How rape gets made invisible.
Sep. 28th, 2009 10:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
supermouseI am hearing a lot about how Roman Polanski 'had sex' with a thirteen year old girl. I am reading comments from people about what was she doing at a party anyway, and how could he have known her age, he was drunk, and what was her mother thinking letting her go to such shindigs. And it was all so long ago and he's done some good films. And, and, and...
There was no party. Roman Polanski took this thirteen year old girl out to take photographs, alone. He took some photographs, asked her to take her top off and took more, then phoned Jack Nicholson, and asked to use his house.
There, he plied her with champagne. Then he tried to spend time in a jacuzzi with her. By now, drunk but frightened, she asked to leave. He instead offered her part of a Quaalude, which she took. Then he had sex with her when it was clear she didn't want it, first oral, then vaginal, then anal. Drunk, drugged and having trouble walking, she was still saying no. When interrupted by someone else at the house (the only other person at the house), she tried to leave. He stopped her leaving and raped her some more.
Then he let her dress and drove her home.
He lured her out on false pretences, drugged her, raped her and drove her home.
She was thirteen years old.
This stark reminder echoes my own sentiments. It will be as triggering as what is behind the cut, and it links to this grand jury testimony. It is in no way ambiguous.
This is one way rape gets made more palatable. If a journalist says he 'had sex' with her, it implies she was willing and enjoyed it. A reader may think she lied about her age. When you read what happened, it becomes clear just how false that picture is.
Roman Polanski did not have sex with a thirteen-year-old woman. Roman Polanski raped a child. Call it what it is. If you see someone papering over rape with a euphemism that implies consent, call them on it. Comment on it. Say something. Help stop making this sort of crime acceptable-if-you're-famous-enough. You don't have to get angry, you just have to be pedantic, and hell, geeks are supposed to be red hot on accurate terminology.
There was no party. Roman Polanski took this thirteen year old girl out to take photographs, alone. He took some photographs, asked her to take her top off and took more, then phoned Jack Nicholson, and asked to use his house.
There, he plied her with champagne. Then he tried to spend time in a jacuzzi with her. By now, drunk but frightened, she asked to leave. He instead offered her part of a Quaalude, which she took. Then he had sex with her when it was clear she didn't want it, first oral, then vaginal, then anal. Drunk, drugged and having trouble walking, she was still saying no. When interrupted by someone else at the house (the only other person at the house), she tried to leave. He stopped her leaving and raped her some more.
Then he let her dress and drove her home.
He lured her out on false pretences, drugged her, raped her and drove her home.
She was thirteen years old.
This stark reminder echoes my own sentiments. It will be as triggering as what is behind the cut, and it links to this grand jury testimony. It is in no way ambiguous.
This is one way rape gets made more palatable. If a journalist says he 'had sex' with her, it implies she was willing and enjoyed it. A reader may think she lied about her age. When you read what happened, it becomes clear just how false that picture is.
Roman Polanski did not have sex with a thirteen-year-old woman. Roman Polanski raped a child. Call it what it is. If you see someone papering over rape with a euphemism that implies consent, call them on it. Comment on it. Say something. Help stop making this sort of crime acceptable-if-you're-famous-enough. You don't have to get angry, you just have to be pedantic, and hell, geeks are supposed to be red hot on accurate terminology.
