Whoopi Goldberg's comment today - in regard to the Roman Polanski ordeal - that what occurred was,"something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape," is halting.
Okay, I'm going to carefully walk away from the soap box and just say this: Whoopi Goldberg sucks. I am very surprised at her comment.
For those of us who are coherent, rational human beings, we can discuss what is going on with this case right now. (Whoopi, you are not invited.)
I am curious about the plea bargain that Roman made back in the day. What did he agree to, specifically? Unless what he agreed to was pleading guilty and only getting 40-something days in the clink, he still has time to serve, right?
Because, unless I'm reading this wrong, he plead guilty, did 40-something days in prison, where he underwent psychological testing, and then when it was time to get sentenced, he bailed, because he heard that they were going to violate his plea agreement. Which was...?
So, I need more information. Because if you plead guilty, you are going to serve some kind of time. Raping a 13-year-old child would seem to merit a longer sentence than 40 days of psychological testing in jail.
Beyond that, who I really feel for is Samantha Geimer. I know she has publicly stated that she forgives Polanski and doesn't want him to be further punished for this, but...I think that, even though it is undoubtedly painful for her and she doesn't want to be linked to and relive this for all time, Polanski must be prosecuted.
If not, it sets a precedent for all convicted felons that, if you're worried about jail time, you can just scoot off to a foreign country for 30 + years and emerge a free man. In the meantime, you can live a luxurious life, start a family, acquire wealth, exercise your talents and essentially thumb your nose at the government who justifiably pressed charges, and a victim who is left with years of torment and (hopefully) therapy.
The bottom line is that no means no. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if Anjelica Huston thought that Geimer "appeared to be one of those kind of little chicks between — could be any age up to 25. She did not look like a 13-year-old scared little thing." It doesn't matter if, to fools like Goldberg, rape only counts as rape if someone jumps out of the bushes, beats the sh*t out of you and forces you to have sex. Date rape exists, but I can't even say that applies here because what...a 45 year-old man was on a date with a 13 year-old? And rape happens in families. We call it incest, but the act is still rape.
Stop blaming the victim, people. A girl who was too young to make good decisions on her own was groomed by a sexual predator who saw his opportunity to manipulate and impose himself on a child. And this child was unwilling and said NO many times. And even if she was willing, sex with a child is twisted and illegal. Just because he is wildly talented, has money and could afford rush airfare to London doesn't mean he isn't a perverted piece of crap. And it doesn't mean he can get away with orally, vaginally and anally raping a little girl.
And for all the people who keep coming forward, saying what a nice guy he is, what a devoted family man he is and how gifted he is - those things have nothing to do with the crime he knowingly committed. They don't know what he is like behind closed doors. Remember, that could have been your child or my child that he hurt...he'd met Geimer's parents and he certainly wasn't thinking of their feelings - or those of Geimer - when he plied her with alcohol and drugs, and raped her repeatedly.