Associate Producer of Polanski Documentary Admits Anonymous Attacks on Me and Apologizes
I have added the following update to my post about the anonymous attacks on me from an associate producer of the Polanski documentary:
Ms. Sullivan has identified herself as the author of the post and apologized personally to me. She stresses that she was writing in a private capacity — without the knowledge of her former production team. She has also apologized to the producers for any embarrassment or misunderstanding caused. I ask my commenters to refrain from posting her picture, insulting her, or other similar behavior.
Sullivan’s decision to apologize and take responsibility for her actions certainly puts her a notch or two above Roman Polanski.
Karl (246941) — 10/5/2009 @ 6:29 amI must accept your strictures, however they are difficult to understand considering that Ms. Sullivan attacked you both personally and professionally in a most cowardly way and only “apologized” when your sleuthing caught her. You appear to have the patience of Job.
Old Coot (83c1d1) — 10/5/2009 @ 6:39 amA Sullivan that owns up to bad behavior! What is this world coming to?
dfbaskwill (aabf1f) — 10/5/2009 @ 6:39 amI’ll refrain from making a phone-call to her employer, but I’ll certainly not refrain from insulting her.
She supports Polanski. That’s enough for anyone to earn my disrespect and contempt, let alone some stupid bint I’ve never heard of before.
Sullivan is a feckless, morally turpid idiot, and I certainly hope her employer does periodic Google-searches for it’s employees, as she tops page-2 with a link to Moe Lane’s personal blog. I can only imagine what HR would think.
Ms. Sullivan, I am glad you personally apologized to Mr. Frey, but that doesn’t change the fact that I think you are complete and utter scum.
Scott Jacobs (445f98) — 10/5/2009 @ 6:41 amsorry that was my fault about the picture. Also I said insulting things. But I didn’t do any similar behavior I promise.
happyfeet (6b707a) — 10/5/2009 @ 6:45 amHopefully she learned something from her little tirade. The big question is, a Scott Jacobs mentions, does she still support Roman Polanski or does she support the victim?
tyree (bf0ee2) — 10/5/2009 @ 6:48 amSounds like the boss found out. Oh Well.
glenn (757adc) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:02 amI’m sorry, but it certainly looks like the only reason she apologized was that she was found out – but I’m still interested in why she insisted on defending such a scumbag in the first place.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:05 amPerhaps this is just a case of seeming anonymity going to someone’s head. Truth is not as easy to manufacture as she imagined.
It would be nice if she also apologized for that dreadful documentary.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:05 amWhatever possessed her I hope she’s taken her Polanski goggles off long enough to realize that her distortions failed their object, to help Polanski. She has not only made herself ridiculous but her associates, to whom other’s will impute a similar willingness to distort and dissemble on Polanski’s behalf.
SarahW (692fc6) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:06 amPatterico- 2, Patterico’s virtual assailants- zero
Any other takers? please? Mr. Gibbs? Mr. Axelrod? Mr. Emmanuel? Please?
MD in Philly (d4f9fa) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:28 amYeah, she apologized only after being found out but at least she apologized.
Now if she apologizes for the documentary being biased toward making a child rapist’s case against the courts, her sincerity will not be in doubt.
MU789 (3f9d29) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:31 amI supposed, due the nature of some of the comments, whomever the real owner of the email addy would come forth to either confirm or deny.
There is a good common sense lesson here: when it come to legal proceedings in motion it’s best to hold your peace, if at all possible.
Rick S (323473) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:32 amSo, in her private capcity, she is a raging lunatic?
JD (abe6ab) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:38 amDmac,
For many in Hollywood, defense of the darling scumbags is necessary to keep one’s job and livelihood.
My daughter is in that business. You don’t stay employed on talent alone. Actually, it is who you know, who owes you, rather than talent, experience, and competance that gets you Hollywood jobs, especially behind the camera.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:39 amI assume it was an apology apology and not the non-apology kind.
keninanchorage (7e019e) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:07 amIf it was good enough for Mr.Frey then it’s good enough for me. It is unusual she apologized at all.
I agree that anonymity can go to your head and make you act ridiculous if you are angry.
I don’t know why anyone would be angry with Patterico… he obviously isn’t a friend of the prosecutor who lied (one way or the other). He’s just no friend of Polanksi, like 99% of folks out there.
Sullivan was smart to apologize. Good for her.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:15 am“anonymity can go to your head and make you act ridiculous if you are angry.” I’ve done it too.
gp (72be5d) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:19 amWell that’s over.
Now a seriosu question that I’ve been thinking about ever since the arrest. If Polanski is indeed extradicted to the U.S. he will obviously be charged for fleeing before sentence was pronounced.
The Bigger question is can he be retried for the crime, and if so will the charges be differently stated than before? By that I mean instead of one count of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” will it be rape period ?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:23 amPatterico
Don’t you think it would be fair to disclose that you went back to your second post on kittykat to scrub all the pictorial links left by your commenters as well as most of the sickest, most woman-hating, pervy commentary, including a speculation by one commenter that Ms. Sullivan “looked like she would probably want to have sex with 13 year olds” (paraphrase).
You did however leave Fred Z’s rape fantasy.
Furthermore this baseless comment directed at me in the initial Kittykat post was never further addressed by “JD”.
” —-Why does J2 support and condone drugging and then assraping children?”
J2 (59d081) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:30 amhey little j2 dude… anyone can go to google images and see what she looks like… she’s on the first page what comes up. It doesn’t take like rogue CIA agent google talent or nothing.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:55 amWhen you can’t refute the message with facts, attack the messenger personally. Excellent detective work Pat. You are to be commended.
Bottom line is that under state law, Polanski should have gone to prison for a number of years. Anyone else would have.
If my memory serves me correctly, upon returning to Europe, Polanski hooked up with 15 year old Nadia Kinski. Clearly he had a “thing” for young girls.
Stan Switek (d9d8ce) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:55 amOk then…
Please display for us your agreement with Polanski’s apprehension at the hands of the Swiss, and your hope he is returned to the US to face sentencing…
Scott Jacobs (445f98) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:20 amI know that it isn’t very classy to insult
Sullivan for her support of Polanski, but
at some point a stand has to be taken.
Knowing what she has written supporting Polanski,
would anyone allow her to mind a 13 yr old
girl while having Polanski as a house guest
for the weekend? Or any other Hollywood director? Or any A-list actor?
Sullivan’s, and Hollywood’s support of
Polanski has been so morally repugnant,
so unrepentant, that speculating about the
actual motivations of Polanski’s Hollywood
supporters becomes necessary. At this point it should be clear that there is no way that their support of the director can be in any way be called
“principled”.
And my guess is that those motivations are
closer to Woody Allen’s attraction to Sun Lee than
their claims to be supporting artistic expression.
Corruption of innocence, via the casting couch and
the ‘personal photo shoot’, is not just a common theme in Hollywood, it is common practice. Which if not celebrated is, at least, tolerated by the Hollywood A-list.
What is astonishing is how many Hollywood women seem to be supporting Polanski, and I think that it goes beyond blaming the victim. It goes to a genuine lack of concern for others and an absolute failure to determine right from wrong.
jack (e383ed) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:45 am…in Hollywood, defense of the darling scumbags is necessary to keep one’s job and livelihood.
I know, but what I want to hear is why she thinks Polanski’s defense merited a documentary, and why she thinks his actions are still somehow defensible.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:48 amGood enough. Apology accepted, let’s move on.
Whether or not she still believes what she does, an apology is an apology and my Mom taught me they should be accepted. So forget about this crap and move on. While certainly a child rapist on the loose is something to be concerned about, the fact is he’s going to face his fate and we should be cool with that.
Michelle Sullivan has “suffered enough” and “paid her debt” and let’s just play nice for a change.
otcconan (c397a4) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:55 amDid I say move on? I meant move FORWARD. 🙂
otcconan (c397a4) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:59 amComment by JD — 10/5/2009 @ 7:38 am
Your inherent ability to cut-to-the-quick demonstrates why you should never give manicures.
I’m just surprised she didn’t trot out the “Geraldine” defense.
AD - RtR/OS! (03146a) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:59 amComment by jack — 10/5/2009 @ 9:45 am
But, Jack. You read Harvey. Hollywood has COMPASSION!
AD - RtR/OS! (03146a) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:01 amWhat’s fascinating to me is that the filmmakers (or at least she) actually saw the documentary as a defense of Polanski.
To me, there were two very clear issues addressed in the film: his actual guilt, and the behavior of the people involved in the legal battles.
To explain what happened to the girl, the filmmakers alternated her testimony with his. A kind of a he-said/she-said. The problem is, his “there was sexual tension as she took off her blouse” is typical pedophile speak. My husband actually paused the DVD at that point in the film so we could discuss it. Pedophiles don’t think they are doing anything the kid doesn’t want.
NAMBLA doesn’t advocated making child sex legal because they want to subject kids to molestation. They want child sex to be legal to free children to express their love for adults sexually.
I find it shocking the Polanski filmmakers didn’t see what they had.
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:04 amNot quite…
They want to make it legal because they want to have sex with children. Theirs is not exactly an altruistic motive…
Scott Jacobs (445f98) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:19 amMayBee!
AD – I tend to err on the side of brevity.
JD (c48c79) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:25 amBandwidth is a terrible thing to waste!
AD - RtR/OS! (03146a) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:33 amIt’s one thing to defend Polanski with faux legalisms, references to time served living the fat life, and so forth.
Richard Aubrey (a9ba34) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:46 amWhat is the use of slandering another person like this?
It was supposed to help Polanski how?
What was Sullivan up to? Venting a rant?
Well, yeah, I get that. I’m talking about what they think. The argument they make.
Roman Polansky, being into young girls, is always going to feel “sexual tension” when he asks a young girl to take her shirt off. He isn’t going to recognize her disgust or fear. When he says in the testimony (paraphrasing) “we kissed tenderly” and she says “I was scared when he made me kiss him”, it doesn’t provide a he-said/she-said moment. It provides an “aha! he’s a creep!” moment. But the filmmakers apparently didn’t get that.
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:49 amYa’ll will excuse me while I get sick won’t you?
There is NO CREDIBLE defense for Polanski’s behavior. None at all.
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 10/5/2009 @ 11:00 amHi. MayBee!
There were many more people beyond the filmmakers who didn’t “get it” either. The single most amazing thing in this whole sorry tale is the ability of “artisans” to put forward the very same mindless and fact less hero worship that they both revel in and despise in fans. They are so fixated on Polanski as “great artist” that they won’t even take a minute to engage the facts and consider the perfidy.
Remind anyone of celebrity worship of Mumia?
Since the blow back from the likes of Luc Beeson and Chris Rock suddenly the quiet is pervasive.
BJTexs (a2cb5a) — 10/5/2009 @ 11:15 amLOL!!!
Adam (5db6f8) — 10/5/2009 @ 11:39 amThe only think the stupid bitch learned is how internet works. Finally! Even school kids know that if you do dirty things online, make a special email JUST FOR THAT!
Dear Patterico,
I am sorry–I keep re-reading–I don’t understand what she apologized for other than doing this anonymously and any blow-back she caused her employer. Is she standing by the rest of her statement(s)?
Can you elaborate?
-Bill
BfC (5209ec) — 10/5/2009 @ 12:11 pmOwned. ‘Nuff said.
PS: It is also true cowardice to base your entire theory around a scapegoat who is dead and cannot defend himself.
Darwin Akbar (11823f) — 10/5/2009 @ 12:37 pmShe’s probably a freelancer, without a staff gig at that production company, and didn’t really think she’d get caught. Sometimes people just get carried away, and don’t really think of the consequences.
It’s Chinatown, Jake.
Kate (1d4ed6) — 10/5/2009 @ 12:47 pmI suspect it’s one of those David Letterman-type apologies but so be it.
Crusty (69f730) — 10/5/2009 @ 12:48 pmVery classy, Patterico. You’ve done good work on this whole issue.
The only point where I depart from some of your other commenters is that Polanski did not commit an act of pedophilia. He raped a very young woman, and it would be an act of rape had she been 43; the victim had, after all, reached puberty.
As I understand it, NAMBLA and pedophiles want to have sex with 8-year-olds. Now THAT is child-sex/rape; what Polanski did was full-blown rape, and the young woman’s age only exacerbates his crime.
But it would hardly be shocking for a 13-year-old girl to have consensual sex with a 15-year-old boy; that is hormonally normal, and not contrary to our history as a species.
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 1:04 pmThe single most amazing thing in this whole sorry tale is the ability of “artisans” to put forward the very same mindless and fact less hero worship that they both revel in and despise in fans.
Is it really so amazing, given what we’ve witnessed evolving over the past 40 years in this country? Whether it’s Fonda making common cause with the Viet Cong while McCain and his fellow fliers are being tortured to death a few miles away, to Mailer testifying for a violent felon to be released based on his writing, this is just the latest outrage that Hollywood feels no need nor compunction to apologize for one of their own.
If Obama was sincere about his hallowed “teachable moments,” this would have been an excellent time to do a Clinton – esqe “Sister Souljah” moment. But he won’t – because one thing he’ll never do is contradict his most fervent and wealthiest supporters; but he’ll try to make an example of a policeman doing his job against an insulated and privileged academic instead.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/5/2009 @ 1:19 pmbut he’ll try to make an example of a policeman doing his job against an insulated and privileged academic instead.
Oh come on! That officer is a decent man and did his job largely right — but not “against” Skip Gates, who had every right to be in his own effing home. Norman Mailer defending a violent felon does not equal Obama’s holding the “beer summit.” Obama did not vilify the officer.
I have my issues with the current president, but do not remotely conflate him with Norman Mailer and Mailer’s idiocies.
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 1:44 pmGood for her. I suspect she’s never been so seriously engaged in significant conversation by a respectable opponent in her life, and she responded well.
m (a44b25) — 10/5/2009 @ 2:07 pmShe stresses that she was writing in a private capacity — without the knowledge of her former production team.
*snicker
Funny how she can write on her own time, but you’re unable to.
wait……..is that considered insulting?
pajama momma (b58389) — 10/5/2009 @ 2:15 pmI am deeply suspicious of people named Mona. And midgets. And clowns.
JD (32e46c) — 10/5/2009 @ 2:19 pmAnd thus the reason that it isn’t – to my knowledge – illegal.
Scott Jacobs (9b5ed3) — 10/5/2009 @ 2:21 pmWhen we start talking about the history of our species, we open the door to a lot of stupid and evil stuff.
Who cares that thousands of years ago, it was OK to stone cheating wives, marry preteen girls, have slaves, etc? It’s irrelevant in a society that understands justice at any level.
Where is this DA who worked with these monsters making this ‘documentary’? I want to hear more from him about the entire process.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/5/2009 @ 2:27 pmObama did not vilify the officer.
Right – all he did was pass judgement on him without one whiff of the actual facts involved in the case. Give me a farking break.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/5/2009 @ 2:34 pmHence my distrust of people named Mona.
As an aside, it should be shocking to anyone that a 13 year old is having sex, non-consensual or consensual.
JD (32e46c) — 10/5/2009 @ 2:51 pmI don’t know about shocking, but it is disturbing.
AD - RtR/OS! (03146a) — 10/5/2009 @ 2:53 pmAs an aside, it should be shocking to anyone that a 13 year old is having sex, non-consensual or consensual.
But it happens every day in these United States, consensually. Usually with a partner in an acceptable age range (that is, another teen or very young 20-something).
Some 13-year-olds are going on 30; I don’t like it, but that is reality.(And yes, I have kids and grandkids; none were/are sexually active at 13 or below — except for solo flying.)
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 3:49 pmMona,
I’m surprised at your willingness to equate Roman Polanski with a 14- or 15-year-old boy experimenting with sex with a neighborhood middle schooler.
DRJ (b008f8) — 10/5/2009 @ 3:54 pmWho cares that thousands of years ago, it was OK to stone cheating wives, marry preteen girls, have slaves, etc?
That is all cultural baggage. But the reality is that human beings reach sexual maturity between 12-14, as a general rule. And when that happens, hormones start to take over reason, and moreover, the bodies are not those of tots. Hence, pedophilia is not an accurate description for someone who has sex with a post-pubescent human.
That said, persons in authority ought not be having sex with young adults. That is true if it is a 40-year-old teacher or employer of a 13-year-old, or a college prof dealing with a 19-year-old.
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 3:57 pmRight – all he [Obama] did was pass judgement on him [the officer] without one whiff of the actual facts involved in the case.
That is not what I read. But Obama did a good job of brokering peace in the matter — which is a good thing, given justifiable black anxiety about the police. He put water on the fire.
(And I cannot even believe I’m defending Obama, since I’m totally pissed at him for other reasons.)
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 4:02 pmI’m surprised at your willingness to equate Roman Polanski with a 14- or 15-year-old boy experimenting with sex with a neighborhood middle schooler.
You should be more than surprised, since I’ve made clear that that is not what Polanski did. He RAPED that young woman, and it would be rape if a 15-year-old male had done the same thing. Further, Polanski was apparently in a position of some authority over the young woman, as a prosppective employer, and I’ve said that should not be legal for very young women.
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 4:16 pmPolanski was engaging in typical pedophile speak. Or typical child molester speak. Or typical molester of young-girls speak.
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/5/2009 @ 4:36 pmThe difference his testimony and hers was not a he said/she said.
