At 12:37 AM -0400 30/9/09, Shane Mage wrote:
>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).
That would be alleged conduct. Conduct he was accused of. If he is guilty of it, in the full sense of the word "guilt", then it is indeed foolish and self indulgent. But it is a little more than that. A grown man having sex with a 13 year old is not just foolish and self-indulgent. It is predatory, exploitative and abusive.
If you can't see that, then you should consider therapy.
> 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."
I would like to interpret that remark charitably. I would like to think you mean that in a sexually healthy society such an offense would be "null" because it simply wouldn't happen that a grown man would even consider exploiting a 13 year old sexually.
But I fear you mean that it would be null because everyone would consider it just fine and dandy for dirty old men to lure 13 year old kids into sex.
Tell me my fears are misplaced.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas