Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for acknowledging that the overt rape or sexual manipulation and/or exploitation of a child is immoral.
I had thought, erroneously, that in Polanski's case it was consenual. You may note that in my original post I worded that as a question. My main point was pretty much lost, and that was that 13-year-old girls can sometimes act agressively. That is not to say that most of them do, of course. I would have no problem personally pushing the button (or pulling the lever, or whatever) on anyone guilty of overtly raping a young child. But I can still recognize that our age-of-consent laws (generally 18 in the U.S.) are out of line both with most other western countries and with the reality of human sexuality.
I had thought, erroneously, that in Polanski's case it was consenual. You may note that in my original post I worded that as a question. My main point was pretty much lost, and that was that 13-year-old girls can sometimes act agressively. That is not to say that most of them do, of course. I would have no problem personally pushing the button (or pulling the lever, or whatever) on anyone guilty of overtly raping a young child. But I can still recognize that our age-of-consent laws (generally 18 in the U.S.) are out of line both with most other western countries and with the reality of human sexuality.
The issues are far more complex than just to say that some 13 year old girls act sexually aggressive. For example, a girl who has been sexualized early in her life (say she has been molested; including penetration by age 8 or 9) may act out in sexual ways at ages 11, 12, 13, etc. This does not mean, however, that this girl should be "fair game" for any boy or man who can access her.
A 12 year old girl and an 18, 25, 37, 43, 55, etc year old man are not an equal sexual pairing. The 12 year old girl (or boy) does not have the life experience or personal expression of their power to hold an equal position within that type of sexual relationship therefore a relationship such as this is 99.99% of the exploitive.
I take issue with the comment about a sexually aggressive 13 year old; its as if that scenario gives a person the right (the license) to pursue a sexual contact with a child if the child initiates.
This is more excuse than anything to take "advantage" of a situation. So if a young girl is lying on a bed with no undies and legs open, is that an invitation or simply a lack of awareness? My concern is that someone who is 'looking' for an opportunity will justify a sexual encounter with child as being "invited" when the child had no such intentions.
Or let's say a young child does make an overtly sexual 'advance'. It is still immoral for an adult to take advantage of a child who has gained sexual knowledge through exploitation (ie molestation).
The issues are far more complex than just to say that some 13 year old girls act sexually aggressive. For example, a girl who has been sexualized early in her life (say she has been molested; including penetration by age 8 or 9) may act out in sexual ways at ages 11, 12, 13, etc. This does not mean, however, that this girl should be "fair game" for any boy or man who can access her.
A 12 year old girl and an 18, 25, 37, 43, 55, etc year old man are not an equal sexual pairing. The 12 year old girl (or boy) does not have the life experience or personal expression of their power to hold an equal position within that type of sexual relationship therefore a relationship such as this is 99.99% of the exploitive.
I take issue with the comment about a sexually aggressive 13 year old; its as if that scenario gives a person the right (the license) to pursue a sexual contact with a child if the child initiates.
This is more excuse than anything to take "advantage" of a situation. So if a young girl is lying on a bed with no undies and legs open, is that an invitation or simply a lack of awareness? My concern is that someone who is 'looking' for an opportunity will justify a sexual encounter with child as being "invited" when the child had no such intentions.
Or let's say a young child does make an overtly sexual 'advance'. It is still immoral for an adult to take advantage of a child who has gained sexual knowledge through exploitation (ie molestation).
I agree. It is astounding that you would interpret what I said as condoning an adult relationship with any 13-year-old. I was merely pointing out that things are not as simplistic as a lot of people assume. If you go back to my original post a while back, I said that the adult has the responsibility to resist any advances, which is exactly what you said. I suppose in this highly emotionally fraught area, it would have been better for me to spell out everything in more detail. Therefore, let me spell this out: When I complained that our age-of-consent laws in this country are out of whack, one could assume anything as to my meaning. Personally, I think 16 would be an appropriate legal age of consent.
So now you change your point from "no one cares" to "they didn't ban them." It did, very seriously, affect their careers. People do care about the atrocious behavior of some celebrities. "Hollywood" doesn't seem to care about most of it (unless you say something derogatory about Jews or Blacks), but I think the average joe does, about things that matter. Drunk driving, not such a big deal. Child molestation, bigger problem.
I think they would have banned him--if they cared. No one does. My earlier point stands. Those who have a problem with what an artist does in their personal life never liked them to begin with.
I couldn't tell you what Polanski's works have been without looking them up. I don't value a director's contribution to the end product. I might have liked some of his projects and disliked others.
I've never boycotted a company or product because of what they've done, or product because of what someone connected to it has done.
First of all, if you think Woody just looked at Soon-Yi on her 18th birthday and said holy smokes I'm attracted to you, you're a nut. He was getting it on with her or lusting after her long before that. And I don't care if she isn't his biological kid, sex with someone that you shared a home, pigtails, bedtime stories, and puberty with makes you a perv. On another note, if the age of sexual consent is 18, it should also be the cut off age to strut down a runway in a thong and wings or be spread eagled in a ton of makeup in Vogue or popping your behind in booty shorts in a music video. We can't sexualize 15 year olds on one hand and treat a man like a pervert for being attracted to 15 year olds on the other. Hypocrisy.
First of all, if you think Woody just looked at Soon-Yi on her 18th birthday and said holy smokes I'm attracted to you, you're a nut. He was getting it on with her or lusting after her long before that. And I don't care if she isn't his biological kid, sex with someone that you shared a home, pigtails, bedtime stories, and puberty with makes you a perv. On another note, if the age of sexual consent is 18, it should also be the cut off age to strut down a runway in a thong and wings or be spread eagled in a ton of makeup in Vogue or popping your behind in booty shorts in a music video. We can't sexualize 15 year olds on one hand and treat a man like a pervert for being attracted to 15 year olds on the other. Hypocrisy.
That is a very valid point...they use models as young as 13yrs. these days but looking and lusting after isn't quite the same as actual abuse, you can never stop males from perving, but they can be dealt with for abusing.
That is a very valid point...they use models as young as 13yrs. these days but looking and lusting after isn't quite the same as actual abuse, you can never stop males from perving, but they can be dealt with for abusing.
You're right and thats what I'm saying. If lusting after 13 year olds is pervy then WHY are they half naked and sexy ? I think its a mixed message. Either underaged girls are sex objects or they aren't. It just makes me sad.
Another example that power, money and fame write the rules. Back to the OP:tolerance for talented pedophiles continues. I wonder what would have happened if Polanski was a Catholic Priest instead of a revered iconic talented movie director? I think we all know the answer to that. Stupid mistakes by the prosecutors continue to allow this sexual criminal to declare bankruptcy on his debt to society.
Last edited by Bulldogdad; 07-12-2010 at 11:39 AM..
Why do we as a society tolerate pedophiles, just beacaue they are talented? The names that immediately come to mind are: Woody Allen, R Kelly, Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski.
The answer to the OP's direct question, which specifically names Roman Polanski, might be partly explained in this news story about why Switzerland has released him from custody.
The answer to the OP's direct question, which specifically names Roman Polanski, might be partly explained in this news story about why Switzerland has released him from custody.
Exactly thie reasoning is disguisting really. The elite get way with mnay thingsa especailly in such places.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
