I'm finding that I'm just not getting over Mr. Saletan's initial post about the Roman Polanski rape. His second article didn't do anything to ease my mind. After reading the third follow-up, I decided to leave a comment. Below is what I wrote.
Here's the line that still bugs me
"A guy who goes after 5-year-old girls is deeply pathological. A guy who goes after a womanly body that happens to be 13 years old is failing to regulate a natural attraction. That doesn't excuse him. But it does justify treating him differently."
No, actually, it does NOT justify treating him differently. I developed breasts and started menstruating at age 8 - does that mean a man who failed to regulate his sexual attraction with me should be excused because he was just thinking with his "little head"? I looked old enough at age 12 that I could have gotten into R-rated movies alone. If I were to smile at an adult male at that age, looking as old as I looked, would that have been an invitation to give me alcohol and drugs and then proceed to orally, vaginally and anally rape me?
In testimony, it is clearly revealed that the girl repeatedly said "no" to his advances. However, he proceeded to do as he wished. What part of "no" means "oh, she really wants this"?
Furthermore, in your entry you seem to allude to the idea that the girl's mother should be held responsible. However, from the testimony I've read (and yes, I have read it, very carefully), it doesn't sound like her mother was a pimp.
So here we are, three articles in about Polanski, and I STILL have the impression that you Just Don't Get It. Blaming the girl because she looked older, or because she'd had sex before, or whatever, is a PROBLEM. I don't care if the world's top fashion models paraded down Main Street stark naked, that is STILL not an invitation to be raped. If a man rapes anyone - regardless of gender or age, there is NO justification for treating him differently.
Rape is not acceptable. Ever. Period.