I heard on the BBC this morning a story about a man who had raped a girl decades ago but was only now being prosecuted. Curious about why he was being prosecuted so much later, I looked him up online.
His name is Roman Polanski. He is a famous director who years ago allegedly raped a 13 year old girl named Samantha Geimer while photographing her for a magazine. On the first photo session he asked her to undress, and she felt it was an inappropriate request. Still, she later agreed to a second session. I can practically feel her trying to justify his previous actions-- "I probably imagined it. He did not mean anything by it. After all, he is a professional and is used to models being in various modes of dishabille. Many models pose nude. I was just being silly."
At their next session, Polanski plies Geimer with alcohol and quaaludes and makes her undress. She begged him to take her home as he allegedly assaulted her.
In my search, the first thing I came across was a blog that was very sympathetic to Polanski. One part read, "One night Polanski found himself in actor Jack Nicholson’s hot tub with a delightful, nude 13 year-old girl, Samantha Geimer. A lot of champaign had been consumed by both and there was sex. In most American states that’s considered a somewhat serious crime but in Europe they are more cavalier about such things."
It made me angry. No where did the author use the word rape, not even just to mention what Polanski was accused of. On top of that, the language completely downplays the nature of the crime.
He "found himself" in the hot tub makes it sound like he didn't have anything to do with getting in the hot tub or coercing a young girl into it with him, like it was some miraculous act of God. Nor does he mention that the girl was only nude because Polanski directed her to undress or that she has consumed champagne as part of Polanski's shoot. The author completely ignores his agency. It also reeks of the idea that if a woman did legitimately consent to those activities, then she also implicitly consented to sex.
Then, his description of Geimer as "delightful" and "nude" seems to be used to justify Polanski's actions, as though he is trying to suggest that it is a perfectly natural reaction for a man to take advantage of an attractive nude female who happens to be in his vicinity, as though the man had no control and it was only the qualities of the female that led to the act. It implies that the female has the power to control the man by inhibiting her own "delightful" qualities.
The author does not address the fact that Polanski was in a position of power over the girl. Not only was he the much older "professional" who was in charge of the photoshoot, he also had control over her ability to leave since he was, according to Geimer's testimony, responsible for bringing her home. Neither does he acknowledge that 13 years of age is extremely young, just barely more than a child. Instead, he says this "is considered a somewhat serious crime," as though only uptight, puritanical americans cannot understand that having sex with young girls is natural. If 13 is considered normal by him, I shudder to think of what the age cutoff would be in his mind for it to reasonably be a crime. (As a fun side note, while he seems to be hailing what he perceives to be Europe's "more cavalier attitude," he also has the tasteless Obama-as-Joker picture up over the caption "Socialism" leading me to believe he is one of the people who would be up in arms if it was suggested that the U.S. imitate Europe in other ways.)
I can accept arguments being sympathetic to Polanski. I can understand sympathy and arguments in favor of pardoning the now elderly Polanski. What I cannot get are suggestions that it is acceptable to exercise one's authority over someone to obtain "sex," to use drugs to induce someone to have "sex," or that "sex" via coercion or intimidation is natural. The more people try to suggest that these are normal sexual behaviors or natural byproducts of male desire, the more truth is brought to Catherine MacKinnon's idea that heterosexual norms are implicated in sexual violence.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: How to Trivialize Rape: "and there was sex".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16249
Do you have a link to the article you mentioned?
The link for the blog that the quotation was taken from is http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/06/cursed-and-charmed-life-story-beyond.html
thanks.
The author is seeking the find the middle ground between a draconian policy that incriminates clearly innocent people, like the African-American kid who had consensual sex at age 17 with a 15 year old girl, was videotaped in the act itself, then was convicted of child molestation and did a lengthy stay in jail until his sentence was overturned and a more libertine policy in other countries that allows those who molest young girls to escape prosecution.
However, the author is not doing a particularly good job of presenting his case. It's not okay to coerce anyone into sex and this kind of prey/predator relationship that passes all too often for sexual conduct is never acceptable. In that vein, I've often wished that heterosexual men would visit a gay bar at least once to see what happens when suddenly they are the heavily pursued, not those who pursue.
I can definitely see an argument against statutory rape laws, the example you cited being one of the strongest examples of the faults of such laws, but even had age not been an issue, it still would have been rape. That is what bothers me. The author was not attacking the laws or the justice system in that statement. He was just trying to make forcible rape sound acceptable.
I completely agree with you about the prey/predator dynamic. I think such reasoning flies more often than it should in rape cases because it is seen as natural behavior.
"I can understand sympathy and arguments in favor of pardoning the now elderly Polanski."
I can't.
What he did was rape. Not statutory rape, which would still not be okay, since she was a full three years below the then-age of consent (five years according to current laws), but full-fledged rape. I don't care how old he is or how talented he is; he raped a thirteen-year-old girl and he should face the legal consequences.
What I can't believe - Polanski's movies were before my time, and I'm just finding out this information now - is that he's been able to continue making films. Did studios have no problem hiring a rapist who hadn't served his time? Did Hollywood have no problem giving him an OSCAR? For chrissakes.
The article you cite strikes me as disgusting. "A delightful, nude 13-year-old girl"?! Fuck you, asshole. Way to victim-blame.
I'm not defending Polanski in any way, but I don't think anything other than his work in films should be in consideration of awards. Same goes for anyone in any sort of award show.
Don't get me wrong. Understanding an argument does not mean I agree with it. It's just that I can see where someone is coming from when they argue based on humanitarian reasons that someone should not be in prison because they are too sick or old or something like that. The sentiment behind it even if I don't accept the conclusion.
And I agree that his movies or being an artist have nothing to do with it.
He raped a child. Nobody should be apologizing for him or making excuses for him. So what if he's a famous director...he raped a child. What part of this don't these people get?
I appreciate you trying to start a conversation about this issue, but there are already several posts where discussion is going on about Polanski, both on the main blog and in the community posts...
Also, I know you're trying to explain the situation for those who don't know... but I'd suggest you go back and edit your post to take out the name of the victim. She has already expressed the desire to be left alone, and has said publicly that she suffers every time this issue is brought up again. We should respect her privacy and not continue to use her name unless she requests that we do so.
I'm not clear on your point. Because there are other threads on a subject, this community blogger cna't add her/his voice to theirs?
OP, your post is appreciated and well-received. And thanks for pointing out that odious blog; foul as are the author's effusive descriptions of the assualt in question ("delightful, nude" etc), it's a helpful to get an idea of what people are saying in support of the rapist.
I'm definitely not saying that AwakenedDesires shouldn't add her voice! But my understanding of Feministing etiquette is that if you want to post a topic, you search the site to see if there are any recent or current posts on the topic. If you find one, you should just add to the discussion on that post, unless you're adding a whole new angle or update on the situation. The beginning of this post (explaining that the poster hadn't heard of Polanski, and reiterating the situation) makes it seem like she hadn't been following existing discussion on the site and had started her own post without noticing that discussion was already going on. Not a huge deal, just a pet peeve of mine when we have three threads going on the same topic here.
Again, not a big deal, and not trying to derail... definitely an interesting and worthwhile post. Thanks!
I appreciate your point. I really just wanted to point out that quote I posted, not the Polanski issue itself, but once I started writing I felt I should give it context. I like my writing to stand alone so that a reader won't have to turn another source for clarification, but your point is well taken that if there is a "hot topic" there is probably no need or I can just link to another person's post or article.
Thank you. And I agree that we should "know the enemy," so to speak. I think the language was more surprising because the author claimed to have been a criminal defense attorney. It scares me to think that his deconstruction of the crime was a reflection of how a defense attorney might try to break down rape cases for juries, that the legal system itself is perpetuating these blame-the-victim memes. I know that rape cases often come down to this, but I still expect a more sophisticated understanding of the crime.
God, this ruined my morning. I can't BELIEVE there's people out there who would write this bilge. 'A delightful nude 13-year old, and there was sex'? What the FUCK is the world coming to? This is pedophillia we're talking about.
This part: "In most American states that’s considered a somewhat serious crime but in Europe they are more cavalier about such things."
I'm pretty sure that in most parts of Europe, a forty-something year old man having sex with a 13 year old girl is not ok. Not to mention, that in this case, she said no!
Therefore, a 40 something year old man RAPING 13 year old girl.. isn't that the point of the post?
Check out the NYTimes coverage of the Polanski case. I am really, really grossed out by the directors' support of him. I get that art and life are separate. I'm okay with people admiring his work (Sort of.) But the idea that because he's a genius, somehow he shouldn't be "persecuted" (read: prosecuted) for his crimes? Blah.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/movies/30polanski.html?_r=1&hp
I don't get the "he's a genius" thing.
He makes movies. He didn't cure cancer or feed the hungry or end poverty in our time.
He makes movies.
And, let me point out the hippopotamus in the room, his movies are all that great. Call me a philistine, but I've seen better - and these better movies were made even better by the fact that they weren't made by people who drug and rape 13 yr old girls.
Correction - that was meant to read:
...his movies aren't all that great...
Seriously, we need an edit button.
I get very agitated with the hyprocrisy of many liberals (and I'm talking here about the Hollywood elite type) that is demonstrated when one of their own does something like this. If a member of the Bush clan did such a thing they would be crying out about the sexist expolitation of a girl by a perverted old power drunk pedophile (and they would be absolutely right). But when it's one of their cronies it suddenly becomes 'let bygones be bygones', 'he's suffered enough', and some version of 'it wasn't rape-rape'. The victim blaming in this case is gobsmacking.
I'm still fuming about the lack of outrage from the left about ACORN workers not batting an eye when told that underage girls were going to be brought into this country as prostitutes (in other words, to be raped). I'm more pissed about that than the tax evasion crap.It doesn't matter where you stand politically or how you feel about the organization in general or other good things you think they've done. That right there was a major fuck up and one you can't explain away. I wish people would try to look at events like this on their rightness or wrongness and not through the prism of their ideology before they determine if it's a big deal or not.
the reaction to this thing indicates some of the outrage regarding chris brown was tinged with racism
In Europe they are more cavalier about child rape?
Basically that's the attitude.
For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone is sympathetic to Polanski and doesn't want to see him in jail.
Is it supposed to be an enlightened attitude to overlook rape because he supposedly writes good movies? Does the fact that he's an artist make it an act of love to rape? Is it a U.S. vs. France thing? Is it because he's probably to old to get it up anyway?
It's all bullshit. I can't believe all these supposed progressives who want him to be pardoned. Lock him up and throw away the key.
When I feel as though I might lose my mind -- as I have recently after reading news stories voicing "sympathy" for Polanski -- I visit this website. There should be OUTRAGE over this rape. And then we have to hear from the likes of Peter Fonda standing up for his friend.
Women (and of course men as well)should be speaking out, yet far too many remain silent. That is equally disturbing.
polanski is white/jewish. he gets a pass
This is not rape.
The girl was 13 years old. A young teenager is fully aware of her actions and able to make mature decisions just like the rest of us.
She obviously was not at all traumatized by what happened seeing as she looks back on the events with no feelings of regret.
This whole thing is silly and everyone should drop it. She already has... why cant you
Nice try, troll.
(trigger warning)
Just in case you're not a troll:
Please check the details of the case. The girl said (and Polanski admitted) the following:
--He gave her alcohol and tranquilizers to influence her actions.
--She said NO repeatedly, when he told her to get on the bed, when he initiated oral sex, when he initiated PIV sex, and when he initiated anal sex.
--She was traumatized. It has been 30 years and she has obviously healed significantly since then, but she said at the time that she was very scared and upset about the incident.
