Right. Right. Right.

It seems like somebody is selling a revisionist's history of the whole Polanski situation, and that is downright scary. Jezebel has a tremendous influence on young women (and girls), and few Jezebelles have more influence than Slut Machine. If she says something, many of her devotees will believe it without a critical thought or shred of research.

Ann, this post is spot-on. Thank you for taking this on.

This is exactly why we really need to focus on the fact that she was drugged, and not the fact that she was underage--because anyone who was given wine and quaaludes would have been a rape victim no matter how old they were, and people look for all sorts of excuses as to why being too incapacitated to give meaninful consent is not rape. We need to challenge that thinking head-on and not let them split hairs.

I read that exchange and I never thought I'd see special pleading for child molesters from "feminists". The girl was 13 and no matter how sleazy her mom might have been, Polanski had no business putting his dick inside her.

While I can understand the intended spirit behind the "girls have sexual agency too" I don't think that is actually all that relevant.

The fact is she could not legally consent to sex, due to both drugs and age, therefore Pulanski, as the adult in the situation is responsible for what happened between them.

He has to be a grown up and accept responsibility for the fact that no matter what she said or did, he was the legally liable party. Even if she had jumped on top of him and ripped his clothes off he should have pushed her away and said no, because it was still legally rape, even if she consented at that point.

That is what a good person would do, they would respect the law, and her right to make decisions in her right mind.

In the debate about age of consent v/v statuatory rape (exclusive of this obviously non-consensual case), maybe it would help us to think about the sexuality of teenaged girls in the same light we look at boys' sexuality. Our social programming dictates that a 16/17-year-old boy having a consensual affair with an older person does not strike us a particularly evil, whereas a 13-year-old of either sex in the same situation probably strikes us as innately non-consensual. Even if the boy/girl in question is "mature" for their age. Even with boys, who are supposed to be more sexually assertive according to traditional (though faulty)logic, this situation would still be creepy. No question.

any age + drugged + no consent = RAPE

Just, you know, sayin'.

Sex is great. Consent is obvious. If there's any confusion, there is no consent.

A good friend of mine (all participants in this story are single and long past the age of consent) often tells me about a woman he's had a crush on for a long time. Recently at the end of a long night of partying she tried to seduce him. He thought she was "too drunk to know what she was doing" and refused to participate. (And he was flat overjoyed when she tried again, and succeeded, the next morning.)

If there's any confusion, there's no consent. Grownups can be expected to understand this; children often don't.

Which is why I disagree about the 13-year-old part -- not because she's 13, but because there's a 30 year age difference, a huge power disparity, and Polanski was old enough to know it. Even if she had been cold sober, it's virtually impossible for there not to be confusion about consent between a 13-year-old and a 43-year-old -- which is to say, there's no way for there to be consent.

I haven't read the details of the case (nor do I care to), but -- quite simply, consensual sex between a 43-year-old and a 13-year old (regardless of gender) is categorically impossible.

I have not seen the documentary, though I am incredibly interested in it. However, I have heard a lot about it from here and elsewhere. What I've heard is that the documentary doesn't really condemn Polanski, but does explore specifically the mishandling of justice in the case and broadly the celebrity culture at large. And there was a miscarriage of justice in the case on the parts of the prosecutors, the investigators, and others.

Saying that justice was not properly handled by the accusers is not the same thing as saying that the guilty accused did not commit a horrible act. Similarly, respecting someone's art does not necessarily mean one has to respect the artist behind it. That is something that should be remembered.

Roman Polanski is a great filmmaker. He is responsible for some of the greatest films of the past 40 years. He is also a despicable person who committed a horrible act. However, he was also subject to some very poor handling of justice in the case against him.

In the end, however, I feel that due process of the law is extremely important, and while it is cliche, I'd rather have 100 guilty people go free than see one innocent person imprisoned.

What makes this documentary intriguing and something I do want to see is that even with the filmmakers sort of buying into the mystique of Polanski and his artistry, it does look incredibly interesting and looks to be an honest look at the case.

This isn't that shocking coming from Tracie Eagen. This is the person who thinks porn featuring people with disabilities is fucking hilarious and pays men to "rape" her. Sensitivity is not her strong suit.

I think age of consent is a really interesting topic, only this was a post about a case in which a 13-year-old girl gave testimony that she was drugged, and anally raped after she said no repeatedly.

The first time that I had heard about Roman Polanski and the statutory rape charge was in the book Alone with the Devil by Ronald Markman, a forensic psychologist. Overall the book is an interesting history of how psychology and the court system mesh together. Markman examined the Manson Family murders extensively from a psychiatric standpoint.

Unfortunately, as an addendum to his Manson Family analysis, he also briefly examined this statutory rape case against Roman Polanski. What followed was less psychiatric analysis and more rape apology from a man who is supposed to be impartial within the justice system.

Even this forensic psychologist, who advocated for leniency for some of the most horrific crimes described in his book, felt that Polanski wasn't at fault because she "looked older." Also, he never interviewed the girl to get her perspective and the fact that she claimed that the entire act was non-consensual was never brought up.

I guess the point to this comment is that it's extremely depressing when those in the judicial system who seem smart and objective can turn 180 degrees and say/do/write something so completely ignorant when it comes to sexual assault.

Am I the only one who stopped reading Jezebel a while ago? I used to love the site, but after numerous nasty incidents that were poorly handled by the bloggers, I just can't seem to stomach it anymore. (The Moe insulting Clinton supporters blow up is the big one, of course, and am I crazy, or wasn't there a post that said something nasty about an African America's Next Top Model contestant having been circumcised?) I've noticed a lot of the other commenters I used to love don't seem to be around much anymore, and I'd guess it's for the same reason....

I know everyone's human, everyone makes mistakes, etc. etc. and I don't mean to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but all of it's left a bad taste in my mouth. The fact remains that it's part of Gawker media, which is known for being nasty through and through.

I would say that not only are loving sex and hating rape not mutually exclusive, but that to be truly sex-positive, we must be vehemently anti-rape.

The entire idea of promoting sex as good healthy fun is that it should be good healthy fun for everyone who chooses it. Sexual trauma cripples that.

I agree with the commenters that said the girl being drugged is=rape not necessarily her age. I think age of consent laws are crappy and usually short change girls.

This just reminds me of the R. Kelly acquittal thread on Racialicious recently. I don't think I could say it better than many people on that thread already did.

right faithlesswonder- it was about genital mutilation and how she takes it in the ass. It was disgusting. I'm sick of Jezebel.

I'm constantly defending Jezebel's legitimacy and even occasionally their brand of feminism. I have, however, taken umbrage to a few of SM's posts lately, including a recent Pot Psychology (SM and Rich answer reader's questions while high), where a guest star said some incredibly anti-woman things, and after commenters complained, SM actually defended what he said in the comments.
I was disgusted by not only SM's original post on Polanski, but Jezebel's handling of the matter (after banning some offended commenters, they swept the matter under the rug for a week), and even her "apology." I don't pity bloggers who say offensive things and are attacked over it. I don't pity SM. I was horrified that her follow-up opened with a complaint about commenters being mean, and basically continued to imply that if we shared her views of feminism, we'd know how silly we were being.
Although I've been a reader and commenter since Jezebel first launched, Slut Machine's latest antics have made me question my loyalty. And the newer commenters coming along drooling over SM certainly isn't helping.

yeah, i thought slut machine was amazingly tone-deaf on this one.
she got an earful about that first post, did a little better on her follow-up, and i hope she'll keep listening to the criticisms.

thanks for laying out the real issue in terms no one can miss.

dondo,
Fascinating way to put things.
Lately I have been turning over the whole idea of consent in terms of *how* we make the decision to consent; how the decision is made clearly, and communicated clearly.

And can a person think she is consenting but not know enough or understand the situation well enough to truly consent? (By extension of this, can't a person who is very young or misunderstands what is involved "give" consent but not be able to really give it; like a 14-year-old can sign a contract, but it isn't legal?)

And, how can a young girl who is raised in a pornified, hypersexualized commercial culture with sexy underwear for 7 year olds REALLY understand what "expressing her sexuality" means?

I am made verrrry skittish by this idea, that if we try to protect children then we are going to dampen their agency for sexual self-expression. Um, isn't that line what pedophiles use to try to get age-of-consent laws revoked?

Finally we're talking about this, yes! I'm just glad people are acknowledging that there is a difference, even if the law doesn't reflect this reality.

Hmmm... as much as I love Jezebel, if they can never admit that they're wrong, then I just can't go there anymore.

Glad I found this place. I'll come here instead.

I saw the documentary, and I read the entire thing on Jezebel. That is the first and last thing I will ever read on that site!

The very idea that a 13 year old can give consent is disgusting. Why would anyone need to debate this? What difference does it make if she had tried drugs before and wasn't a virgin? How is that NOT blaming the victim?

