hedgehog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 04:42 PM
Original message |
The real problem with the Polanski case is he doesn't look or act like a monster. |
|
Edited on Tue Sep-29-09 04:44 PM by hedgehog
Some people can't wrap their heads around the notion that a person can both commit a terrible crime and be a perfectly nice person or even a great artist. We want people who do bad things to bear the mark of Cain, to be utterly and obviously other from ourselves.
Here's the thinking:
Rapists are evil.
Evil people aren't civilized.
Polanski is clearly civilized since he's made great films.
Polanski therefore can't be evil
Therefore, he can't be a rapist.
It's the same thinking that suggests that a nice group of boys would never commit mass rape, so whatever happened wasn't rape.
|
HipChick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 04:43 PM
Response to Original message |
hedgehog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Yet, look at how many posts there have been here over the years comparing "Bundy's |
|
dead eyes" with George Bush's.
|
Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 04:43 PM
Response to Original message |
2. That could be part of it, but I honestly think that certain subjects (rape for ex) |
|
Makes certain people take off their thinking caps and all they can see is red. Their lizard brains shut on and everything they say comes from a fight-or-flight response.
And that's no way to go through life...
|
hedgehog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. I think a lot of people have committed something that might be called |
|
rape if examined closely. (Just how drunk was she? Just how drunk was he?)
The common thinking is that rules governing sexual morality are meant strictly to protect male property. I think that at least some rules developed to prevent people from harming themselves or others. When all the rules go out the window, ambiguous situations result and people can get hurt.
|
Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. I've always followed the "no means no" rule |
|
Although I interrupted some perfectly good sex once by mistaking "uhnnnh" for "no"
And we never did get it back to where it was
|
hedgehog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Better to have missed some perfectly good sex one time than having to |
|
live with the notion that you raped someone.
|
Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. That is true - even though it also resulted in a bruise on my chest |
|
"DON'T STOP DAMMIT!!!!"
POW!
|
Nye Bevan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. Do you think a lot of people have committed "anal rape of a 13 year old girl" |
|
if examined closely? I don't think the Polanski case falls into your class of "ambiguous situations".
|
hedgehog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-30-09 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
14. I agree that what Polanski did was clearly rape. |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-30-09 09:18 AM by hedgehog
I was thinking more of the problem of defining rape in other situations. Bluntly speaking, how many people were enraged at the woman in the Hofstra case because they had sex with someone who was maybe a little too drunk to properly consent, maybe a little too scared to say no, maybe willing to go this far but not that far? Does "scared' mean only in fear of physical harm, or can it include fear of being labeled a cock tease?
What really happened that time I picked up that freshman girl two weeks after classes started?
In other words, if whatever incident being discussed is rape, that would make me a rapist, so clearly this incident wasn't rape.
|
SIMPLYB1980
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 04:44 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Some people defend NAMBLA. |
ddeclue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 04:45 PM
Response to Original message |
5. NO MORE POLANSKI THREADS! UNRECC'D AND IGNORED! |
Hepburn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 04:50 PM
Response to Original message |
7. I have two words for you.... |
|
....Ted Bundy. A great looking sick perverted monster ~~ and a Young Republican.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 05:44 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
happyslug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 06:57 PM
Response to Original message |
13. That is the problem when it comes to Hitler, he was one of the nicest person you ever meet. |
|
Even Churchill made that comment and later stated that he was glad he was to tied the one time he and Hitler was in the same Hotel, and Hitler asked to talked to him (Churchill said he may have been memorialized by Hitler like most people who meet Hitler were).
People tend to dislike the idea that people they know may be evil. That is the reason for the Catholic Pedophile cases (My friend, my fellow priest CAN'T have done THAT) and even the problem behind Police NOT telling about abuse by other police officers. At times we have to adopt HARSH rules that applies even to innocent people to minimize this problem.
The problem has been and people are unwilling to accept it, is that evil to really work MUST look good (Thus the stories of the Devil being a well dressed gentleman and good people often have major flaws i.e. can be viewed as Ugly). Just look at Hitler, in the 1930s he was trim, articulate, passionate about Germany. Then look at Churchill, fat, with a tendency to have a mean tongue. Hitler, when it came to physical appearance and making a speech was much more like JFK, Reagan and Obama then we like to admit. The same with Polanski, to the Hollywood crowd he is one of them and how can this be anything more then consensual sex? (yes I know that it was NOT, but I am trying to see how the Hollywood crowd sees it). If he was fat and/or ugly yes, Hollywood could accept maybe he could have raped this girl, but he is NOT and thus why would one of their own commit rape?
As in the case of the Police and the Catholic Priests, the hardest thing to do is to accept the fact that one of your own is committed a wrong. Hollywood is no different and the same rule of being human is kicking in, they can not accept that one of their own has done evil and they may never do so in this case for to do so is to admit they made a mistake and most people will avoid such an action at almost any cost.
|
raccoon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-30-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
berni_mccoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-30-09 09:56 AM
Response to Original message |
16. Yeah, a 44 year old man raping a 13 year old girl is not acting like a monster at all. |
alcibiades_mystery
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-30-09 10:03 AM
Response to Original message |
17. No, the real problem is that we mix up excellence with innocence |
|
The vast majority are poor or mediocre at what they do, largely because very few people have any real investment in what they do (relatively speaking, and on a global scale). So we are awash in mediocrity. Anything that becomes excellent within this general configuration of shit gets a free pass in many people's mind; they transpose excellence in one defined area of activity with general excellence, confusing acts (say, films or basketball playing) with the whole person. Once that transposition happens, it is almost impossible to undo it. But it stems from the almost universal mediocrity of everything.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:38 PM
Response to Original message |