Personally, I think drugging and raping 13 year old girls is wrong.

September 27, 2009
Polanski, who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl

Polanski, who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl

Call me crazy, but drugging and raping a 13 year old is kind of a bad thing. It’s kind of like…well, DRUGGING THEN RAPING A 13 YEAR OLD. There’s a lot of misinformation and urban legends surrounding Roman Polanski, but one thing is certain: he’s admitted to drugging and then raping a 13 year old.

Sure, Roman Polanski has had a hard life. His wife was murdered, and he grew up in Warsaw during the Second World War. He has had some bad circumstances in which to live. This isn’t lost on me—that’s a shitty hand to be dealt. What I also understand is that he hasn’t been in trouble since drugging and raping that 13 year old girl. That’s quite an achievement for someone who drugged then raped a 13 year old girl.

One thing about the drugging rape of the 13 year old girl that I used to believe was that the girl lied about her age. Hey, you know, it happens. So then Roman Polanski shouldn’t be punished for drugging and raping a 13 year old girl, he should be punished for drugging and raping a….wait a minute! That’s kind of bad no matter how you put it.

The kicker to the whole “she lied about her age” defense is that Roman Polanski asked the girl’s mother for permission to photograph her. So, unless we’re talking about a man who drugs and rapes 13 year old girls, but has maintained some kind of Victorian ethos about asking the mother for permission to photograph an adult daughter, Roman Polanski knew damn well that the girl he drugged and then raped was a minor.

Another urban legend out there is that Roman Polanski served his time, but a vicious, vengeful judge wanted to make an example of a celebrity who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. It is true that Polanski served some time for the rape. He put in a solid 42 days of a 90 day psych evaluation for the rape, then once released from the psychiatric evaluation, he fled the country. According to a Washington Post article (September 20, 1977), Polanski “…was ordered imprisoned for a 90-day psychiatric study to help the judge decide his sentence.” That wasn’t his sentence, that was an evaluation. Polanski fled not because of an overzealous judge, but because his actual sentencing was coming up (for drugging, then raping a 13 year old girl).

Now that Polanski is in custody, there are going to be articles of support for him, and articles decrying his actions. There is going to be a lot of revisionist attitudes, and those old ‘Roman Polanski was the real victim’ bullshit arguments. One has already been put up on HuffPost. John Farr (some unknown hack who reviews movies for a living) wrote a piece calling for leniency for Polanski because he’s been ‘rehabilitated’. If by that he means living in the lap of luxury and completely avoiding being punished for drugging and raping a 13 year old, then yeah, he’s completely rehabilitated.

Please, for all that’s right in the world, think about this case. Think about a 13 year old girl being fed champagne and quaaludes by a 44 year old man. Think about how he led her to a bed, refused to stop when she repeatedly said “No!”, performed oral and anal acts upon her person, and think about his complete lack of spine. Think about how he fled the country to live in luxury. Think about it all.

Say it with me: He drugged and raped a 13 year-old girl.



  1. Interesting article Plaid. Thanks for letting me know about it. It’s going to be interesting to see how this entire thing will be played out in the foreign press and in the US.

    Ronnie Ray Jenkins

  2. Yeah he drugged and raped a 13 year old

  3. Excellent! Yes, John Farr is already doing the revisionist dance on this one on Huffington Post. And someone named “Eliza W” is criticizing those of us who call Polanski a rapist.

  4. That article by Farr absolutely disgusted me. Merely because of Polanski’s considerable talents, people are so quick to defend or dismiss a heinous crime. It takes my breath away and brings tears to my eyes.

  5. I get that you’re upset as any decent person should be, so I agree with your passion for this story’s victim; however, reiterating in italics essentially the same phrase a dozen times in a few paragraphs is just plain condescending the reader. We get it. Most of us are sympathetic human beings. It’s as if you’re concerned a large portion of your audience is totally amoral. Like I said, I agree entirely with your point and your fervor for it but I could barely read this without cringing. Anyway, nice blog.

