Well...this falls under the "gossip" part under Entertainment...It's hardly News. However...I did hear about this on the radio coming home from work (BTW...I don't EVER watch the View! )Yet...I am curious as to what most folks on Hub Pages have to say about it. Folks on Hubs have been talking (writing) a great about Roman Polanski being arrested in Switzerland, concerning his 1977 U.S. conviction for unlawful sex with a minor.
Listen...to the "Not necessarily" part...as well. It was also brought to the attention of the radio listeners...that Whoopie Goldberg is a spokesperson for Toys 'R Us (Toy Store Chain).
She's busy defending a rapist and pedophile. I just don't get it.
Technically, he would not be a pedophile, because Samantha Gailey-Geimer was a teenager rather than a prepubescent child at the time of the incident in 1977.
Is that Toys, or...Toy Toys!...lol
Right,FK...It really comes off extremely...like she is defending him...once you watch the video...a few times...! UUUHH...Why?
She's deff ruined her reputation for sure the silly cow, like he bedded a 13 year old. But still some famous Rock Stars are Pedos and got away with it, " sorry yer honour I was just doing a bit of research here downloading my pics just to see what they are looking at" " Ahhh right me too, now go home and dont do it again "
Shes full of shit !
I think it's weird. I think people in general are really irrational on this topic though. Part of the reason is that about half of all girls and a third of all boys have been molested at some point in their lives, usually by someone older that they know and trust. Those are the statistics. So that means lots of adults are walking around looking rational but inside they have a little red 'hot button' on the topic of molestation and abuse.
People's reactions are all over the map.
I think if he broke the law he should be tried for his crimes. I thought there was a statute of limitations on this kind of thing though--like, after a certain number of years, time's up on prosecuting it. Maybe it's because he ran away? He was jailed and then he took off to avoid prison.
I have never been molested by anyone and I think the scumbag should be shot, he plead guilty for the crime and took off before sentencing so statutes of limitation do not apply.
There is no statute of limitation on a crime, only on some civil actions.
Also, I think if he wasn't famous no one would care as much. When I was teaching, I met girls all the time who were molested by their fathers and PUT BACK IN THE HOME after family counseling. Can you imagine? No convictions, no criminalization, just therapy and go back home with a warning to Daddy to knock it off.
Right, I think he should be tried and do his time.
I just brought up the molestation thing because people have such weird reactions. I thought Whoopi's reaction was weird.
It should be no surprise to anyone that the STARS of Hollywood are backing him. Really don't know why he is afraid, they (hollywoods stars) get away with Murder so why not rape. the judicial system if flawed and corrupt.
I would cut his balls off !
Hey Pirate girl ..glad to see ya ..I heard you left , nice to know your still here so when ya gonna write another poem?
Dunno guess when I feel like it, hows you ?
I'm fine, just heard you were gone, so glad to see ya around
Still here, the Captain was looking out for you, I think he fancies you
yeah, I think he's full of shit actually - he fancies every chick he sees just a big flirt is all - just do a search on badco and check out his comments you'll see what I mean but he's still funny, and whitty, and does a great job with keeping people entertained , I like his hubbs and his smart ass comments , he gives people a good laugh ya know
So not true Starme77 and I am here now saying I do fancy you and yes I leave flirty comments but with you it's different because I feel different about you. Cheers for making me make this public but if that's what it takes so be it. Btw if you are still interested in my plan I intend to start it this weekend, you really need to have faith my friend, you are a special lady and I am not full of shit !
I know a lot of thirteen year old girls that willingly have sex with boys or men that are more than 22 years old.I know girls that get pregnant at that age. Maybe it's ilegal to have sex with a thirteen year old. But that's a bit hypocrite, I think,considering the above.Did someone was there when Polanski had sex with this girl ? Maybe she was willing, maybe it was a hoax to get some money. Who knows ! I wouldn't judge. Nor her nor Polanski.It's their own business. And if Whoopi G. has that opinion, isn't she entitled to it ? What's the problem ? I don't get it.
13 year olds are kids, are you serious ?
In what country ??? Get real. Today any girl has her first sex experience at that age. go and google stats.
Not by someone of his age, if you ever have a 13 year old daughter and a dirty git shags her tell me how you felt about it.
