Registered? Please log in below.
New? Please register.
Here are some reasons why.
Register
User login
Poll
Recent comments
- Khabalox
- Wry Mouth
- Khabalox
- GarettaC
- RobbL
- Khabalox
- RobbL
- Khabalox
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
- InstaMonkey: Where are the Libertarians at Netroots Nation?
- About This Whole Shirley Sherrod Business
- InstaMonkey: Lawyers ruin everything
- InstaMonkey: Taxation is theft and politicians are thieves.
- A brief thought about Al Gore's alleged sex assault
- Cops Suck (an ongoing series) - "Don't Taze My Granny!"
- Declaring Summer 2010 the Summer of Gin
- Instamonkey: That minimum wage study
- Friendship Socialism
- InstaMonkey: ...same as the old boss.
Who's online
There are currently 1 user and 30 guests online.
Online users
- RobbL
Navigation
Credits, etc.
Monkey logos by Katherine Roe
(who had no part in the color design)
Hosting graciously provided by Oliver Fross.
Chris Rock rips Roman Polanski: 'Thirteen is Thirteen!'
Sun, 10/04/2009 - 21:12 — Dr. Zaius
Unlike fellow comedian Whoopi Goldberg, Chris Rock has no hesitation to call what Roman Polanski did evil and wrong. No distinction between "rape" and "rape-rape" for him.
Oh, and it's hilarious. (You might have to hit the "play" button twice, but it will play).
(HT: Big Hollywood and the SNL examiner)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Trackback URL for this post:
http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/6670
Chatter (tweets)
- Monkey_Brad: @JLKnapp But could you be trapped in a cabinet? #TheMightyBoosh #tooObscure?
- Monkey_Brad: @joelmmathis WHy! Youuuuuuu!!!!!!!!!
- Monkey_Brad: Looks like #EVFN will be when I try to divide everyone into Wilco & non-Wilco factions 4 an impromptu West Side Story style finger snap-off
- Monkey_Brad: @MelodyMedia I just don't get Wilco. I don't remember their song titles from Sirius/XM, but I'm always left disenchanted. Cool name, though.
- Monkey_Brad: There is no photographic studio equipment left in the valley. Today I either bought or rented ALL OF IT. #emptypocketsnow
- Monkey_Brad: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) make Brad a dull boy. Wait, I mean a cranky impatient boy. Extra-Strength Gaviscon, ur my only hope..
- Monkey_Brad: I might like Wilco... if they sounded like Guster or The Shins. But they don't.
- Monkey_Brad: What the hell is Growl and why is it on my screen? #twitterific
Alliances
"The Monkeys have been going through my garbage. I blame John Ashcroft."
- Glenn Reynolds
Comments
rape-rape
I didn't see the Whoopi video, but I heard that she was talking about the fact that Polanski was convicted of statutory rape, not "rape-rape." Now, I haven't really been following this story because it's of little interest, but from what I understand what he did was rape-rape (i.e. he drugged her meaning it wasn't consensual).
But did Whoopi actually say, "He only statutorily raped her, so it's not that bad" or did she say, "He was convicted of statutory rape, not rape-rape"? Because there is a difference.
Statutory rape versus rape-rape
Khabalox: I love you. But.
I'm going to go ahead and say that statutory rape is -- with rare exception -- rape-rape.
Why?
Because under the law, a 13-year-old has been judged too young to give consent to sex -- even if he or she wants to give that consent. I happen to think that's the correct approach.
I'm aware that there are some 14-year-old boys who end up getting tagged with "sex offender" status because they've had sex with a 13-year-old, and I do think that's not a good outcome; the law should be adjusted for such "Romeo and Juliet" cases (and perhaps prosecutors could be a little more wise in using their discretion in such cases). But there are lots and lots and lots of cases where the age gap is rather more significant; adults are supposed to know and act better than to have sex with 13-year-olds, and I have no problem tagging them as rapists -- no matter how much consent the 13-year-old supposedly gave.
RE: Rape-rape
Yeah, I probably didn't spend enough time proof-reading my post. I agree that consent is difficult to establish when talking about young people. Indeed, this is why there are statutory rape laws. But I'd disagree that statutory rape is almost always rape-rape. I'd guess that most of the situations that occur (not necessarily the ones that are prosecuted) are the Romeo-Juliet ones you describe, where both parties are young and impressionable. Granted, I'm being somewhat lazy here - there are probably stats on this somewhere and we could settle it by looking them up. I think this discussion illustrates why laws can't exist in a vacuum. We need judges and juries to interpret them for the situation.
And thinking about it more in light of the above, it seems that Whoopi's comments are less appropriate, unless she was just reporting the facts.
Now that's rape-rape. ;)
Re: Rape-Rape
I agree that consent is difficult to establish when talking about young people.
I want to be absolutely clear: It's not a matter of establishing consent at all, difficult or otherwise. The law says that young people cannot give consent to sex. Period. End of discussion.
Even if a 13-year-old hypothetically wanted to have sex with a 21-year-old more than anything in the world -- even if he/she essentially threw him/herself at the 21-year-old -- it wouldn't matter a whit: The law (based on the judgments of those who crafted it) says a 13-year-old is not old and mature enough to make such judgments.
In this, I think the law is absolutely correct. We don't let 13-year-olds drive, even if they "consent" to take the car keys -- and an adult who pushed those keys into the kid's hands would probably find themselves on the wrong side of the law. An adult who takes advantage of a seemingly willing child is still taking advantage of a child. It's a crime, and it should be.
Consent
[For the record, I'm past discussing the details of the Polanski case or the Whoopi comments.]
Actually, it is. Forcible rape is sex without consent. Statutory rape is sex with "assumed" consent. As you point out, we have decided as a culture that people of a certain age are not capable of making informed decisions about sex (or driving, drinking, voting, etc.). So while a person of majority age may have the "consent" of a minor for sex, society says, "No, she/he is too young to make that decision."
But my point was that the law is a clumsy tool, as evidenced by the example of the 18 year, 1 day old person statutorily raping their 17 year, 364 day old partner. So we use judges and juries to examine the details of each case in turn and come to a reasonable conclusion.
When I said, "consent is difficult to establish when talking about young people" what I was trying to communicate was that there is a large spectrum of possibilities. At one end you have a situation like the Polanski one, and at the other you have my constructed (consensual) act between a boy and girl. To me, the law should not be involved in my constructed situation (but it definitely should be in the Polanski case). It is ever so slightly less clear that the law should not be involved if the minor is 17 years and 363 days old, And much less clear if the minor is 17 years and 1 day old.
Another way to put it is that nothing magical happens when you turn 18 that makes you capable of making sound judgments about sex, voting or drinking (when you turn 21). But we have to pick a number. But while that number IS a law, and you could technically apply it in my 18/1 and 17/364 example, we shouldn't (imo).
If you're past discussing Polanski
Then you might as well abandon this thread, because all the discussion about statutory rape was predicated on the Polanski case. Whether the age of consent should be 17 or 14 is not at issue here.
Whoopi and "rape-rape"
She was not reporting the facts. She had them wrong. And she was morally reprehensible.
Whoopi advised her fellow "The View" panelists to withhold judgement, because it could have been only statutory rape. In which case it wasn't really "rape-rape." She was asked paraphrasing: What if your 14-year-old daughter consented to sex with a 40-something year old man? Would you be upset about that?
Whoopi's answer: "Not necessarily."
So, to sum up, Whoopi was saying:
1. We don't have all the facts, and it might have been "statutory rape." (Wrong on the facts)
2. If it was "statutory rape," that's not "rape-rape," so let's calm down a bit here (Wrong on the law)
3. Statutory rape is not "necessarily" always wrong. (Morally reprehensible)
Add bonus points because Whoopi fancies herself a liberal feminist.
Not defending Whoopi but....
How is that wrong on the law? Doesn't the law distinguish between forcible rape and statutory rape? Aren't sentences harsher for the former than they are for the latter? The "let's calm down a bit here" part of that statement may not be warranted from a moral standpoint (which would depend on the individual), but I think it's generally fair to say that we should be more agitated by crimes which have harsher penalties than those that have lighter sentences.
