--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, eustace10679 <no_re...@...> wrote:
<snip>
[quoting the Guardian:]
> Many commenters have simply used the term 'rape' in relation
> to Roman Polanski's 1977 conviction. The offence he pleaded
> guilty to is often described as 'statutory rape' but more
> precisely as 'unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor'.

I'm often annoyed by the description of an adult who
has consensual sex with a postpubertal child as a
"rapist." It may be accurate de jure, but not de facto.

However, Polanski was, by the victim's testimony, most
definitely a rapist de facto, and would have been a
rapist even if she had been over the age of consent.

Because, as she told the grand jury, she did *not*
consent to any of it and begged him repeatedly to stop.
He raped her orally, vaginally, and anally.

That is not just statutory rape but full-blown rape, no
matter how old the victim is.


Reply via email to