Polanski v. Bieber: Arena of Antipathy

[hobbsyoyo]

He doesn't differentiate between the two; in one breath he defends a man's right to take advantage of a 'rapey-eyed' 13 year old while also decrying the media and WASPs for tarring Polanski's reputation and judging him in the court of public opinion. But you are right I guess, being alive almost a decade and a half qualifies you as fair game.

 

[NovaKart]

I did not say that.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You're right, that was unfair. Apologies.

 

[Snorrius]

I'm not talking about the details of this case in particular since it seems like snorrius is defending sex with young teenagers in general.

Here is a summary of what I have stated up to this point.

1) Roman Polanski did not rape Samantha Geimer except if we use term "rape" in meaning of "statutory rape" which is a pure legality which differs from state to state and from country to country and which have no any real connection to actual ability of human being to make decisitons. It does not carry the same ethical "badness" traditionally accompanying the term "rape".

2) Samantha Geimer knew what was going on and seduced Roman Polanski with permission of her mother. I am not going to claim whose intent was stronger - Samantha's or mother's who had manipulated her daughter.

3) I am not denying Polanski had broken local laws and acted like a fool falling prey to Samantha's and her mother's intrigues.

4) The whole discusstion is overhyped. It was thirty years ago and both parties just want to live peacefully including supposed victim.

4) I also stated few obvious facts of life like "as soon as women become pubertal it is normal for them to try use their seductive abilities to get what they want" or "sometimes women exploit legal system by seducing men and blaming them for rape afterwards striving for money, fame or revenge" and was amused by the utter shock of some posters upon learning something trivial as this.

Snorrius, I suppose you do have a point that our societal rules of age of consent are social constructs and don't really correspond fully to nature. However, in the past in societies where girls married older men when they were very young, the society was also much more rigid about sex. Girls were married and had strict guidelines of what they were supposed to follow and men had their expectations as well. Now, young people are expected to negotiate their own sexual relationships and teenagers just aren't mature enough to do that and they can be exploited by adults.

These are good points but actually I had not intentions to discuss here whether sex of adults with adolescents is ethically good or bad. Within this thread I withhold my judgement. It is an interesting topic but better to be discussed in "RD" thread to prevent rabid Anglo-Saxon bots from ruining a serious discussion.

I can't think of anything to recommend such a thing. Can you?

For example, imagine Afghani girls living in poor family. They often are being married off as soon as possible. It is a rational decision in most of cases because poor families do not have much resources. For a man it is a good opportunity to get healthy young girl as wife. This desire does not go against human nature and in this area does not go against social rules.

 

[NovaKart]

The reports most of us have heard are that she was given champagne and qualudes. Do you have a source that contradicts that?

 

[NovaKart]

In Afghanistan many people are illiterate and don't even know how old they are so I guess that would make an age of consent more complicated.

 

[Borachio]

For example, imagine Afghani girls living in poor family. They often are being married off as soon as possible. It is a rational decision in most of cases because poor families do not have much resources. For a man it is a good opportunity to get healthy young girl as wife. This desire does not go against human nature and in this area does not go against social rules.

Yeah. Well.

You see this is all very well in principle: to say that because a country like Afghanistan has long practiced marrying off pubescent girls to old men, then it must therefore be a really good idea, and perfectly fine and natural.

I just don't buy this argument at all. I don't imagine you do either, really.

Just how far would you consider extending this line of argument? Does it apply to all traditional practices? Or just to marital ones so you can keep up this paradigm of repressed Anglo-Saxons? (A highly amusing idea, if you ask me. But nevermind.)

And just because poor families feel constrained to quite literally sell off their daughters doesn't seem like much of a justification, to me, for advocating sex between very young women and old (let's face it, they really are old) men.

Isn't it rather an argument in favour of developing Afghanistan and lifting people out of poverty?

 

[NovaKart]

Yes it's exploitation and I didn't mean for my above remark to be taken as any sort of approval. A friend of mine from Egypt told me about a rich Saudi man he met who would marry young girls from villages in Egypt and give the family lots of money and later divorce them. He thought it was really nasty.

 

[Snorrius]

The reports most of us have heard are that she was given champagne and qualudes. Do you have a source that contradicts that?

