On Sep 29, 2009, at 11:58 PM, Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
> All the same, I am struck by the awfulness of the arguments used to
> defend the accused rapist/child molester. To fight it on the basis
> that the alleged offense is relatively minor seems really stupid and
> self defeating.
It is that, but I don't think anyone has argued that. The argument has nothing to do with minimizing Polanski's conduct, which certainly was foolish and self- indulgent and expressive of a foolish and self- indulgent milieu (which the "victim" and her mother were eager to become part of). The argument is about state persecution of sexuality, particularly sexuality of pubescent girls (and, especially if gay, boys). It is also, perhaps crucially, about the yahoo vs. intellectual, philistine vs. bohemian struggles that have been pervasive in anglo-american cultural history. The alleged offense is not "minor" but null. It would be nonexistent in any sexually healthy society. Wilhelm Reich said all that needed to be said on that topic eighty years ago in "The Sexual Revolution."
Shane Mage
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos