--- 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.