Mona:
I agree you’ve labeled this rape but you apparently claim Polanski isn’t a pedophile because his victim could be sexually active at 13. Why does that matter, and how can you be so sure Polanski isn’t a pedophile?
DRJ (b008f8) — 10/5/2009 @ 4:47 pmDifference *between* his testimony hers….
And DRJ is right. We have no idea where Mr.Polansky drew the line.
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/5/2009 @ 5:00 pmand how can you be so sure Polanski isn’t a pedophile?
Because everyone wants to f&*ck young girls.
Juries want to, judges want to, everyone does.
Duh.
pajama momma (b26652) — 10/5/2009 @ 5:01 pmI think that people can distinguish between the severity of sexual offenses against pre-pubescent and post-pubescent minors in good faith. I don’t think such does much to improve Polanski’s smell.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/5/2009 @ 5:09 pmGood to see that Mona is worried about semantics.
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/5/2009 @ 5:32 pm“…but you apparently claim Polanski isn’t a pedophile because his victim could be sexually active at 13. Why does that matter, and how can you be so sure Polanski isn’t a pedophile?
Is Mona suggesting that if a young girl is sexually active at 13, it negates any form of rape from also being pedophilia? She is suggesting then that someone who is a known pedophile or suspected one, who assaults a 13 year old who has been sexually active cannot then be accused of pedophilia?
I didn’t know pedophilia was conditional upon the sexual activity of the child involved…
Dana (863a65) — 10/5/2009 @ 5:38 pmUnless one is going to argue that sodomizing a 2-year-old is the same as a 13-year-old having consensual sex with a 20-year-old, those two scenarios are not both pedophilia. That is, unless, we have a whole lot of teen “pedophiles” having sex with what most would consider “age appropriate,” consenting others. But somehow I doubt most here would accept a 13-year-old sodomizing a toddler, and consider it the same as consensual sex among the post-pubescent population.
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 5:42 pmReally not very relevant, since the law does not allow them to consent, she most certainly did not consent, etc …
I knew there was a good reason I am distrustful of people named Mona.
JD (145e30) — 10/5/2009 @ 5:47 pmBTW, I cannot recall the term, but there actually is a distinct word for those who crave sex with pre-pubescents, as opposed to post-pubescents. And the former word is “pedophila.”
What Polanski did was rape. But that does not mean he is attracted to pre-schoolers.
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 5:49 pmExcept we are not talking about consensual sex with a 13 year old, nor was the partner 20. Whatevs …
JD (145e30) — 10/5/2009 @ 5:49 pmReally not very relevant, since the law does not allow them [youngsters who have hit puberty] to consent, she most certainly did not consent, etc
Yes, it is relevant — if his or her partner is in an age appropriate range and not an authority figure. But even if in such an age range, no still means no, and is rape.
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 5:54 pmYes, it is relevant — if his or her partner is in an age appropriate range and not an authority figure
Would a six year old be charged with rape for having sexual contact with another six year old?
How about 10 or 11 year olds? 12?
That’s just getting silly. A 13 year old is just a girl.
A man who testifies that a 13 year old wanted to have sex with him when she testifies that she was scared is not offering a he-said/she-said. He is offering a sexual deviant’s view of sex with an inappropriate partner.
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/5/2009 @ 6:02 pmWe are not talking about a situation where there was an “age appropriate” partner, nor was there consent.
If you do not like the consent laws, work to change them where you are. As is, a 13 year old cannot give consent, nor should they be able to. If the “age appropriate” partner is 18, 21, 35, or 43, it simply does not matter.
JD (145e30) — 10/5/2009 @ 6:04 pmMayBee is one level-headed clear thinking person. Probably a hottie too 😉
JD (145e30) — 10/5/2009 @ 6:05 pmMona,
You appear to be arguing the psychological definition that sex with a 13-year-old girl is not pedophilia if she is post-puberty. But the legal standard is the issue and it’s based on age, not puberty.
However, let’s assume this is a discussion about psychology and not law. That requires us to know whether Polanski’s interest is solely on post-pubescent girls and we don’t know that. The fact that a girl may be 13, 14 or 15 doesn’t mean she looks that age.
DRJ (b008f8) — 10/5/2009 @ 6:12 pmMona, you should look in Polanski’s affair with the 15 – year old Natassia Kinsky almost immediately after he fled to Europe; it shows a definite pattern regarding his predelictions.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/5/2009 @ 6:17 pmWould a six year old be charged with rape for having sexual contact with another six year old?
How about 10 or 11 year olds? 12?
It is indeed silly. But in my state, Michigan, prosecutors in some counties go into high schools and tell teens that if they have sex, they “victimize” each other and will be prosecuted for statutory rape if they are each under 16. (I’ll go to the trouble of looking up the url again if you do not believe me.)
But in any event, Polanski RAPED a 13-year-old, by any definition of the word.
And Dmac- I am aware of Polanski’s sexual affair with Kinsky. But in some states at some times, she would have been of the age of consent. Doesn’t make Polanski a saint, but it isn’t the same as the sickening rape he is wanted for.
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 6:56 pmHow is it relevant that in some states at some times, she would have been the age of consent? Good Allah.
JD (145e30) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:08 pmHow is it relevant that in some states at some times, she [Kinsky] would have been the age of consent?
Why would it not be? I do not mean that rhetorically, I just do not get it. Every choice of age of consent is arbitrary. No sane person would put it at 5; but 15 might be right.
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:15 pmI am beginning to think that this is the Mona that made me distrustful of people named Mona. I hope I am wrong, because those encounters never ended well, and I am trying to be kind.
JD (f086e6) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:17 pmLook at that age. Under 16. In another post you think 15 might be right.
Different states have different laws, but I’m not aware of any that put the age of consent at 13. You know why? Because that is a girl. And having sex with a 13 year old girl, if you are not a boy, is ooky and creepy and sexually deviant.
And describing that sex as consenting when she describes it as not consenting is not a he-said she said. It is a symptom of sexual perversion.
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:26 pmWhich is what my point is, that you keep wanting to dance around, for whatever reason.
Mona:
There is an arbitrary component to laws. Take speed limits: In a 40 mph zone, no reasonable person can claim that it’s safe to go 40 mph but it’s clearly unsafe to go 41 mph in that same place under similar conditions.
Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that our laws are arbitrary. Every American jurisdiction has statute(s) that define the age of consent for sex whether or not the sex is consensual. These statutory rape laws prohibit sex between an adult and a minor and govern our conduct despite the misgivings of psychologists, tolerant academics and Hollywood celebrities.
Thus, whether you agree with the legal standards or not, the jurisdictional age of consent is relevant from both a legal and a societal standpoint. And 13 is beneath the age of consent in every jurisdiction I’m aware of.
DRJ (b008f8) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:31 pmLook at that age. Under 16. In another post you think 15 might be right.
Uh, yeah, 15 is the number immediately below 16.
Let me ask all: Do you think a 17-year-old male should be prosecuted as a sex offender if he has consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend? (In a state where age of consent is 16.) Should he, for the rest of his life, have to register as a “sex offender” wherever he moves? Is he the same as a a man who sodomizes a 5-year-old?
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:41 pmAnd describing that sex as consenting when she describes it as not consenting is not a he-said she said.
And because a 13 year old cannot legally consent, it puts the onus entirely on the adult. There is no he said/she said.
Dana (863a65) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:41 pmMona,
There are exceptions in many states when the parties are close in age. That isn’t the case here and it’s not relevant to this discussion.
DRJ (b008f8) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:48 pmDRJ, JD, Dmac et al:
Then join with me in mourning for the Netherlands, where the AOC may indeed be 16, but anyone can diddle a young person aged 12-16 as long as the young person is agreeable to the diddling.
That makes the nasty Dutch ooky and creepy and sexually deviant, it would seem.
But actually, Mona, the term you’re looking for is ‘ephebophilia’. Wanting to have sex with adolescents, I mean. But at the age of 13… I dunno, kinda iffy. And illegal no matter what.
We know that Roman Polanski liked ’em young. We also know he liked ’em older – he was married several times after all, and presumably he did have sex with his wives.
I actually do not understand the issue you have with Mona. She stipulated that Polanski raped the girl in question. Which he did. She stipulated that it was not an act of pedophilia. Semantically speaking, she may be right – the prefix pedo- is used for young children, hence paediatrician. Now, I grant you, the upper limit for the practice of that branch of medicine does range up to 18. But in most places I’ve been to, you stop seeing a paediatrician once you’re 8-12 and you start seeing your normal GP after that.
But Mona, you gotta understand that this is a lawblog. Under the statues of California, the law states that statutory rape (or unlawful sex with a minor) is committed when one of the parties is under the age of 16 and the other over 21. Roman Polanski was in his 40s – he more than qualified.
And meanings of words do change, you know – most people just call those who like having sex with children pedophiles, regardless of how ‘children’ is defined, legally speaking.
