Listen to Whoopie: “Whatever Polanski was guilty of, it wasn’t rape-rape.”
Let’s review what Polanski actually did:
First, Polanski, who was 44 yrs old, gave a 13-yr old child a Quaalude and champagne. Then he got going.
What I’m going to post is not suitable for work, so it’s below the fold:
Does forcible vaginal intercourse and sodomy qualify as “rape-rape”?
let’s take a moment to recall that according to the victim’s grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, “No,” then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.
If that’s not rape, what is?
Whoopie says, “I wanted to clear out what he did.” Well, Whoopie, there you have it. That’s what he did.
As for Whoopie’s argument, “The world sees 13-yr olds and 14-yr olds and the rest of Europe” as OK to have sex with; Two things:
1. why should we care whether the “world and the rest of Europe” consider pedophilia OK?
2. at what age does Whoopie believe it’s appropriate for a man to drug a woman in order to violate her?
Would Whoopie be as lenient in her judgment had Polanski been a Catholic priest?
he did not ‘have sex with a girl.’ He abused her. He molested her. He’s pled guilty to this. And, according to several media reports, he plied her with drugs and booze. ‘Having sex with’ is a phrase that implies consent. And we’ve all agreed, as a society, for years, that a vulnerable teenager simply can’t consent to sex with an adult, especially a powerful and charismatic one.
Polanski plead guilty to unlawful sex with an underage girl. The actual charge was Unlawful Sexual Intercourse. Go read his guilty plea. He admitted, in his own words, that he did it.
John Nolte has a roster of Polanski’s Hollywood supporters.