Nobody shags a 13 year old, with her mother nearby consenting, and be guilty. For sure she lied about her age. We hear a lot of that sort of story
I thought it was 16 or 17 in the UK, but I could well be wrong.
PirateGirl, Juliet was 13 (in Romeo and Juliet). It's only in the last 150 years or so that we've started to regard 13 as too young for relationships - and even then, only in developed countries.
If a woman of any age is raped, that's wrong and the perpetrator should be punished. In this case, the girl in question is now a woman and says she's "forgiven" him, which is unusual and makes me think she may not have been as unwilling as everyone assumes.
Thirteen year old girls do have sexual feelings. They are curious about sex and may even instigate it. Adults should be responsible enough to refuse to get involved in that, but I'm not sure that it constitutes rape.
Marisa I know that, half the girls I know had sex underage but the facts are even consenting 13 years olds who have sex with older men are subject to the rape law. I really get what you are saying though.
Or it may have been so traumatizing that she can't bear to bring it all up again in a court of law.
I think her mother was there...or close by from what I remember reading about it years ago. He did plead guilty to having sex with her.
Yes, but as you say her mother was willing and her daughter as well. It looks as ahoax to me.
So he pleaded Guilty because ?
He had sex with an underaged girl...
Because he had done it. that's obvious.And lawyers knowtheir business. you sometimes have to plead guilty to get away with it. What's not so obvious is if it was rape.
If you are underage its rape even if you consent !
One thing is the law. another personal morals. As I said before lots of girls have sex at 13. Go and google !!
I wouldn't google 13 year old sex too much Tantrum, you just might meet Polanski !
Prejudice it's a nasty thing. I hope nobody prejudices you in the future, You'd hate it.
Ok I will ask you a simple question, if you had sex with a 13 year old in your state and she was up for it then she told her folks who phoned the Police. Have you broken the Law, a simple yes or no will suffice.
Pirategirl, I think Tantrum is trying to make the same point I was - that the law and morality are two separate things. In teh example above, yes you've broken the law. Was it rape? No, because in my book, rape is being forced to have sex. If there was some lesser charge about having sex with a minor, then that would be a fair cop.
The Law clearly states sex with a minor is rape even if they consent, if I am wrong please paste me the link !
Her Mother was not around? where are you getting this stuff? This girl was given alcohol and drugs even if she had wanted to have sex with this freak she was to inebriated to give consent! The only reason any of you are siding with this perv is because you moral compass only points to hell!
I'm not taking his side. I am just repeating something I remember hearing a long time ago. I certainly think he should stand trial again.
And I don't think Tantrum is either, he is playing devil's advocate here. Trying to see both sides.
REALLY you actually feel that way? do you have kids? she stated she was raped and and drugged not to mention ITS ILLEGAL
Haven't you heard about sex hoaxes? I wouldn't judge. You, go ahead !
I'm pretty sure it happened the way she said. Besides, now she wants the case dropped. But...he should still stand trial.
Probably slipped her a few pounds, sounds like a dearly departed child molester.
That's my point! There is no real justice on this. It's all crap, all of it. People get worked up, say cut his balls off, and so forth, but most of the time NOTHING happens to these guys. Guys who aren't Roman Polanski do this to hundreds of kids. One guy, hundreds of kids. People talk a big game but no one really gives a rat's ass. That's what I'm saying.
Not you personally, just in general.
I know, 13 year olds are sexually curious we have all been there but Polanski took advantage. He will get off with it though, that I have no doubts about.
No I mean pedophiles get away with it. People act outraged but they get away with it in spades. Not just celebrities.
That's why I'd have that talk if it was my daughter. Screw the courts. I'd make sure that guy had somewhere far away to go, fast.
That happened here a few years ago - some guy was convicted for raping a young boy, and spent a few years in prison.
A few days after he was released, they found him floating face down in the river.
That is Spartan justice
Long live Sparticus !
That used to be Wild West "Frontier" Justice...Now we just debate over for a couple decades...
We still have that here - this part of Greece is tough country. The Spartans are beautiful, kind and accepting people.
But, there is a line....
And we draw it in the sand !