  6. yes, i’ve heard this news yesterday. did not really get the idea first because did not know anything about his crime… I am completely agree with the blog’s author – it is really awful. and it is awful even to think about it…

  7. and watch polanski’s recent videos (prior to his arrest) where he shows absolutely no concern for his victim, on the contrary he is appalled that she would have been considered to be a victim in the first place.
    and he whines and cries when talking about how HE has been mistreated.
    Farr is a rape apologist, plain and simple.

  8. sweet. someone read wikipedia and got pissed! Love the links to references too.

  9. Thank you. I really don’t understand the support for a rapist.

  10. I’m pretty ok with it as long as it’s kind of consentual and non injurious.

  11. “some unknown hack who reviews movies for a living”… dude, you write a blog with a picture of a lemur on it… let’s not take ourselves too seriously here…

  12. Someone,

    It’s not immorality, or any sort of fault of the reader, it’s that the facts of this case have been swirled around the PR machine so many times that any reasonable person would be confused as to what actually occurred. Thank you for your kind words.

  13. Mike Gainer,

    I read contemporary news articles and the grand jury testimony of the victim.

  14. Jeff,

    I am less than a hack–you’re right. The point is that Farr has a voice on the matter on the largest blog in the world (that I’m aware of). Pointing out that he’s an unknown hack may be a relative, but I feel necessary considering the stage he was given to defend a rapist.

  15. GuyManDude,

    Consensual? With a 13 year old? A 44 year old man getting a 13 year old drunk and giving her quaaludes? In what fantasy land is that consensual?

  16. For someone who decries “misinformation,” you spread your share, and omit important facts.

    It is worth noting that the original judge on the case was dismissed for malfeasance, working behind the scenes to override the terms of the guilty plea agreement. That judge is dead, but the current judge hearing the case thinks Polanski’s lawyers have a strong argument; however, he has refused to rule in Polanksi’s favor until the defendant appears before the court.

    Perhaps the most important detail is that the former 13-year-old girl wants the case against Polanski dismissed. Unless you want to lump the victim in as a rape-apologist, this should be enough to make you consider the possibility that one can favor leniency without condoning the crime.

  17. Judge Rittenband was NOT dismissed for malfeasance, he stepped away from the case in 1989. I think you may have recently viewed a hatchet piece of a documentary. The judge also has the absolute RIGHT to reject a plea deal, as the judge had done. The prosecutor and the defense team negotiate a plea deal, then present it to the judge for CONSIDERATION. The judge, in this case, rejected it.

    The victim’s wishes have absolutely no bearing on whether the prosecution should continue, or not. The state prosecutes the defendant, not the victim. There are innumerable reasons for this, but the most important is that laws are societal standards, and need to remain that way in order to have a fair system. Coercion, intimidation, and pay-offs are a real threat to bringing people to justice, and by having the state prosecute, these behaviors can be avoided to a large degree.

  18. “I’m pretty ok with it as long as it’s kind of consentual and non injurious.

    by GuyManDude September 28, 2009 at 11:37 am”

    I hope you don’t live in my neighbourhood. By law it cannot be consensual when the victim a child, that’s why it is called statutory rape.

  19. I understand why the United States could not ignore and forget a high profile fugitive from justice like Roman Polanski. I understand why, barring any legal argument, he must be returned to the United States to stand before the court.

    But I also understand that the Roman Polanski of 1977 was still in the midst of trauma and horror, and that for the last thirty years he became a different man who remarried, fathered children and never re-offended.

    Bring Roman Polanski back to the United States. Let him stand before the court and plead guilty to a crime he committed 32 years ago. Then open the door and let him walk free for the first time since that night on August 9, 1969 when in many ways, Roman Polanski’s life ended with that of his wife and his unborn son.

  20. Super Channel,

    So it’s okay to drug and rape a 13 year-old if your spouse has been murdered, so long as you run away from justice, show no remorse, and get remarried?

  21. […] Personally, I think drugging and raping 13 year old girls is wrong. Call me crazy, but drugging and raping a 13 year old is kind of a bad thing. It’s kind of like…well, DRUGGING THEN […] […]

  22. Personally I think I agree with you 100%.

  23. Drugging anyone is wrong. Raping anyone is wrong. Drugging and raping anyone is wrong. Period.

  24. We could always put him in a US prison with ‘Bubba’ for a few weeks and then see how he feels about it…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: