Some additional thoughts relative to the issue I addressed in yesterday’s Hollywood: Go Polanski Yourself.
The most often heard argument in the defense of a rapist is that the victim of the rape “wanted it.” And the “proof” most often offered in support of that vile contention is the rape victim’s history of sexual promiscuity.
So let’s be real clear about this:
Just because you’re generous with your money doesn’t mean that you want to be robbed.
Okay? Read that sentence as many times as it takes to sink in. It’s the reasoning behind the fact that in a rape case the victim’s sexual history is not admissible as evidence. The law recognizes that such material has no bearing on the definition of rape.
And never forget: Rape isn’t about sex. Rape is about one thing, and one thing only: the sustained and purposeful execution of violence. It’s about the purely evil need to control and humiliate a weaker being (and not get caught doing it).
A rapist isn’t getting off on sex. He’s getting off on making his victim beg, cry, and scream in pain.
Finally—and this of course is particularly germane to the recurring argument in the Polanski case that it’s somehow okay for Polanski to have forced himself upon young Samantha Geimer, since her mother essentially gave the girl to Polanski for the afternoon: a mother has absolutely no legal, and certainly no moral right to facilitate a crime being perpetrated against her daughter.
You’re not allowed to sell your child into slavery; you’re not allowed to use your child to make pornography; you’re not allowed to help your child get raped. “Mother” doesn’t mean inured from the laws of man, nature, or God.
So to recap: How often a woman chooses to share her body has zero bearing on whether or not it’s right for control of her body to be violently wrested from her; rape isn’t about sex anyway; and the victim’s mother being in any way involved with her daughter’s rape makes the tragedy of that rape worse, not better.
And rape should be a capital offense. But that’s for another column.
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Unfortunately, the victim’s “promiscuity” is still sometimes admissible as evidence in a rape case. What’s even more twisted is when a victim’s sexual history is admissible but the perp’s history of being accused of sexual crimes isn’t (heard of a case where that happened) or when a five year old girl is deemed to have brought on her rape by being too alluring (another real case). As for fixing the system . . . it might help if people didn’t assume the rape allegations are false. Just because the “perp” is assumed innocent doesn’t mean the victim is assumed guilty (or it shouldn’t mean that). Most of the time, people get hung up on redefining “forcible” rape . . . if she “didn’t cry out” it isn’t rape, if she “didn’t say no” it isn’t rape, if she was in a relationship with him it’s “probably not rape.” But here’s the thing, rape is rape–ALL rape is forcible. It doesn’t matter whether one person was just coerced into sex and another person was beaten into it, it’s still rape. And marriage vows or commitment do not mean a universal “yes” to sex; rape is still possible within a marriage. Children cannot consent to sex, period. If we could get past those should-be-obvious facts, it might be easier to bring justice to victims. As it is, the system is set up in favor of the rapist and against the victim. Okay, got that spiel out of my system . . . Thanks for the blog post. It’s good!
Thank you, John.
i’m not really disagreeing with you, in that obviously sexual violence is inexcusable, and it’s true that there is no such thing as “asking for rape”.
but when you look at any given case from a legal perspective, if you have to prove rape, you have to show that intercourse or other penetration occurred, and that it was not consensual. behavior of the victim that might negate the proposition that the sexual contact was not consensual is obviously relevant (except as prohibited by the rape-shield rule) to making such proof. we can’t always just take the victim’s word for it, because, unfortunately, cases where sex occurred and the “victim” consented but decided only later that it was not consensual (for whatever reason) are not unheard of.
i don’t have a suggestion for improving the system–it’s very difficult to get at the truth of these matters.
I’ve felt for a long time that the punishment for rape and sexual molestation doesn’t come close to fitting the damage for the crime.. These monsters should get a lot worse, but nobody seems to take rape as seriously as it is or worse, they blame the victim, like you talked about, or says they’re lying! There is NO such thing as asking for rape. Saying “Oh, she’s had a lot of partners or dresses sexy so she was asking for it” is like saying that because I put on makeup before I go places I want some pig to grope me. Society needs to STOP blaming the victims for getting raped and start telling men to stop raping! Only the rapist is responsible for rape. I could rant on and on about this but I’ll just end up getting furious so I’m done now >.< Thanks for all of your articles John Shore, I love them.
Societies are composed of entities which share common bonds. In human societies, we adhere to social contracts which we create to strengthen the bonds we share. One of the most basic social contracts we have is one that deals with sexual behaviors. Specifically, since sex is one of the most personal activities that we can experience, we have established the very basic unwritten law that each adult person, male or female, but especially females, given that they are the ones who can get pregnant, have the absolute RIGHT to choose their partner(s) if any, the act(s) they will engage in, and the frequency of said act(s) in each and every instance.
RAPE is committed when a sociopath ignores that most basic of agreements and imposes his (or her) will on another regardless of the others choice OR desire. That is a violent act, not only to the victim, but also to society, in and of itself.
Polanski drugged his victim, implying that he knew that she would NOT give her consent. In any case, it did not matter, since as a minor, a fact he freely admitted knowing, she was not capable (under the law) of giving her consent. He deliberately chose to break both written and unwritten laws, knowing beforehand the consequences he would face. He deserves his prison time, in spite of what may or may not occur to him while incarcerated. HE made that choice 33 years ago, in giving his victim NO choice.
And, IF the girl’s mother assisted him in the commission of that crime, she deserves, at the very least, to do the same amount of time as he owes!
I learned a lot from this article. Mostly that I have to work on excusing the attraction of genius from the penalties of dark hole self obsession, and its evil consequences.
“Just because you’re generous with your money doesn’t mean that you want to be robbed.” Thank you for this metaphor. So true. I just wish more people would see how this connects with “Just because you like sex doesn’t mean you want to be raped.”
I think that second point is what this whole debate consistently misses. Once it's understood that it has nothing to do with sex, every argument in defense of Polanski turns into farce, in my opinion.
eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww!!!
Would the pop culture elite be this supportive and defensive of Polanski if he were a clergyman? Just sayin'…
"Well, I like young girls … I suppose most men do." Roman Polanski
"I've never hidden the fact that I like young girls. I will say again, once and for all, I like very young girls." Roman Polanski at the Cannes Film Festival, after which he rolled his eyes in ecstasy and covered his crotch with his hand.