lyapo,

You call Polanski "a pedophile who has repeatedly engaged in sexual/romantic relationships with minors" - on what grounds? The laws around pedophilia and sex offenders are murky and problematic as it is; laying on extra claims doesn't help any.

I'm with Brynn on this - Geimer, as an adult, wants it over; they settled even before her statement. What more do we want? There's also some indication of politicking between the Swiss and the U.S governments:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/27/entertainment/main5344504.shtml

many studies have been done documenting the damage to young people's identities from child rape and sexual abuse.

i feel intense sympathy for children who have been molested or raped by authority figures.
as a person who was raised catholic, i feel shame that "my" church covered up for some of these manipulitive sociopaths for so very long.

and i have sympathy for this young woman.
for upperclass priviliged "gifted" white abusers
not so much

Brynn,

This is the best example I have seen of starting with a conclusion. It took you five paragraphs of rant to finally get to your "but why him and not all these other guys."

This posting is really about all the Bush Administration crooks, military and Wall Street types you seek to see prosecuted. Hey, I wanted Nixon prosecuted, but what did I get?

Based upon logic like what you have expressed in your posting and comments I would expect that you would also desire to have time limits on hunting for concentration camp guards you reference above.

So, the victim wants him forgiven? A man under charges, who knew he took advantage of someone defenseless, flees the country to avoid prosecution. Ms. Geimer does not have the authority or right to forgive him for that. As to the real point of your posting, there is no appetite to prefer charges against all those baaad people. There will be some charged, and there will be some found guilty as there should be, but count your blessings that you live in a country with the rule of law.

If it had been a Wall Street banker who had fled persecution you would be first in line to insist that we spare no expense to hang out this pig capitalist to dry.

I agree. Americans totally care more about putting sex criminals in prison than they do war criminals. It's silly, but this is the country that couldn't develop a clear response to a VP that authorized torture but impeached Clinton for a blow job. If only there was evidence sex was somehow involved in developing the torture regime, there could be some sort of trial in that case.

But I don't really see how letting Polanski off the hook for rape really helps the situation. With all the talk of what a great artist he was, all I can imagine is how the victim must have felt with all the accolades he was winning over the years after he got away with raping her and the complete disregard that shows her, as if she's just crazy to see him the way she did. She eventually said she forgives him, but I guess she gave up on justice.

I just had a conversation with Alberto's roommate about this, and he said that it's common knowledge that she was getting fucked all the time by all the stars she could find and that, contrary to what she said, she wanted it and then she wanted to get famous by accusing him of rape afterwards. I'm not saying that's what you're saying, Brynn, but I'm kinda just a little shell-shocked by that and thought I'd throw it out while we're on the topic.

Anyway, I'm thinking if only John Yoo but not David Addington were prosecuted for his torture memos, it would still be a win for justice. And if only the guy who rapes a teenager is imprisoned (or given probation, since that was a possibility at the time too) and not the other criminals mentioned, it's still a net positive. This isn't just a sex crime, it's a violent crime.

Oh well. Just my 2 cents, not that it matters since I'm obviously not deciding anything in this case.

I'd like to point out that Brynn isn't disputing Polanski's role in any of this. But comments so far are making it seem like he's claimed that Polanski is innocent. Calling Brynn a rape apologist is a pretty low step, and it shoots down any credibility your argument might have. How is that any different from the right-wing attacks on war protestors as unpatriotic traitors?

And that brings me to another point: There IS a connection to be made between war criminals and sex criminals. The extent to which we neglect to prevent/punish the one reflects our zeal to punish/humiliate/kill the other, and that says a lot about the power inequality that we foster. How a society defends one kind of extreme violence as "collateral damage," and allows its perpetrators to elude justice under the fog of chivalry/war/patriotism/ex-presidency is reflective of its willingness to let another kind of criminal (because,yes, no one is saying crimes were not committed) rot forever and, frankly allow for mob rule.

I think the point of Brynn's piece has already been revealed in this comments section. Put plainly, how and why do we rail in such deeply emotional ways against one kind of crime but not another? Where was all this anger and disgust when we saw war crimes being committed? What kinds of rhetorical and media veils were we allowed to hide behind when war was announced?

Psychically speaking, is our willingness to excoriate not just Polanski but even people like Brynn (who aren't defending RP, but asking for a look at our discourse) indicative of our unwillingness to be angry about the crimes a nation has inflicted? Is this our way of avoiding the horrors of war and, instead, focus on the supposed "capture" (nothing Wild West there) of one man -- for a thirty-year incident that may well be decided in his favour, given all the technical botch-ups and the fact that the parties clearly came to some kind of agreement? That's not to draw a cheap analogy between the two kinds of crimes - and I don't Brynn made one - but to ask, what really gets us stirred up more easily, and why?

I suspect these are rhetorical questions. Like Brynn, I've been shocked at the level of berating engaged by some, not all, here. I don't know if we're really ready to have these difficult conversations. And calling Brynn a "rape apologist" takes us nowhere near that vital step.

Here's why Brynn is being called a rape apologist:

To sum up my feelings, serving and possibly extraditing a 76-year-old, gifted artist on a 32-year-old warrant for a sex-crime in which no one lost their life and the injured party has publicly called for clemency, ... is not only a colossal waste of money, but a gross miscarriage of justice.

If you free it of the derail of "zOMG, this is totally not as important as these other much more important issues!" what you are left with is the simple argument that a confessed rapist should not be held to justice. That's rape apologism.

I also liked how Brynn claims only conservatives are concerned about this case:

This story illustrates conservative Americans' obsession with sex, and their double standards toward crimes committed by liberals versus by their own.

These women are not conservatives.

But what I've most enjoyed has been Brynn's derailing/silencing techniques seen in the comments like "[A]are you just reacting emotionally[?]", multiple instances of how it's a complex situation given the Holocaust survival, Sharon Tate's murder, etc and that's not being considered and how no one disagreeing with him has "made a real effort to consider the case in a complex, nuanced way", those disagreeing with him have "resorted to simplistic, emotional arguments", and how he's "trying to bring a level of rational and respectful discourse to this explosive topic.".

Oh, I see now he's replied to recursiveparadox and has hit the classic rape-apologist high points of "She looked old enough!" and blaming the victim (who was unable to consent to sex with an adult, remember) for giving mixed signals. The only thing missing is slandering the victim for being an easy slut (which Polanski's lawyers did already). Seriously, the law is well established on these not being a valid defence for raping a child. (As a blogger at "I Blame the Mother", I couldn't help but be drawn to the mother-blaming, too. Nice touch, that.)

If there were any questions about Brynn being a rape apologist, the 8:21 reply to recursiveparadox should have laid them to rest.

[Note: I also accidentally posted this without signing in first. If the mods could delete the duplicate held message that would be nice.]

first,
i myself have not personally "attacked" in any way.

also, this subject is extremely inflamatory
as a general rule, you posted it,you should expect to get into a shouting match here,
no point in getting wound up. besides, it's Bilerico, that's the rule,lol

ok-
BC:"HE(polanski) WAS 12 AT THE END OF WWII. It is entirely possible that he was sexually abused as a child himself, as he survived the violence and chaos of WWII Poland without the protection of his parents, who were in concentration camps."

*the psychiatric community no longer believes
in the "pedophiles are made" scenario.
read up on it online, it is a discounted theory today.(read up, the info is there.
don't ask me for links, this is easy to google.)and it really is horribly unfair to
molestation survivors to see them as potential "predators", also....doctors don't feel that way at this time,
but i'm not saying you're doing that.
but also,there is no "polanski was molested"
testimony, anyway...

BC:"If you read the testimony, you see that Geimer gave Polanski mixed messages during
the entire encounter. "

* irrelevant.
the law classes children under the age of consent
as NON-CONSENTUAL.period.
they are considered unable to consent to MANY things, and this is really child psychology 101....
they also don't drive, drink, work or vote, because they are rightly considered too immature to make well informed choices on complex matters and this is ALSO well documented*

BC:"And Javier,
"upperclass priviliged "gifted" white abusers"?
Last time I checked, Polanski was a Jewish survivor of WWII Poland,
whose father barely made it out alive from the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp,
and whose mother was killed in Auschwitz. Please think again about "privileged" and
"white." "

*um,JEWISH people are considered WHITE people.
no offence, but???
polanski himself is PRIViliGED.
his family, sadly, is NOT.

if polanski's family very sadly died in a concentration camp,
THEY are the victims.
(he is a technically a survivor.)

losing a family is terribly traumatic.
it is still,however, less bad then being
KILLED horribly,oneself, by sadists, (i will contend!)

my friend's grama was in a camp.
my friend doesn't consider it HER own tragedy.
she rightly sees it as her GRAMA'S.
her grama is the VICTIM.
she would not "appropriate" that experiance.