It's not that I'm all for vigilante justice. I'd prefer the more sane, civil kind. But where I grew up, you needed people to watch your back and it's still like that in lots of places in the U.S. Nobody was watching my back, but I did look out for my girls. I'd never kill anyone or even beat them up or have them beaten up, but I'm not stupid. I know how to persuade someone to take it down the road if need be.
Maybe my grandkids will live in a nicer world.
I understand fully. Pam - this is a part of the world where it is essential to have somebody watching your back.
Ultimately, the crime rate here is practically zero, so I have no complaints.
That's what should happen to Fleece Johnson.
you have totally lost perspective of the seriousness of this. and if it was ok then why did he flee because he knows he was wrong
It just bothers me that pedophiles bring out this "Cut his balls off" business. Why does one horrific act justify another? How does that help?
People are always like that--Cut his balls off! So righteous. But when you're a kid and you actually have this problem no one gives a rat's ass.
That's been my experience anyway.
In all fairness, tantrum has a point. My sister was 14 when she met her husband. He was 25. My parents were thrilled. I think it's disgusting, but even though nobody likes to think about it, men respond to very young girls and they always have.
It's OK and then it's not. It seems to be a question of who is doing it, why, and how much money and power do they have?
It's not fair or anything.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but to say that "men respond to very young girls and they always have" is like saying all women are like Mary Kay Letourneau...it's just not true...
But I don't think your sister was raped by this man at 14 was she? The notes said that she was crying while she was being sodomized.
so you were there ? Someone was there, apart from her mother, maybe ?
I am quoting from the trial notes. So this was disclosed not a guess.
people lie on trial ,you know. and if that's true, why her mother let it be. wasn't she moved by her own daughter's crying ??
If her mother was there she should go to jail as well
Avoiding my question, yes or no ?
The one you avoided !
Why don't you tell me??? I've been answering more than two posts at a time. i'm not god !!!
Scroll back you lazy git !
I'm sure you don't have any question left unanswer by me then .
Haven't you a 13 year old girlfriend to phone ?
that was your question ??? not worth answering !! You're very ordinary
And your sick interest in this topic worries me !
As atomswifey said once, I'm a sick little man I'm sure you agree with her I can't care less. If you were offensive I would report you. but i only think you're a joke. thank you for making me laugh
<no personal attacks in the Forums>
Well you can say that about all court procedures and if that's the case why have any kind of court system at all? You have to apply some judgment and take into account what was said and if it sound plausible or how are you going to come to any kind of verdict?
That's why law makes such a lot of mistakes.anyway it can't be perfect and it's more about who have the best lawyer. and that's a fact. ask any lawyer.
Nobody said the courts or the law is perfect. We have the kind of system that we have and that system found Polanski guilty and he should be made to carry out his sentence. What I don't understand is why people like you seem to think that there is equal responsibility here between the 13 year old and a man over 40. You don't see how lop-sided the situation is? What is to stop any adult from having sex with a 9 year old and have him claim it was consensual because in the 7th century they married young.
as you see from what you're saying ,sex and age has to do with social conventions. So. what's ilegal then? tha law is the law, and morals are morals. That's my point. and if one wants to judge, well, go ahead ! I'm not!
What Bullshit !
Your reasoning is circular. The law that Polanski broke reflects the morals of that time not the 7th century. Morals and law are not separate. And one day, you might be asked to be part of a jury similar to a case like this, you're going to have to judge. How are you going to apply the law to the facts if you include 7th century social conventions. That doesn't make sense to me.
you were the one that brought the 7th century here. I picked it up as an example. And I'd never would be part of a jury. I think that's disgusting. moreover if there's life sentence.
i dont follow that last part
which part of the last part? anyway it's my personal opinion. Who cares? As everybody is against it ?
the jury part
She asked me what would i do if i were to be part of a jury. I answered I wouldn't as I think is disgusting to judge another human being.
Do you believe in jury nullification for these kinds of cases in certain circumstances?
Fine, forget the 7th century and forget juries and law. I guess you just don't want to have any kind of law and order?
No , it's not that. but i sometimes think that law doesn't go with personal morals. I don't believe much in law. that's all . But i understand what you say. do you understand me ?
Nobody understands you, its the crap your talking !
I hear you
Well, there is this thing called jury nullification, and it seems to be surfacing quite often in statutory-rape cases, especially in New England.
BTW if an old goat did it to my daughters at 13 he'd no make it to court in one piece.
