His talent? His TALENT?!

Skimming though my "drafts" folder I found a bunch of old blog posts that I never published for one reason or another.  This one is from last fall, when Swiss police arrested producer/director Roman Polanski because of his outstanding U.S. warrant (the U.S. then formally requested extradition).

There was a huge uproar, with many filmakers, actors, and producers coming out in support of Polanski and his "unjust treatment" because of his "extraordinary talent."

To recap: Polanski drugged and raped (and sodomized) a 13-year-old girl.  He pleaded guilty to "engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse," a lesser offense, in a deal to preserve the girl's anonymity. To escape sentencing he fled the country and never came back.  He remarried and lived as a free man in Europe for thirty years.  He continued to work.  The 13-year-old-girl, now all grown up and wanting to move on with her life and stop being asked about Polanski all time time, tells people to just let it go.

For the record, the situation with this child was hardly a solitary "lapse in judgment" on Polanski's part.  His first two wives were younger than he, though both were certainly legal.  Then there was the 13-year-old-girl.  Then 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski when he was 43 (they dated for a few years). He's currently married to Emmanuelle Seigner, who is 33 years his junior. That wouldn't be so unusual for Hollywood, perhaps, if it weren't for the larger pattern. She was in her early 20's when they married. (See link below for his chilling commentary on the normalcy of his desires.)

My thoughts:

Does this mean that I can ignore any laws I want as long as I'm talented enough?

Ridiculous!

If rape is wrong, then rape is wrong. Why should a convicted rapist get a free pass because he left the country and eluded arrest for years? Horrible precedent.


Backlash builds against support of Polanski

"on ABC's "The View," in which panelist and actress Whoopi Goldberg made the comment that she didn't believe the original charges against Polanski were for "rape-rape," as what he views as a pervasive attitude.

"I assume [Goldberg] regrets saying what she said, but she really didn't say anything that is not under the surface anyway," Weeks said. "This is just the attitude, that children are property and crimes against them are not real crimes." Video Watch a discussion of about Polanski's supporters »

Goldberg's fellow panelist, Sherri Shepherd, said during the show that she believed Polanski should still be punished.

On Twitter, she tweeted, "Whew... long day at 'The View'... two shows today... hot debate over the Statutory Rapist Polanski. 45-year-old man plies a 13-yr-old w/drugs & Liquor and anally & orally penetrates her w/o her consent is a RAPIST. We hunt down 75-year-old Nazis. We must protect our children."

Actress Kirstie Alley wrote on Twitter "JUST FOR THE RECORD....RAPE IS RAPE...this is one HOLLYWOOD STAR who does not CELEBRATE or DEFEND Roman Polanski..his ART did not RAPE her.""

Earlier in that CNN article (link above) there's a list of celebrities who signed "a petition which states, "Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.""

Well, yes. That's generally how we punish rapists. And child molesters.



Filmmakers demand Polanski's release

Artist Rally Behind Polanski

Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child Finally arrested 32 years after he fled sentencing for unlawful sex with a minor, the director is ... a big hero?

"Everyone wants to f--- young girls."

Sanity: Roman Polanski Has a Lot of Friends (I really wish I could write like Pollitt.)


I'm going to remember the names of some "stars" who support Polanski:
Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese and John Landis
Penelope Cruz, Tilda Swinton and Monica Bellucci
and many, many others.

A positive suggestion from the internet: "Instead of making the petition about releasing Polanski it should be stated as a petition for the social approval of drugging and raping a 13-year-old child."

Petition for the Release of Roman Polanski

"How Could I?"

I just finished reading Jonathon Darmon's account of "The Confessions of Eliot Spitzer" in this week's issue of Newsweek, called Spitzer in Exile.

It's an interesting look at the former governor's life one year after the scandal that brought down a powerful politician, a man who might have expected to become (the first Jewish) president one day. And he says a lot of the right things: focusing on his family, making self-deprecating jokes, admitting that even at the time he knew what he was doing was wrong, that there's no excuse, no one to blame other than himself.

But as true contrition it falls short in several places.

For one thing, he never explicitly says that what he did was morally reprehensible, just that it's perceived as such in this neighborhood. Darmon asked Spitzer whether or not Americans ought to care about their leaders' sex lives. Spitzer replied, "I could makes a persuasive case that, no, it isn't fair. But ... you should be smart enough to know that those are the rules, whether or not it's fair ... There are other countries that have a very different set of parameters on these things. But you know when you get in public life here that you live in a fishbowl. So you've got to be smart enough to act accordingly." (P.27)

Is he suggesting that there shouldn't have been political ramifications for him breaking the law? That there isn't an objective measure of right and wrong, just a verdict handed down by the court of public opinion?

