Apparently Ms Goldberg, feels that "rape-rape" or "real rape" is when a man breaks into a woman's house and violently assaults her sexually.
In this case the young girl willingly came to Jack Nicholson's house with the understanding that she would be the subject of a Roman Polanski photo shoot. Polanski gave her champagne and Quaaludes and then had anal sex with her.
Since the 13 year old girl probably didn't refuse the champagne or drugs, and may or may not have been willing to flirt and "make-out" with the much older Polanski, the fact that he forced sex on her after she told him no, apparently doesn't qualify, for Whoopie, as "rape-rape" or "real rape."
In other words, Polanski's rape was just an erotic adventure with a saucy Lolita who changed her story after she realized he wasn't giving her a part in his next film.
A lapse in judgment perhaps, but certainly nothing violent and sick.
Goldberg's point on her show was that Polanski pled guilty to having sex with a minor, but when the evil DA tried to give him " a hundred years in jail," he rightfully fled the country.
Goldberg obviously doesn't understand, or chose not to, that Polanski plea bargained to a lesser charge. Of course this doesn't necessarily mean he would have been found guilty of greater crimes, but it also does not mean that he was found guilty of "only" having sex with a minor.
If you read her comments on the matter you can see that she really doesn't think having sex with a 13 year old is that big of a deal.
Quote:We're a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13 year olds and 14 year olds in the rest of Europe... not everybody agrees with the way we see things...
See, in enlightened places like Europe, 13 and 14 year old girls are recognized as having the same erotic sensibilities as woman 10 or 15 years their seniors. If a 13 year old French girl is willing to have sex with a 49 year old man who gives her alcohol and drugs, well what's the big deal?
Polanski's a European. He shouldn't be judged by American puritanical values.
To her credit, Goldberg called on Al Sharpton to publicly apologize to the Duke Lacrosse players who Sharpton (and many others) insisted were gang rapists about two minutes after the story broke, but perhaps it was as much a matter of her not thinking a prostitute stripper being pressed into sex was not "rape-rape" either.
The issue here is much larger than Goldberg's comments alone, because she is but one of many powerful and influential people who have chosen to make excuses for Polanski's inexcusable behavior.
What is disturbing and should outrage leftists of all stripes is that the support Polanski is receiving is, above all else, classist in nature. Although he is quite wealthy, it isn't his money that has earned him dispensation for rape. If that was his only claim to fame, the Left would be screaming for his head. No, he is an
artist, and as such cannot be expected to live by the rules and values of the ignorant rabble.
If he were a captain of industry, a truck driver, or a soldier, does anyone really think that he would have received the support of Debra Winger, Whoopie Goldberg, Martin Scorsese, Frederick Mitterand, et al?
Are all feminists siding with the artistic rapist?
Not at all, but is it irrational to expect that none of them would?
Quote: “My personal thoughts are let the guy go. It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It’s crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things.”
Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation.
Quote:Of all nations, why was it Switzerland -- the country that traditionally guarded the secret bank accounts of international criminals and corrupt dictators -- that finally decided to arrest Roman Polanski? There must be some deeper story here, because by any reckoning the decision was bizarre -- though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.
Anne Applebaum
