Vendetta1 said:

Of course mate I hear yah we are all entitled to our opinions by all means. To further explain myself I have never stated that I agree nor condone that type of behaviour and actions on his behalf, all I wanted to say is there are definately 2 sides to every story, and somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

porfyrivrohi said:

I'm talking about the Polanski apologists.

And PanthaGirl, I'm a PARENT, I don't dare wish rape to children, but before you defend a rapist, put your OWN child in that predicament and then you'll understand.

Hell, you don't even have to be a parent to have strong feelings toward rape

PanthaGirl said:

That's not what she's doing. She's trying to get these knuckleheads to see that Polanski committed rape and needs to be locked up yesterday (meaning 30 years ago). If they can't sympathize with this girl who doesn't want to go through the ordeal again as a woman (or signed an agreement not to participate) then maybe they could if they IMAGINED it were their own children.

You can't commit a heinous crime, leave the country before serving time and expect all to be forgotten just because it was 30 years ago. What kind of message would that send about our justice system?

Polanski apologists that have read/heard the victim's account of the rape and continue to support him are sick and really don't deserve their own freedom in this society. Lord knows what skeletons are in their closets.

1212121 said:

I agree, wholeheartedly.

whodknee said:

Oh she knows what I meant, alright

Some folks in here look for baits/mind game tricks to support their OWN argument and switch it on their side instead of looking at the bigger picture.

But there's a child involved in this mess, whether they like it or not, ALL the odds are against their argument.

Thanx for clearing that up to them though
[Edited 10/2/09 23:31pm]

Harlepolis said:

Yah choosing your words more carefully next time won't lead to such a travesty on your behalf because that is certaintly how u came across with that statement. Besides I'm hardly defending him, I'm simply keeping an open mind to both sides of the act itself. I know and do understand rape is a crime and a tragic one but not all cases are the same and many times it is consentual.

Oh and if I was a parent, my 13 year old certaintly wouldn't be out of my sight nor walking the streets nor allowing such devastating situations to begin with.

PanthaGirl said:

I did, and I STILL stand by my statement.

I just hope the judge/legal system doesn't buckle to all the morons supporting him and throw his sick ass in jail for good.

PanthaGirl said:

Finally someone who reads a bit more about the case.

"Polanski was notorious for his sexual interest in "very young girls" - making a public display of his spell over them.

While this is something that Samantha Geimer's aspiring mother may not have been aware of - unlikely as that may seem - she was the one who introduced Samantha at the age of 13 to Polanski in order to further her daughter's modelling career. Polanski had been asked to guest edit an edition of French Vogue and wanted to feature Geimer. The bait was set.

Polanski wasted no time. During Geimer's first photoshoot - at her home - he asked her to remove her clothes as he photographed her. Only two weeks later, Geimer's mother allowed her to be taken to a private photoshoot with Polanski. Although Polanski had promised to bring one of Geimer's friends along as a chaperone, he failed to do so. Geimer went alone with Polanski"

"Where was Geimer's mother throughout this time? It is strange that she was not present at the first photoshoot, that she allowed a second photoshoot to take place without her being there and, seemingly, did not check to see that her daughter was in fact accompanied by a chaperone."

http://www.thefirstpost.c...n-polanski

Just like the mother of Brooke Shields agreed to make nude pictures of her 10 year old daughter. Do you all want Richard Prince now after 25 years in jail? What about the mothers?

dothejump said:

Richard Prince is NOT the photographer who took the photographs of Brooke Shields. The original photographs were taken by Gary Gross. Richard Prince is a contemporary artist who re-photographed Gross' photos. Her mother signed a contract giving Gross permission. (I actually gave tours on the Prince exhibition, Spiritual America which contained that image, along with many other paintings and (re)photographs.) Also, Brooke Shields later sued trying to get rights to the image and stop them from being further circulated; but she lost. All of this happened BEFORE Richard Prince approached Gary Gross about reproducing them.

See this (NSFW) link for more info: http://iconicphotos.wordp...ary-gross/

So to answer your question, No, I do not want Richard Prince to go to jail. He is not the photographer. But besides that, Gary Gross was not convicted of having sexual intercourse with a 13 year old. Gross and Brooke's mother have some questionable judgement; but please leave Richard Prince out of this.

If you want to open the Art (with a capital 'A') can of worms, I ask, "Why do paintings of nude children seem to be accetable, but photographs would not?" But I think that's a topic for another thread. And I actually dislike discussing art on the Org because there are too many philistines who think they know what they're talking about just because art (lower case 'a') is "subjective".



.
[Edited 10/3/09 6:37am]

PanthaGirl said:

It is not even slightly out of line.

You have been all over this thread defending someone who raped a 13-year-old. Suggesting that it was all the girl's fault. That she was some sort of Lolita that lured Roman Polanski into bed - instead of a child who was fed alcohol and drugs, and subsequently raped (orally, vaginally and anally) by a 43-year-old man.

That is just about the most out-of-line thing I can think of.

jone70 said:

I mentioned Richard Prince because that is the image that is questioned now. It is removed from the Tate gallery. I wanted to point out that the seventies were different than it is nowadays and also that the mothers of Brooke Shields and Samantha Geimer are not average mothers. They more or less 'gave' their daughters to the artists. (and again it was wrong that Polanski had sex with the girl but it was thirty years ago and he never was hiding from the public eye).

jone70 said:

That is indeed an interesting question. Not all nudity is wrong imo. But you are right that question deserves its own thread.
[Edited 10/3/09 7:11am]

dothejump said:

But Richard Prince is not the person who took the photographs of Brooke in the 70s. He's irrelevent to the conversation. Gary Gross took the photographs. Gross also did not drug, rape, or sodomize Brooke; then flee the country after he was convicted of a crime. So I'm not even really seeing how he's comparable to Polanski. (Disclaimer: I'm not defending Gross' photographs, but it seems a bit like comparing apples to cars. Not even close.)

jone70 said:

I think it relevant because it shows differences in time periods and the perspective on things. Nowadays it seems not even possible to exhibit the remake by Richard Prince (although I personally can't see what's wrong with that one) because it is viewed as child pornography.

