On Twitter this morning, folks were talking about all the Hollywood folks who have come out in support of Polanski. Even Whoopi Goldberg trying to claim this wasn’t a “rape-rape.” Even, allegedly, Sharon Tate’s sister trying to draw some distinction between rape and rape.
Dude drugged and raped a crying thirteen year old girl who begged him not to. Then, when he thought his plea bargain might be reneged on after he couldn’t even be bothered to show remorse, he fled.
None of these facts are in dispute. This isn’t one of these pseudo-gray areas where she seemed like she wanted it and then she “changed her mind.” Or she was “seduced” out of her “no” by his persistence.
She was drugged by him (indicating that he knew she wouldn’t be even remotely compliant otherwise), and raped repeatedly as she said no over and over.
So, how is this not a rape-rape, even if we were to accept the idea that there is any such distinction between rape and rape?
Why would these Hollywood folks jump to his defense?
This morning, I realized something so gross I had to float it by y’all to see what you think.
I think they think that no only shouldn’t he be punished because he’s the great artist Roman Polanski, but that it wasn’t rape-rape because it wasn’t some gross, disgusting guy who raped her, which of course would be terrible, but the great artist Roman Polanski.
It wasn’t rape-rape because it was a great man, way out of her league, deigning to pay her some attention.
Rape as flattery.
It wasn’t rape-rape because she doesn’t have to be ashamed of who raped her.
(I hope by now y’all have seen Kate Harding’s great piece at Salon about this.)