same again with Sharon Tate.SHE is the victim
of a horrific crime.he is not the "victim"
he is a family member.it is very terrible. but not the same as dying while pregnant
by multiple violent knife stabbings.
jesus,mary and joseph!
(there IS a differance.)
besides, HE isn't saying the sharon tate murders made him do it, so why bring that up?it's not a "motive" for pedophilia.
and he DOES have other admitted sexual encounters with youths...

my point is,let's not take away actual
VICTIMS pain and suffering.
like the child, who was RAPED....
especially to make lesser "points"
less important then the main subject(rape)*

BC:"I used the case, too, to make (IMO)a nuanced point about the US justice system,
and conservatives' attitudes about sex. "

*but rape is not sex. it is rape.
and,who cares whether "conservatives" are hypocrites about this? we know that they are about EVERYTHING, no suprise.
unless that is your main point, but seems like it's not.so i'm not sure how that part is relevant to the case we are all discussing.*

BC:"even though she was 13, she had had sexual intercourse twice previously,
according to her own admission; when questioned about the details of what had happened,
she was able to talk about sex in a sophisticated way;"

*13 is still underage. the law was created
to protect children: in the past there WERE no
consent laws, or laws about child work....
also, drugging removes the concept of consent,
anyway, you do realize?
also, non virgins can be raped,remember?*

BC:" especially if Polanski believed Geimer to be old enough to consent. "

*i believe 'ignorance of the law is not an excuse' is the courts' rule of thumb....*

BC:"In the middle of intercourse,
the adult woman in the home knocked on the door to the bedroom, giving Geimer the perfect opportunity to appeal for help; she did not,
despite the fact that Polanski got up, went to the door, and spoke with the woman.
He then returned to the couch, resumed, and climaxed.

What Polanski did constitutes rape, the age of consent alone determines that. But if,
as he said, he believed her to be old enough to consent--and she did look older than
she was--her behavior was, at the very least, giving mixed signals. "

*again, irrelevant.
age of consent law.
(are you disputing age of consent, may i ask?...)
and,mixed signals:
not the point.no is"no".

also,during rape or molestation,
a fear or feeling of being unable to
"leave" or escape can happen to victims,
or paralysis, especially if one is drunk or drugged...
this is also documented...
this happens to kidnapped kids too, remember the bill o'reilly fiasco re THAT comment of his last year....

arousal,if a male child "climaxes"
from oral sex in a molestation,
this is also NOT "consent".or considered consent.
and this is pretty well documented stuff, too.
you could study up yourself,on this, while you are asking the rest of us to read up on the court case...*

alex blaze:I just had a conversation with Alberto's roommate about this,
and he said that it's common knowledge that she was getting fucked all the time by all
the stars she could find and that, contrary to what she said, she wanted it and then
she wanted to get famous by accusing him of rape afterwards."

*not saying YOU are saying this alex blaze...
but what does anyone's roomate know re this,
and is that not hearsay?

and again, she was only 13 years old.
plus, rape can happen to anyone, even
those that people call "sluts" (which is a pretty fucked up thing to call anyone, by the way,
some people are such fucking asshats...)

so,
you don't have to answer anything
i have said,brynn,just think about it,
that's all i would ask. and please don't "snark" me re this, i haven't snarked you...

also,re above comment by yasmin,
well,rape often IS a war crime...
...i personally feel that it's
healthy that society wants to try to protect kids, the opposite would be and is pretty unthinkable...
lastly, as FTM's,(brynn)
we need to understand women's takes on this issue from a woman's (non- ftm) point of view, and be open minded and listen,
i really think....

people are seeing rape as more important then other points,here. thay DO have the right to that opinion.

j

here is a posting on "femiste"
from a woman who survived rape at a young age.
i would think it has a place in this discussion:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/09/29/getting-over-it/

To Javier and others,

Yes, actually, there is a lot of discussion and dissent around the notion of age-of-consent laws. That's a whole other discussion but, in brief, let's just remember that sodomy was, until recently, illegal. Defining something as illegal doesn't require us all to roll over and play dead and not be critical of the law. If you want to discuss the issue of consent and rape laws, you need to do more than engage in these cheap emotional devices.

It's become quite evident (see Lucy's lovely little note to Robert) that most critics here are no longer engaging with the issues but simply hoping to score cheap rhetorical points.

Frankly, some of the comments here have even gone past the point of basic lucidity.

Given my own experience with this topic elsewhere, I don't think there's a rational discussion to be had. There's barely one to be had in civil real-life company. There's none to be had in an internet discussion where commenters, often hiding behind one-name monikers that don't require them to rein in their bloodthirsty rhetoric, are acting more like the contestants on one of those wrestling shows on television.