Polanski got screwed by the legal system, but that does NOT mean that he is a good guy. He admits to having sex with a drugged child - yuck! And he doesn't seem to feel the least bit bad about it or to think that he did anything wrong.

I agree with Newbaum above, even if she jumped him, he was the adult, he was the person responsible. He should have known better.

Yes, his life has been filled with tragedy (the holocaust, his wife's murder), but that doesn't mean he gets a free pass. We can have sympathy for him and still see that he is disgusting and evil. It sickens me that anyone would even give this guy a job, much less an academy award.

i, too, stopped reading jezebel sometime last year, only about a month or so after actually starting to read it. while they're very sex-positive, i found myself disagreeing with how the writers expressed their thoughts on feminist issues (including the aforementioned blog on the ANTM contestant that had experienced FGC). this bit about consent and Polanski only solidifies my decision to stay away.

I like Jezebel, but wow - I'm sorry, but I can't see how that reads as anything other than victim blaming. I believe SM when she says that she didn't mean it to read that way - but it does. End of story and frankly, she should apologise for that. Her follow-up posts seem to miss this point entirely.

I won't stop reading Jezebel though. I read a lot of different blogs and I'm not gonna restrict myself to only reading blogs where I agree whole-heartedly with every. single. post. If I did that, then I wouldn't read anything at all.

first want to clarify that my username is SM but i am not slut machine.

second, want to amend your statement (and @FrumiousB, taking it one step further!):
anyone + drugged = no consent = RAPE. right???

and can we move beyond the bullshit "sex-positive" category? i'm offended by your implication, Ann, that if i am anti-porn i am "sex-negative." (yes, go back and read the dichotomy you set up.) i'm offended that some feminists who like and have sex feel the need to distance themselves from our counterparts who don't, or who aren't wholly comfortable with it for personal, political, philosophical reasons. it's pandering to patriarchy, plain and simple.

“3-year-old + drugged + no consent = RAPE.”

and

“agree with the commenters that said the girl being drugged is=rape not necessarily her age. I think age of consent laws are crappy and usually short change girls.”

So wait, if a 43 year old has sex with a 13 year old who isn’t drugged then that’s just fine and dandy? What about a 10 year old? What about a 5 year old? After all, children can be sexual as young as 3.

SM, I agree wholeheartedly with this formulation:

anyone + drugged = no consent = RAPE

I wrote it the way I did in the post because I was reflecting the specific situation in question, not all rape cases.

And when I wrote this,

I don't see this as a sex-positive/anti-porn divide. Or a second-wave/third-wave divide. I really don't.

I was responding to what I saw as Slut Machine's characterization of the issue -- meaning I read her post as framing this issue as one where these dichotomies exist. I truly don't believe all anti-porn feminists are "sex-negative". Sorry to give that impression.

sojurner -- the problem is that people like to split hairs about when someone can give meaningful consent. They point to the 18 year old who goes to jail for having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. It's obnoxious, but there should be some flexibility in the "age of consent" and it would be difficult to describe something that would seem reasonable. Everyone's on board with a 40 year old having sex with a 13 year old... but what about a nineteen year old having sex with a fifteen year old? Or a 17 year old having sex with a 13 year old? It gets dicey. Focus on the lack of ability to give meaningful consent and save the statutory discussion for a time when both parties weren't impaired.

“Everyone's on board with a 40 year old having sex with a 13 year old”
Actually exactly because this is one of those supposedly clear cut cases of a 40 year old and a 13 year old (though our friend Slut Machine doesn’t seem to be on board), I think it is worth bringing up the age of consent.

“but what about a nineteen year old having sex with a fifteen year old? Or a 17 year old having sex with a 13 year old? It gets dicey”
Well, I agree… and that’s why a lot of states have laws that say for instance if the younger party is younger than , say 14, the older party cannot be more than 2 years older than them or some such. I think that kind of general framework is reasonable. People who say age of consent laws suck, do they mean they would like to do away with such laws all together? Do they want statutory rape to not be rape at all? Or should it be decided on a case by case basis (personally I think that would be a huge mess, I can only just imagine all the slut shaming and victim blaming of 12 year olds that is going to happen). But if there is any age of consent at all, even if it is 9, splitting hairs is unavoidable. So she is 9 years and 1 day old and she can give consent but if she were 8 years and 364 days old she couldn’t? Do you see what I’m trying to say?

sojurner: I see exactly what you're trying to say -- which was sort of my point. I guess the question is, do we really want to move the goalposts on this?