But it's not like there's any general agreement on it.
So you would cut his balls off, yes or no ?
He drugged her up with qualudes and alcohol, would that really count as consensual? Let's say she has already had sex with other people at 13. The law says that is statutory rape although in Polanski's case it was pleaded down to sex with a minor. The law is hung up on semantics. It still doesn't erase the facts that he gave her drugs and alcohol and sodomized her at 13.
The man committed a crime (at the very least statutory rape; she was 13, he was in his 40s) to which he confessed. He fled the country to avoid sentencing. To me, it's very simple - bring him back and force him to serve his sentence. Otherwise, you're essentially saying commit any crime you want, however heinous, and then leave the country until people have forgotten or stopped caring about it.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I understand the blood lust I read among some people. No need for vigilante castration; we have a legal and penal system to take care of crimes like this.
Pmsl yeah 30 years later !
That's a fair statement. Most of the debate on this thread is about the bigger pictures of what constitutes rape rather than this particular case.
Its cut and dry in the UK if you have sex with a minor 16 even with consent you are going to jail, I think in the US its even older. In fact forget even having sex with a minor, even chat with a minor online and you are going down.
Sex with a minor = Rape
True, although I'm a bit puzzled by it. There's consent and there's exploitation. Plying a young girl with drugs and continuously forcing yourself on her sexually as she protests is just wrong. I guess I'll throw in my $0.02 and call it rape (both statutory and the garden variety version).
Lying about her age, if it happened, is a bit moot (she was 13; when in doubt, say no!), as is the supposed consent of her mother.
I realize I'm pointing out the particulars of this case, but they might be common in other cases like it. There's a reason this case was controversial back in the 70s.
See, that's the kind of attitude that, if everyone had it, we'd probably see less of this kind of crime. Especially if we actually prosecuted these crimes, as in, took them seriously in a consistent way--which we don't even sort of do.
It's what I'd like to see more of--More rational approachable adults, less bloodthirsty ball piles.
I'm not holding my breath though. I'm 55. Not much progress in my lifetime so far.
The 'castration' thing just adds so much more color to the conversation!
It is very simple really, bring him back do the time you agreed to and that is that. No need to cut his ball off, he is married so his wife has those anyways (little joke there) no one should ever have sex with a child under 18 because thats the law even if the kid says yes because they really dont know whats going on. plus if you have to get someone drunk and doped up well you have bigger issues
Who is it that stands up for the little girl in this case...She was drugged and given alcohol...in every thing I read. That is not "giving consent"...and the parents sound like morons anyways...for letting this guy get anywhere close to her!
If that was my daughter...Even Switzerland would not be a safe place to hide!
Much heat in this debate...yet I don't get how an older man can do whatever he wants to a very young girl...and that is not wrong?
i don't understand these children's parents.
Roman Polanski, however famous, was a stranger to this woman and her daughter. yet the mother let him take her daughter UNCHAPERONED over to Jack Nicholson's house for a "photo shoot"...i assume she was hoping he would cast her in a film.
backstory/images from 1977 and interviews with the girl and Mr. Polanski
same thing with Michael Jackson...the parents allowed their young children to be alone with him, sleep over at his house and go on plane trips with him.
sorry. NO WAY my child would ever go off with a stranger at that age - i don't care if it was Jesus himself!
now, if these things happened while our children were, say, at a day care center, or in the care of a hired nanny or guardian, the parents would be suing them right and left for trusting them and letting them go off with them...but when the parent does it, it's ok.
makes no sense to me. these parents need to share some of the blame as well for not protecting their children better.
if he was all business, he would have had his "people" make the arrangements for the "photo shoot" and it would have been during the day at the studio offices, and not at night in some secluded mansion.
They're called free-range parents like Lenore Skenazy.
Hello everyone! My first day in kindergarten and I get to hop on the bandwagon with this post.
Roman Polanski was in a position of trust, ie, money, power. Whether mommy of little girl said it was ok or not. And little girl, was a little girl. Statutory rape is against the law.
Even if little girl had been 21, I think what he did was wrong, kinda like what Bill Clinton did with Monica. Position of trust!
He raped the girl
I dont know whats to decide really?