BTW Are you Joni from NY who was also on HQ?

Genesia said:

Sorry for the OFF-TOPIC, but I feel the need to defend "Lolita" the fictional character who has had a bad name for ages due to the 1962 film by Kubrick, and undeservedly so. Having also watched Adrian Lyne's version of 1997, I was astounded last year when I finally read Nabokov's book to find out that Lolita was far from the seductive nymphet portrayed in those films. She was just a regular child of her age, not even grown into a feminine body yet. That's what attracted Humbert in the first place who is admitting to being a paedophile from the very start! It's so obvious that HE seduced her and not vice versa!


ON TOPIC now, why do you think has Geimer accepted taking 500,000$ from Polanski as "settlement"?
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni1043635/
Is that how much her honour and physical and mental well-being are valued?
It looks highly suspicious to me...

I have been asking that question for a long time about Roman Polanski, I remember when he fled so he wouldn't face the charges. Finally, he's facing his crime. I'm sure no parent here would want him sitting in the room with their minor-aged children. The guy is a child molester point blank, and he needs to stay the hell away from minors. He's had a history of flirting with young, underaged girls. Lock his ass up, throw away the key.
[Edited 10/3/09 9:12am]

2elijah said:

Flirting with young, underaged girls is not a crime, I presume... yet.

porfyrivrohi said:

I swear to God some of you creep me the fuck out.

Do any of you know how many children are molested over and over again who let their molester do it because that person is an adult? Is it different because those children give consent? Are those children at fault because of it?

If a grown ass man flirts with my child, he is getting locked up BECAUSE it is a crime to make sexual advances towards a child. If a grown man touches my daughter, consent or not, I will fucking kill him.

put him away forever. now that more facts of the case have come out, i sincerely hope he loses all the support he's had over the years.

porfyrivrohi said:

WTF?? Are you serious?? It's jailbait. It is a crime in this country. Maybe you should sit in on some court cases, and listen to some stories from underaged girls who have been raped by older men, and some by their fathers,uncles and male cousins, since you think it is not a crime.
[Edited 10/3/09 10:40am]

Vendetta1 said:

Same here. But in the Polanski case the parents agreed with a settlement.

Vendetta1 said:

Relax, I'm not a freak!

No doubt there are many molested children out there and rightfully there's need for those laws against sex with minors. No doubt children should be protected.

BUT on the consent issue I have another approach. There CAN also be consent! The trick is to distinguish REAL consent from consent induced by fear. We're talking about teenagers of course here, not 5-year-olds!

I first had sex at 15, with an adult (21), which was illegal by the book (legal age for having sex in Greece is 16). But I had a full grown woman's body and hormones had reached peak levels - plus I was in love with the guy! It's only natural! I wanted him as much as he wanted me and he's been the love of my life. Should he have been arrested and put to jail? Would that be fair at all?

I actually HAVE a 13-year-old daughter so I'm not talking all theory here. She's very tall and grown up for her age so people always think she's older. There have been adults flirting with her, even ones who know her real age. The older one was 36. And in my presence too. I don't really have a problem with this as long as my kid doesn't. I try to warn her about dangers and teach her how to avoid unpleasant situations but without freaking her out about sex! Sex is only natural and since my daughter has had her period for 4 years now I expect that sometime soon she will feel the need to do it. I will try not to interfere in her choice, if she chooses an adult that's fine by me. What I've been trying to teach her is to find out HERSELF what she REALLY WANTS and do that. I believe she trusts me enough to come to me with any problem she might be facing so I'm optimistic.

That's my stance. Hope it doesn't creep you further.

I don't see how people, especially these so called celebrities are defending Polanski about all of this. It would had been real interesting if that girl had turned out to be one of their kids. I bet all of this "support" for him would diminish real quick. I don't care if it happened 100 years ago, director or not, he needs to pay for his crime.

missfee said:

He did
$500,000

PANDURITO said:

You can't put a price on rape. He needs to pay by serving his time in the pen.

2elijah said:

What can I tell you... I didn't know that. I'm not sure if it's illegal in my country too, but people do it all the time (I mean just flirting, not pressuring for sexual activity).

We had a case a few years ago here in Greece with a very well known singer and composer who had apparently had sex with a drugged 15-year-old AND he was recording the whole thing! The tape somehow ended up at a journalist's hands, who played it at his evening TV show, concealing the name and face of the girl but revealing the singer's name. There was an uproar then! Not because it's so unusual for teenage girls to go to bed with their favourite pop-star (that's a dream situation for most) but mostly because people got revolted by the fact she was drugged and because he was talking to her in a very obscene manner.
In spite of the uproar legally nothing could be done because a few years had passed and he couldn't be persecuted anymore (in Greece you can even get away with murder after 20 years, let alone sex with a minor which I think is not even a crime at this age - that's why we were so shocked with the Polanski case who got arrested for such an old story!). Of course his singing career was destroyed but he continued to be a songwriter and composer with some success and be respected in the business.

Please, I'm not supporting rape nor incest, but I know there are cases of consensual sex with minors and I know it first-hand! I don't know if the Polanski one was such, but I have my doubts.

oh, what? I didn't know Sharon Tate was Polanski's wife and that she was pregnant at the time of the murder

missfee said:

Apparently the victim did.

porfyrivrohi said: