Chapter 3. Child?

OK, I hear some say, even it wasn’t rape, it is still a child sex case, and Polanski is still a pedophile.

The answer to the “pedophile” part is obvious: if you don’t know what a word means, don’t use it. It’s as simple as that. A pedophile is someone who engages in sex with children, that is, prepubescent human beings; female object of pedophilia are those who do not yet menstruate. Polanski, even before his marriage to Emmanuelle (who, let me remind you, is 45 now), always chose physically mature partners, however young; there have never been children among them. His psychiatric report unambiguously states: “without psychiatric deviation”, “not a pedophile”. How people can insist on accusing of this someone who has been officially certified to the contrary is totally above me.

Ms.Gailey’s outstanding precociousness was already touched upon in the previous chapter, but let me remind you once again some crucial statements about her:

Adult female” – her medical report.

The witness [Kalliniotes, the housekeeper] stated… she thought she was approximately 18 years old” – probation report, pages 12-13

She appeared to be one of those kind of little chicks between – could be between any age up to 25… You know, she did not look like a 13-year-old little scared thing, you know. She seemed quite tall to me… she seemed pretty well developed girl. I would have not thought that she was 13.… I would say anywhere, you know, between 18, around that age, up, late teens she looked to me.” – Angelica Huston, quoted by probation report, page 13-14

“[The arresting officer, sergeant Vanatter] described the victim as looking between 16 and 18 years old” – probation report, page 20

A well-developed young girl who looked older than her years, and regrettably was not unschooled in sexual matters”; “not an inexperienced and unsophisticated young girl” – Judge Rittenband quoted by The Spokesman-Review - Sep 20, 1977

And, of course, the fact that Polanski was officially declared not a pedophile by a few independent teams of psychiatrists means that from their professional point of view, the other side of the “intercourse” didn’t qualify as a child.

No, not a child by any means, in nobody’s eyes. What do we have then? A mature young lady exercised her free will by starting her sexual life earlier than it is deemed acceptable by most people today. Where’s Polanski’s fault in all that? She didn’t start with him. He never molested her. He came across her when she had already had experience and knew perfectly well what sex was about. No, he didn’t see her as a child – nobody did. He saw her as what she actually was, a young woman.

Now, let’s think. Why do the media constantly have to recur to such sleight-of-hands as calling him a rapist on the pretext that “statutory rape” is another name for “unlawful sex” in California? Such as repeatedly calling her a “child? Such as calling him a pedophile, which he is not by definition and evaluation? Such as showing, as an illustration to the “heinous deed”, a black-and-white picture taken a few months previously by another photographer, instead of a color snapshot taken at the same time, like the one I posted? The answer is obvious. The public should be hypnotized into blind disgust, on visceral level (there’s nothing as loathsome as a pedophile who rapes a child) and thus be rendered deaf to any voice of reason, unable to see facts, and unwilling to learn them.

But the officials who worked on the case saw it for what it was already then.

Probation Report, page 23: “The offense occurred as an isolated instance of [page 24] transient poor judgment and loss of normal inhibitions in circumstances of intimacy and collaboration in creative work, and with some coincidental alcohol and drug intoxication. The provocative circumstances, permissiveness and knowledge of circumstances by mother, physical maturity and willingness and provocativeness of victim, and the lack of coercion by defendant and his solicitude concerning pregnancy, all contribute to the above impression… “

An isolated instance of transient poor judgment” is what it was. He should have gone by her calendar age, not her looks and behavior. That’s all there is to it.

Now, some will say the instance was not isolated, since Polanski was known to have affairs with other young ladies who were below the age of consent: for example, Nastassya Kinski, who was, according to some sources, 16, and according to others, only 15 when they started a relationship.

But, my dear friends, this is the whole point of the thing. The age of consent, this sacred cow, is different in different countries. In France, where Polanski/Kinski romance took place, it was – and still is – 15.

Want the whole picture? Here’s how it is today’s Europe:
15 (Nastassya Kinski’s alleged age) in France, Sweden, Denmark, Czech Republic, Greece, Iceland, Monaco, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia.
14 (which Ms.Gailey was only three weeks short of) in Italy, Germany, Austria, Portugal, Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, San Marino, Serbia.
13 (actual Ms.Gailey’s age) in Spain.

