The evidence is the social climate of ‘then’. If we accept the feminist paradigms, that is what was going on ‘then’–mother as procurer and pimp to patriarchy. Now of course, it’s the other way around: mother as pimp to matriarchy, and all of her friendly clanswomen…not strawMEN anymore …”

That’s not evidence of any individual’s state of mind. That’s you projecting a thought process on someone, which is also what you were doing when you said you imagined my definition of pimp. I’m going to keep calling it strawman. You can go with politically correct strawperson if you like.

Yup. Me too, which is why I took the time here to point out. Presuming that these type of blog posts have any serious intention other than to further villainize men, I like to point out alternative possibilities in the dialogue so that the usual knee jerks at the very least are refuted on some level.

But the fact that even he mentioned the asthma sounds like he isn’t trying to make himself out to be a good guy, but in his telling, he is using the language of the day, as is the girl.

She is a hapless Penelope, strapped to the tracks, and wholly innocent, unaware that she might get fucked. What 13 year old girl would EVER think of that?!

His language is that of a man trapped in a paradigm of sexual necessity–male as desiring young sex object, and thus drawing his power from female association, rather than other means, and unfortunately for him, employing ‘responsible,accountable’ male language.

Kammy: “What evidence do you know of that the mother was hoping that by having sex with the director”

The evidence is the social climate of ‘then’. If we accept the feminist paradigms, that is what was going on ‘then’–mother as procurer and pimp to patriarchy. Now of course, it’s the other way around: mother as pimp to matriarchy, and all of her friendly clanswomen…not strawMEN anymore …

My specific question was: What evidence do you know of that the mother was hoping that by having sex with the director it would help her daughter’s career? You must have some kind of evidence because your point seems to be largely based on that assumption. But if we’re just guessing (and I suspect you are) as to her state of mind, we could just as easily guess that she thought she could trust someone so admired and revered not to force himself on a child.

Even if we all accept as irrefutable truth that she was hoping Polanski would have sex with the girl, in order to further the career, it does not excuse Polanski’s actions. No matter his childhood, the difficult time he had losing his parents, or his wife and baby being murdered. If we accept that logic than practically no one who has commited rape or murder should be punished. Unless that bit only counts for gifted movie directors?

“I mean–unless your definition of a pimp is exclusively defined as a ‘male’. Second, I imagine your definition of pimp is entirely defined by the raw transaction of man selling woman for sex and profiting from it. But there are multiple ways to envision what is and isn’t a sex act, or a transaction, right? Or is that definition always man bad, woman pimped out and used by men?”

I’ll just leave you to keep dancing with the strawmen there…You seem to be having a pretty good time with it. Wouldn’t want to ruin it.

The fact that those were the attitudes of the day, and that he still felt the need to plea guilty, only hurts Polanski.

I have a feeling that inasmuch as you would like to dismiss anything P says, you have acknowledged a similarity in the story from both participants.

Her version rings more true to me. They are very similar, but the fact that they both include a reference to that girl stating she has asthma, when she didn’t, lends credibility to the girls assertion that she was not receptive to his advances.

And even if it was consensual, the circumstances of the case seem to make it very unlikely that he was not aware the girl was underage, and was therefore well aware that he was committing a crime.

He also plead guilty, and I don’t buy the argument that he was innocent, but only plead guilty to protect the girl. If it was consensual sex as he claims, what exactly would the girl need to be protected from? I think I’m a pretty good-hearted person, but there’s no way in hell I’d ever plead guilty to anything in order to protect a girl who was falsely accusing me of rape.

And there are several other reasons I tend to believe her version, none of which are because she is a woman, and he is a man. There are many cases I’ve heard of where the woman’s story doesn’t quit add up. This is not one of those.

Now, is a whole different paradigm that needs to be explored–the fact that men are not to be believed, or listened to, or heard.I have a feeling that inasmuch as you would like to dismiss anything P says, you have acknowledged a similarity in the story from both participants.

So the point is that listening to his story might well be a good idea–but for legal reasons, he and so many other rapists are not to be believed, at any cost–they must remain silent about causal factors, and especially silent about the childhoods that brought them to being what they are–which reminds me of the big fat sex offender who lives across the street from me–he, too “raped” a 13 year old girl–after she brought weed to his house. It was only “rape” when her drug addict mother heard about it, because the girl had been staying at his house regulrly, and drug dealer mom needed to villainize someone for her bad parenting that led the girl there in the first place.

Which is why I sat through the story that ‘sex offender’ told me,and the stories of others as well–they reveal some ugly truths about our social order, rather than the rapists themselves.

I really, really can’t believe you asked that. I use the word pimp in an actual street sense: “no girl ever hit the block before her mother pimped her there first.”

Um, Hmmmmm…let’s see: she put the girl out on the block and into the hands of some guy with a camera–now unless you are one of those dress up the little girlies types, or a youth beauty pageant fan, I don’t know how you could see it any other way. I mean–unless your definition of a pimp is exclusively defined as a ‘male’. Second, I imagine your definition of pimp is entirely defined by the raw transaction of man selling woman for sex and profiting from it. But there are multiple ways to envision what is and isn’t a sex act, or a transaction, right? Or is that definition always man bad, woman pimped out and used by men?

So “Polanski was not an automaton under the thrall of the evil mother, forced to carry out her will” may or may not be true, because I don’t know his childhood, but I do know he developed a fondness for the females he could have power over–and as most of us know, abused people can develop a tendency to abuse.

Firstly what proof is there that the mother was pimping her out?

Secondly, the only way you’re Polanski as an accessory idea works is if he was not an independent actor, able to understand where he was in the world and make choices for himself. Which is hogwash, of course. Polanski was not an automaton under the thrall of the evil mother, forced to carry out her will. I mean if he was just some dumb animal that could not reason or choose, how the hell did he make all those films?

No. Polanski was an adult able to make choices and he chose to give in to his desire to rape a child. Here are his words after the fact: “â??If I had killed somebody, it wouldnâ??t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? Butâ?¦ fâ??ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fâ?? young girls. Juries want to fâ?? young girls. Everyone wants to fâ?? young girls!â?” (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/100011795/roman-polanski-everyone-else-fancies-little-girls-too/). Therefore he is subject to the laws of the land in which he loves to sell his self wanking movies.

So as someone suggested in one of these threads, the girl was ‘docile’, and possibly abused at earlier points in her life, but I sugest that primary abuse was at the hands of the mother, who callously put the girl with Polanski.