Blogs and Stories
How Young Is Too Young?
Elisabetta Villa / Getty Images
The Polanski case revives debate about the age of consent—and how America stacks up against other countries when it comes to sexual permissiveness.
When I taught "Introduction to American Studies" at Barnard College, I asked my students a question that made me "Enemy Professor No. 9" on the conservative Free Republic website. Roman Polanski's recent arrest reminded me of the public condemnation I received for asking that question: who is too young to have sex with an adult?
One of the most significant but overlooked facts of the Polanski case is that the Los Angeles District Attorney quickly dropped the original rape charge but insisted that Polanski plead guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor," a violation of California's age of consent law. Whether Polanski actually forced the girl into sex is still an open question; she has announced that she "said no" but has also asked for the case to be dismissed. Yet it is significant that for 31 years, prosecutors have pursued Polanski across the globe to bring him to justice for only one crime: having sex with someone the state deems to be too young.
Were Polanski to have consensual sex today with a 13-year-old girl in Japan, South Korea, or Spain, it would be perfectly legal according to those countries' codes. In more than 30 other countries, including Austria, Italy, and Lichtenstein, the age of consent is 14.
Were Polanski to have consensual sex today with a 13-year-old girl in the modern, democratic, industrialized nations of Japan, South Korea, or Spain, it would be perfectly legal according to those countries' codes. In more than 30 other countries, including Austria, Italy, and Lichtenstein, the age of consent is 14 (in many cases even younger if both partners are close in age). In France, where Polanski has lived since his conviction and where newspapers and even government officials have defended the director against the "sinister" motivations of American prosecutors, it is 15. Even Americans don't agree on the question. In 27 states, it is legal for an adult of any age to have sex with a 16-year-old, while the rest place the legal age at 17 or 18.
My students were willing to discuss the appropriateness of the 16-18 range, but were resolutely opposed to going any lower. One said she was so disturbed by the Spanish law that she was reconsidering spending her study year abroad in Barcelona.
• Marcia Clark: Polanski's Lost Alibi
• Robert Goolrick: Polanski's Victim and Me
• Read full coverage of the Polanski scandalMost often my students argued that sexual relations between an adult and a child (whom some defined as anyone under 18, some under 16, and others as the "emotionally immature") necessarily involved the manipulation of the weak by the powerful, which was wrong. But then, I asked, why was it acceptable for adults to cajole and at times physically force children to play sports, wear hipster t-shirts, attend church, wash the dishes, listen to "good" music, obey authority figures, or, as the president of the United States told them directly, to take responsibility for "nothing less than the future of this country"?
Perhaps my being a young, male professor in a room of female undergraduates made the question especially provocative, but I felt that I was onto something that illuminated what I believe to be one of the core cultural assumptions of Americans: sex is like walking in traffic or playing with knives—activities we aggressively coerce children not to do. In American culture, to tell a child about the pleasures of sex is equivalent to discussing the thrill of dodging oncoming cars or handling a meat cleaver. In our sex-education lectures, public service announcements, relatively high age-of-consent laws, and, most importantly, in our silences, we tell children only that sex is dangerous.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Sarah Drops the Act
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Palin's Gold Mine
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
Is Ultimate Fighting Gay?
Thaddeus Russell has taught history, philosophy, and American Studies at Columbia University, Barnard College, Eugene Lang College, and the New School for Social Research. He is the author of Jimmy Hoffa and the Remaking of the American Working Class (Knopf, 2001) and the forthcoming A Renegade History of the United States (Free Press/Simon & Schuster, 2010).
Why Liberals Kill
Thaddeus Russell has taught history, philosophy, and American Studies at Columbia University, Barnard College, Eugene Lang College, and the New School for Social Research. He is the author of Jimmy Hoffa and the Remaking of the American Working Class (Knopf, 2001) and the forthcoming A Renegade History of the United States (Free Press/Simon & Schuster, 2010).
"Yet it is significant that for 31 years, prosecutors have pursued Polanski across the globe to bring him to justice for only one crime: having sex with someone the state deems to be too young."
Actually, no. Polanski plied his victim with drink and drugs and refused to stop assaulting her when she asked him to. Even if this girl had been an adult, this would still be rape.
But if you read the article carefully and/or know the facts of the case, Polanski was ultimately only charged with "unlawful sex with a minor." That doesn't mean that in truth he didn't rape and drug her, but the only crime he could have faced punishment for was the one aforementioned. Please understand, I'm not defending the man, but rape was not the charge Polanski fled from.
Not true. Polanski was charged with six felony counts. The other five counts were to be dismissed, in exchange for his guilty plea to the count of "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse", which carried, by the way, a potential felony sentence of 1-20 years at the time. The prosecutor was prepared to go to trial on all six counts. The plea bargain was arranged largely to avoid forcing the victim to face testifying in open court. If you review her grand jury testimony, she clearly describes forcible rape, both vaginal and anal, after she was given both enough champagne to make her feel "tipsy" and half a Qaalude tablet.
The bizarre part of the story is the trivial sentence the prosecutor was willing to agree to. The travesty of justice threatened in this case is what would have happened if the judge hadn't changed his mind on accepting the deal.
Define "half a qaalude tablet". Most supposed barbituates of the time were simply no pharmacologically than trazadone. There are much more effective date-rape drugs available now, your grandmothers probably take them to sleep if you do not.
This is true. Using drugs is disgusting at any age.
The writer makes an interesting point. Even in the US the biggest search regarding adult material involves 'teens'. The closet users protest but in private they are looking for the nude 18 year olds only because it is the limit of legality. We see a large cross section seeking late teens arrested, judges, lawyers, doctors, dentists. It makes great television because we are surprised to see this but it says something greater about our society.
A step process in our legal system should be employed for 15-18 year olds. Obviously non-consensual should never be legal. However, I have represented 15 year olds who have seduced 20 year olds. Some 20 year old men are pretty stupid and some 15 year olds are pretty sophisticaed. Luckily the prosecutor recognized this and dropped the case. In other courtrooms the same 20 year old kid goes to jail where the minor is having sex with many and indiscriminately. There is no harm done to the minor just the adult. What would be punished is the innocent 15 year old who is plied and connived into consent where the person in majority is more sophsticated and uses that sophistication and/or lies to obtain that consent. This will apply both ways. Dont think women dont mannipulate young men to have sex. Sexist need not apply.
Using drugs is disgusting at any age? What do you define as drugs? I have tried several of them and enjoyed most of them.
Nice to see you have thought through the underage sex situation so well though.
"Manipulate"
If you have ever taken an aspirin in your life than you are a hypocrite.
Learn to use proper grammar, and spelling, for the sake of 'teh children'.
A quick Google, to find out why Professor Russel was voted Enemy Professor No. 9, yielded the following evaluation from one of his students:
"...Classes were once a week and lasted one hour and fifty minutes. He constantly went on and on about how the American government creates a society in which anyone who is not a white male is a horribly oppressed individual. He bashed Lynn Cheney for an entire class because he believes that eight-year-olds who cannot listen to Eminem and other such violent entertainers are suffering a breach of their First Amendment rights. Even worse, the class was split in two and forced to debate the legalization of child porn/boy love for two hours. (He wanted us to prove why forcing children to have sex was any different than forcing them to clean their room.) While both debating sides were allowed to speak, he gave those arguing against a tougher time. It was obvious Professor Russell sided with the pro child porn/boy love side because he let them voice their arguments with few challenges; with the other side, he always thought of some issue to negate their arguments. This was one of the most disturbing experiences of my life. Professor Russell never explained why he chose to debate this topic rather than one that would not make students so uncomfortable. "...
It is interesting that I had such a violent reaction when I just read your post about the "child porn/boy love" essentially proving the article above to be true. I think his argument is intriguing, we don't want kids having sex in this country.
"Professor Russel never explained why he chose to debate this topic rather than one that would not make students so uncomfortable."
Isn't it obvious? He's an illuminato: a real forward thinker.
Forcing children to have sex really isn't any different than forcing them to clean their room - at least in the eyes of a depraved, self-indulgent pedophile.
SCMax101...
"I think his argument is intriguing, we don't want kids having sex in this country."
Not at age thirteen we don't, no. Not really. Why would we? We sure as hell don't want them having sex with adults.
Here's a news flash: googling online student evaluations to find out about a professor is just barely more meaningful and reliable than consulting tarot cards.
Professor Russell was named (not voted) an "Enemy Professor" by nonindoctrination.org. Non-indoctrination.org has a decidedly right wing bent, and I do mean bent. This is not the product of a broad sampling of college students, but specific selection by an ideological group to advance its agenda.
BTW,I think Polanski raped a 13 year old girl an of the organsationd should do the small amount of jail time he was sentenced to.
I wholeheartedly second that bobbiewick.
It is a sad commentary on our times that bright minds like Rusell turn away from the tough issues of the times and engage in an anlysis of the Roman Polansk rape case as material for a "thought piece." Rape is an act of violence. Try it sometime and you will know that it has nothing to do with sex. So let's move on and tackle the tough stuff.
This is a specious argument and also quite immoral. The harder charges were dropped and a deal was made to save the little girl from the humiliation of testifying at trial. That was frequently done in those days and it was also a nod to the fact the Polanski may really have been mentally disturbed by the killing of his wife by the Mason family. There is not doubt what he did was rape and the little girl repeated it was against her wishs throughout her statement. Besides the fact that a thirteen could not have consented because she lacks the judgement. A 43 year old man however should know better.
What is really revulting is reading the dirt bag justification of what Polanski did. It is really chilling. This is why rape is one of the most under reported crimes and why we are learning how common pediphilia is. There is a large portion of society that is morally blind when it comes to having carnal knowledge of children and who cannot even recognize or understand that concept of consent. They want so much to think that the little children desire them and much as they desire the child, that they delude themselves into thinking these kids are luring them on. The writer of this article seems to fall into this creepy catagory.
Amen
I would like to add, that I think asking a bunch of college under graduates for a consensus of opinion regarding the age of consent, also belies Thaddeus Russell's judgement. College kids are not experts in understanding the impact of early sex, especially with a much older adult, on the mind of a child. But even so, these students seemed to bring more reason to the issue than Spain (or Mr. Russell), where the so called " age of consent" is 15. Russell also questions the veracity of the little girl when there were also witnesses and no reason not to believe her. And he points to the fact that she did not want to go to trial. I clear sign of Russell's total lack of sympathy, understanding or ability to grasp how horrible the ordeal of a trial would be for a little girl. She clearly and understandably did not what to go to trial where she would be judged and questioned by the likes of doubting Thaddeuses who seem to be bending over backward to find some reason to make Polanski a victim rather than a criminal. Why? That is the question. As I wrote before, the really scary thing about this the arguments in favor of Polanski by legions of bloggers is that they appear to want to believe in their heart that a 43 old man having sex with a thirteen year old is a perfectly normal thing, and despite her tale of being drugged and coerced by Polanski - they live in a kind of fantasy world that this little girl really wanted to have sex with this dirty old man. Excuse me for wretching.
Exactly, that's why they are students--they are still learning. I wouldn't regard their opinions as those of mature persons with much life experience. They are talking out of their fantasies, especially if they are male.
Okay. So when are you "mature" enough to have sufficient "life experience" to make their opinions worthwhile? They're all over 18 and can drive, sign contracts, join the army, marry and have families, etc.
Odd that Mr. Russell has taught at so many universities yet doesn't know the meaning of "No!". Mrs. Russell must think it's odd that her husband spends so much time investigating regional variations in the age of consent. The parents of a bright 17 year old girl, enrolled in one of Mr. Russell's classes, might wonder at his ulterior motives for trying so hard to convince his harem of comely lasses that they need to let their hair down, run naked through the grass and eschew knickers. But then, Mr. Russell probably has tenure, so he can do pretty much whatever he wants.
Yes. Exactly.
I know I think it's questionable. He can't seem to get away from the idea, can he? He baits with the Roman Polanski angle and then goes right into his own subversive garbage.
"What I tried to PUSH MY STUDENTS TO UNDERSTAND was that there were Puritans at work underneath the consciousness of their minds..."
Gibberish. Complete BS actually.
Besides, I thought vanguard professors never "pushed" anything onto their students.
I don't know. I can't believe what I've just read. Why publish this @#$% ?
And T. Russell...
Why pursue something so taboo? Are you trolling for publicity? Is that what this is: another anxious play for the public's short attention span?
Do you believe if you can just convince us "puritans" that sex between a child and an adult isn't abnormal that you will have somehow advanced our culture?
You won't. Let me just make it clear for you. It will never happen. Not outside your little bevy of radical progressives anyway. You are not subversive and edgy. You're not at the forefront of some sexual revolution long overdue.
Something is just wrong with you. You're wired wrong.
Let's be clear -- this isn't about "little children." She wasn't six years old. Pedophilia is a catch-all term for anything involving people below a fairly random age limit which bears virtually no relationship to actual human development. The whole point is that currently in much of the world and until very recently here in the US, 13 is considered old enough to marry and start raising a family.
"The whole point is that currently in much of the world and until very recently here in the US, 13 is considered old enough to marry and start raising a family."
Cite where the article even remotely eludes to that please, or else stop trying to spin shit into silk.
The point of this article is to ask where do we derive our morals from. If you derive your morals from purely a biological base and say when is person ready to have sex. Biologically the answer is around 13. If you ask when should a person not have sex, biologically for some men into their 80's, for some women into their 60's. Of course I'm refering to sex for reproduction. If you want to talk about sex for pleasure most people ignore biology and apply their cultural standards. Just like eating, the human body was never made to eat white sugar and donuts, but when it comes to eating for pleasure people apply their cultural standards. So in some countries people eat more processed foods and in the US we eat a lot of processed foods. We dont eat in america to satisfy our bodies but rather for pleasure. It's the same with sex, most people do it for fun not to make kids. His point was that our cultural standards differs from other cultures in that we derive ours from a particular religious view. (Remember in the old testament thirteen year olds got married, and bar mitz vahs, like many tests of manhood signalled to society this person was a man)
A more meaningful inquiry would be to see if countries with lower consensus ages have higher incidents of rapes being reported and committed. The assumption being if more potential partners are available sex should come easily for more people, hence if someone committed rape the victim would feel less stigma of reporting rape because sex wouldnt be so taboo. Most women who dont report rape do so out of fear of the political damage that ensues - why were you alone with a man? Dont you know such and such could happen? Like an astute politician they dont want to be anywhere near the scene of such a taboo issue so they rather let it go. And from my own experience I know of only one female friend who reported being rape and I dont know if she even followed through with it. Rape happens a lot in our society, maybe a different view of sex could stop certain men from feeling the need to express their power over a woman, and from certain politicians from leading double lifes.
it is perverted to suggest that the age of consent should be lowered so perverts can legally prey on the young. we should not care about other countries laws concerning this matter. if you come to this country and break the law then be prepared to face the consequences ... mr. polanski.
Wow, you've taught at prestigious colleges and yet you've completely missed the point of current debate on Polanski. It's not a matter of different cultures having different attitudes on the age of consent. It's the fact that he raped her. Her credible testimony is all over the internet for all the world to see. If you haven't, I suggest you read it before opining on the subject.
I would find your turn of mind infuriating if I were one of your students.
"Whether Polanski actually forced the girl into sex is still an open question; she has announced that she "said no" but has also asked for the case to be dismissed."
----------------------------------------
Are you FREAKING KIDDING ME?? What part of NO do you not understand? When you say NO to sex that is the definition of being FORCED to have sex. When you have to intoxicate and drug someone prior to performing sexual acts on them that is the definition of being FORCED.
You sir are complete scum for writing this. Thanks Daily Beast for giving a pedophile apologists a forum to further attack a rape victim. In 2009 no less. I cannot freaking believe my eyes.
A 43-year old man drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13-year old CHILD against her PROTESTS and she gets nothing but smears in the press for coming forward and reporting it. Shame on Tina Brown and the Daily Beast.
Oh come on. We all know that sometimes no means yes. Have you ever asked your wife, "Is something wrong?" I never get a "yes" as an answer, but that doesn't mean she's always a-ok. And yes, that can go for sex too. I'm not advocating rape - I'm not the monster I'm sure I'll be made out to be - but I think some of the sex laws in this country could stand a little discussion now and then.
Look, I'm not saying what Polanski did was right or wrong - I'm not an expert in the case, but I *don't* think the author of this article is a pedophile apologist either. He's bringing debate to a touchy, unpopular subject. Good for him. We need some open, honest debate. Accusing him of being a pedophile apologist is just small-minded.
Ok, flame on...
I agree that some of our sex laws might need rethinking, especially those concerning private behavior between consenting adults, but the issue of consent really can't be ambiguous when it comes to the law. No really has to mean no when it comes to sex - it's the only way to place resposibility equally on both parties, as well as to protect them both.
Honest debate is a wonderful thing, as long as it's honest. By obscuring certain facts, the author has managed to cast doubt on his whole argument. Perhaps Polanski isn't the best example to use when discussing our culture's attitudes toward sex. Drugs, rape, guilty plea, flight from justice - that's a lot of extra baggage to carry into a thesis.
Russell definately is a pedophile apologist. And he appears to be in denial of the facts most likely to justify his own dark inner desires not because of an honest quest for some liberating and inspiring understanding about a child's ability to consent to having a sex with an adult. Any psychologist will tell you that a thirteen year old cannot consent nor understand the emotional ramifications of entering into a sexual relationship or as in this case, a one time party banging. Her story never changed. And there were witnesses. Roman Polanski did not run away because he was an innocent that was being wrongfully persecuted. He ran because he could not accept responsibility for committing a crime and he could not even understand what he did was wrong. He did not have the guts to face the music. He ran like a coward. He took his pleasure with a child and then ran away. "A coward dies many times before his death".
pjuliano
Just for the record: When it comes to sex, NO means NO. Period. If the lady in question is playing games, then you need to stay far away from her. If you are wrong and she really did mean no, then you are going to be explaining yourself to a jury. Flirting with your wife is not the same as deciding your date doesn't really mean No.
It doesn't matter what the age of consent was in 1500 in England or in 2009 in Spain. In California in 1977 it sure wasn't 13. I don't feel the least bit sorry for the man and his years of 'exile' and I hope he is brought back to the US to face sentencing.
When a 13-year-old minor says "NO" it means the same thing as a 30-year-old woman saying NO. NO never means yes unless it is heard by some pig. Yes, pedophilia is an unpopular subject among those of us who regard it as taking advantage of weak, naive people (children) and anyone who has thoughts like yours is a danger to our society. Perhaps you belong in Europe with the rest of the animals who think forcing 13-year-olds to have sex with you is okay. What is wrong with you?
Is doesn't matter is SOMETIMES no means yes, or yes means no; what matters, for our purposes, is what's said. If someone you're not in a relationship with says, "no" to sex, believe him or her -- don't think for him or her about what their answer really means.
People need to take time to sit back, remove their prejudices and process information before going on a rant or rave. The facts are that according to the law he raped her, but according to the law also someone (i.e. prosecutor) felt they could not prove legal rape. The judge wanted to get him on rape WITHOUT going through a trial (if you're asking why didn't the judge take it to trial immediately instead of trying to get Polanski to admit he was guilty first then you are thinking). Clearly the judge knew Polanski with his money and a normal cynical jury, dont forget the press, would make this a difficult case to prove so he opted for a sneakier but effective strategy (if you dont know what that is re-read the begining of this post). Anyhow the hypocrisy of this case is that back in 77, they were worried about the little girl and felt they couldnt win so let's plea. Over thirty years later it's damn the victim and her unsolicited opinion let's get justice. Why didn't they seek justice when it was fresh and DNA could've been culled and freeze dried to when justice was ready? Thinking is a mental exercise, emotions fuel thinking they dont actually think.
Up to the late-19th Century, the age of consent was actually lower than it is today, sometimes as low as ten or eleven. In Delaware, it was actually seven!
What does that really mean? It was part of the ancient feudal and common law tradition, related to arranged marriages. It had little to do with sexuality, since an arranged marriage between an older man and a young girl might not actually have been "consummated", as they used to say, and he might literally treat his wife as a child or a daughter until she came of age.
In colonial America, into the 19th Century, most marriages were arranged in this way by the parents of the people involved, and had little to do with romantic love, emotion or individual free choice. Those are all modern ideas, part of the "Romeo and Juliet Revolution", as historians call it--in which the two young lovers tried (and failed) to escape marriages arranged by their parents.
In any case, arranged marriages involved contracts about dowries, bride prices, exchanges of money and property, guarantees that widows would be maintained, and so on. To modern eyes, these things look highly unromantic, but perhaps they were just being more realistic in seeing marriage as an economic institution as much as one based on love and emotional ties. They were certainly very pragmatic about it.
In the past, of course, fathers were more than just Dad. they were the paterfamilias by law--the head of household, and governed everyone who was in it, women, children, slaves and servants. I mean, they literally GOVERNED, and were responsible for all its members. Women and children were their property, and when their arranged the marriages of their daughters, they literally gave them away to the husbands as part of the ceremony. At that time, it was like a transfer of property from the father to the husband.
In a feudal and patriarchal society like that, women and children had no rights as we understand it today, but were subject to the head of household.
It was also common to send away their sons as apprentices to learn a trade, and then then became subject to their master until they reached adulthood--usually by a formal written contract. All male heads of household were required by law to provide this to their sons--to set them up in a trade or with land, and to arrange suitable marriages for their daughters if possible, while the eldest son usually inherited his father's land and property.
This was the world that the Founders of the United States came from, a very different world from our own, although it was the American Revolution that opened the door to changing it--from a semi-feudal society based on status, caste, custom, hierarchy, arranged marriages, established churches, patriarchy, to the more modern one that we are familiar with.
Sounds like YOU are the true professor and this guy writing the article is simply a hired hack. Thanks for the fantastic history lesson.
Every word of this is complete bull shit and you know it. They weren't "subject to their masters", they were CHILDREN IN THEIR PARENTS HOUSE" you fool. Amazing, that's how it is today. I'm starting to think you are a bomb dropping troll.
I don't know anything of the kind. I'm the historian, not you. You are assuming that society in the past has exactly the same ideas about marriage, childhood and the family that we do in 2009, but NOTHING could be further from the truth.
You are guilty of anachronism, of reading the present back into the past, when it was a very different world.
Clearthinker, I think you ought to take some history classes before you go assuming that society in the past was the same as in the present. Besides which, mcmchugh99 is referring to marriage situations, in which the child was REMOVED from their parents' house and went to live with their SPOUSE. And, "masters" is not the word being used; it is "head of the household." Never even mind anachronism, you are plainly not even reading what was written accurately.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
I find it bizarre that the author of this article didn't use the word "pregnancy" once. Nor did he talk about the intense emotions that can accompany sex, which children (and some adults!) are unable to cope with constructively.
I'd say it isn't your politics that are the problem, but your reasoning. The victim didn't "announce" she said no, she declared it and it's part of the original transcripts. The plea bargain (so the prosecution says) was offered in order to protect the victim from a media circus. So, the issue was never about consentual sex. And I'm sure you well know that in a criminal case it's "the people" who are considered the victims, the young woman in question can't choose to dismiss the case.