And Spitzer talks about "human nature" as if it is this weird, inexplicable, uncontrollable force. "The human mind does and permits people to do things that they rationally know are wrong, outrageous ... We succumb to temptations that we know are wrong and foolish when we do it and then in hindsight we say, 'How could I have?'" (P.23)

Not only does that absolve the individual from responsibility, it specifically takes the pressure off Spitzer when he says "we succumb," "we know," "we do it," and "we say." He's making himself part of a group, not taking personal responsibility for his specific actions in this specific circumstance.

When talking about the support and positive responses he still gets from strangers on the street, Spitzer says, "They respect this notion of, yes, we all absorb the media and read the stories of other people's lives. But when we see them, we think, hey, there but for the grace of God go I. Show the guy some decency." (P.27)

But that's a little silly, isn't it? It's not just "the grace of God" or luck or fate that's kept me from hiring prostitutes. I make CHOICES and I own those choices. I don't see making "dates" and having sex with prostitutes as just one of those things that might happen to me despite my best intentions, like getting cancer or being run over by a garbage truck.

I am happy for Spitzer that he's managed to keep his marriage and family intact. But I think that he has a distance to go before he fully takes responsibility for what he did. And I actually don't think it's wrong for us to consider some issues of character when judging our politicians. Matters of breaking the law, it goes without saying, should definitely be part of that calculus.

Is This the Kiss Part?

I love our new French Press. Which is different from a French Kiss. Which reminds me: where did you learn about the mechanics of all that stuff? How and when to French Kiss, what comes next and why?

I was on a date with a new guy once. It was our . . . second date, I guess, but the first real one, where he picked me up at my house, we went out to a carnival then to dinner - he paid! a pleasant surprise! - and then back to his house to hang out and watch movies. It was a double date with his sister and her boyfriend, which was not as weird as it might sound. We were all (young) adults.

Anyway, before the end of the first movie, my date's sister and her boyfriend were fast asleep, totally dead to the world. And the boy and I were kissing. Judge me if you must! It was exciting, but like most new relationships, it was a little awkward, too. I was sort of sitting on his lap, and he kept unbuckling my belt. Shortly thereafter - each time - I'd refasten it, though we never stopped kissing.

What's up with this guy? I wondered. How is he not getting the hint, here? Don't all guys know that wearing a belt on a date is a clear sign? What makes him think I'd let him down there on a first/second date, anyway? He's skipping a whole bunch of critical intermediary steps. And his sister is right over there! Plus, what he seems to have in mind is a physical impossibility in this position, anyway!

I ended up dating that boy for more than 3 years, so we had ample opportunity to discuss what happened on our first date. And what didn't.

"I didn't have a lot of experience with dating," he said. This was, perhaps, something of an understatement. "On TV and in movies, whenever people start making out, they always have sex. So when we started kissing, I just assumed . . . "

Seriously. And he was honestly sincere about the whole thing. But I couldn't believe how unrealistic his expectations were. Or were they? Maybe it was just me.

Since then, I've been more conscious of the way sex is portrayed in movies and on TV, and he was right. Kisses don't seem to really exist in their own right, anymore, they are more of an introduction, or even a physical euphemism. Sad.

Now it's your turn. Do you prefer your coffee drip-brewed or from a French press?

Book Club and Toy Party

I'm in two writers' critique groups and two book clubs. One of the writing groups comprises published writers, the other is for folks at the beginning of their writing careers. Similarly one of my book clubs reads typical book club literary fiction (Love in the Time of Cholera, The Book Thief, that sort of thing, usually published within the past year). The other book club is a little more diverse in terms of geography, age, lifestyle (e.g. kids or no kids, partnered or not), and reading material. Over the past year we've read plays, classics, and genre fiction, but nothing published within the past 12 months.

My first book club, the book club book club, the one comprising mostly married suburban white women between ages 32-33 with young children, the one where we read A Fine Balance and The Life of Pi, met this week.

We discussed Just Do It: How One Couple Turned Off The TV and Turned On Their Sex Lives for 101 Days (No Excuses!) by Douglas Brown. Frankly, my expectations couldn't have been any lower. I read all the Amazon.com 1 star reviews. I scorned the idea publicly.