In your opinion. I would argue that the statutory rape of a 17 year old by an 18 year old is not wrong, especially in the 18 y.o. turned 18 yesterday, and the 17 y.o will turn 18 tomorrow. (Obviously that is not the case here. But the point is still valid.)
Get your definitions straight
Statutory rape consists of sexual activity with a person younger than the age of consent. Period. It's a strict-liability offense. If you're involved sexually with someone below that age, you're guilty. There's no defense. You can't weasel your way out of it.
Interpreting the law
So I take it that we should not interpret the law, but only enforce it exactly as written? You would take the position that our legislatures have written laws that take into account every possible situation? Do you think a girl who is 18 years and 1 day old and has sex with her boyfriend who is 17 years and 364 days old should go to jail for rape (assuming that the age of consent is 18)?
Again, see my earlier comment
It doesn't matter what I think the law should be in this instance (if you must know, I think the age of consent to preclude a statutory rape charge should be somewhere around 15 but I could be convinced to draw the line somewhere else), but a line must be drawn somewhere.
In this instance, letting state governments do that is probably appropriate.
And for the record, we're still discussing Polanski, not where we think the age of consent should be set.
Unless you're saying 13 is OK.
Well we know...
..13 is ok for ACRON.
And Durbin
And Burris
RE: Not defending Whoopi ...
For not defending her, you're expending a lot of energy to ... well ... defend her.
Forgive me for not explicitly repeating the context of Whoopi's "not necessarily" statement. I made the context clear just a few sentences prior, but here it is again: Whoopi said it was "not necessarily" a big deal if a 14-year-old had sex with a 40 year old. Neither she, nor I, was talking about an 18-year-old high school senior having sex with his 17-year-old high school senior girlfriend.
So, to sum up: Neither Whoopi's point nor yours is "valid," in my opinion.
When I was in college, the feminists on campus made no distinctions between "rape-rape" and "rape." Hell, it was "date rape" — subject to the ruination of one's life and serious jail time — if a woman said "yes" constantly during 30 minutes of foreplay and saying "no" at the last possible moment. Ok. Fine. But it was also "date rape" if a woman said yes the whole time, and changed her mind in the morning.
I find it rather annoying that Whoopi, some powerful Hollywood people and some others on the left now take such a casual attitude in this case involving Polanski — but that's because he is one of them. I'd bet the pink slip on my piece of shit car that Whoopi thought it was awesome that feminists went after Clarence Thomas for the "offense" (never proven) of "sexually harassing" Anita Hill. Never touching her, mind you, but supposedly talking about porn movies in front of her and (absurdly) putting a pubic hair on a can of Coke.
But since the left changed its mind about the definition of sexual harassment in the Clinton years, I guess they can change their definition of "rape" now.
And let's not lose sight of what happened here. Statutory rape should not even be part of this discussion. Polanski drugged and forcibly sodomized a 13-year-old girl who asked him to stop. It would be "rape-rape" even if both Polanski and his victim were in their 40s.
Whoopi should have kept her mouth shut if she didn't know the facts. Instead she's opened up a debate over whether in slightly different circumstances Polanski having sex with a barely pubescent girl would have been OK. That is disgusting and indefensible.
From the wiki
Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape
Statutory Rape
It's worth noting, I think, that the laws regarding the age of consent in New York vary depending on the ages of the participants. So the argument here about the 17.99-year-old and the 18.01-year-old having sex can and has been addressed, at least in some jurisdictions. So that's not a really interesting argument to have.
Regarding Polanski, from what I've read, he "only" plead guilty to statutory rape; the testimony made it clear it was forcible rape and sodomy of a drugged 13-year-old. If it had been merely consensual sex with a minor of 13, I can see an argument being made: Some cultures don't consider 13 old enough for sex, others do. 13 is on the low side even so, but I can still see someone making an argument for it. It'd still be illegal in California at the time.
But that's not what happened. The true miscarriage of justice occurred when the plea bargain was made. Everything after that is just Keystone Kops.
Whoopi is, as usual, an idiot.
Post new comment