Gregory (f7735e) — 10/5/2009 @ 7:52 pm>There are exceptions in many states when the parties are close in age. That isn’t the case here and it’s not relevant to this discussion.
It is not an exception in my state, where there is no tiered law. So, it is relevant to me.
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:11 pmAs far as Mona is concerned, there is a thing called common sense. It can be exercised, but it is difficult to codify. That’s where taboos come into play.
But, I really came here to say this: I frequent another board as a lurker that is quite liberal. I used to post there, but it finally went so over the left-wing top, that there was no point anymore.
Nonetheless, I looked at that board’s comments on Polanski today, and, essentially, no one was defending the child molester.
And, I thought to myself, at least there’s one thing that remains that the right and left can agree upon: Forty-something men shouldn’t force sex upon 13-year-old girls.
Thank goodness for that.
Ag80 (fb11c7) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:21 pmMona – Given the lack of tiered laws in your states, I suggest you don’t fornicate with 15 year olds. Problem solved.
JD (b78ff7) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:24 pmBut Mona, you gotta understand that this is a lawblog.
Yeah,and I’m a J.D, Notre Dame, ’94. And I’ve seen young men put away and made “sex offenders” for consensual relations with young women in their age range. I find that horrific.
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:31 pmMona – If you’re a JD, you should have been more clear in your usage of the term pedophile, whether you were using it in the clinical sense, law enforcement sense or in common usage. You could have saves people a lot of electrons, but your style seems to be to obfuscate wherever you go.
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:37 pmLife has rules, Mona. I suggest you focus your compassion on 15-year-olds who get cancer or lose a family member to disease or accidents. Or help educate young people about what the rules of your State are.
DRJ (b008f8) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:38 pmWhich is utterly irrelevant to the topic, Mona. Maybe if you read some of Gleen’s writings into the Congressional Record, you could get the age of consent lowered to 12, where people begin to reach sexual maturity.
JD (b78ff7) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:38 pmWhy would it not be? Because the crime did not happen in the 1800’s, but in 1977. The law at that time stated, without any room for doubt, that the age of consent was (and still is) 18. Polanski knew her real age, and even if he was unaware that 13 was below the age of consent that would not be an excuse, as ignorance of the law is never an excuse.
What “could be” and “might be” are irrelevant. The issue at hand deals with concrete, known facts. That you are attempting to equivocate and inject into this conversation anything besides facts suggests a great deal about you, Jim.
Either you are ignorant of the law in your state (a possibility I am not willing to discard just yet), or you are not Jim Henley of Silver Spring, MD (in which case it is disingenuous for you to use his blog as your website link).
Maryland does indeed have a form of tiered law regarding sex and the age of consent.
Now please, cease being an idiot. I’m developing a headache reading your inanity.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 10/5/2009 @ 8:46 pmScott Jacobs:the age of consent in my state,MI,is 16. We are not tiered, by which I mean, if she is 15 and he is 17 — he can go to prison.
If you have sons, I hope they are perfectly chaste and do not find a girl two years younger sexually interesting.
DRJ: Oh really? Would you like an explanation as to how the death of my child created change in my state? Well, forget it. He and his life are not fodder for such as you.
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:23 pmBTW,I think Patterico is pretty well convinced that I hold that J.D. He has my my email addy, and I’m quite willing to send such proof –including bar # — to him.
So it is decided – you are a disingenuous. As such, your every word is therefore suspect.
And frankly, the laws of MI, MD, or any other state besides CA mean nothing.
The facts, as Polanski admitted to in court, if that he had non-consensual sex with someone he knew to be 13 years old.
What you think the law should be, and what the law is, makes no difference. He broke the law, and no amount of equivocating will change that.
That you would still attempt to do so speaks volumes as to your character (or lack there-of). How old was your child when he died? Would you have been ok with a 4+ year old adult having sex with him – after he told them no repeatedly – when he was 13 years old?
Is your answer is anything along the lines of “I would not like that one bit”, then I have to ask why you would attempt to argue that similar circumstances are perfectly fine for Polanski…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:31 pmScott, Mona is from Michigan. And is a mouthpiece for the Gleeeeeenz. Obfuscation and dissemination are her stock-in-trade. Good on her for noting Polansky is an actual rapist. But boo hiss on her attempts to divert and obfuscate in re consent laws. She should have the constitutional scholar and the cabana boyz some to MI and lobby Stabenow to change their consent laws to 12.
JD (6cce87) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:32 pm*sigh* Seems my annoyance has affected my typing. I am going to bed.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:32 pmI realize I’m bending the context rules here (when is it bent, cracked, broken, and who decided?) but I can say with certainty that there are more than 2 young men who are perfectly chaste. I was perfectly chaste until I was 20. And I now have a 21-year-old daughter.
And, yes, I was willing to use the letter of the law, if necessary as my daughter was growing up. I suspect at least 1/3 of the “consensual” acts are, in actuality, “pressure” acts. And, yes, I am more than willing to use the letter of the law to hang the dud who uses the “pressure” act. But that’s me.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:36 pmYes, I am convinced . . . but you do know that you’re behind on your dues, Mona? 🙂
Patterico (64318f) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:37 pmumm, when you think being a lawyer will improve your stock… your stock ain’t worth much.
But Mona’s right. A 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old should not be a crime. No one should go to jail for that. Parents should do their freaking jobs instead of expecting the government to keep their kids pants on. What Polanski did was awful in many, many ways that are a completely separate issue from if kids being sexual with kids should be criminalized.
It should be mandatory to inform parents of kids under a certain age doing adult things. John Hitchcock notes the reality of pressure in entry level sex. Sure, but that door swings two ways these days. Raise your kids right, and realize life isn’t perfect.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:47 pmPatterico – You crack me up!
JD (6cce87) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:50 pmWhen a person says “you can say no if you want” that only means one thing: Say no and I’m outta here.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:52 pmI will say that many of the Dutch do not hold the same opinions of morality that most in this country do.
Neither do many other countries. And yeah, they can be sexually deviant. But we are so provincial, and embarrassing.
Do you know you can actually go to some countries and have sex with children and the authorities (and parents) will barely blink an eye for the right price?
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:55 pmI suppose if someone, somewhere, allows it it’s ok.
Mona,
I’m sorry your son died and I offer my condolences. However, I don’t understand what that has to do with my statement that life has rules.
DRJ (b008f8) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:57 pmAnd, quite frankly, I don’t see too many 17-year-old girls trying to bed 15-year-old boys. They’re too busy trying to hook up with those mature college sophomores. So the age thing is almost (but not quite) always older males.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 10/5/2009 @ 9:58 pmMayBee – Gary Glitter might be able to provide some recommendations, some of them actually legal.
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:00 pmReally, it is my comment that brought Mona out to complain about the use of the term “pedophile”. I’ve explained myself repeatedly, but she either doesn’t understand what I am saying or she is ignoring it to make some point that is important to her.
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:01 pmYes, I am convinced . . . but you do know that you’re behind on your dues, Mona?
Oh Patrick, not just behind, I’ve stopped paying them altogether. (But I’m not surprised you checked ;))
You see, I decided I HATED lawyering, and now earn my living in another manner. But as you can see, that is not because I was disciplined.
Mona (68032e) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:03 pmOr, MayBee, she’s a typical lawyer, as opposed to atypical lawyer, such as Patterico.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:03 pmFWIW, I know that humiliating yourself for Glenn Greenwald is not a crime.
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:05 pmI assumed as much, Mona.
Patterico (64318f) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:07 pmMayBee rocks!
JD (6cce87) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:13 pmJD – A clown makes more sense than Mona, just sayin’.
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:25 pmMayBee: I don’t disagree. The Dutch are… strange. They do not bat an eyelid if a 12-year old (such as I was) roamed the red light districts of Amsterdam looking at the whores parading themselves inside the shop windows. Presumably, my paying money to hire the services of said whores would constitute consent on my part.
I did not, of course. We were on tour – and my parents would have objected strenuously. Still.
And I’m sure you do know that in almost a full quarter of the countries in the world, the age of consent is 12-14. Which also kinda makes them hinky.
John Hitchcock: Cougars and MILFs ring a bell, I trust. The tiered situation you mention might indeed be more or less the older male/younger female, but once you get to the 20s… ah, the demographics undergo a sudden shift.
Gregory (f7735e) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:58 pmWhat can I say, Gregory? If you want to date a 13 year old, it’s probably best to do it somewhere it isn’t considered icky.
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/6/2009 @ 6:17 am[…] Patterico: he has class […]
With your morning coffee… » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog (f2568a) — 10/6/2009 @ 6:44 amI think Mona ought to get her money back from the law school that graduated her.
PS. Michigan is one screwed up state.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/6/2009 @ 11:22 am