And then I caved and picked up a copy from the library, Ada comfortably settled on my hip. I scored a young librarian, probably somewhere around my own age, but I was in Mommy-running-errands mode and it hadn't even really occurred to me to be too embarrassed about my choice, at least until she carefully and obviously put the book face down on the counter and slid it across to me with . . . was that actually a wink?! "Book club selection," I found myself mumbling inexplicably. "Meeting tomorrow. Probably won't even read the thing."

I was uncomfortable. Who knew?! I started reading and taking notes about what I didn't like. Within a couple of hours, I'd already laughed aloud three times and put down my pen. There were parts that might have been better, parts that I didn't feel entirely comfortable with or had trouble believing. But over all . . . I really enjoyed the book! Which is not to say that Paul and I are going to attempt such a marathon ourselves. Craziness! But I would like for him to read it. There's good relationship stuff in there, in addition to humor and, um, suggestions and stuff.

To go along with the book discussion, my book club had an adult toy party. The engagement was billed as being, "sort of like a Pampered Chef party, but for sex toys." I knew what to expect, but somehow opening my friend's front door and seeing a large collection of colorful . . . toys . . . spread out on the coffee table was still somewhat jarring. No foreplay, just - pow! - vibrating pink silicone right there in view.

Weirdest of all - it was really fun. And the discussion afterward was so great. There are things that - believe it or not - even girlfriends don't often discuss seriously. At least not in my experience. And we talked honestly about some pretty significant but frequently ignored things.

And then I came home. Have I mentioned this week's homework assignment for our marriage enrichment Sunday School class? We're in the midst of a chapter called "God’s Plan for Sexual Intimacy." Pretend that your relationship with your partner is very new. And pretend that you're someone who would not have sex on the first date. Each day this week, set a limit for yourself. To stay in the mood, it might be helpful to remember all those bases we talked about incessantly in high school. Determine in advance how far you're willing to let things go each day; touch and cuddle with your partner . . . but don't go all the way! At the end of the week, at your discretion, you might choose to recreate a "wedding night" type of scenario.

Yeah. The timing of this book club selection and Sunday School homework assignment was a little . . . unfortunate. If Paul and I were newly dating high school kids, we might be considered just a little bit slutty.

So, how about you? If it were NOT assigned to you by your pastor, would you make a commitment to have sex with your partner every single day - no excuses - for a week? A month? 101 looooong days? When fighting, when sick, when traveling, when children won't sleep?

And have you ever been to one of those sex toy parties?

Interpretations

I always thought that the term coitus interruptus referred to the withdrawal method, a form of birth control statistically more likely to result in the production of offspring when compared to other common forms of birth control.

Little did I know that coitus interruptus really refers to a common state of affairs after the children have been born.

On a tangentially related note, I found a nifty quote from Lactantius on Catholics.com when I was curious about the Roman Catholic Church's position on ci: Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).

Nice! If you're poor: no sex for you! Sex for the wealthy only! I am fortunate to be affluent enough to have been able to have sex two times so far! Oh, and also to be Protestant.

Athletic Sex

First of all, let me just say that we are having a wonderful long weekend visit with Paul's sister, her husband, and their beautiful baby girl. And that has nothing at all to do with this post.

Except that my sister-in-law bought a Cosmo magazine for the plane ride, which we've all been perusing and discussing throughout the weekend, a pastime that has given me some very interesting dreams. What a weird, weird magazine. I hadn't looked at it in years, it seems, and either it's changed or I have.

So, anyway, I was reading one of many articles that seemed to take for granted the superiority of multi-positional sex, when I decided that I disagree with the entire premise.

Variety is the spice of life and all that, but I really don't get the point of what they seemed to be extolling.

I like many different flavors of ice cream, and sometimes I might even enjoy two different scoops in one bowl, but for the most part I don't think that my ice cream eating experience is enriched by having a small bite of each of several different flavors, every single time I eat ice cream.

I like many of the clothes in my closet, but sometimes I'm more into the jeans and some days I'm more into the dresses with tights. Sure, there might be days when I start out in sweats and change into slacks later, but I don't think I'd enjoy my clothes more if I wore every single outfit I own - or even just several of them - every day.