You're right that we've got a conflicted culture when it comes to sexuality, but it's not because of a taboo around the sexuality of children. It's because our culture equates sex with power - and those with power (mostly men) regard those without power (mostly women and children) as objects to be possessed and used however they like. "Everyone wants to fuck young girls" - but what say do the young girls have in this scenario? Where is the equality in this statement, an equality which must exist if there is to be true consent? Our laws reflect the reality of our culture - how other countries view their children is irrelevent.
It's scary that the author of this article is a professor. I wouldn't want him anywhere near my children.
Me neither!
This article is horribly inappropriate. Since when is drugging a girl before you perform sexual acts on them not forced sex? And why do we keep on using this term "forced-sex" anyways? Isn't that just a euphemism for rape? Why is America's abhorrence that an important public figure should get away with drugging a 13 year old girl before having sex with her even on trial? Why is the author trying to elevate Polanski as some kind of free-thinking rebel when he is nothing more than a pervert with no respect for women? Is it because the author harbors the same desires? Does he think it would be okay for someone to drug him and proceed to have with him when he wasn't fully conscious?
Everybody took drugs then before sex - no matter what age they were.
Really, EVERYONE? You have some facts to support your bull sh*t?
Dolmance - Well, you have a point. I would imagine just about everyone who has commented here, except the most hopeless pervert - and I haven't seen him here yet - would need to get utterly drugged up before they would let themselves be touched by you.
They took them because they wanted to, not because some old creep wanted to make it easier for him to take advantage of her. Give me a greak!
You think you're writing about the "taboo that we place around the sexuality of children." That might have any relevance at all if we were talking about two 13-year-olds -- equals, peers -- exploring sexuality and desire together.
All you've managed to show is the disgusting and disgustingly common fact that some grown men are attracted to little girls.
You really don't see the difference between, as Polanski says, "Everybody wants to fuck little girls" and "All little girls want to get fucked by people more than three times their age"?
How cowardly to hide behind the word "puritanical," obscuring an ugly, objectifying, age-old power dynamic.
As someone pointed out earlier the age of consent historically has nothing to do with acceptance of children's -- or women's -- sexual desire, and everything to do with allowing dirty old men like Polanski to take what they want.
Agree with others. What a terrible article. I like the TDB tries to post multiple perspectives but to basically justify a non-consensus brutal rape under the guise that 1) a 13-year would be considered okay in another culture, and 2) We'll they pleaded out the other charges and (years-later, he fails to note) the victim supported dropping the case (after having been paid a large sum by Polanski in a civil settlement) so she must have been lying about resisting (which also ignores the physical evidence, including a film of the incident taken by Polanski and the drugs found in her system, which he admitted to lacing in her drink without her knowledge) - that's akin to giving a serial killer a forum to justify why their murders are really okay. Shame on them for publishing this. And shame on the author for pretending it is some insightful dispassionate piece of academic social philosophy while it actually had to substantially distort and ignore the facts to make its point.
It seems many commentors are missing the forest for the trees. I will cede that both the author's decision to use the Polanski case, and his revisionist examination of the facts of said case, were horrendous decisions. In fact, he may have employed a red herring fallacy against his own argument!
Nonetheless, the main question raised by the article seems to be, by what standard, if any, do we determine age of consent? Setting sex aside, there seems to be some level of arbitrary decision-making in similar laws. A person must be 16 to drive, 21 to drink or gamble, 18 to smoke or vote, 18 or 21 to buy a gun? Where do we come up with these numbers? Surely the privilege of voting or owning a deadly weapon should require more foresight than drinking or playing craps!
His use of the Polanski case and denial of that girl's rape to setup his premise negates any valid points he was trying to make. In ANY English classroom, he would get a D on this article. Any "professor" would tell you that.
It's a circular argument - the standard we use is the standard we deem appropriate based on our culture and experience. These standards are not arbitrary - they're contextual and relative, because we're dealing with humans and humans don't work like computers. Age limitations are not just about extending privileges - voting and driving are privileges. They're also about protection - sex, drinking and gambling are all behaviors which involve high levels of risk and the possibility of predators.
Great points, well made. If a person can't buy a beer hersel in America because she is too young, why should a mature man be allowed (by law) to ply her with champaign and (illegal) quaaludes to get in her pants? This is a disgusting thought and anyone, especially any man, who thinks its okay is sick.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This user is no longer registered.
How Young Is Too Young?
by Thaddeus Russell
>>>>>>
Jeez.. where in the hell do these writers come from?
Russell writes about consensual sex. Polanski raping the child had absolutely nothing to do with consent.
He , Polanski, duped the child, he drugged the child, he raped the child and he took videos of the rape so he and his friends could again "enjoy" the spectacle he provided.
This violent act took place not in Japan, not in Spain. This act took place in the United States and what he did was AGAINST THE LAW!