Flame his arse
Either way, even if the 13 year old wanted to, it is the responsibility of the adult to do what is right. Just because a 13 year old wants to fill her head with cocaine, drown in a bottle of rum, it is the responsibility of the adult to stop her. If he didn't, then he would be brought up on charges for that too. Thirteen year olds want everything that they've been told they can't have. There is a reason that they can't have these things and it is up to the adults to keep them away from things that will hurt them.
The point is, it is still not right even if she wanted to. He is a sick bastard for doing it, and a coward for running away. There is no justification for it. There never will be. The only reason anyone is standing up for him is because he made a few big movies, and has a lot of big friends. No one in Hollywood will stand up against him in fear that they will be black balled by some of his friends in high places.
I don't see how this is any different than all of the female teachers going to prison for having sex with their male students. I don't see Whoopi defending them...
A lot of people are standing up for him because there are some questions about the trial. That is why a new trial can clear that all up.
Let's be honest here, she was there looking for fame, but he took advantage of that situation. I appreciate what tantrum is saying, there's his version, her version and then there's the truth. He used her for sex just because he could and she was underage. Of course 13 year olds have sexual feelings and curiosities and he isn't the only man in the world to take advantage of that. But this was not a romance. It was not a relationship. It was an abuse of power. Her mother knew full well that she was pimping her daughter out for fame, she wouldn't be the first person in the world to have to give sexual favours to further themselves. But she was 13 and had no idea of the consequences of her actions. Of course there are people who do this and get away with it, all the more reason for a 'celebrity' to serve time. Not crazy rot in jail for life time maybe, but not swanning around europe like royalty.
All age questions aside, since that horse has been beaten, there's still the issue of him drugging her. No matter if you're 15, 25, or 45, whatever, if someone drugs you then they take away your ability to consent to sex. Even if you willingly go out and drink yourself into a stupor, if someone comes along and has sex with you, it is considered rape in the US. He raped her, and that's not legal in the state of California.
I think he should be held accountable for his actions. It sets a pretty disgusting precedence that if you commit a crime, just go on vacation in another country for 30 years and hope everyone forgets.
Good point! However, do you think the story about him would have even hit the news if he had only been 14 or 15 years old when he did it? He might not have even been arrested. There was a case in Arkansas two years earlier wherein a middle-aged man and a 15-year-old boy raped a then-12-year-old girl named Kathy Shelton. The underage boy was never arrested and he was let off the hook. This information all came out at one of the 2016 presidential debates, because Hillary Clinton was the criminal defense attorney for the middle-aged rapist. Fortunately, that middle-aged rapist is deceased and can never hurt another young girl.
Rape of a child is the most vile crime on earth! That poor soul has that memory to carry with them until they die.(for my liberal friends I'm referring to the victem of the rape)
by Jacqui 8 years ago
Josh Duggar, of 19 and Counting fame, it has surfaced admitted to/be charged with previously (as in historically) with molesting 5 underage girls - 4 of whom were his sisters, and one a neighbour girl. He has stepped down from his job at an Anti-LGBT charity/cause/thingy.His parents were aware of...
by theirishobserver. 11 years ago
Child Rape by Proxy15 Years of Research by International Child Protection Experts into the reasons why people conceal the Rape of Children has concluded that those people who conceal the Rape of children are Raping children by Proxy and will at some point in their life sexually molest or Rape a...
by Tijani Achamlal 3 weeks ago
Why on earth do you think 60 year old wrinkly fat bald men get 21 year old girls?Even if it were “natural,” there’s nothing innocent or harmless or healthy about older men pursuing ceaselessly younger women. The cost is high to everyone involved. While a few young women may be attracted to much...
by Peeples 10 years ago
Why do people have an issue with others stating there are varying levels of R.ape?In the forums, on facebook, everywhere it seems there is debate over this after recent news. My question is why are people offended by others stating that there are varying levels of R.ape?
by mosaicman 11 years ago
I think "Man In The Mirror" represents Mike best. He was about everything good. He wanted people to change their thinking and behaviors. This would change how people treat each other and the environment.
by Wendi M 12 years ago
I'm usually one to keep my opinions to myself (NOT!!!) But those parents that are out there defending the fact that their eight year old daughters are dancing/gyrating, dressed like hookers - all for the sake of a dance competition - need a good, swift, kick in the ass!!!
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|