It was part of her testimony. I.e. it was her claim and not a result of medical check-up. One may or may not believe this claim. I don't.

Yeah. Well.
You see this is all very well in principle: to say that because a country like Afghanistan has long practiced marrying off pubescent girls to old men, then it must therefore be a really good idea, and perfectly fine and natural.

Actually, I did not made any far-fetched claims. You have asked for an example, I wrote a first one I have thought about. I certainly would not recommend trying to get a 13 yo "healthy young wife" in the UK. Not because it is bad per se but because it will violate strong social taboo and in general case it is unreasonable to transgress strong social taboos. On the other side, I found idea that one should not even try to contemplate social taboos a bit depressing.

And just because poor families feel constrained to quite literally sell off their daughters doesn't seem like much of a justification, to me, for advocating sex between very young women and old (let's face it, they really are old) men.

Isn't it rather an argument in favour of developing Afghanistan and lifting people out of poverty?

When I say about "Anglo-Saxon" this or that there is almost always a bit of sarcasm but just a bit. You see, what you are saying is very Anglo-Saxon. There are a lot of arguments for Afghanistan to be developed comparing to which ability to prohibit older man to marry young women is totally irrelevant. At the other side, the history of Afghanistan show that this people prefer poverty and independence to prosperity and obeying to imposed rules. If you will start developing them to impose Anglo-Saxon rules for who can marry whom and when, they will start guerrila.

 

[Borachio]

Actually, I did not made any far-fetched claims. You have asked for an example, I wrote a first one I have thought about. I certainly would not recommend trying to get 13 yo "health young wife" in UK. Not because it is bad per se but because it will violate strong social taboo and in general case it is unreasonable to transgress strong social taboos. On the other side, I found idea that one should not even try to contemplate social taboos a bit depressing.


When I say about "Anglo-Saxon" this or that there is almost always a bit of sarcasm but just a bit. You see, what you are saying is very Anglo-Saxon. There are a lot of arguments for Afghanistan to be developed comparing to which ability to prohibit older man to marry young women is totally irrelevant. At the other side, the history of Afghanistan show that this people prefer poverty and independence to prosperity and obeying to imposed rules. If you will start developing them to impose Anglo-Saxon rules for who can marry whom and when, they will start guerrila.

What kind of nonsense is this? People prefer poverty and independence? Do they? Do they really?

I think they prefer prosperity and independence.

As for "they will start guerilla", when did they ever stop? It certainly didn't happen when the Soviets tried to support the Kabul regime, did it?

And I only mention this because you seem to want to drift away from the questions I raise. Perhaps because they're a little too awkward for you to answer.

 

[Snorrius]

What kind of nonsense is this? People prefer poverty and independence? Do they? Do they really?

I will quote from Stiven Pressfields «The Warrior Ethos»

The interesting thing about peoples and cultures from rugged environments is that they almost never choose to leave them. When the Persians under Cyrus the Great (who came from the harsh Zagros Mountains, in what is today Iran) conquered the lowland Medes 2700 years ago, the royal advisors assumed that Cyrus would abandon his barren, rocky homeland and settle in to the good life in the Medes’ fertile valleys. But Cyrus knew, as the proverb declares, that “soft lands make soft people.” His answer became famous throughout the world:

"Better to live in a rugged land and rule than to cultivate rich plains and be a slave."

When Alexander invaded Afghanistan in the 330s B.C., he allied himself with numerous tribes and set about making their lives better and easier by building roads into their mountain valleys, so that they could trade and prosper. Emerging from winter quarters the following year, Alexander found all the roads destroyed. The tribes he had built them for had done it. They didn’t want trade or prosperity; they preferred isolation and freedom.

This mentality have not changed much.

I think they prefer prosperity and independence.

Indeed they would. But reality do not always give such a possibility. Who is going to deliver them this prosperity? If they achieve it themselves why do you think they will adopt same views as Anglo-Saxons? If this prosperity is going to be delivered by external powers -- whether this is Macedonians, British, Soviets or Americans -- they will fight for freedom to live as they see fit.

 

[Farm Boy]

Hate speech! The rural proto-fascist must be on the march again.

I certainly must hate my fellow males, after all, to have such unreasonable expectations regarding their behavior in the face of the dastardly wiles of adult and child females!

You'd probably be considered somewhat more reasonable if you stated that you think Polanski was framed or that the jury was in error regarding the facts of the case, if you have any particular reason to think that - unless of course you are going to reason out that every time a female accuses a powerful man of rape it is a seductive falsehood and ploy. Since, you know, men in situations of power almost never abuse those situations in order to have sex.

 

[Borachio]

Link to video.

I wonder just how much this tradition really is cherished in Afghanistan.


Link to video.

It seems to me the Taliban have a rather infantilized relationship with women. They really do seem to fear them, don't they?

But I'm probably displaying my Anglo-Saxon heritage here.

Of course, people should have every right to abuse each other whenever and however they want. Who could possibly object?

Plainly these women have been corrupted by the evil, sexually-repressed, Anglo-Saxons.

 

[Snorrius]

And I only mention this because you seem to want to drift away from the questions I raise. Perhaps because they're a little too awkward for you to answer.

I do not really understand "the question". Probably, the root of misunderstanding is that you consider sex between adults and adolescents to be bad per se, while I think it is nether good neither bad per se. Context defines whether it is bad or good.

You'd probably be considered somewhat more reasonable if you stated that you think Polanski was framed or that the jury was in error regarding the facts of the case, if you have any particular reason to think that - unless of course you are going to reason out that every time a female accuses a powerful man of rape it is a seductive falsehood and ploy. Since, you know, men in situations of power almost never abuse those situations in order to have sex.

Actually, why I should argue about "every time"? I have doubts about this particular case. And I do not think he put any decent resistance either. It is just that portraying him as a devil and her as a small innocent angel does not particularly impress me.

It seems to me the Taliban have a rather infantilized relationship with women. They really do seem to fear them, don't they?

But I'm probably betraying my Anglo-Saxon heritage here.

Personally I am not a fan of Muslim approach to family relationships. But saying "they should not doing this because they will not doing in the ideal world" is pointless. It does not lead to any productive conclusions. The only productive approach to actually delivering prosperity and imposing what was considered as right way for living at the same time -- was colonialism, but I heard it had gone out of fashion.

 

[woody60707]

What about just obeying the local law of the land? If I go over sea and break X law. I don't get to say "your law is stupid and it shouldn't apply anyways stupid European.

 

[Snorrius]

What about just obeying the local law of the land?

This is a reasonable approach. Of course, if unwritten laws are taken in account. Avoid to hire sex workers in Europe, do it in Southeast Asia instead, avoid drugs, avoid alcohol in the Middle East where it is illegal etc.

 

[Borachio]

Well, by this measure Polanski's case is done and dusted: he broke the local, written and unwritten, laws. End of problem.

 

[Snorrius]

Well, by this measure Polanski's case is done and dusted: he broke the local, written and unwritten, laws.

But I did not said he was innocent. I said the whole case was overhyped in our times. And some claims (that he raped Samantha for example) were incorrect in my opinion which I have shared. As for him breaking the law -- yes, he broke it. I agree that the whole discussion is a bit overhyped. It is actually not Polanski but some of my (quite trivial) statements caused most of discussion.

 

[Borachio]

Statutory rape is rape. She wasn't, legally, in a position to consent to an illegal act. Therefore she didn't, legally, consent. And rape is non-consensual by definition.

Let's be consistent here. If local usage is king, Polanski is a rapist.

 

[Snorrius]

Statutory rape is rape. She wasn't, legally, in a position to consent to an illegal act.

We are going for another round, do not we?

An Anglo-Saxon «statutory rape» it is a pure legality which differs from state to state and from country to country and which have no any real connection to actual ability of human being to make decisitons. I am not denying it may be illegal but seducing a biologically pubertal female certainly does not carry the same ethical badness traditionally accompanying the term «rape».

Yes, he broke the law.
No, it was not as bad as a real rape.
A guy wanted to have a sex with young female, a young female wanted to seduce a guy for career and financial prospects.
There is nothing worth to discuss. It is a trivial story which repeats itself countless times from the dawn of the humanity.