What do you sympathizers not understand about that?
The Mother of this child was a looney-bird who was obscessed with "Hollywood" and the star business. The Mother of this child, if she had one brain cell working would not have left her child with this maniac. In all likelyhood she knew what was going to happen to her child. She was willing to do this so she could bask in Polansky's light....
Polansky's reputation was repugnant to say the least.
The newspapers were always full of orgies he conducted at his homes his drunkeness and his incessant drug use and his exploitation and repulsive behavior to women.
Polanski showed himself to be insane then and he still shows that insanity today. I saw the picture of him and that poor bimbo half his age while he struts around like a demented peacock.
The reason there are still people who want to bring this twerp to justice today is that they know and remember Polansky. He ran and left the country because he knew he had no defence for his actions.
A trial would have brought out the whole life of
Polansky... and if that happened he would still be under the jail.
THAT IS WHY HE RAN.
As for the case being dismissed... the Mother in this debaucle would have ended up in the penitentiary if the case had come to trail.
So would have Polansky. You all need to get your mind away from "the great movies he makes" . He has gotten away for thirty years with a hideous crime. ENOUGH!
The moral to this story is, of course, if you do not know what you are talking about DON'T TALK.
Mr. Russell (no relation whatsoever) is not being completely honest. While the age of consent in Japan, South Korea and Spain is 13 on national levels, nearly all of the localities in these countries make it illegal for adults to engage in sexual acts with them.
Also, when an article begins with, in the very first sentence, the words, "...the public condemnation I received..." it's difficult to believe that the article was written for true public thought or commentary, but rather for knee-jerk reaction and as an attention getter.
When I first read this article, I came away with a kind of greasy, eewww-ish feeling, like something wasn't right about this guy or his published article. After reading some of the comments about him, I now know why.
Thaddeus Russell takes a male view, and considers those who oppose it Puritans. The fact that only one person enjoys the sex that takes place between middle aged/old men and 13 year old girls is of no consequence to Mr. Russell. Countries where women have little sway seem to allow old men great leeway in sex with girls. Mr. Russell thinks that's fine.
Ok, the Polanski case and the questions in this article are not the same thing.
No argument - drugging someone and hving sex with him/her after she/he has said no constitutes rape.
Now, about the age of consent....
Age of consent for sex should be commensurate with age of consent for entering the military, voting, paying taxes, owning property, buying alcohol or tobacco.
If you aren't mature enough to buy tobacco at seventeen, it should be illegal for a person over seventeen to have sex with you.
Child sexuality is, of course, a delicate subject, but the simple fact is that children are sensual beings. Sensuality and sexuality are NOT the same thing.
Recognizing this difference is important, because sex is, in part, about power. It is either a mutual sharing, or a surrender/taking of power, but it is about power. Children involved with adults have no power. And that is the defining aspect of consent.
One cannot consent if one has no power to say no.
Therefore the legal definition of 'consent' has to take into account that a child cannot say 'no' to an adult and have it taken seriously.
I just realized how old or completely religious most of these commentors are. I've never viewed sex as a power struggle; I've never had to fight for it. If she didnt want to I'd just leave her alone and more often than not I would hear from her again. Many commentors mention old man young woman a lot. They seemed to have that stereotypical image branded in their mind. I did do a porn search and a LOT of it is young girl teen stuff. I dont understand the fascination with youth if only I guess because I'm relatively young (late twenties) and young girls seem so undeveloped and naive I couldnt imagine having to call one of them my partner. Maybe the outrage is with age and many of the people here who are ignoring the point of the article (which has nothing to do with polanski) and are talking about what really riles them up: age and sex. When I'm old like you guys I hoped to have had enough sex that I can pass a young girl and if she hits on me I still feel the same way I do now about her: TOO YOUNG AND NAIVE. But that could be youth talking...
While I deeply disagree with the author on the whole issue of a man in his 40s having sex with a 13 year old - he has also missed a key issue.
The prosecutors pled the case down to the unlawful sex with a minor because that was the sole count on which the victim (and that she was) would not be obliged to testify (all that was needed was proof of her age at the time and that sex had taken place) - and for which no cross-examination of this child would be required. We have just had a taste of what Polanski's legal strategy was going to be - to imply that this Lolitta deserved or even wanted to be drugged, sodomized, raped and buggered by him.
Mr. Russel:
Fuck you.
You compared forcing yourself on a child to forcing that child to play sports. One is done for selfish reasons, the other is done to help the child. That's why one thing goes and the other doesn't.
Yet you leave the question open, even though you clearly know better; you thereby take the question upon yourself, turning it into a statement. Worse, you do it in relation to this case. Which is either completely inappropriate and respectless, or it means you think it's just as reasonable to buttfuck a 13yearold by drugging her, as you think it is to physically force her to play american football for 2 hours.
