Comments on: Polanski Film Misses Big Picture

By: What Would Toto Watch? » ‘Wanted and Desired’ - more context

What Would Toto Watch? » ‘Wanted and Desired’ - more context — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:36:33 +0000

[...] and convinced him to flee the U.S. rather than face any potential prosecution. My Pajamas Media review applauds the technical wizardry behind the documentary, but it still feels like a missed [...]

By: ‘Wanted and Desired’ - more context « WHAT WOULD TOTO WATCH?

‘Wanted and Desired’ - more context « WHAT WOULD TOTO WATCH? — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:33:19 +0000

By: Helena

Helena — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:04:31 +0000

You Puritannical Americans have a little petit morte every time some celebrity’s sexual indiscretions are aired. So sex-obsessed and sexually repressed, not to speak of culturally deprived! What transpired between him and the young lady is between them and none of your business. Why do you obsess over such frivolty when you have such a great artist to appreciate? Where is your cultural appreciation you Philistines!”

IMBECILE. SHE WAS DRUGGED AND SAID “NO”. Double, triple, criminal-minded imbecile. (Or pervert). What are you–a troll?

God–I suppose it’s foolish to ask (even if you ARE a troll on this site riling people up) whether or not there are more of you.

And for the record, those of you associating this with being “liberal” are almost as bad, and at least as foolish. I guess all the womens’ votes for Democrats is just nonsensical and has nothing to do with the fact that that Democrats and “liberals” are typically crusading for in women’s rights against violence (including the funding and legal protection of women and children)…and among their many foes are “traditionalists,” conservatives, and the type of people who think a woman “asks for it” if she is drunk or scantily clad.

Be it Republicans comparing birth control (not abortion…IUDS, the Pill, BIRTH CONTROL) to murder to moral relativists who are repugnant enough to call what happened between Geimer and Polasnki “sex” (NOT SEX…RAPE)….you’re BOTH a problem.

And how ironic that the same men of “family values” in Washington are such potent hypocrites in their personal lives…

This is not about being “liberal” or Democrat (how dare you people). Those who rationalize what Polanski did are IDIOTS you either haven’t bothered to learn the details of the case, or can’t be bothered with the definition of “consent.”

A woman can be falling down drunk and naked on a bed–if a man rapes her, it is HIS fault, HIS decision.

The U.S. can be puritanical, but this is not one of those instances

By: Darwin Akbar

Darwin Akbar — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:44:03 +0000

I am the father of a 13-year old girl, and my daughter and her friends are CHILDREN. The law protects children from those that would take advantage of them. That the victim in this case forgave the criminal is immaterial to the point – he gave alcohol and quaaludes to a child and raped her, and refused to accept responsibilty or punishment for his crime. The jails here are full of those who did not have the resources to flee to Europe and be feted as a great artiste.
Moreover, it’s gutless for the film-maker to make the judge out to be the bad guy, since he is dead and unable to defend himself or sue for libel. The fact remains – and let me say it one more time – that the defendant drugged and anally raped a child.
As for the moral bankruptcy of those in Hollywood that would give Polanski a standing ovation,it speaks ill of them that they are apparently willing to fogive any sin except fighting Communism or voting Republican.

By: schnargley

schnargley — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:49:54 +0000

By: In Colorado

In Colorado — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:36:48 +0000

I am amazed by the convoluted logic. The comparison to a drugged 13 year old being sodomized by a much older man to references of teens being held responsible for violent felonies, to teen abortions and 18 year olds serving in the military. I fail to see the similarities or relevance. Even if the child were to be considered an adult, it is still considered rape to drug an adult and have sex without consent. We should not need the courts to tell us what is right; the courts tell us what is legal. In many cases there is little association between justice, what is right and what is legal. Thankfully in this case, the courts did make the right call. If we as a society cannot clearly see the wrong committed against this child then we might as well condone eating our young. I could care less what Europe find acceptable; I am less than impressed with the European mindset.

By: Rubicon

Rubicon — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:50:34 +0000

I remember this incident. Back then, in our community, it was a big deal since all felt the man raped a child.
Since then, the victim forgave her attacker. Some contend we send a mixed message when we place a child on trial for a crime, but refuse others the right to drink alcohol.
In truth, each case is its own as each has its own characteristics & facts. Some develop earlier than others & some crimes, depending on their savagery, also rate different approaches. If America wants it another way we need a national guideline so all courts respond the same.
As for European attitudes, so what! They have always has significantly more liberal views on issues than Americans have had. That may be why Europe always seems to be in some sort of turmoil.
Once the “child” was drugged, & once the adult had any sort of sex with her, he became a criminal forcible rapist.
Hollywood will always attack any whose actions “they” find reprehensible, but make excuses for those whose actions “they’ find acceptable or no big deal.
Its a typical liberal attitude of “do as we say, not as we do!” Or more accurately, ‘WE’ can do what we want, but ‘YOU OTHERS’ must beg
‘OUR’ permission or suffer consequences ‘WE’ decide are appropriate!”

By: Mohammed the Teddy-Bear

Mohammed the Teddy-Bear — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:55 +0000

This is Hollywood:

Stand up against Communists? People sit on their hands…

Rape a 13-year old girl? People give standing ovations…

By: Boca Condo King

Boca Condo King — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:55:55 +0000

Mom dropped off her daughter to be photographed by a well known film maker. Hopefully to become a model or film star.

Was Mom a ‘stage mom’ who was looking to profit by making her daughter famous? Maybe…..

But there is still no reason for Polansky to rape this little kid. Blamming the mom sounds a lot like blamming the victum.

Had Roman just photographed her and skipped the drugs booze and two types of sex, no problem.

Keeping it ‘in your pants’ is the responsibility of the pants wearer. Roman should be returned to the US to serve his sentance.

By: Waller

Waller — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:30:17 +0000

The disgusting thing is that Hollywood HONORED this convicted pedophile just five years ago. Rationalizing it by forever making excuses for him(as well as Michael Jackson, George Michael, etc.).

I’ve heard the Hollywood media arguments that he’s had all that emotional trauna (mother killed, wife murdered). The girl has forgiven him. The girl was willing (up until the forced sodomy). Rxcuse me, but age thirteen has constituted statutory rape in every state since long before Polanski committed his crime. Hollywood will grant any excuse to not have to eat one of their own. It shows how morally bankrupt they really are.

But I’m sure that if he had been a Catholic priest, there would have been boycotts against France, constant news coverage, and celebrity pronouncements until he was extradicted back to the US to receive his sentence. Because, you know, those Hollywood types are all about our kids.