?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

As usual, Mr. Smooth makes plain, clear common sense - which is all too uncommon in most places today:

My feeling on this? Polanski is to blame and shouldn't get off because there will always be young girls (and young boys, for that matter) who are taking their first steps toward a show business or modeling career, and there will always be sexual predators lying in wait for them. Those innocents deserve that this case continue to be handled as a crime, so that those predators will at least hesitate in their intent to indulge their lusts with young flesh. And perhaps some of them will even be dissuaded. As long as crimes like Polanski's are indulgently excused by well-known popular figures, such predators have little reason to hesitate.

Tags:

Comments

( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
avierra
Oct. 8th, 2009 11:55 am (UTC)
The thing is, the things he did to that child would have been a crime even if she was 36 rather than 13 (drugged, flagrantly non consensual sex). I truly don't get why people are defending him. It doesn't matter what the girl's motives in going with him were, or what her mother did. The whole thing is just disgusting.

(Oh, so yeah, agree 100%)
lauand
Oct. 8th, 2009 05:32 pm (UTC)
The whole thing is just disgusting.

That pretty much says it all.
lady_ganesh
Oct. 10th, 2009 01:24 am (UTC)
Another 100% agreement here.
estara
Oct. 8th, 2009 02:56 pm (UTC)
Wow. I wish my boys were able to understand English spoken that well and fast, that was so concise and reasoned and could be so useful... I guess I should have stayed a grammar school teacher, I probably could have used this then.
chomiji
Oct. 9th, 2009 11:35 am (UTC)

Jay Smooth is awesome. I discovered him through the various Racefail threads that occurred this past winter. He manages to get an enormous amount of information across quickly and straighforwardly.

meganbmoore
Oct. 8th, 2009 04:01 pm (UTC)
Regarding sexual predators, Polanski defenders, and young boys: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8296578.stm
ice_hesitant
Oct. 8th, 2009 05:01 pm (UTC)
Websites sympathetic to Mr Mitterrand said that he had already explained his Thai exploits after the 2005 book. In one television appearance, he said that homosexuals call all men ‘boys’. “They say boys when you are 60 years old,” he said at the time, denying that the male prostitutes were under age.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6865085.ece
meganbmoore
Oct. 8th, 2009 05:07 pm (UTC)
He also refers to them as "young," and as to being a part of the slave market:

In his 2005 book The Bad Life, he wrote: "I got into the habit of paying for boys," saying his attraction to young male prostitutes was not dimmed despite knowing "the sordid details of this traffic".

"All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously... the abundance of very attractive and immediately available young boys put me in a state of desire."


So even if he did make sure each and every one was above the legal age of consent...
chomiji
Oct. 9th, 2009 11:38 am (UTC)

If that was indeed the case, one does have to wonder why he needed to travel to Thailand. If his preferred type was nubile young men (say, 18-21 years old), surely there would have been plenty of young Frenchmen or residents of France who would have been pleased to accommodate such a wealthy and well-connected sugar daddy.

And Thailand is, after all, pretty notorious in the area of underage prostitution.

( 9 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

cho-vatar - sun & buns
chomiji
Chomiji

Latest Month

April 2017
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Taylor Savvy