Either way, you can go to hell.
"Professor" Russell, please do your homework. the age of consent laws in the countries you mention do not allow for a 44 year old to have sex with a 13 year old, with or without consent. These "consent" you're alluding to is aimed at regulating what happens between individuals who have not reached legal adulthood. Having sex before the age of consent, actually makes the parents accountable for negligence.
The author of this story: Mr. Russell, is a douchebag and likely a child molester himself. Who gives a flying f**& what the age of consent is in various other, usually messed up countries around the world? We aren't those countries. We realize that it is wrong to have sex with somebody who can verbally and physically consent and still not understand the ramifications of what they are doing because they lack emotional maturity. That is exactly why when nearly 100% of us look back at decisions we made as pre-pubescents or even young adults, we cringe at how poor they were.
This guy is a douche and he should be investigated for what he is even proposing in this article. To me it is clearly indicative of a man who probably has a hard drive loaded with pedophilia. DOUCHE BAG.
The thing that LIKELY pedophiles like Mr. Russell fail to acknowledge is that although a 10, 11, 12, or 13 year old can open their mouth and say "Yes, I will have sex with you" and in some cases they are as physically developed as an older person, they are not emotionally mature enough to understand what they are agreeing to. And it is people like Mr. Russell and douchewad Roman Polanski who take advantage of this. Hang em all.
You would be surprised -- these little 10 y.o. and 11 y.o. know about sex. Have you heard about the internet? They have and they use it and twitter and almost every other format to get sex information.
Knowing about sex and being mature enough to engage in it are two totally different things. Even if they have information, if they say "no, I don't want you to do that," that's what it means. It's not about what this particular young lady knew or even that she told him no, it's about the fact that at the time she was only 13 and did not want his dirty hands on her. What does what a 10- or 11-year-old can find out on the internet have to do with it? A kid can find a Playboy under his father's bed but that doesn't mean he understand what those women are posing for. Information is information, not permission for some old creep to rape you!
This user is no longer registered.
I think its the emotion and the environment that lead them to say yes. A woman told me she forced a man to have sex with her by saying she would cry rape if he didnt. He obviously was weak minded to not have the balls to stand up to a thirteen year old girl. But it's what she said that shocked me. "I didnt want to have sex really with him, I just thought here's my chance and I can get it over with and see why everyone's talking about it." In his defense they lived in a small village where he might've been stoned to death being accused of that by a child.
Disclaimer: this has nothing to do with Polanski he raped her by all that I can obtain so far, but your opinion and mine are not legal proof. A confession obtained illegally (see ambitious law officers) does not proof make.
There is no way to accurately gauge when a person becomes emotionally mature enough to consent to sex. Each child is different. Therefore, it is necessary to impose an across-the-board age of consent that is, in my opinion, probably still too low. While some children may seem more "mature" as douchesandwich Angelica Huston claimed in defense of Polanksi, you cannot determine on your own if an exception is granted based on the apparent maturity of the child. The age of consent is the age of consent. Deal with it.
I think 16 is fitting. But it's a state by state case.
Thirteen is too young to consent. Even in France they have statutory rape laws, it's not a free for all, although they have tried to petition against them. The age of consent in France is 15, if had Polanski drugged and raped a 13 yr old there, he would be looking at 5 yrs just for the rape. The age of consent in CA has been in place since...what 1918? They could have changed it anytime....surprisingly, they haven't. I don't agree that it's some puritan view or American sexual hangups that lead most Americans to believe sex with a 13 yr old girl or boy...is wrong. It is wrong...whether that 13 yr old is in California, Texas, France, Saudi Arabia, Thailand or Singapore, etc...
Actually the French public is just as outraged at their American counter-parts. It's only some die-hard French politicians and artist who continue supporting Polanski. A direct reflection of the views in our country:
"Marie-Louise Fort, a French lawmaker in the Assembly who has sponsored anti-incest legislation, said in an interview that she was shocked that Mr. Polanski was attracting support from the political and artistic elite. "I don't believe that public opinion is spontaneously supporting Mr. Polanski at all," she said. "I believe that there is a distinction between the mediagenic class of artists and ordinary citizens that have a vision that is more simple."
The mood was even more hostile in blogs and e-mails to newspapers and news magazines. Of the 30,000 participants in an online poll by the French daily Le Figaro, more than 70 percent said Mr. Polanski, 76, should face justice. And in the magazine Le Point, more than 400 letter writers were almost universal in their disdain for Mr. Polanski."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/movies/30polanski.html
The abstract argument way above about ages of consent is, of course, really beside the point. He plied a female with alcohol and drugs and then had sex with her against her will and without her consent. That's rape regardless of the ages of the two people.
Absolutely. Spot on soprofix!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.