I think of sex as a fun activity, for a few really good reasons, but I don't see it like a yoga workout. Why is it supposed to be so much better, so much more exciting, if it's choreographed, with position changes every minute or two? In fact, sometimes, in my experience, consistency for several minutes is where it's at, baby.

But that doesn't make for as exciting a movie, where we expect the scene to develop and change rapidly. I suspect that this is yet another way porn has changed what's seen as "good," or even, "normal" sex.

I think I deserve some sort of weird blogging award for getting from visiting family to porn in one post.

Points of Connectedness

Our marriage therapist is leaving us (moving away) which is very sad, although my sister (also a marriage and family therapist) tries to spin it positively. Before our marriage saver leaves, she'll help us to "transition" to a new therapist, who might be able to take us further, or in a different direction, or whatever.

Anyway, at our session this week, we were discussing our homework, which was to think of points in our relationship where Paul and I have felt particularly connected.

Every single item on his list involved sex.

My list was even shorter: I felt like Paul and I had an unusual connection, that we were always on the same page, that I could share anything with him without fearing an unsatisfactory reaction. So, basically, my answer was, "Every day, all the time, for about 9-1/2 years."

And now I understand why I felt this way. Here is the way Paul and I have been communicating:

Sarahlynn has an opinion and expresses it. (a not-so-shockingly common event)

Paul says, "Uh huh," or, "Yeah."

Sarahlynn hears: I completely agree with you.

Paul means: I acknowledge that you're speaking to me, but for various mysterious reasons of my own, I'm not going to carry the conversation any further just now.

Ah hah!

Connection

The stereotype is that all the stars must be perfectly aligned for a wife to want to have sex.

That's an exaggeration, of course, but there is some truth to the fact that some people (including some wives) do need or want an emotional component to sex.

For me, physical intimacy is often connected to emotional intimacy. Lots of examples come to mind, but it turns out that there are some things that I don't want to share here! Even if they are good stories. At least, not tonight.

If I feel fat, or have had a bad day, or am tired, or angry with my husband, I don't feel much like having sex. Probably, I don't feel very sexy, either.

That said, once Paul and I really confronted the changes in our relationship, once we started honestly discussing how very wrong things had gone, our physical relationship improved dramatically.

That seems odd to me, but I am beginning to understand that sometimes it's good to be connected, one way or another. And once I realized that the emotional connection I'd always thought we'd had was at best severely damaged, then the physical connection became much more important.

Well, You Never Know Until You Try

Ouch.

And that's about all I'll say about that.

Betting on the Studs

First, let me say that I have enough issues with prostitution to write an entire series of posts, and that's without even getting into the legalization/decriminalization issues. But I won't, for now. Setting all that aside for a moment, here is my rant of the day.

I was reading along in Newsweek, and I got to a fascinating piece about Heidi Fleiss's new business venture.

It seems that she's moving to Nevada, where prostitution is legal, and starting a new brothel. This place is a discreet 80 miles from The Strip, and will be designed like a palace. Beyond the marble foyer, the castle will contain a high-end sex toy shop and a luxurious spa, in addition to secluded bungalows for hire.

What makes this so unique is that the prostitutes will be men, and the clientele will be women.

Two things are making me see red here:

1. Apparently, this isn't currently legal. The statutes would need to be rewritten, because prostitutes are universally referred to as "she" in the current codes.


2. Everyone, from conservative Christians to the Nevada Brothel Association, is ready to go to the mat to fight this venture.

Why? Because it's so offensive that women might choose to pay for sex, that it could bring down the whole legalized prostitution industry. The inference is that people will be so upset by the vision of women paying for sex, that they'll get rid of legalized prostitution rather than allow this to happen.

Fleiss plans to fight this on the grounds that it's discrimination against men who want to be prostitutes. That might work.

But let's be honest here, it's really discrimination against women. Because, God knows, only men want sex enough to pay for it. Women don't actually like sex, except maybe with our husbands once a week. Mostly, we have to be cajoled into it with diamonds and promises of pampering. The idea of women paying for sex upsets the whole virgin/whore applecart. And that just won't do.

Weekend

Sarahlynn's weekend in a mini-meme

Last time you exercised: this afternoon
Last time you er, uh, you know: last night
Last time you wrote creatively: 5 minutes ago
Last time you did something useful: this afternoon, playing with Ellie (we're working on stacking and nesting and putting in and she's got the hang of it now)

Woo hoo! Even though the Christmas decorations are all concentrated/exploded in the front room, I think I can call this a productive weekend after all.