it’s not “rape-rape” if you drug the little tease first.

So a bunch of actors and film directors got together and wrote a letter to express their outrage at the arrest of one Roman Polanski, film director and admitted child rapist.  The letter says that the American prosecutors are just really mean and vindictive, and that Polanski was arrested some thirty years ago for “a matter of morals.”

That right there strikes me as a slight understatement, to put it mildly.  It’s like saying Hitler had a bit of an ego, or Britney Spears may not be Rhodes Scholar material.  Without wanting to go into the salacious details, the “matter of morals” was the then-40-year-old Polanski approaching a woman and her thirteen-year-old daughter to ask the mom for permission to take pictures of the daughter for the French edition of Vogue.  He lured the kid to his house, and then to his pal Jack Nicholson’s place, got her zonked out on champagne and Quaaludes, and then proceeded to have sex with her against her expressed will.  (That’s when she says “no” and “stop” many times over, which in no language of the world means “I’m just playing hard to get, and I really want you to fuck me six ways from Sunday.”)

Let’s recap that “matter of morals”: a 40-year-old man plies a 13-year-old girl with booze and drugs to get into her panties, and then proceeds to have sex with her despite her refusal. Now, I’m not a prude, but where I come from, we call that “raping a child”.

Charges were brought, the court agreed, the defendant Polanski pleaded guilty, and promptly skipped the country before the sentencing to evade the punishment.

Therefore, my opinion on the Polanski case can be summed up thusly:

Roman Polanski is a child-raping shitbag, and anyone who puffs up and defends that piece of garbage in any way needs their moral compass severely recalibrated, preferably with a framing hammer.

The whole Polanski affair has just reaffirmed what I’ve known for a long time: When it comes to defending one of their own, Liberals are just as capable of hypocritical excuses for shitbaggery as Conservatives.


144 thoughts on “it’s not “rape-rape” if you drug the little tease first.

  1. Kresh says:

    You’re never getting into Hollywood ™ with this attitude.

    That’s why we like you.

  2. crankylitprof says:

    You missed the part where she told him — in a desperate attempt to make him stop — that she was not on the pill, and he decided to forcibly avail himself of a third orifice.

    Fucking slime mold.

  3. HankH says:

    You do have a way with words (‘framing hammer’ was a nice touch). Justice would truly be served by Roman getting some ‘greek’ action from Bubba.
    It’s nice to dream…..


  4. Scott says:

    A couple points.

    – It’s not liberals, it’s privelidged artists.

    – There was a plea, but that’s not the same as a conviction… I believe the plea can be withdrawn.

    So, I hope he receives the same hospitality in prison he treated that child to. Repeatedly.

    • crankylitprof says:

      I’d point out that every single one of those “privileged artists” is, in fact, a liberal. Most of whom have spent and continue to spend gobs of cash and a great deal of time lobbying from their bully platform for liberal causes.

    • Unless California law has really changed, no, he cannot just up and withdraw a plea once it has been done. A Judge could “allow” that, but is not bound to by law at all.

  5. daddyquatro says:

    Scott, he plead guilty. That IS a conviction.
    The only little piece missing was the sentencing, which he choose to postpone for 30 years.
    And really people…
    No one deserves to be butt raped in prison, not even this guy. That kind of talk really creeps me out.

    • perlhaqr says:

      Yay! Someone else brought up the fact that rape as extra-judicial punishment isn’t ok. Means I don’t have to.

      But, I read a nicely poetically horrible thing that could be done to Polanski. Once he’s been sentenced, and consigned to the CA Penal System, stick him in a cell right next to Charles Manson.

      I suppose some will say that putting him right next to the man responsible for the murder of his wife and unborn child is “cruel and unusual”, but frankly, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for rapists.

    • Scott says:

      I don’t think his plea is a conviction. Since the plea arrangement was thrown out, I believe he can withdraw his plea and ask for a trial. Not that he’ll ever get a fair trial, now.

      • Kristopher says:

        incorrect, Scott. A plea bargain is an informal arraingment between the prosecutor and the defendant.

        Judges are not bound by them, although they usually abide by them. The judge, if angry about the deal can either give the perp a max sentence for what he pled to, or can throw the plea and charges out, and demand that the prosecutor either charge the defendant properly, or not at all.

        Polanski figured that the judge was going to max his ass, and skipped town.

  6. daddyquatro says:

    Just in case I didn’t make myself clear.
    I think Roman Polanski should spend his last few years in prison for what he did to that girl 30 years ago.
    I just see “butt rape by Bubba” as piling on a bit.

    • Scott says:

      Nationwide, our prison system is horribly broken and should be fixed. I do not care for the brutal conditions in which prisoners are held nor do I think this system has hope of reforming many of them.

      I think even if our criminal ends up in prison he will be safe. I don’t think he will pay for his crime, nor be reformed by prison. He is just too old now.

      But… I find it ironic that he risks becoming a victim of the crimes he perpetrated.

    • Kristopher says:

      It’s more than that. Other governments have used US prison rape as an excuse to not extradite.

  7. Brian says:

    Your snark approaches Tam-like levels. Framing hammer indeed. Another nice one Marko – wonder what Scalzi thinks about Polanski…he’s an unrepentant liberal and newly minted hollywood-type.

    • Marko Kloos says:

      He’s father to a girl that’s not much younger than Polanski’s victim was that night. He’s also a pretty smart guy. I very much doubt that he would sign his name to that petition.

  8. BryanP says:

    I have to tell you, some of the most liberal people I personally know would love to string him up by his balls for what he did.

  9. Chrystoph says:

    Ah, yes, that would work. Not sure if it is legend or not, but I grew up with the understanding that certain of the Great Plains Indians had a punishment for rape similar to that.

    They tied one end of the rope to a horse, the other end to the offending anatomy and slapped the horse on the rear. Your hands were tied behind your back. If you survived the experience, they treated you medically, and you were over and done. They even allowed you back into society.

    Happy thoughts…

    • Windy Wilson says:

      I’m surprised the penalty was that mild. This is rape within the tribe you’re talking about; Rape of women from other tribes was not a crime but spoils of war like horses or food or other prizes.

      • Rick R. says:


        Likely fatal, excruciatingly painful, and even if the rapist survives, he’ll not be capable of offending in that manner again.

        He’s been punished in a manner likely to deter, rendered incapable of recidivism, and if he survives, he can be utilized to support the tribe in the future.

        Fairly pragmatic, in my book.

  10. Jay G. says:

    He doesn’t deserve to be forcibly raped in prison.

    He deserves to be beaten to death by the girl’s father.

    This is one of those cases where I can’t truthfully say I’d shoot the bastard – because it would be eminently more satisfying to use raw, naked, appalling and overbearing brute force to get the job done…

  11. […] Posted October 1, 2009 Filed under: Humor, Politics | Tags: Humor, Politics | Marko has the quote of the day. When it comes to defending one of their own, Liberals are just as capable of hypocritical excuses […]

  12. MarkHB says:

    Again with the not overly fond of the Bubba-ass-rape-in-prison thing. I know it’s probably meant for humour, but … ick. So we’ve got a convicted kiddy-raping scumwad.

    Dispassion and a firing squad. Simple. The crime is beyond loathesome – it’s the first time news of it has leaked up to my ivory tower’s small window, but as an artist who labours just about constantly towards a life of privilege, and indubitably very liberal by a lot of peoples’ lights… shoot the bastard. Tie him to a post, draw a firing squad by lottery, and end it neatly.

    In this I’d just keep it that simple. Neither vengeance by nod-and-a-wink of putting him in a room with burly men, nor by giving the girl’s father a hammer – just civilisation, due process of the law, and performing the unpleasant excision of a malignant growth as quickly and cleanly as possible.

    • Rick R. says:

      I agree.

      Capital punishment should be carried out as dispassionately as we would put down a rabid animal. Quickly, cleanly, calmly.

      Not because the shitbag deserves it.

      Because WE do.

    • Dr. Feelgood says:

      I concur.

  13. Rusty P Bucket says:

    Aww cmon Munchkin. You’re a libertarian! What that guy does in his own home doesn’t hurt you, does it? What – do you want to violate his civil rights and liberties…just for the sake of the chiiiiiildren??? Where do you draw the line???

    That is sarcasim by the way.

    Fact is you libertarians aren’t much better; I got that treatment above when I said that some kids should have been taken away from their neo-nazi parents – and you all started defending the rights of parents to raise their kids any way they want – even if that meant indoctination of fascist and racist ideas. Your moral compass still needs some minor tweeking.

    As a conservative – and speaking for most – when I see a member of the conservative community doing stuff like this, I pwant the perp punished. Liberals, as you see here close ranks around these people and try to defend them and excuse it. They did it for the homosexuals and now they do it for the child molestors. There is so a difference between conservatives and liberals, and I am kind of offended by your remarks.

    I shall pass on your self righteous sanctimonious lecture, thanks. If you want to shoot this guy I have no problem with it. If you catch one of mine doing that, give them the same deal.

    • perlhaqr says:

      Right, because there’s no difference at all between two adult men having consensual sex, and an adult man having forcible, non-consensual sex with a child.

      Brilliant work, Rusty.

    • Marko Kloos says:


      once again you demonstrate that you don’t know fuck-all about libertarianism. Polanski’s rights ended where his victim’s rights began. You super-conservative Daddy Staters just can’t parse the simple maxim “No Victim–No Crime”, and apply it to real-world situations. (Rape=crime. Using pot=no crime. One only involves one person, the other doesn’t.) That’s where the line is drawn: does the act violate the rights of another person?

      (I’ve explained it to you more than once, and I don’t expect you to get it this time, either.)

      If you’re offended, find some other stuff to read. it’s not like I force my blog onto your computer screen. Go find some local librarian to harass because the library keeps “Heather Has Two Mommies” on the shelf.

      Also: you don’t get to tell me what to write–or not write–on my own blog. You don’t want a response, don’t post a comment.

    • Dave says:

      So…you make no distinction between the drugging and forcible rape of a child and the teaching of offensive ideas? You really think those are equivalent actions? And you appear to include homosexuality as well, putting it on the same level as child molestation without even observing the critical issue of “consent.”

      Let me guess: you voted for Bush twice, didn’t you? And yes, I think you do speak for more than a few people.

    • Liberals, as you see here close ranks around these people and try to defend them and excuse it.

      As one of the duty liberals who visit this blog, I have to, with all due respect, tell you this:

      You are full of shit. You can find no shortage of liberal bloggers who are calling for Polanski to be thrown as far back into the depths of the cellblocks as is possible.

      And yes, I am one of them.

      • Rick R. says:

        Yes you did. Quite properly so.

        But are you calling for those self-identified (and very prominent) liberals to be cast out of polite society for supporting Polanski?

        In my book, ANY credibility someone like Whoopi Goldberg may have EVER claimed has been absolutely destroyed by her support of this scum, and saying it isn’t really rape.

  14. Just a note: Way back when all this was going on I had a friend that worked at the Chino Diagnostic Center where Polanski was sent for a prison evaluation. Even then, they had him in protective custody to protect him from the others that were there. My friend said that people like him are always targets so they have to keep them separated from the regular population.

    I hope that he is in fact extradited, and sent away for a very, very, long time.

  15. Ben says:

    I wonder how many of those Hollywood liberals have read the victims Grand Jury testimony.They make it sound like it she was a willing participant but because she was underage people overreacted.If you read her testimony you would not doubt it was rape.It reads like a classic pedophile scenario.This was an older more experienced man taking advantage of a young inexperienced and at the end scared girl and there is no doubt in my mind he knew what he was doing.I can’t help but wonder how many others he did this to.It

    • Windy Wilson says:

      I don’t think many have read the Grand Jury testimony. As I recall from way back when, the word in the media was the sex became an issue when the mother found out about it, and the girl had bragged about it the next day to her friends, so even then there was an effort to spin it as statutory rape, with ineffective consent due to age, rather than as What’s-er-name actress said, rape-rape.
      I would not put any credence in what the victim said after settlement with Polanski, as that is probably dictated by the settlement agreement.

      • Rick R. says:

        You would not put credence in her statements about the brutal nature of the forced rape, even though she has consistantly maintained that WHILE saying she’s forgiven him and people hsould just let it drop?

        The reason for the willingness of the DA to go for a plea bargain was primarily that they wanted to AVOID putting the girl through the trauma of the trial. Remember, “rape shield” laws were NOT in effect, she had to testify in public court.

        • Windy Wilson says:

          No. I believe that. What I do not believe is anything she has said that in any way appears to minimize the event and in any way appears to imply that she does not desire punishment for Mr. Polanski. You can bet that some leftist scum is wanting to take something that she said and use it to bolster an argument that he should go free because even the victim has forgiven him.

  16. Shootin' Buddy says:

    “That’s where the line is drawn: does the act violate the rights of another person?”

    With the exception of abortion, correct?

    However, perhaps there are “unpersons”?

    • Marko Kloos says:

      Shootin’ Buddy,

      the current legal status of a fetus in this country is indeed “less-than-person”, whether you and I agree with it or not. That’s a fact. (Incidentally, even most religious folks seem to agree with the point of view that a fetus isn’t a full human yet–how many Christians have funerals for their nine-week miscarriages?)

      Whether that should not be so is a rather complex question that involves ethics, biology, and even various conflicting theologies. I guarantee you that this country will never have a homogeneous opinion on abortion, unless you think you’re the first one to come up with an argument that finds acceptable middle ground between the “Every Sperm Is Sacred” crowd, and the “Until It’s Out, It’s Property” crowd.

      Let’s save that one for another day.

      • Pol Mordreth says:

        At the risk of taking this thoroughly off topic, I have to respond to both you and Shootin Buddy.

        In order for the law to be fairly and sensibly applied, it must have clear, bright lines drawn. Currently the bright line on when you become a person under the law is (generally) at birth. The other useful bright line would be at conception. Anywhere in the middle becomes a subjective assessment which usually leads to selective enforcement, based on everything from race to political affiliation. While I don’t like the current state of the law, I recognize that under the prior law those with money and/or clout could easily flaunt the law. (just like the subject of the OP)

        I would much rather leave the law where it is and educate and support people to help them make better moral decisions.

        In regards to the OP, I would have to agree with MarkHB. Dispassionate, simple, quick execution. Even though my eldest daughter is 11, and I would be hard pressed not to take a framing hammer (indeed! I may have to borrow that line – with attribution of course!) to someone who did this to her, thinking rationally about it almost requires that response to this monstrous behavior.


        • Rick R. says:


          There are other places a “bright line” can be drawn (at least as bright as one of the examples you offered — “conception”, which is not only hard to diagnose in vivo, but has different meanings, depending on whether you’re speaking of the Catholic Church — in which case “conception” means “fertilization”, or many modern scientists, in which case “conception” means “uterine implantation of a fertilized blastocyst”).

          For all practical purposes, either definition of “conception” is useless, except as an absolute barrier to all elective abortions and many chemical contraceptives (those that prevent implantation on the first hand, those that may destroy a just-implanted blastocyte on the other), as the woman is simply not going to even know if she has conceived or not at the time.

          (Note, however, that the Catholic Church’s OFFICIAL position until the 18th Century was that “ensoulment” didn’t occur until “quickening”, and while abortion before this period was a mortal sin, it was a sin more akin to contraception than infanticide. It was only in the 19th Century that the current dogma of ensoulment at fertilization was officially sanctioned.)

          Two other possible “bright lines” that can be determined with high statistical accuracy:

          1. Viability (and yes, it can be determined, within a fair amount of accuracy — higher thna determining “conception” in vivo). Right now, 24 weeks gestational age (roughly 23 weeks after fertilization) is about the make or break point, where 50% of fetus can survive, given appropriate medical care. Yes, some few have survived as early as 21 weeks gestational age (20 weeks from fertilization)

          In fact, Roe v. Wade makes this distinction, and acknowledges that viability includes cases where the fetus, if born, would be sustainable on life support. States may impose much more restrictive limits on abortion during the period generally recognized as a preterm, but viable fetus. (“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”) In absence of better scientific knowledge in , Blackmun arbitrarily set this at the third trimester.

          2. Higher brain function analogous to those we whose cessation we as a society generally agree mark the end of a “person”, such as in cases of organ harvesting of the brain-dead. This event (actually, it’s an ongoing process, proceeding from the very first synapse formation through finalization of the ADULT brain, but this gateway is a significant one) is called “neuromaturation”, and EEG waves that in a brain trauma patient would be recognized as still being a “person” are evident about 20-24 weeks (which probbaly has a LOT to do with explaining viability at about this point.)

          Another point some ethicists have proposed is “segmentation” (14-21 days after fertilization, corresponding roughly to a gestational age of 1-2 weeks). Prior to segmentation, twinning (and thus the potential production of another, wholly seperate, “person”) is possible — after segmentation it is not.

          (And one note to pro-lifers — the use of the term “person” here is deliberate; keep in mind that with one exception, NO pro-life argument based on the 14th Amendment will stand Constitutional scrutinty, as the 14th limits is protections to those “born or naturalized”. . . of course a partial-birth abortion MAY qualify, depending on arguments and venue. But the 14th Amendment provides exactly ZERO protection to anyone not yet born, even if full-term. So any Constitutional protection for the unborn MUST derive some some other portion of the Constitution.)

      • Shootin' Buddy says:

        “the current legal status of a fetus in this country is indeed “less-than-person”, whether you and I agree with it or not. ”

        Legally? Partially correct.

        It depends on what circumstances. Sometimes the fetus is a person; sometimes it is an unperson.

        However, legally I can define a person as 14 and over and make sex with 13 year olds perfectly legal.

        You are dead on in the second paragraph. The crime alleged is so reprehensible that not even I feel like arguing about Libertarianism.

        • Rick R. says:

          No, you cannot define a “person” as being 14 and older, and make any conduct with a human younger than 13 legal.

          The 14th Amendment says that all persons “born or naturalized” (with an exception, effectively denying the children of foreign embassadors citizenship by sole virtue of place of birth) in the US are citizens and are fully protected. Absent SPECIFIC legal definitions in the amendment or the Constitution to the contrary, “persons” has the ordinary meaning.

          To carry out your scenario, you’ll need a Constitutional amendment that not only eliminates any citizenship for 13 year olds, but also their recognition as “persons” anywhere in the Constitution.

      • MarkHB says:

        I have a penis and tesitcals. Therefore, it is morally wrong for me to tell a woman what she may or may not do in a circumstance I will never face.

        Pro-Choice and Proud of it, baby.

        • pax says:


          That’s a cop out, but a convenient one: it allows you to tell half the people on the planet to shut up, while claiming the moral high ground if they don’t. Nifty.

          Fortunately, I have ovaries and a uterus, so I don’t have to shut up in shame simply for having an opinion about abortion. Better yet, I can point out the beautiful fallacy of your argument by simply adopting it.

          Here it is, me adopting your argument:

          “Proudly pro-choice”? Shut up, you testicle-laden male. By your own lights, you’re not allowed to have an opinion on EITHER side of the discussion.

          You’ve never felt and never will feel a baby move inside you, and know that you are entirely responsible for its life or death. You don’t have the physical equipment to appreciate the choices, so your moral or philosophical points hold no water and you might as well shut up. You’ll never be backed into a corner by an unexpected pregnancy. You’ll never be pressured by a “proudly pro-choice” boyfriend into killing a baby you already love, you’ll never be browbeat by pushy fundy parents into keeping a fetus you never wanted to conceive in the first place. They aren’t your choices and never will be.

          As you yourself admit, you have no right to an opinion. So don’t claim one.

          (And does that advance any form of reasonable discussion? No, it does not. But it’s such a lovely debate tactic: “Shut up. Shut up, shut up, shut up. If you don’t shut up, that just proves I’m better and more moral than you!” It’s a bad argument no matter which side of the debate you adopt. Me? I’m open minded enough to think that anyone, even a male, might have a working brain, and therefore be entitled to an opinion on one of the most thorny ethical questions of our times.)

        • MarkHB says:

          Lady, you’re allowed to tell me to shut up all you want. And when it comes to shutting up, I’m free to ignore you – but when it comes to people with guns saying what you can and can’t do, which is what Law effectively is – my voice will ever roar “I as a man am not allowed to tell a woman what to do with her reproductive system”.

          Otherwise, I might as well hold a gun to a woman’s head and force her to bear my child. Because that is the equal and opposite behaviour.

        • Tam says:

          Pol & Pax,

          In order for the law to be fairly and sensibly applied, it must have clear, bright lines drawn.

          You’ve never felt and never will feel a baby move inside you, and know that you are entirely responsible for its life or death. You don’t have the physical equipment to appreciate the choices, so your moral or philosophical points hold no water and you might as well shut up. You’ll never be backed into a corner by an unexpected pregnancy. You’ll never be pressured by a “proudly pro-choice” boyfriend into killing a baby you already love, you’ll never be browbeat by pushy fundy parents into keeping a fetus you never wanted to conceive in the first place. They aren’t your choices and never will be.

          Thank you for both of those posts. They both offered sensible viewpoints on an issue in words I’d never before considered. I consider my own viewpoint to be, legally and under current terms, Pro-Choice, but you have both eloquently phrased thoughts that have lingered unfocused in the back of my mind.

        • Rick R. says:

          So Mark,

          I guess you think that women have no right to determine if male-on-male rape is bad? Becuase female organs aren’t involved at all?

          I guess you feel that infertile women (including post-menopausal and those having had hysterectomies) don’t get to decide, either.

          Only fertile women, according to YOUR logic, should have ANY say in abortion.

          Claiming “I have a penis and tesitcals” is nothing but a fatuous cop-out.

          Take a friggin’s stand ON YOUR OWN. And claim it as your own.

          As others have pointed out, climing that as a man you don’t don;t have the right to tell a woman what to do means you CANNOT be “pro-choice” OR “pro-life”.

          Just as agnosticism does NOT equal atheism, “I don’t have the right to say” does NOT equal “pro-choice”.

          You, like many self-satisfied pro-choice types also fail to understand (and are seemingly PROUD of your failure to understand) the basic underpinnings of the abortion argument.

          You see this as a simple matter of other people telling a person what they may or may not do with their body, in matters that conern no other person.

          What you refuse to acknowledge is the basis of the other side’s arguments. It is NOT that pro-lifers feel they have the moral authority to decide what women can and cannot do with their own body.

          It is that they believe that this is NOT simply a morally neutral decision concerning only one person. They feel it is a matter concerning whether one person can choose to kill ANOTHER person, and under what circumstances.

          You do not have to accept their postulates to accept the logic behind their argument.

          If a fetus is NOT a “person”, it has NO rights, and to talk of such in conflict with the rights of a fully acknowledged “person” (the mother) is silly. It’s tissue in her womb — no more, no less.

          If a fetus is a “person”, it has rights, and those rights MUST be recognized and protected. People MAY NOT be killed for convienience, DESPITE how dependant they are on another’s support. (Note that withdrawal of life support in a hopeless case is permitted, but euthenasia is still murder, especially when the patient was never given a choice.)

          So the argument is NOT, fundamentally, “What can a woman do with her body?”

          Rather it is, “Where does ‘personhood’ begin?”

          That is an ENTIRELY different argument than the one people shrilling screaming “Keep your hands off my body!” and smugly saying, “I don’t have a womb, so it’s not my place to decide” keep trying to make.

          You get a general concensus on the beginning of personhood, and the controversy suddenly becomes a back issue, argued only by minorities on both sides who disagree with the concensus.

        • MarkHB says:

          Woah. If I sounded smug at any point, then I apologise, because I certainly was not intending to be. My position is – after some seriously heart-rending and lengthy thought – the only sensible place I can stand is “pro choice” because I would never have to go through the whole “carry to term, have the bad back, the morning sickness, the body-shape-change, the pain and risk of childbirth” thing. That’s a big deal, a long-term thing, and a major life-changer with hugely well-documented biological and lifetime psychological ramifications. None of which I can ever experience.

          For the rest of it – I haven’t thought very hard about the ramifications of most of the rest of what you’ve said. The reason I’m happy taking a strong position on Choice in this is because I have thought about it long and deep, and generated a moral position. Which I continue to stand by.

        • Rick R. says:


          The funny thing is that I am actually somewhat “pro-choice” myself, IF a solid wall were built at a SCIENTIFICALLY defensible “bright line” such as viability or neurological development.

          Before that wall? It’s a matter of conscience. Non-person tissue.

          After that wall? Only to preserve the life of or prevent serious physical damage to (in excess of “normal” pregancy risks) the mother. Because if it’s a eprson AT ALL, then terminating it’s existance needs to be only for the most dire of reasons.

          Note that I’m not stating WHERE the specific line should be drawn.

          There is no doubt in my mind that an undifferenciated and implanted blastocyte is NOT a “person”.

          There is also no doubt in my mind that a viable fetus is a “person”, even if not one protected under the 14th Amendment. (Note that the 14th doesn’t claim that anyone not protected by it is not a “person” — it only identifies those persons who ARE automatically protected by US citizenship.)

          To me, the line is somewhere in between, probably closer to the “viability” end. Given that neurological conditions are used to decide end of personhood, it seems logical to apply them to beginning of personhood.

        • MarkHB says:

          As to “Where does personhood begin” – I do not know. I’m not a neuroscientist – my field was physics. I will be a lot more comfortable when some neuro type is able to say “A brain of n grammes mass” or “of n sypantic connections” is capable of hosting sentience – is able to be deemed “a person”. As far as I’m *personally* aware, personhood for me starts with my first memory. Before that, I got nothing. Some people claim to have memories of the womb. Some people claim not to remember before their first birthday. My first memory is being circumcised (and it fucking hurt, I tell you!) but that’s not science, that’s apocrypha. I can’t tell you when a person starts to be a person – I don’t have the numbers. But I can tell you – in all honesty – that I believe that the choice to carry to term, or not, should rest in the hands of the person who has to do the carrying.

        • Rick R. says:

          The beauty of two of the proposed bright lines are thus:

          1. Viability. The fetus is capable of survival (albeit with medical help) outside the womb. NO ONE aside from a few nutballs (and yes, I have heard some modern “pro-choice” weirdo types insist that newborns, being pretty much teh same as late-term but undelivered fetueses, shouldn’t be considered “persons”, either) would argue that a baby is not a “person”.

          2. Neurological activity corresponding to the level and type of activity we use to seperate “persons” from “non-persons” at the END of life. Using this standard at both ends of life means you have logically consistant standards as end markers for personhood. If neurological activity > X, then person. If < X, then NOT a person. Regardless of what stage of life the patient is in.

        • MarkHB says:

          I would give a great deal to have that bright line better defined. I think my words have clarified my regrettably glib statement – I hope they have – and I largely agree with you.


          Saying a woman cannot judge man/man rape is incorrect, thoroughly. Nonconsensual sex is nonconsensual sex – however, with man/woman rape, there is an inescapable oftentime subsequent set of actions which shape the woman’s whole life, in a way that man/man rape does not. Do you see my distinction? One is a horrifying event, but with no long-term consequences, and with no new life to account for. The other has ramifications which I only believe can be honestly judged by the person carrying life within her. I am entirely sincere on this point.

        • Rick R. says:


          The only physical difference in consequences between male-female rape, and male-male rape is the possibility of pregnancy. Which, under current law, is entirely within the control of the woman. Even with any of teh discussed possible “bright lines” (even teh amazingly restrictive “implantation” or “segmentation” lines), can be handled.

          Of course, if I am not mistaken, studies tend to show that male-male rape has MORE long-term consequences in Western society — but they’re psychological damage.

          How about female genital mutilation, I mean, “female circumcision”, then? Generally done BY women TO women. Do you think males have a moral right to have and express an opinion?

          You keep responding as if you think the pro-life philosophy has something to do with the WOMAN. It doesn’t. It’s all about the fetus.

          Unless and until you truly grok that fact, you will NEVER understand the point-of-view of the pro-lifers. You will NEVER be able to have a coherent conversation with someone on this subject, becuase you cannot even see where they are coming from.

          Let’s restate the abortion issue in terms you should understand. Ignore abortion, and think of it as infanticide — literally taking the delivered baby and killing it right there, after it has already breathed free air. At the mother’s request, for reasons of convienience (maybe they don’t want another girl to suck up family resources).

          THAT is where the pro-lifer is coming from.

          Understand THAT, and you can actually have a logical discussion with them. Fail to understand it from their point of view, and you’re doomed to talk to yourself.

          Strangely enough, pro-lifers seem to be more readily able to see the pro-choicer’s POV. They think it’s terribly misguided or ill-informed, which is why they emphacize how much like a newborn a fetus looks (and in many ways, acts) at a very early gestational age. But they understand that it’s NOT that pro-choicers hate babies; they just feel you don’t realize these ARE babies — thus your insistance on “talking about “choice” is perfectly logical, if mistaken. (That’s not to say there aren’t fringe nutters on BOTH sides of the issue.)

      • TCK says:

        “the current legal status of a fetus in this country is indeed “less-than-person”, whether you and I agree with it or not. That’s a fact.”

        So your saying that slavery was ok because “the current legal status” of blacks said it was ok?

        Big L Libertarians are even more hypocritical than the Leftists. They claim that they support individual rights, and then rail against anyone who says that people shouldn’t be allowed to slaughter unborn children for social convenience. They talk about how people’s beliefs should be respected, while at the same time being some of the most disgustingly bigoted anti-Christians in the nation.

        • Rick R. says:

          Actually, there ARE “Big-L” Libertarians who take the position that fetuses are people too, and as such have rights. As I understand it, they are the minority of (official) Libertarians, but the principle holds.

          If a fetus is a “person”, it has rights, and those rights MUST be recognized and protected.

          If a fetus is NOT a “person”, it has NO rights, and to talk of such in conflict with the rights of a fully acknowledged “person” (the mother) is silly.

          If the fetus is a person, and the protection of it’s rights conflicts with the rights of the mother, then you have a classic situation that is the basis of ALL laws — “Where do the rights of Person A end and the rights of Person B begin?”

          Libertarianism, as a philosophy, is FOUNDED on handling conflicts such as these, with minimal restriction of rights.

          Where that individual libertarian believes the line is drawn on the “personhood” of a fetus will determine where a libertarian (big or little “L”) falls on the issue of “rights of the unborn”.

        • Kaerius(SWE) says:

          If you continue this train of logic, you get to a situation where the mother would have the right to say “I don’t want this person in me”, but not have the right to kill the fetus.

          So instead of abort, it would be cessarion and life-support. You’re on your own little other person.

        • Rick R. says:

          Kaerius —

          In fact, that has been a thorough topic of discussion amongst ethicists.

          Which is where the “viability” as a bright line can come up.

          But consider this — where else in civilized law does “right to property” in and of itself, trump “right to live”?

          Especially considering the entire time BEFORE viability, where the mother could choose to terminate.

          Of course, in cases where the life of the mother IS signifcantly at risk over and above the “normal” risks of pregnancy, termination of a fetus beyond the line of “personhood” (wherever that is drawn) can be logically argued to be a matter of “self defence”. A person going about their lawful business has the inherent right to preserve their life when threatened.

          However, the closest analogy might be a Survival at Sea situation. Whereas a person in the ocean DOESN’T have the right to kill another to take their spot in an full life boat, they ALSO have the right to retain their own seat, even if it means others who could use it will perish. Even if those others are their own children.

          Even though it is generally considered noble to sacrafice ones own life for another’s survival, there is NO requirement that one do so. You have the absolute right to be utterly “selfish” if need be to survive.

        • perlhaqr says:

          Thanks for the input. New ways of looking at this particular debate is always interesting to me.

          Apparently because I’m some sort of philosophical masochist, but still. 😉

  17. LabRat says:

    Man Marko, what IS it with people trying to pick a fight with you when the subject of the day is something as uncontroversial as “raping children is really bad”? Is fighting with you really that fun? I should try it sometime.

    • Kristopher says:

      Conservatives and leftists don’t get libertarianism. The both consider libertarians to be heretical members of their own movement, instead of merely opponents.

      Hence all the vitriol.

      • Rick R. says:

        Funny, I’d describe myself as a “conservative”, yet have no problem with understanding what libertarianism is all about.

        In fact, when it comes to issues involving sovereign adults whose behavior does not harm nonconsenting innocent people, I’m all for libertarianism principles ruling.

        Basic (and extremely simplistic) example of motocycle helmet and automobile seat belt laws:

        If you’re a sovereign adult, legally free to make life-changing decisions without asking someone else for permission, it’s YOUR ass, it’s YOUR decision. (Arguments based on “the State has an interest, as society is forced to pay for your long-term vegetable care after the accident” are bogus. If you’re worried about it, make failure to wear seatbelt or helmet an automatic organ donor identification, and you’ll likely offset the economic drain of vegetative surviviors with increased donations.)

        Want to make such safety equipment mandatory for legal minors and those in the legal guardianship of others? Fine — the fact that they do not have the legal authority to decide to make personal life altering decisons without asking other people means you can restrict their authority to make THIS decision as well. Just like they cannot run off and join the Army, or enter contracts, or do any host of items without asking for permission first.

        (And yes, this means I do NOT support the current schema of “half-assed” adult sovereignity between 18 and 21. If you’re a grownup, you’re old enough to enlist, get married, move across the country and live in a commune, buy and carry a gun, drink booze, vote, sign a contract, or get executed for committing capital crimes. If you are NOT a grownup, you shouldn’t be allowed to do adult things like enlist without permission or vote, you CANNOT be held responsible as an adult, and you MAY be restricted from “fun stuff” without permission like marriage, guns, and booze. Either an 18 year old is an adult, in wich case let him drink or “keep and bear” arms, or he is a kid, in which case, why let him choose who runs the government or let him choose to go to war?)

        The problem becomes in defining “harm”. ESPECIALLY when the harm is collective, rather than any specific individual victim that can be pointed to. One blatant and simplistic example is the crime of espionage — the harm is to society as a collective, rather than against any particular member of it.

        The problem I have with the “Big-L” Libertarian Party is that they have decended to the lowest common denomination, and effectively advocate anarchy limited only by enforcement of explicit contracts — even in matters of international relations and national sovereignity.

    • MarkHB says:

      I wouldn’t. He bites and scratches. He’s been known to gouge. And worse, he uses WORDS that aren’t GODS’. (yes, I put that apostrophe there deliberately. I’m a bad man).

  18. Albert Rasch says:


    Waaay too much theorizing. As a few said, the SOB raped a little girl, and deserves to be hung. There are no if, ands, or buts about it, and until we, as a Nation, start to use a little common sense creatures like Polanski will continue to prey upon the defensless.

    PeTA: Purveyors of Stalinism

    • MarkHB says:

      I think the point that’s been more than adequately demonstrated in this thread is that group-affiliation can transcend sense. And that’s a bad thing, too.

  19. Rusty P Bucket says:

    Hi all~

    Would never tell ya what to write son. I admit I don’t know much about libertarianism because I dismissed it as a crock of beans before wasting too much time with it.

    I am saying there is no difference between an ammoral adult screwing with a child’s vagina or their minds. Both are unconscionable, and unfortunately your philosophy seems to protect the child abusing fascists. Who is the chit bag now, Munchkin? (No offence intended).

    I enjoy a good argment and you kids make for some good reading. Some of you can think too.

    • KingsideRook says:

      Rusty, if you don’t know much about (L)ibertarianism or (l)ibertarianism, but insist on arguing about what you consider its tenets and the values of that system’s proponents, then maybe you should just, I dunno, either get educated before you open your mouth on that subject, or zip that lip/keyboard up.

      I really hate people who insist on yapping about a subject they openly admit they nothing about.

      Rusty, you make Marko’s blog a miserable place to read comments on, not because you’re intelligent, reasonable dissent that I feel must be silenced to protect my fragile worldview, but because you don’t know what you’re talking about and admit you don’t know what you’re talking about. Yet you insist on using a post about how Roman P. is an evil man for raping a 13 year old to make an ungrounded argument that Marko must be a hypocrite for denouncing him.

      You’re being stupid, AND wrong in far less space than it takes me to point out the ways in which you’re being stupid and wrong. Congrats, that’s quite a feat.


    • Rick R. says:

      You cannot see the difference between forcible rape and the right of a parent to teach their kids whacky (but Constitutionally protected) stuff?