Please stop victim blaming by saying the girl was "fully aware of her actions" when drugged, and by calling us "silly" for wanting to see a rapist brought to justice.
You made such a jerky comment. No feelings of regret? Maybe you should be anally raped. Then we'll see how you feel. Are you an MRA?
If I were you, I'd get out of the kitchen immediately. Chris Hansen from To Catch A Predator just might be waiting in the next room.
You're probably a troll. But the comment I would like to make is that it doesn't matter if the victim self-reports that she doesn't have "any regrets". She was 13 and that means that she couldn't consent. She was not a "delightful, nude female", she was an innocent child who deserved to be safe from Polanski's twisted advances. What matters is that Polanski broke the law. A crime was committed.
It's very possible that the victim is still in denial or doesn't want to have to go through it all again, particularly in public. Even if the victim downplays what happened, a crime still occurred. One of my best friends was raped by her 20-something neighbor at age 14. Even though she told me that it was consensual, it wasn't, because she was not old enough to give her consent when it happened to her.
As an adult, my friend was never able to say that it was rape or even admit that he did something wrong to her. My take on it is that it's too painful for her to admit that he took advantage of her. My friend was so badly in denial that she had sex with him again as an adult, when she was in her twenties and he was in his thirties. Her term for it was that they had a bond and an understanding between eachother.
Personally, I think her denial turned into a sort of Stockholm sydrome. She identified with the man who raped her more than she identified with herself as the victim of a serious crime. She never was able to walk a mile in her own shoes, admit that she was victimized, get through the pain of what happened and move on with her life.
Instead, she numbed herself to get through it. When we used to party together she was the one who always took things too far. I've watched her drink her way through her life to the point where things got so out of control that I had to end our friendship. I don't know that what happened to her caused her to drink, but it certainly didn't help anything.
I regret not telling my parents what I knew about my friend at the time, but I was only 14 myself when she told me she had sex with him. I came from a troubled home too and at the time I didn't really fully understand the seriousness of what she told me. I knew that what happened was wrong on some level, but I kept her secret anyway. As a fellow 14 year old, I thought of him as her boyfriend, because I didn't know any better than to take her word for what she told me.
What happened to my friend, to this girl and to so many others is nothing to take lightly. It's a serious breech of trust. It's a scar on coming of age. The effects of the trauma can become a lifetime of drugs, drinking, failed relationships and other problems. All of that misery just so some guy can get off easy? It's disgusting.
the 'delightful 13 year old' is repulsive, plus, whether he's an artist or not it doesn't in any way reduce his actions, artistic talent, just like money, or athletic ability, or anything else doesn't give one a 'free pass' to commit rape.
polanski has spent his life evading the law. clemency for the old man? i'd say let's see how he likes general population. 'it could have been a death sentence' for the celebrity polanski? i think they're mistaking who the victim is here.
the 'support' for polanski seems a lighter version of the support that austrian intellectuals gave 'reformed' serial killer jack unterweger (after all, he only killed prostitutes and wrote such wonderful poetry people) to be let out of jail. they let him out and he killed prostitutes again. sorry if that was off topic, but it's vile how people stand behind a predator when the predator is an artist.
and for that site that seems to think the europeans are SO much less puritanical about sexual matters - yeah, given the editorial slant of the site i wonder if they'd be behind more european attitudes towards homosexuality and gay marriage?
It's a shame Polanski wasn't in the house (when manson's people stuck) instead of Sharon and Abigail
hey, a european here!
we, europeans, are so cavalier regarding pedofilia, that poland and russia have decided to chemically castrate pedofiles... lots of chivalry here regarding that issue!
european comments are 95% with this content: "i would cut off his testicles", etc.
however, we also have our trolls, anyway, so we get the usual comments as well, it was not rape, the girl was consenting, poor-poor polanski, suffered enough, etc.
and yes, in europe pedofilia is also pedofilia, under 14, etc, etc.
however, society is deeply patriarchal. i do a rape recovery blog, and we get plenty of pedofilia cases as well. the survivors do not even report the cases to the police, because our fucked up society does not believe the survivors, and you may get out of the whole thing as locked up in the prison for false accusation, in case you can not provide any proofs. and even, if you have evidence, if the rapist says it was not rape, you can still be charged with false accusation, as the rapists word is against your word. end of story. we can only assume the number of reported rapes, ca. 10%, but i wonder, if this can be even worse.
As a survivor of pedophilia, rape, molestation, leud and lascivious acts, and sodomy I'd like to say that it seems common here in the states to minimize the action of pedophilia. I was repeatedly victimized for 8 years and you know the police said to me when I finally told them my story, "you could have prevented this by coming to us sooner. Nevermind, that he was a close family friend that we were encouraged to refer to as uncle and that he was the best man at my dad's second wedding or that he was the only baby sitter my step-mother and father routinely left my sister and I with. I chose to continue allowing the rapes because I didn't report it sooner. I didn't even that what I was going through was called sex until I was 11 (when I first told someone that I thought I'd already had sex). The man who hurt me was on probation for sexual assault on a child under 16 when he sexually assaulted me. What happened to him? He confessed to his crimes, police found video and photographic child pornography including evidence of what happened to me and the courts in Florida let him off with violation of probation, which meant more probation and they released him back onto the streets. The judge found that it wasn't a new crime because it had been going on so long and thus that there was no proof I could offer that crimes I was saying he committed 8 years ago actually happened. Even the rape kit examination I had at 11 didn't prove anything except that I had had sex recently. This happened in 1996. A friend of mine is trying to prosecute her 4 year old daughter's rapist and its the same story now 13 years later. Until everyone, including celebrities start going down for pedophilia, these horrific and traumatizing crimes are going to continue. I wish more women could share their stories in an effort to illustrate really how prevalent child rape is.
thank you for sharing your story. The police officer in question should be suspended and be made to take an unpaid course on how to deal with rape victims. What she/he said was unacceptable.
Why don't victims "just" come forward? Because children are taught to listen to adults, the rapist could be (almost always is) a family member/friend, children feel shame and responsibility, some children fiercely defend their parents from finding out because they don't want to disappoint them (some things happened to me when I was a kid not by a family member and I still haven't told my family because of the shame), the child could be threatened ("I'll hurt your mom/dad/sister)..my friend was repeatedly raped by her grandfather. When her mother (who didn't even believe her at first) finally came around, the state said there was no evidence and there was absolutely nothing done to this man. This is way more prevalent than people will admit and there's no way we can ever get an accurate number.
thank you for sharing your story. The police officer in question should be suspended and be made to take an unpaid course on how to deal with rape victims. What she/he said was unacceptable.
Why don't victims "just" come forward? Because children are taught to listen to adults, the rapist could be (almost always is) a family member/friend, children feel shame and responsibility, some children fiercely defend their parents from finding out because they don't want to disappoint them (some things happened to me when I was a kid not by a family member and I still haven't told my family because of the shame), the child could be threatened ("I'll hurt your mom/dad/sister)..my friend was repeatedly raped by her grandfather. When her mother (who didn't even believe her at first) finally came around, the state said there was no evidence and there was absolutely nothing done to this man. This is way more prevalent than people will admit and there's no way we can ever get an accurate number.
Thank you all for your input. I just wanted to chime in about passive language addressed by the contributor.
Passive language is very often used to take away the seriousness of rape, and other assaults against mostly women/girls.
Phrases like:
was raped
was attacked
was found
became trapped
found herself (attacked)
was forced
had sex with the alleged person..
all take away the responsibility of the attacker and put it in the hands of the victim or take away the responsibility of anyone, altogether, as if the crime/attack didn't really happen. It's not an abstract concept. There is a person who did the attacking, and the person who was attacked. It may seem insignificant or nitpicky to harp on grammar, but consider that this happens very often in articles..I believe it is a further victimization because it lessens the impact and it dumbs down the violence involved.