ROMAN POLANSKI - ANAL RAPE (NOT RAPE-RAPE) IS MERELY ANOTHER EXPRESSION OF ARTISTIC BRILLIANCE.

You may be many things joe, but you're not stupid.

So I'll bite, what is your point?

It happens from time to time. Don't be alarmed.

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.



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?



Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation.



Anne Applebaum

Geez, doesn't anyone watch movies anymore?


(at 2:45)

I'm usually pretty good at recognizing pop cultural references, but I missed this one.

I admit my perception was clouded by the assumption that yours was a smart-ass comment, but I also admit that, while I'm a fan of Blazing Saddles and all things Brooksian, I would have missed this one in a neutral mindset as well.

Good one.

Who will pay money to watch Polanski's new movie?

"Ghost Writer"

I probably will see it at least in dvd. The movie is in very limited release, who knows if it will ever come to a theater near me. The last movie that was limited that I was waiting to see in the theater (Sherrybaby) never made it to this area.

Pro-Anal raper of children!

What could be horrible enough for you to not watch the work of a Hollywood legend?

I would watch it because it has gotten good reviews, and looks like something that I would like. I would never boycott a movie because the producer/director had committed a relatively minor crime, which his crime was at the time. It is not far to apply current morals to historical acts.

You were around during the sixties, as was I, do you not remember any of it?

Anal raping a 13 year old girl --- a relatively minor crime.

Relatively, hawkeye, what might be a horrible crime?

But if he was obscurely accused of sending Death Squads to quash labor movements in Bolivia?

Does listening to Wagner make me pro-Nazi?

The notion that consuming someone's art makes you in favor of anything else they do is based on very tenuous logic.

Watching a Polanski movie does not, in and of itself, make one a "Pro-Anal Raper" any more than listening to Wagner makes one "Pro-Anti-Semite"

Humor isn't always discernible in the written word (let alone in these truncated posts), but I was not seriously accusing Hawkeye of being in favor of anal rape. The "!" should have given it away-but perhaps not.

(BTW-Since you have challenged my logic, where is the logic in your original analogy? Wagner died well before the rise of the Nazi movement. )

But to your point:

First of all, in addition to Wagner not being a Nazi, he didn't kill, maim or physically harm a single Jew.

On the other hand, it is a fact that Polanski anal raped a 13 year old girl.

This is not to suggest that Wagner's anti-semitism should not be considered objectionable, although it can be argued that it was little more than the product of a massive egotist finding a way to strike out against some of his professional competitors who happened to be Jewish. Wagner, the man had many Jewish friends.

Let stipulate, though, that he was a true blue anti-semite. Still no comparison to a someone who rapes a child.

I would argue that you should consider the character of an artist when appraising the value of his art. After all, how many artists don't claim they have imbued their work with their heart and soul?

This is not to say that there is no value in the work of a monster, or that it should not be experienced, but there is a tremendous difference between experiencing the expression of a twisted mind and considering it within that context and minimizing or ignoring the monster's sins and attempting to cop some phony attitude of artistic objectivity.

In addition, when you go to a Polanski film your are supporting his life-style which is infinitely better than what he deserves. When you buy a Wagner CD, may some great grandchild somewhere profits.

And, he's not that special a film-maker and his work, irrespective of issues of character, isn't in the same time zone as Wagner's music.

The self-absorbed clowns in Hollywood (like Debra Winger) who have made him another of Hollywood's faux causes are far more concerned with presenting an image of the heroic artist combating the restrictions placed on art by Philistines, than the actual value of his work or the facts surrounding his crime and punishment.

Western civilization has made many improving strides in the last few hundred years, but at least one glaring example of regression or evolving idiocy is the conversion of contempt for actors to worship. A director is simply a better organized and smarter version of an actor.

People are, obviously, free to go see a Polanski film, but I would like to know, if the fact that he raped a 13 year old girl isn't enough of a crime to shake your affected artistic objectivity, what is?

Chance are pretty good it's one steeped in political correctness.

Hawkeye also called you a feminist by transitive argument. Lots of weird things are happening in this thread.

A
R
T