      I’ll bet you can’t tell the difference between calling someone hurtful names because you don’t like their skin and beating an innocent person to death becuase you don’t like their skin.

      You’re “allowed” to teach your kids to hate people who are different.

      You’re “allowed” to teach your kids that everyone, everywhere, is the same and all cultures are equally valid.

      You’re “allowed” to teach your kids the world is flat.

      You’re “allowed” to teach your kids that a mystical old man in the sky created everything with a snap of his fingers and he watches over everything and everyone, everywhere, at all times.

      You’re “allowed” to teach your kids that the entire universe sprang into being from nothing, and that all of humanity is nothing more than the end result of random chemical interactions.

      It doesn’t mean anyone supports any given techings — but that, rather than risk the oppression of innocent people becuase they “think funny”, the Founders decided that we would generally allow people to believe whatever whackiness they want, and to raise their kids in it — so long as it doesn’t do actually harm. (Teaching your kids to be nutballs doesn’t necessarily “harm” them, even if it DOES severely cripple their ability to be successful in society.)

      What you are NOT allowed to do is attack innocent people. Nor are you allowed to neglect your kids to the detrement of their health and safety.

    • Windy Wilson says:

      Rusty P* bucket, by conflating raping someone with teaching them something you think is fatuous, you sound like a religious person who believes a sin is a sin is a sin, and therefore someone who murders someone is as sinful as someone who takes a pencil from work. This may be the case with God, and someday we’ll find out about all those pencils we all took, but we are dealing instead with the physical world where human beings make judgments about the ethical requirements of living with and dealing with one another, and human beings make judgments as to severity and shades of responsibility and culpability. And we do this because we want the consequences to fit the action, or the cliche, the punishment to fit the crime.

  20. Schmidt says:

    Calm down. If any reasonably conscientious man gets a woman pregnant without her consent, I suspect it will weigh very, very heavily on his mind. After all, if he’s a man, and not a jerk who runs away, he has just signed up for what, five years of hell and maybe twenty years of responsibility. His vulnerability index went up a lot
    (this is what companies compile on their employees. People who have a family, a mortgage, they can be abused more than the single bachelor with a CS degree, who might pack up and leave..e.g)

    Don’t forget the kid is half his, in the genetic sense. And he is responsible too. Men don’t have the biology, but they can be pushed into a corner by pregnancy. I would be. Maybe I should be glad I’m a bit of a recluse and don’t date. No danger there.

    Or perhaps even forced to bring up a kid they fathered even if they would have preferred to be a few years older before doing that.

    Now, let’s be thankful we have contraception, and it looks like in a few years’ time a male might get a valve implanted there..

    @Polanski case

    Personally, I think he should go serve time. I sort of wonder what kind of a conscience he has.

    However, the victim herself said that she wishes the whole thing was over and that nothing further about it appeared in the media. She does not want him in prison, if it means further exposure.

    Maybe for her, it’s enough that every decent bio of him will have him labelled a child rapist..

    There’s something to be said for mercy. US prisons are awful, and it seems to me the lot of you want involuntary sexual violence there to make it tougher. Ordinary prison is bad enough. We don’t have endemic prison rape, and surprise, no one wants to go in, apart from the homeless, who love wintering in prison.

    Yeah. I’ll be snickering if any one of you ‘sustained sexual violence is the way forward’ crowd ever gets there on some non-sensical trumped up weapons violiation or drug case.

    • pax says:

      Schmidt ~

      Plenty calm, thanks. Again, my point was that a man who claims he has no right to an opinion about abortion, has no right to an opinion. Can’t have it both ways.

      If you aren’t one of those guys who uses your own maleness as a bludgeon to tell other guys to shut up, the shoe doesn’t fit and you shouldn’t wear it.

      • MarkHB says:

        Pax, I don’t generally tell anyone else to shut up. I’m not saying what other people can or can’t do. I was merely pointing out my own considered opinion.

        I am not, and never wish to be, the boss of anyone else. (Except perhaps in a strictly business sense).

  21. Fjolnirsson says:

    I posted the following elsewhere in response to the “his victim has forgiven him, we should as well” bit. Not saying you were taking this tack, Schmidt, but your post made me want to respond to it.

    Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter that he did it years ago. It doesn’t matter that we may or may not have had chances to nab him prior to this. It doesn’t matter that his victim may have forgiven him. What matters is, we have him now. He never did the time for that which he pled guilty. Makes no difference(legally, morally is another matter) if he was pleading guilty to murder, rape or car theft. He ran before he did his time.

    We pick up people every day in this country on years old warrants. Should we forgive the crime because it happened a long time ago? No. He needs to do his time. It has as much to do with the crime of running now as it does with the original crime. And, he needs to have a new charge for running added into his sentence.

  22. Cheryl says:

    Please don’t let a handful of deluded and corrupt Hollywood windbags speak for liberals. I’m liberal, and I’m still retrieving my jaw from the floor over the fact that ANYONE is defending this child rapist. There are not words for the hate I have for men who hurt children. If I could destroy them all, I would do it in a blink.

    • Rick R. says:


      Here’s the problem.

      These people are generally held up as being typical spokespeople for the liberals, and that status is ONLY challenged by “run of the mill” liberals when one of them goes completely over the top like this.

      By and large, if you want to know the apropirate “liberal” response, you need only consult one of the Hollywood gurus at random — as all their heads will generally be nodding in EXACTLY the same direction.

      I have NEVER noticed liberals — as a collective — tolerating ANY diversity of opinion. That’s why they threw Joe Lieberman out of the Democrat Party, even though he only different from the collective wisdom of the Left Wing of the DNC on ONE ISSUE.

      You DO NOT see the same phenomenon with conservatives — Hell, conservative talking heads don’t even agree with one another. The supposed “Right Wing Collective” makes a fetish about disagreeing with one another.

      Of course, one side is more inclined to “security through collectivism” (herd mentality) and the other “glorification of the inidividual” (doesn’t play well with others). The differences in tolerance of diversity of opinion seem to be partially inherent to the philosophy

      • MarkHB says:

        I wish to point out that I said “a lot of you would describe me as liberal”.

        In and of myself, I hold no label bar “Mark H-B”. I find collectivism to be a habit diminishing of the self. This is not a judgement of others who form collectives, merely an observation of self.

      • Nom De Rant says:

        @Rick R.

        “such ogreish semblances of these as may stalk the nightmares of those who think little about people as people, but tend to think a great deal in labels and effigies.”

        • Rick R. says:

          I’m sure there’s a point in there somewhere.

          But it’s only cute and clever when it communicates your thoughts to others. After all, the only point of language is “communication” — fail that, and you’ve wasted your time.

          Please try again.

        • Rick R. says:

          BTW, It isn’t ME labeling people as “liberals” when they proudly proclaim that status to the world.

          When someone chooses to self-identify with a particular label, that’s THEIR choice.

  23. mikeb302000 says:

    If someone did that to my daughter, I might very well get a gun and shoot him. Some of you know my position on guns and gun control, but I can also understand a father’s outrage at something like this.

    Nevertheless, I think some of you missed something. You talk about how bad this was, and I agree, but are you leaving room for the guy who rapes a 5-year-old? Isn’t there a difference? I say what Polanski did is despicable, but what some of them do with younger kids is far worse.

    I think that’s what some people meant who seemed to be defending him.

    • Tam says:

      I feel sorry for anyone whose head contains finely-graduated degrees of child rape.

      What a fucking nightmare it must be to dwell inside your skull.

  24. mikeb302000 says:

    Well, Tam, living inside your head must be very simple then. All rape is the same. I suppose all murder is too. How about robbery, are there no graduated degrees there? That must make it real easy to decide when to intervene with your little pink gun.

    • MarkHB says:

      Oh man. You might want to put that shovel away, you’re well through the crust and the mantle’s only a few digs away.

      And yes, for that matter, all rape is the same. Nonconsensual sex fucks people up for life, seven ways from Sunday. It is a crime that really begs only one punishment, and that’s a firing squad. Once you’ve reached the point where an infraction is such it demands the ending of a life, any gradiation’s kind of irrelevant.

      There are shades of grey in lots of things. There are a few things where there can’t be shades of grey. This is one of them.

    • Kristopher says:

      Why do you lefties want to die on this particular hill?

      ACORN wants to fund sex slaves … Polanski drugs and ass-rapes a thirteen year-old girl … Obama’s Child Safety Czar says nice things about NAMBLA …

      Surely you folks can pick something better to defend? Out of all the ills in the world, why this one?

      I’m hard pressed to find anything more loathsome to defend.

    • Marko Kloos says:

      What the fuck kind of mitigating circumstances for rape do you recognize, Mike? He was really horny? She was a real cock-tease? He hadn’t had sex in a year?

      Seriously, dude. Some crimes can have mitigating circumstances, but rape isn’t one of them.

      • mikeb302000 says:

        Mitigating circumstances can be present in any crime, even in rape, Marco. Also, in spite of what Tam said, gradations in the culpability of the offense must be identified in order to administer just sentences – even in rape cases.

        Or, are you suggesting we just hang ’em all?

