Yes, but for whatever your differences in reasoning you are still willing to give him that precise degree of leeway: the rape of a 13-year-0ld with impunity.
his fault, he fled. They were ready to do so
Quote:I think that an individual has the right to attempt to escape injustice being done to him, which pretty clearly was what was waiting for him if he stayed.
And the courts have the right and obligation to hunt him down and impose said penalty.
Real men welcome change and do not consider themselves victims. Real men own up to the inequality that women have born all those years.
And the courts have the right and obligation to hunt him down and impose said penalty
Quote:real men have enough awareness of the ways of man to know that it is very common for the abused to become the abusers, and to justify it on the prior abuse. Establishing equality takes all sides being evenly matched and willing to fight for their best interests, when you men practice complete surrender you **** everything up for the rest of us, and for today's boys.Real men welcome change and do not consider themselves victims. Real men own up to the inequality that women have born all those years.
Quote:Which was abdicated for decades, thus this right was forfeited.And the courts have the right and obligation to hunt him down and impose said penalty
The fact that you use the word fight in establishing equity is very telling
They have been trying to get him for years.
Quote:Humans are both cooperative and combative, establishing equality requires having at least this must knowledge of human nature.The fact that you use the word fight in establishing equity is very telling
the fact he was 43 and she was 13 meant that there was a fundamental disparity of psychological power in the encounter and so, at the very least, he behaved like deeply creepy f*cker
This could very well be applied to a (shudder) clown entertaining children in the cancer ward of a hospital.
Here's my opinion, and I know I'm going to be told how wrong I am...
The fact that this then 13, now 46? year old is STILL saying it was consenual, even after all these years, means a lot to me.
When I was 16 I started a 10 year relationship with somone significantly older than me. To this day I do not regret one moment of the time I was underage and had to sneak around to be with this man.
It would be different if the now grown woman indicated it was not consenual, but to the best of my knowledge, she never has.
Was what he did wrong? Yes.
Should this have happened? No.
But, if the only people who have a right to be angry at him, and mainly the woman in question, have no issue, then I don't either.
Question, has he ever been implicated with any other act like this?
real men have enough awareness of the ways of man to know that it is very common for the abused to become the abusers, and to justify it on the prior abuse.
Quote:I have told you before, your issue is zeal.
Thank you for the compliment, Art.
It would be nice if there was even a modicum of interest among people to discuss and hopefully then to end the brutality, the war crimes, the terrorism, the mass murder of the innocents of the world by the United States and its supported proxies.
This is related. The relation is the self righteous do-gooders who want a justice that is limited by their own narrow, self-interested notions.
The USA wants Polanski back to face justice but the USA doesn't want the ICJ to have jurisdiction over the many war criminals that reside in the US for crimes that dwarf this one.
That's hypocrisy that's way too good to leave alone.
ok jerk off. I'll fill in the words you can't seem to imagine...
How can sex with a 13 year old be consensual under the eyes of the law?
What if that criminal committed murder? John List wasn't caught for nearly 18 years. During the whole time he was on the run he committed no more murders. He was considered a quiet and upstanding citizen of his community, yet he slaughtered his mother, wife, and his children. You think because he then lived a crime free life he should be let off the hook?
This is very true, however, I do not think things are inbalanced either way nowadays
You are delusional...rape has been redefined, the theory of informed consent has been completely redefined, and not only have the sex laws been greatly expanded but the penalty for breaking them has grown exponentially.
It is a new world, clearly. That you are trying to argue otherwise is so outside of the facts that it is impossible to take you seriously on this subject.
that doesn't excuse Polanski's behavior or what he did to that child
Stop dredging up excuses to pardon a [you fill in the blank].
So, why are you wasting time on a forum that doesnt likes you rather than leading a crusade against USA?
the question is what was then and what is now the appropriate response
It is not "a whole new world today". That's why Polanski was convicted in 1977--the same standards applied then. He raped a child. If he repeated the exact same crime again today, he'd be convicted all over again. The world hasn't changed, what was considered rape in 1977 is considered rape today. And he admitted his guilt.
In a trial in December, 1986, in Anchorage, Alaska, we first testified about the antisexuality inherent in some aspects of the effort to deal with sexual abuse of children. We described the criminalization of behaviors that had formerly been viewed as foolish or deplorable but not as criminal acts. We also wrote about the antisexuality of the child sexual abuse system in our 1988 book, Accusations of Child Sexual Abuse ()() (Wakefield & Underwager, 1988).
Nothing that has occurred since then has caused us to change that view. We believe that the manner in which our society attempts to reduce sexual abuse of children represents the most virulent and violent antisexuality the world has known since the days of Tertullian in the second century. Tertullian was an early Christian theologian who maintained that the only proper way to be a Christian was to emasculate yourself. Fortunately, however, the church officially labeled Tertullian a heretic and his view never became dominant.
The view that there has been a movement towards antisexuality and overreaction to childhood sexuality is supported by a poll of mental health and legal professionals reported by Haugaard and Reppucci (Okami, 1992). The poll indicated that 20% of these professionals believed that frequent hugging of a 10-year-old child by parents required intervention, that between 44% and 67% believed intervention was required if parents kissed the child briefly on the lips (as when leaving for work), and that 75% believed intervention was required for parents who appeared nude in front of their 5-year-old child.
I'm delusional? There is no such thing as "the theory of informed consent", and there never was. "Informed consent" refers only to the giving of consent for medical procedures, after first being informed of the risks. It has absolutely nothing to do with sexual behavior.