What about a 43-year old having sex with a 30-year old, intoxicated, person who depends on the 43-year old for their livlihood?

There are many issues involved in giving consent: with under-18 people, it is assumed consent is never given, but coercion can exist under many other scenarios making consent impossible to assume, no matter the age of the participants. (Although the situation cited of 19 and 17 year olds, it is not often the case where the 19 goes to jail, most jurisdictions go easier, not letting them off but not sending them to jail either, on perpetrators who are within 5 years of the vicitm's age.)

I agree with the statement that if there is a question, then consent was lacking. [paraphrased]

Any time consent is not given, no matter the circumstances, it is rape.

I too get annoyed with this "sex-positive" bullshit and the suggestion that we even need to defend our enjoyment of sex. First of all, it implies that only the woman who prefaces her denunciations of sexual violence even enjoys sex, and it implies that feminists more than other women really should make it known if they're among that freak contingent of women who like fucking. Of course many women like sex, and to have to remind people makes it seem to me like we're buying into this premise that men want to fuck and want to get it over with already. Men never have to disclaim some statement they're about to make with "I like sex and all, but..." (I have also never heard a man say, "I love money, I'm very money-positive, but muggings are just terrible.") So why should we?

Finally, my understanding of Polanski's rape of the girl is not that all those components added up to make it a rape but rather, given that any one of those things independently of the others would have made that incident a rape, there can be no doubt that what he did was, in fact, rape the girl. A formulation like this would work:

underage = no consent
drugged = no consent
coercion by fear = no consent

no consent x 3 = rape x 3

My sister just turned 12 this month, and she's noticing boys, but in a very chaste way. At that age, all I could think about was my changing body. That was the year I started menstruating, and I was teased because I already had breasts, and was actively seeing boys. (I'm 11.5 years older than she is.)

I think my sister thinks there's something wrong with her because she knows I was really into boys at her age. I tried to tell her that she'll be ready when she's ready. Hell, maybe she's not actually into boys. That would be pretty cool. Either way, my point is that girls mature at totally different rates. My sister gets visibly uncomfortable when people lecture her about sexual responsibility, because it's not even on her radar yet. All her girlfriends are well beyond her in that respect.

The best thing is just to remind young people that whoever they are and however they feel they needn't be ashamed. The best thing is just to create an open atmosphere where they can talk these things out. Right now, it doesn't feel like that exists. We just tell girls to shut up and keep their pants on, and that doesn't get us anywhere.

We just end up scolding them either way.

Hmmm... as much as I love Jezebel, if they can never admit that they're wrong, then I just can't go there anymore.

My thoughts exactly. I don't need to spend my time reading a site that talks down to me. Let them generate their ad revenue from someone else from now on.

Jesus Christ, especially Quaaludes. Even leaving aside the fact that this girl was several years younger than the legal age of consent, do you have any idea what Quaaludes do to you? Ludes utterly turn your mind to soup, and that ain't no lie.

I'd be inclined to consider any instance where a guy gave a girl Quaaludes, whether she's thirteen years old or thirty-five years old, and they ended up having sex, where they didn't already have some kind of prior sexual relationship going, as a prima facie case of drug-powered rape.

sojourner, orchid, everybodyever

I think statutory rape laws are crappy because well they make no sense to me.

In the US the every state has a different age so that means Connecticut teens (16) are more mature than Florida (18) teens and can understand sexual relations better and earlier. What?

This also means that kids in Italy (14) are more mature than kids in France (15) and can handle sexual relationships with adults sooner. What?

In the US even if a parent doesn't have a problem with their underage child having a sexual relationship with an adult if a prosecutor is adamant about taking the case not only will the adult in the relationship be sentenced but the parents may also face jail time for endangering their child's welfare. You'd think a parent would know if their child is mature enough to handle a relationship but apparently the courts know better.

To me stat rape laws are only made to protect minors emotions and all relationships can leave you emotional wreck. We have child exploitation laws and rape laws to protect children from predatory adults. The thing is we infantize girls when we say "yes you may have enjoyed it but you were abused and you will regret it later" why can't we just let them have their experience why are we always turning girls into victims even when they don't view themselves as such. Even if they do regret it later, who doesn't have a relationship they don't regret the key is learning from it.

I think we should take it on a case by case basis but I know that would be very difficult. I don't have kids so I may change my mind on this if I ever do but this is the way I feel now.