Frankly, a lot of this has to do with the sex hysteria that's so prevalent in the U.S today, a hysteria which precludes rational discussion and which posits that sex crimes are a) divorced from any other context and b) they matter more than any other crimes. That is not, repeat NOT (because I see the eager light shining in the eyes of those ready to pounce and call me a rape apologist as well) to say that sex crimes don't matter. But it is to say that the U.S, given its own particular history, where it has not known what unrelenting war, devastation, and the daily burden of living in bloodshed and hunger can be like, is currently incapable of understanding why someone might think to question our zealot-like obsession with bringing Polanski down.

It's quite evident that very few here really care about Geimer or about discussing the issue of laws and crimes in any substantive way - the only interest seems to be: let's all rant and froth at the mouth and declare Brynn a rape apologist. Really? Can you get any lower than that?

Bilerico can sometimes be the site of some substantive and interesting commentary by those who respond to posts. This, sadly, is not one of those occasions.

I applaud Brynn for his bravery in raising some difficult questions.

to yasmin (and brynn? is this your opinion too)

"javier and others,....If you want to discuss the issue of consent and rape laws,
you need to do more than engage in these cheap emotional devices."

first of all, i personally bend over backwards to be polite and civil in online
discussion.and purely rhetorically, i don't see where the things i have said to you
(brynn) are "cheap devices"

they may contain emotion, however.
it is also silencing of the women commenting here to say that,
and that is their contention, so it needs to be addressed,
apperantly not civilly, i guess.and that is not attack

i HAVE NOT attacked you,(brynn or yasmin) and i resent the implication.

yes,a person who was raped matters to me.
it's not for you to say. and you honestly don't know here who was be a rape survivor,
as we commenting, know nothing in that regard as to you(both)

i have no "sex hysteria".i do try to respect the feelings of other people
in regards to their OWN sexuality, not MY "interpretation" of it.
i see that as respect. that IS what women and other people ask for, as you know.
(attack?...)

personally i have no "zelot like obsession " with roman polanski.
that has never been my point, or seemingly the points of ANY of the people commenting here,in my opinion.
they seem to be reacting in varies degrees to the rape related aspect of this discussion.
i still contend that WOMEN have a right to their opinions on this.
yasmin, i'm sure you would agree?
again, not attack?

also,there is sometimes an accusation of sexism re/ ftm's,
and as alex's post today addresses, in the male gay community.
that also needs to be addressed.obviously not here...

women ask to be "listened to"in their opinions.
i believe in doing that, none the least because i was born female.
and, as an ftm also (like brynn), a marginilized person,
it means ALOT to me to be"represented" (as T) on blogs like this, by ftm's.
sorry, but that is a valid feeling.
dismiss it if you will.
so,all of my comments have been civil and in good faith.
and not attacking another ftm.

this IS supposed to be a community blog.
and a safe place.people want to feel supported, and rape survivors are entitled
to that safety.

that is my opinion. i am also entitled to it. it's not a "cheap emotional device"

and i would ask:
why not read the post on feministe?
the woman who wrote it moved me deeply in her feelings of helplessness,
and being "changed" by the experience.
that IS the face of rape, and yes, it is emotional. how can it NOT be?
it is not divorced from feeling!

so,brynn,
if you're pissed off at me,i guess there is nothing i can do.
i will say sorry if you are offended by something you feel i have said
as in dissing you.but i'm not seeing it anywhere....i have tried to be polite.

not everyone is in "pile on" mode, and upset people(others) have rights to be heard.

again, in good faith, not "cheap devices",
-javier

ps not everyone 'T' wants their last name published online, yasmin, as you know.
and not every woman does, either.....

"... presented a testimony, under oath, in a court of law, that Polanski DID NOT dispute"

(i guess)my only question here is, if polanski
is NOT disputing it,why are you?

sorry brynn, but with all respect, she (above) asks a fair question.
javier

and as you know, if you advocate for women :

•1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.
•In 2007, there were 248,300 victims of sexual assault.
•Every 2 minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted.
•Approximately 73% of rape victims know their assailants.
•Only 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail.
•44% of victims are under age 18.
Statistics from RAINN

and that statistic DOES NOT include males, and male children.

ewww,i just read this online:

Polanski in his own words in 1979

"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But...
f--ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f-- young girls. Juries want to f-- young girls. Everyone wants to f-- young girls

(...i need that bleach shower now...)

"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But... f--ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f-- young girls. Juries want to f-- young girls. Everyone wants to f-- young girls!"
Roman Polanski