        • Marko Kloos says:

          I’m waiting for examples, Mike. Which circumstances do you personally consider mitigating for rape offenses?

        • mikeb302000 says:

          Marko, I think you’re just playing hard to get, you little tease you.

          How about this, one guy has an I.Q. of 55 and another has an I.Q. of 155. They do identical rapes. Are they equally culpable?

          Here’s another, one guy seduces a 16-year-old with sweet talk and promises. She gives in with mixed feelings and later decides to call it rape. The guy insists it was consensual. Meanwhile, another guy snatches a 6-year-old from the school yard and forces himself on her, nearly killing her in the process. Are they equally guilty?

          The answer to both is obviously “no.” Why do you and your friends not see this? Is it just too “icky” for you to think about? I thought only the anti-gun liberals based their ideas on feelings.

        • Tam says:


          You wouldn’t challenge a paraplegic to a 50yd dash; that would be cruel. Why are you doing the same to a demonstrated moral cripple?

        • Rick R. says:

          How about in THIS case, Mike?

          40 year old man, with widely acknowledged better than average intellect, sets out to illegally drug a 13 year old girl, so he can have sex with her, knowing that she wouldn’t sleep with him sober. (Which would STILL be a crime, even if she was sober and agreed, BTW.)

          When the drugging wasn’t effective enough, he FORCIBLY raped and repeatedly sodomized her, despite her struggles, cries, and pleas.

          Ok, I’ll give you. He didn’t KILL her. But that would be another crime altogether.

          OK, he didn’t physically mutilate her for life, so far as we know. But that, too, would be a seperate crime.

          Polanski’s rape was about as grievious as any rape could be, with the exception of teh fact that he didn’t commit OTHER violent and irrecoverable felonies on her over and above the rape itself.

          What mitigation is there?

          YES, an 18 year old senior boffing his 16 year old girlfriend is guilty, in some places of “statutory rape”. I will GRANT that statutory rape between two otherwise consenting teenagers rather close in age is not the same as forcible rape, nor the rape of a young child. But Polanski was 27 years older than this girl, who wasn’t even old enough to legally CONSENT to have sex with the aforementioned (and hypothetical) high school student, and who didn’t factually CONSENT.

          YES, a mental incompetant who commits the act of rape IS NOT legally guilty of rape — that’s what “incompetant” means. Just as having “consensual” sex with such an incompetant isn’t legally consenual (becuase he cannot give legal consent — he’s “incompetant”), if he’s that incompetant, he’s not CAPABLE of being guilty of a crime, because he has no more knowledge of right and wrong than a dog does.

    • LabRat says:

      Soooo at this point we’ve got this guy on record belittling women capable of defending themselves, saying that most of them are too gentle to even choose to (and the rest of them evidently deserve mockery), and that rape of a female closer to puberty isn’t as bad as rape of one further and that’s what people mean when they say Roman Polanski doesn’t deserve to be punished for his crime.

      Liberalism and misogyny completely of a piece. How endearing.

  25. Windy Wilson says:

    “Some crimes can have mitigating circumstances, but rape isn’t one of them.”

    Amen brother. I recall reading a case once from some forgotten southern state where a black man was imprisoned for “attempted attempted rape” (put into plain language that was what the charge was). Apparently he had scared some white woman by looking suggestively or lasciviously or something.

    I am not aware of “First Degree Rape”, “Second Degree Rape”, or whatever the rape equivalent of Manslaughter would be, but maybe that was the purpose of taking a plea to statutory rape instead of trying to prove the “Against her will and without her consent” part of the elements of the offense.

    I want to write to the newspapers that Woody Allen and Whoopie Goldberg should shut up because Cardinal Mahoney is taking notes and will use the same excuses, but irony is lost on that sort. They’ve just completely forgotten all their indignation over 40-something adult men taking advantage of 13 year old girls sexually.

    On a side issue, would a framing hammer be better, because of the greater weight and longer handle, or would, say, a finishing hammer, perhaps 8 oz with a straight claw be better, because of the potential for greater velocity and smaller cross-section?

    • perlhaqr says:

      I’ve got a 20 ounce ball-pein that would do fine, but I’d probably select a 3 pound cross-pein. I really don’t want to have to swing twice.

  26. Caleb says:

    How about this, one guy has an I.Q. of 55 and another has an I.Q. of 155. They do identical rapes. Are they equally culpable?

    Here’s another, one guy seduces a 16-year-old with sweet talk and promises. She gives in with mixed feelings and later decides to call it rape. The guy insists it was consensual. Meanwhile, another guy snatches a 6-year-old from the school yard and forces himself on her, nearly killing her in the process. Are they equally guilty?

    The answer to both is obviously “no.” Why do you and your friends not see this? Is it just too “icky” for you to think about? I thought only the anti-gun liberals based their ideas on feelings.

    I read this, and then in the attempt to process the paragraphs into something that makes any kind of sense, my brain made a sound not unlike trying to shift gears in a ’93 Mitsubishi Mighty Max pickup without the aid of the clutch.

    Mike, those guys actually are all equally guilty, because in your horrid little hypothetical example, they all raped someone.

    • T.Stahl says:

      [certain mindset on]
      But we NEED to differentiate. We CAN’T sentence someone to death for a single murder. There HAS to be some progression. If not, what would keep the bankrobber from killing ALL hostages after killing the first one?
      What, if not a more severe punishment, would keep the rapist from raping more after raping his first victim?
      And what would keep a rapist from murdering his victim, if for the rape alone he could be sentenced to death?
      [certain mindset off]

      If the ultimate punishment didn’t keep the felon from commiting the first murder/rape, how could it keep him from commiting the next murder/rape?

      • Rick R. says:

        Why can’t we sentence someone to death for a single murder?

        We’ve done so from the very beginning of Western Civilization, and continue to do so in US law.

        The “ultimate punishment” serves TWO purposes:

        1. To deter those who can be deterred. Admittedly, there are those who WILL NOT be deterred by other people’s sentances. Even if exceuting Goblin A fails to deter potential Goblin B, if it happens to deter potential Goblin C, it’s a winner.

        2. We bloody well know that Goblin A won’t be doing whatever got him exceuted again.

      • mikeb302000 says:

        T.Stahl, Your idea seems to be based on the belief that deterrence works. I don’t believe it does for the simple reason that criminals think they’re going to get away with it. It’s the great obsession of the criminal mind, that in spite of evidence to the contrary, in spite of past failures, he’ll outsmart the law this time.

        • mikeb302000 says:

          What I meant to add is, the reason we need to differentiate varying degrees of culpability even in the worst of crimes is to attempt to mete out just sentences.

        • perlhaqr says:

          The recidivism rate among dead rapists is zero. Seems a remarkably effective deterrent to me.

        • Rick R. says:


          Criminal interviews indicate that, where the chance of getting caught is reasonably significant, AND the penalty is considered sever AND likely, then punishment DOES have a deterrant.

          Which is why burglars and other sneak thieves (i.e., non-confrontational thieves), when breaking in a new confederate, will often caution their accomplice to NOT carry a weapon where such possession during the course of another crime is an enhancement to the basic offense.

          The problem is that if punishment is seen as weak or unlikely, then no, there is no deterrant effect.

          That’s an argument to STREAMLINE the punishment process by, for example, fast tracking capital appeals so that execution can be carried out in at least the same decade as the offense.

          To insist that ineffective punishment is not a deterrant, and to claim that means that our current punishment scheme is too severe, is ludicrous.

          And never forget (the criminals damend sure don’t), that in a negotiation (whether with hostages, or in a plea agreement), capital punishment can be taken off the table by the state. Which eliminates the argument that a bank robber who kills one hostage is automatically going to kill everyone else on the theory that they can only execute him once. There is NO crime in the US where the mandatory sentence is death.

        • T.Stahl says:

          Deterrence does work.

          Unfortunately the only deterrence that really works is the one which promises immediate and overwhelming counter-violence – not the one based on a severe punishment IF arrested, trialled and convicted.

          BTW, I was just trying to explain the train of thought of people who don’t what to apply the severest punishment for a single crime.

      • pax says:

        If the ultimate punishment didn’t keep the felon from commiting the first murder/rape, how could it keep him from commiting the next murder/rape?

        The fact that he’s DEAD. The death penalty may not be much of a deterrent, but it’s hell on the recidivism rate.

    • Rick R. says:


      I’ll side with Mike on this respect.

      The 16 year old who was, in the stated example, “seduced with sweet talk and promises”, but who later changes her mind.

      Presuming that in her state, 16 is BELOW the legal age of consent, and provided she was seduced by another teenager, and NOT by some guy significantly older, no I wouldn’t call that the same as forcible rape, even if it is “statutory” rape purely because her age prohibits her giving consent to what is, after all, a peer. (A three year spread among teenagers of driving age is NOT a generational chasm.)

      Change only ONE of the circumstances, like make the girl 12, or make the guy 30, or make “sweet talk and promises” into “roofies”, and yeah, it’s a lot more serious.

      Of course, if the girl is able to give consent at 16 (as she is in 32 states, and can give consent to the hypothetical 19 year old in another 6), then it’s no rape at all. Regrets the next morning do not — in and of themselves — make otherwise consensual sex rape.

