most of those celebrities instead think "You bastard, you're a child molester, a pervert and guilty of sexual abuse. You bastard and deserve to be locked for life, I want nothing to do with you".

Also, although it can be considered it, but even if you do debate the meaning of the word "rape" in such a scenario and debate how it should be mostly "applied to violent etc cases", isn't it entirely normal and correct to think of it in "no means no" and "consent" related issues and especially since age of 13 is way too low for consent and can and does cause mental and bodily harm to victims? So either way, it is still a horrible and perverted and very selfish and damaging WRONG. And let's NOT excuse it in any way.

Besides, I also think its safe to consider such a deed to be very much a form of violence/violation in and of itself, yes, engaging in sexual activity for an adult man with a 13 year old. And it is a form of rape and/or at least sexual abuse very much itself too, as was apparently the case with Polanski.

[–] Cognoscente (2463) 3 years ago

All of this also proves just how vulnerable a lot of us in humanity are in the face of sexual abuse in general. An unfortunate fact of reality.

I'll say. In England, there is a story about a teenage girl (Bernadette Walker) who was killed by her sexually abusive father. The mother even tried to help him cover it by pretending to be her online and sending texts from her daughter's phone.

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

A horrible reality on top of a horrible reality, apparently.

[–] strntz (10843) 3 years ago

Celebrities who defended Roman Polanski

Makes perfect sense. "Celebrities" and Hollywood are the cornerstone of the world's depravity. Polanski drugged and raped more than one child, but none of this matters.

Backing him is an attempt to normalize the immoral behavior that is the normal life for most of them.

If "celebrities" didn't back this rapist, *that* would be a story.

[–] TheMan18 (12520) 3 years ago

Also, what is the main secret and mystery to the fact that many respectable celebrities have defended him but many of us simple people including over here did NOT?