What do Roman Polanski and Bill O’Reilly have to do with each other? Absolutely nothing. But what do the differing reactions to these men have to teach us about how we handle accusations of sexual misconduct? Quite a lot.
Lawyers for film director Roman Polanski recently failed to convince a judge to dismiss the child-abuse case and allow Polanski to return to the United States. Polanski was 44 when he took a 13-year-old neighbor girl for a “photo shoot” at a house in Los Angeles. According to Polanski, they had “consensual” sex. Really?
First, a 13-year-old cannot consent. The age of consent in California is 18. Anyone who is over 21 and engages in sexual intercourse with someone under 16 may be guilty of a felony. The youth of the victim plus the disparity in ages makes it a crime.
Second, alcohol and drugs impair the ability to consent. Polanski gave the girl alcohol and Quaalude, a tranquilizer that was later banned because of its toxic effects and widespread abuse.
Third, the girl repeatedly said “No.” Read the grand jury transcript, but prepare to be saddened as you learn a new meaning for “cuddliness.”
Polanski was charged with rape, sodomy, and giving drugs to a minor. But to save the young victim the pain of testifying, he was allowed to plead guilty to sexual intercourse with a minor. He spent only 42 days in jail for a psychiatric exam, but when it appeared he might have to serve additional time, he fled the country.
Polanski moved to France and resolved to date older women − for example, Nastassja Kinski, who had reached the advanced age of 15. She had been “discovered” a year earlier by director Wim Wenders, who was among the signers of the petition to free Polanski. It’s nice to have friends who share your values.
What these people think about Polanski is of no importance. That they ‒ and people who think like them ‒ control what our children see is of great importance:
● Comedian Whoopi Goldberg opined that what Polanski did wasn’t “rape-rape.” Yes it was. He was charged with penetrating the 13-year-old both vaginally and anally, which is a perfect example of “rape-rape.” Whoopi added, “We’re a different kind of society; we see things differently. Would I want my 14-year-old having sex with somebody? Not necessarily, no.” Not necessarily? Indeed, they do see things differently.
● Producer Harvey Weinstein spoke up, calling what Polanski did a “so-called crime.” Would you want your family anywhere near people who think a middle-aged man having sex with a 13-year-old is not a crime?
● Actor-director Woody Allen weighed in. Allen had known his longtime girlfriend’s daughter since she was a little girl, then became romantically involved and married her − though she was in effect his stepdaughter. Apparently Allen believed that this would not decrease his credibility on the subject of sex with minors. In Hollywood, he was correct. Elsewhere, people might think differently.
● Director Martin Scorsese was also a Polanski supporter. In the film “Taxi Driver,” he directed 12-year-old Jodie Foster in the role of a child prostitute named “Easy.” Who can say what psychological damage was done by having her act out the role of a prostitute? She was a real child, not a cartoon.
● Many film personalities spoke up to free Mr. Polanski. But I’ll bet that not one would have spoken up if he were Father Polanski. Movie and TV people believe themselves to be above the laws that apply to us “ordinary” people. After all, they are “artists.”
● The Sundance Film Festival accepted a film showing men having sex with horses. Reviewers called the film “surprisingly tasteful” and “elegant, eerily lyrical.” The horses were not asked for their opinion.
● A film depicted semi-nude Dakota Fanning being raped. The 12-year-old was described as “seductive.” This is a common excuse by child molesters: “She came on to me.” The film was screened at Sundance and had a limited release, though not limited enough to suit me.
● An exhibition open to children showed real human corpses skinned, dissected, and covered with plastic. The bodies may have been dissidents executed in China. Another exhibit shows corpses in sexual poses. Will pedophilia now be outdone by necrophilia? What’s next − a TV show called “Dancing with the Perverts”?
The alleged purpose is to teach young people the structure of the human body. The actual result may be to teach young people to view human beings as complex pieces of meat ‒ and nothing more. Respect? Reverence? Created in God’s image? Are you joking? That’s so “yesterday.”
Some people see nothing wrong with making a film about humans having sex with animals. After all, we’re just animals.
Some people see nothing wrong with using a 12-year-old girl to act out a rape. After all, she’s just an actress.
Some people see nothing wrong with using corpses as entertainment. After all, they’re just pieces of meat.
Some people see nothing wrong with producing TV shows about teens having sex and using drugs. After all, that’s what teens do. Yes, but whose fault is that?
These people are saying, “If people watch it, we will make money – no matter what it is. What are you, some kind of a prude? What’s your problem?”
My problem is that these people make films that influence how we see the world − and how the world sees us. Is it any wonder that Americans are often seen as sex-obsessed, money-grubbing, godless narcissists? Why should our friends respect us? Why should our enemies fear us? We advertise ourselves as contemptible.
My problem is that I object to treating human beings, especially vulnerable ones, like disposable items. We fought World War II to defeat the idea that some people are less than human − and can be used and discarded at our whim.
My problem is that a professor of “bioethics” at an elite university teaches that newborn babies up to a month old can be killed if they are “defective” or just unwanted. He later increased this to up to three years old.
My problem is that Barak Obama, when a state senator, repeatedly opposed bills that would require care for babies who are born alive after “failed” abortions. And then we elected him president. What does that say about us?
My problem is that the liberal “elite” disguise themselves as pro-child, pro-woman humanitarians. But sometimes the disguise slips, revealing what lies beneath. It’s not a pretty sight. It includes demoting the unborn to things that can be discarded at our convenience. It includes seeing children not as unique individuals in God’s image, but − like a new car − as possessions to be used and flaunted. It includes prematurely sexualizing children by TV, films, and classes beginning as early as kindergarten.
My problem is robbing children of their innocence, leaving them jaded and seeking the next adrenalin rush instead of lasting happiness. We take care to prevent harmful material from entering their lungs or stomachs, but we ignore what enters their eyes and ears. Perhaps the reason we have so many childish adults is that they had no chance to be children when they were young.
Sexualized kindergarteners, degrading TV shows and movies, and self-anointed “artists” supporting a child molester are symptoms. The disease is our failure to impart Judeo-Christian values to the next generation.
Why reopen this old case? Because it was never closed. The criminal remains unpunished. And those who publicly condoned his crime never lost one day’s work, one dollar’s income, or one bit of reputation because of their excusing the sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl.
Bill O’Reilly accused of making unwanted sexual propositions to adult women? Horrible! Inexcusable! Fire him! He’s not one of the leftist Hollywood “elite.” He’s (gasp!) conservative. But Roman Polanski convicted of drugging and raping a 13-year-old? No problem. He’s an “artist.” And best of all, he’s “progressive.”
Contact: email@example.com. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.