    • mikeb302000 says:

      Caleb, Did you watch The Wire? Remember what Marlo said? “You want it to be one way. But it’s the other way.”

      You want it to be black and white, but I’m afraid it’s not.

      Let me ask you this way. If you listed in detail all the worst crimes in descending order, let’s say a hundred or two hundred of them. You start with murder and rape and work your way down to pick pocketing and purse snatching. For punishment you start out at the top giving the death penalty, you work you way down, where does it drop to life in prison? Then where does it drop further to 20 years? You keep working down to the purse snatcher – what do you give him, a year in the slammer?

      You see it’s not black and white as much as you’d like it to be.

      • Caleb says:

        That is a bitchin’ little man-o’-straw you’ve made there, sparky. The best part is where you stop comparing rapes to rapes, and start comparing murder to pickpocketing, as though somewhere I suggested that we should execute petty thieves.

        The problem is that I’m An Internet Old Hand, and your Jedi mind tricks are no match for my dark, ancient powers.

        • Rick R. says:

          No Caleb (DAMNIT, why do you make me defend Mike?!?)

          You are making the strawman. HE is arguing by extension and reductio ad absurdum.

          Mike is showing that, sooner or later, you have to factir in, “What this guy did is worse than what THAT guy did, and he should be punished accordingly.”

          Which is why, protestations aside, most localities DO recognize different degrees of “rape” — often under different names.

          Not so much as to minimize basic rape, as to:

          A. Clearly seperate rape from lesser sexual assaults; to do otherwise is to degrade the maening of “rape”


          B. Clearly identify some rape acts as being WORSE than the usual run of the mill rape. Such as the rape of a child, or the rape of someone over whom you enjoy a position of authority.

  27. Caleb says:

    Nice to know that you’re on the record as being okay with statutory rape, dude.

    • Rick R. says:


      If that’s directed at me, no, I am NOT OK with statutory rape.

      However, a rape that is called rape solely because one teenager boffs another one a couple of years younger is NOT in the same league as the violent rape of a nonconsenting person of any age. Note that in some localities, there is NO exemption for “close in age” and an absolute age limit — which means that sex between two classmates a few months apart in age can be considered statutory rape.

      Did you ever date a girl a year or two older or younger than yourself? Say, in high school?

      In this limited case, we aren’t discussing a 40 year old having “factually” consenual sex with a 13 year old — or even a 21/16 age span. We aren’t dicussing an 18 or 17 year old having sex with a 12 or 13 year old. We damned sure aren’t discussing a person of any age forcing someone else to have sex against their will.

      Note also that Polanski’s case is NOT in the same vein at all as the proposed example. It was forcible, it was premeditated, and the age disparity wasn’t “a couple of teenagers, one of whom is 18”. ALL of those, individually, make his offence more heinous than many statutory rape cases.

      Which is why, when dealing with the so called “Romeo and Juliet” variety of statutory rape, most localities have lessened offences or lessened penalties, but have dramatically more severe penalties for cases involving children significantly below the age of majority, where a relationship of authorty exists, or where there is a large disparity in age.

  28. Caleb says:

    I’m guessing that you could count the number of victims of your so-called “lesser rape” that you personally know on uh…zero fingers.

    • Rick R. says:

      So, Caleb,

      It is your assertion that an high school boy who has sex on his 18th birthday with his girlfriend one week before HER 18th birthday is guilty of the same degree of rape as Roman Polanski?

      Becuase THAT is a statutory rape (or as you yourself put it “lesser rape”) in several states.

      And yeah, I can count a number of people I have know who were “victims” of having sex with a older classmate. Since very few people in high school date someone who was born on the same exact day, just about every teenage couple having sex ran into that very issue at some point.

      In these cases (two people very close in age, but one is 18), statutory rape is ONLY considered any kind of rape at all because of the terminology.

      It is asinine to equate high school classmates choosing to sleep together with child molestation — which is what “statutory rape” orginally meant.

  29. Caleb says:

    No, because Polanski plead guilty to forcible rape. Different charge in the State of California.

    • Rick R. says:

      No, Ploanski didn’t plead guilty to forcible rape. He pled to “unlawful sexual intercourse” CA 261.5.

      This was one of the counts of the indictment based solely on her age. (He did not plead guilty to “lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14”, nor to the penalty enhancement due to age sections of the “peversion” or “sodomy on a person” charges, nor “providing a controlled substance to a minor”.)

      The count of the indictment that covered the nonconsensual factor in the rape was seperate, as “rape by use of drugs”. All of the other charges were based either on age, or in some form of “crimes against nature”.

      Not defending the perv, just setting the record straight. Legally, what he pled guilty to was not entitled “rape”, nor did the law assume it was “forcible”.

  30. Caleb says:

    Jesus assballs, could someone please point out to me the part where I said “hey, let’s just punish everyone the same for everything”? Because if that’s what you guys think I said, it might be time for some remedial reading classes. Both of you jackmooks need to stop putting words in my mouth here.

  31. Rick R. says:


    You have consistantly insisted that “all rapes are equal”, and apparantly including in your definition of rape, cases where the ONLY barrier to full consent may be a few weeks or days difference in age. You also assume that, even in the cases of forcible rape, all perps are equally culpable.

    October 5, 2009 at 8:55 am
    “Mike, those guys actually are all equally guilty, because in your horrid little hypothetical example, they all raped someone.”

    — in response to Mike offering examples of hypotheticals involving a perp who is mentally incompetant, a girl who is of age of consent in 32 states (and may be of age of consent for the guy in question, depending on his age, in 6 of the remaining states) and who willingly CHOSE to have sex but regretted it in the morning, and a guy who grabs a 6 year old and nearly rapes them to death.

    In the first case, keep in mind that, BY LAW, someone who is too crazy or too stupid to be considered competant has ZERO legal culpability for his acts. We don’t lock up schizos and severely retarded people because they are “bad”, even if they have done bad things — we lock them up becuase they LITERALLY can no more help themselves and have no idea that they are doing wrong than a potato.

    You state you see ALL THREE instances Mike offered (one of which is probably not even illegal AT ALL in 32 states, and is generally only a misdemeanor not usually called “rape” in the other states) as being the exactly same thing.

    October 5, 2009 at 12:48 pm
    “I’m guessing that you could count the number of victims of your so-called “lesser rape” that you personally know on uh…zero fingers.”

    — in reference to a discussion on statutory rape, especially conerning teenagers of similar age, but where one is below the age of consent.

    Caleb, there is apparantly a need for remedial reading classes here.

    You either do not actually read what you are replying to, or you cannot even go back and see what you yourself wrote.

    Mike, despite his general moonbattiness, is dead on point in THIS respect:

    Some acts legally defined as rape are worse than others.

    Just as some murders are worse than others.

    Which is why many localities have muplitple levels of “rape” or multiple offences of varying penalty for conduct most people would define as “rape”.

  32. Caleb says:


    No, see what I was saying to you, while you were defending statutory rape as okay was that I doubted that you actually knew any victims of statutory rape, or you’d not have such a cavalier view of it. You keep saying that it’s okay for someone over the age of consent to have sex with someone under the age of consent, and what I’m saying is “tough noogies, the law is the law, and I don’t give a shit if she’s 17 years and 362 days old if the age of consent is 18.”

    Also, an IQ of 55 is only considered mild mental retardation, and people with that IQ have in fact been found mentally functional to stand trial. So, in Mike’s shitty hypothetical example, that’s rape!

    Good god, I cannot believe that there are people who are willing to walk a moral gray line where some child rape is okay, and some isn’t.

    • perlhaqr says:

      You keep saying that it’s okay for someone over the age of consent to have sex with someone under the age of consent, and what I’m saying is “tough noogies, the law is the law, and I don’t give a shit if she’s 17 years and 362 days old if the age of consent is 18.”

      So… if it becomes illegal to own firearms, you’ll be turning all your in, then? After all, “the law is the law”, and it doesn’t matter in the slightest if the law makes a goddamn bit of sense, right?

  33. Rick R. says:


    I specifically stated:

    Rick R.
    October 5, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    If that’s directed at me, no, I am NOT OK with statutory rape.”

    What I HAVE consistantly stated was that while there are circumstances where two teenagers having consensual sex may be techincally illegal, it is NOT THE SAME as an adult grabbing a 5 year old off the street and sodomizing them until they end up in the ICU.

    You keep arguing that it IS the same.

  34. Caleb says:

    That’s because I don’t care if it’s only “technically” illegal. If it’s “technically” illegal, then it’s illegal, period.

    The problem is that you’re inferring that I think they should be sentenced the same. Not only did I never say that, but I don’t think that.

    All I’m saying is that illegal is illegal. If you commit a crime, regardless of whether it’s only “technically” illegal or not, you should be expect to punished under the law and sentencing guidelines if caught.

    What is so fucking difficult about that?

  35. Rick R. says:

    Well, Caleb,

    There’s a problem with you now claiming, “The problem is that you’re inferring that I think they should be sentenced the same. Not only did I never say that, but I don’t think that.”

    What the Hell do you think “mitigating circumstances” MEAN?!?

    NOBODY said “legal defense”.

    Mitigation is applied to lessen the SEVERITY of the penalty for the crime, NOT an excuse to claim some kind of innocence.

    I’ll put in in terms you may better understand:

    A “defence” is something like, “I hit him becuase he pulled a kife on me.” Teh idea is to get a verdict of “Not Guilty”.

    A “mitigation” is something like, “He spent 15 minutes following me and screaming racial epithets, but when he said THAT about my mother, I turned and hit him.” The idea is to show that — while guilty — the circumstances surrounding the event make it apparant that it is less offensive to society than if you had just walked up and punched some stranger out for “looking at you funny”. The idea is to lessen the PENALTY.

    To put it in your words, “What’s so fucking difficult about that?”

  36. Caleb says:

    Hey, I’m not the one that seems hell bent on defending certain types of rape as “ok”. The way you keep defending statutory rape makes me wonder about your motivations.

    • Rick R. says:

      Please provide a SINGLE example of where I said that certain types of rape are “OK”.

      What I have repeatedly said is that some types are worse than others.

      Which is something that the majority of the nation understands, and in fact, has written the laws to reflect.

      You can keep shucking and jiving, trying to change the subject, but you stuck your foot in your own mouth, and kept chewing.

  37. Caleb says:

    Hmm, sounds like I was getting close. So Rick, got any skeletons in the closet? And does those skeletons explain why you lost your job as a high school guidance counselor? Because then your posts would make a lot more sense.

    • Rick R. says:

      Nice. Ad hominem attacks now. What a show of your awesome debating skills.

      Because I acknowledge (as do the legislatures of every single state) that two cases, even when falling under the same statute, may be different from one another in circumstances, you now insinuate that I am a child molester.

      I have seen the light.

      I shall now call the Commonwealth’s Attorney up and tell him that I am a rape victim, because at the ripe old age of 17, while serving in the military, I slept with an 18 year old friend of my older sister. I must have blocked to overwhelming trauma of my experience for all these years. It’s too bad the statute of limitaions has run out.


      You do realize, I hope, that you’re making ligt of the REAL truama suffered by people who were vicitms of actual, forcible, rape, don’t you? Such as Polanski’s victim?

  38. Caleb says:

    Why Rick, does this mean we’re not friends anymore? You know Rick, if I thought you weren’t my friend… I just don’t think I could bear it!

    • Rick R. says:

      That’s tough for you.

      Frankly, I don’t really care whether people on the internet like me or not. I neither ask for your acceptance, nor care if I get it.

      We weren’t “friends” before, we aren’t any less “friends” now.

      The only “personal” issue involved is you accusing me of defending rape as “OK”, and implying I’m a child molester. But I’ll get over it.

      Maybe I should try to get your sympathy by playing up my “victim” status — as you believe, based on your own words, that I am just as much a victim as a 5 year old raped by their babysitter.

      Me? I don’t have the stomach for that level of moral emptiness you insist on proclaiming. Of course, I can distinguish between “illegal” and “evil”.

  39. Caleb says:

    Maybe arguing just isn’t your game, Rick. I know: let’s have a spelling contest!

  40. Rick R. says:


    You still haven’t brought up any legitimate debating points.

    Just keep changing the subject, maybe people will forget what you’ve already written.

  41. Caleb says:

    You’re no daisy! You’re no daisy at all. Poor soul, you were just too high strung.

  42. Rick R. says:

    So now you’re Doc Holliday and I’m Johnny Ringo?

    And that is relevant in your world because. . . ?

    (You see, it’s only snarky if it’s funny. And generally, it’s only funny if it’s relevant to the discussion on hand. . . )

    Unlike Bill Clinton, you can’t just announce your victory, without actually doing anything.

  43. Kristopher says:

    Rick, Caleb ….

    Seriously …

  44. T.Stahl says:

    At the moment I’m with Rick R.
    He’s the one delivering arguments I understand.
    While Caleb comes across as a quite ignorant *expleetive* who doesn’t actually read what other people write.
    Or who doesn’t want to understand it.


  45. Caleb says:

    Don’t worry Kris, only one of us is having an argument, and it’s <a href=""sure as hell not me.

  46. Caleb says:

    Aw damn, I forgot to close my tags. That blows. Oh well, I’ll just keep rollin’.

  47. Michael says:

    Wow Caleb I used to think you were a decent guy.

  48. Caleb says:

    Hey, I’m still the same lovable midget that you knew. I just happen to be personally aquinted with several victims of statutory rape, so to hear Rick say that it wasn’t as bad as other kinds of rape got me a little torqued. But instead of getting into a SERIOUS INTERNET DISCUSSION about it, I decided that it was a better investment of my time to do something amusing. Was it the most dignified thing I’ve ever done? Most certainly not. But for a little while anyway, it was kind of entertaining, and I also managed to avoid falling into the trap of caring about something on the internet.

    If that makes me “not a decent guy”, I’ll just have to live with that.

  49. Rick R. says:


    You’ve been going on about how it doesn’t matter if it’s only one day’s age difference between two people — if that one day makes it “statutory rape”, it’s just as bad as if we’re talking about a 14 year old and a 25 year old.

    And now you’re saying it’s becuase of your concern for how the victims feel?

    Which is especially illogical, given that in many of these cases, the act in question is legal in most states (in the hypothetical casess that you objected so strenuously to), is generally legal for the very same people in question a short period before, and will be legal again a short period after.

    So it’s not traumatic for two high school students to have sex one month, when both are below the age of consent, it is not illegal for them to have sex a few months later, when both are above the age of consent, but TODAY, when one is above and one below, it’s magically a life-altering trauma.

    Solely because it is defined in law as being illegal. Becuase you haven’t even pretended the argument is “It’s just as traumatic for a teenager to have lawful, consensual sex as it is for a toddler to be molested by an adult,” your ONLY reason to insist it’s traumatic is the statute — a statute which doesn’t even apply AT ALL in the hypothetical case Mike first posited in 32 states.

    According to you, a 16 year old teenager in Prince Geroge, Maryland having consensual sex with a 50 year old adult isn’t traumatic (becuase that’s LEGAL in Maryland, the age of consent is 16), but a 17 years + 364 days old Virginian teenager having sex with someone who is 18 years and a day is a massive trauma (as the age of consent in VA is 18, with no ‘close in age” exemption).

    Somehow, according to you, passing a law that makes it illegal magically creates trauma.

    Get off your moral high horse — no one buys your excuses. You’re patently trying to salvage face from a failed argument, and now you’re falsely wrapping yourself in the mantle of “But it’s for the children!”

    The simple fact is, you popped off without thinking or reading closely, got called on it, and would rather create the drama and now claim to be the Stalwart Defender of the Numerous Victims becuase you can’t say the words, “I jumped in early said something stupid.” or even just quit digging yourself in deeper. (Admittedly, it’s probably because you assumed everything mikeb302000 says is automatically stupid, just because he is the one to say it. Statistically, I can see how one may come to that conclusion. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.)

    Then you tried to claim you weren’t being serious.


    It’s no more convincing than making a racially offensive statement and then chuckling, “Just kidding!”

    To reiterate:

    NO ONE HERE defended the molestation of young children. Anywhere, anytime. NO ONE.

    NO ONE HERE defended nonconsensual sex (i.e., “rape”). Anywhere, anytime. NO ONE.

    NO ONE HERE even said that we should just ignore the laws in effect concerning age of consent, even when both parties are very clos ein age.

    What HAS been said is that two horny teenagers choosing to have sex is neither the end of the world, nor anywhere CLOSE to the foul, unforgiveable assaults known as “rape” or “child molestation”, and therefor the punishment should reflect that.

    Your claim that a single day’s difference in age between two people makes it a horrific act that (apparantly in your mind) justifies treating it as a honest-to-God sex crime, with the resultant life-long penalties just doesn’t add up.

    In fact, it is DISGUSTING, as your assertion TRIVIALIZES real rape and molestation, and the real pain that theose victims suffer.

    I’ve known, literally DOZENS of people whom I know for a fact were techincally “victims” of statutory rape — in cases were a year or two was the ONLY difference betwen the two. NONE of them have exhibited, claimed, or even hinted at any kind of trauma over the fact, other than the occaisonal “Oh, my God, what was I thinking when I slept with him/her?”

    On teh other hand, I have also personaly known quite a few people who were victims of either actual child molestation, or “standard” rape (most M-F, a couple M-M, and one F-F).

    ALL of them exhibited signifcant signs of trauma stemming from the incident(s). Even years later.

    To claim what a large percentage of sexually active high schoolers WILLINGLY experience (i.e., sleeping with someone a year or two older) is to be equated with what REAL victims went through is repulsive.

    To defend that point of view and try and claim the moral high ground is even more repulsive.

  50. Caleb says:

    Oh jesus Rick, would you let it go? I already explained what happened right above, and you trying to twist it so that you can win some imaginary argument that you were the only participant in is getting kind of lame. Seriously, let it go. It’s just getting sad, dog. I explained to Michael because I felt like he deserved it, but for chrissakes can we please stop shitting up Marko’s comments?

  51. Kristopher says:

    The real internet retard here is the one who insists on making the last comment.

    Does anyone want to take the Retard Helm off my head and wear it?

  52. Paul Michael says:

    It’s just too bad the whole drawn-and-quartered thing is out of vogue.

Comments are closed.