Yes, in Spain it is 13. Now, are we ready to condemn all Spaniards? To cry all of them are perverts and pedophiles? How about all the other countries listed above? Yes, they legally do it in France full three years before their peers do it in the United States; and in Spain, full five years before. Do we all have to admit, universally, that the United States is the only country where people know what is right?

If you condemn Polanski on moral grounds, condemn the whole world. No, I am not trying to justify the “wrong” thing on the ground of it being done elsewhere. I am trying to get it through to you that what is labeled “wrong” in today’s America doesn’t have to be so, and the experience of other countries and/or times is a proof thereof.

Are all Europeans perverts worthy of prison? Or, since, like Polanski, they may be outside the reach of the American Law, should they, too, be subjected to mudslinging, badmouthing, all kinds of baleful idiocy? How about some prominent people Americans are used to admiring? Charlie Chaplin? Jerry Lee Lewis? John Derek? Elvis himself? Why do not I hear any voices condemning them and many others who had underage partners or spouses? Let’s not forget our own ancestors, either – all of our great-grandfathers deemed 13 quite marriageable; marrying at 12 wasn’t anything out of the ordinary, either. History provides tons of examples everyone can check for himself, and I hope everyone remembers this one from classic literature: Juliet was 13, and her mother had given birth to her at that very age.

“Oh, but Romeo was not much older than Juliet!” I hear the voice. This is ageism, pure and simple: as if older people were not the same species as younger people. It is just plain wrong. There are people whom nature has already made ready to make sex, and there are those who have to wait till their organs are developed. That’s all there is to it, while any other difference is entirely a matter of discrimination against human rights. A man of 43 belongs to exactly the same species as a man of 17, with the only difference that the former normally has better experience and better understanding of women. There is no other mystery to age. Older men are just like younger boys, you know. Shedding a tear in theater when you watch Romeo and Juliet, while at the same time calling for skinning Polanski alive is disgusting hypocrisy. They both did the same thing to the girls of the same age.

The only thing that has changed since Shakespeare is that girls physically mature earlier, not later; and if in the United States the law insists on keeping them in diapers three, four, five years past the age at which the girls in Europe are considered capable of responsibility, it only shows a repressive attitude towards sex, and deep contempt for females. If someone thinks this policy is beneficial, let them look at the statistic of Teen Birth Rates: on the average, 6 times as high in the puritanical US as in the libertine Italy; all other European countries, with their “horrifying” age of consent, don’t come nowhere close to US, either. Only Britain does (teen birth rate in GB is half as high), but the age of consent in Britain is one of the highest in Europe, and their attitude towards sexual education is approximately the same as in the States. One commentor of Novalis’s blog called the United Statessexually repressed - or in contrast shallow and pornographic, highly incestuous, rape, murder, war and gun obsessed”. Sadly, it sounds true, and the unnatural sex laws do everything to perpetuate this tragic state of things.

A common American argument is that girls below 18 are unable to give “informed consent”. I don’t think American girls remain ignorant so much longer than their peers in Europe; but if it is true that they are unable to give informed consent till they are 18, it is a cause of great concern. How come a female who is physically ready to bear children is at the same time considered a child unable to think for herself? This policy of forcible infantilization reflects only contempt for woman, perpetuating her image as eternal victim to “predatory” males. Really, people – what do you find so horrible about sex that a physically mature young woman can’t do it?

In many other countries they understand that all girls mature differently, some earlier, some later, and wisely leave it up to their own judgment whether or not they will engage in sexual activities. Sex, mind you, is not demonized in most of Europe and other parts of the world – it is just what it is, sex, something important for normal development of both mind and body. They show respect for their females, letting them decide whether or not they are informed enough, not depriving them of the right to consent as soon as they are physically able to make love without any harm done to their organism

Keeping all this in mind, let’s go back to Samantha Gailey. What many people fail to realize is that sleeping with men was her own choice, with no objections from her mother: even if it was, and is, illegal in the United States, or considered morally wrong by many, there’s no way, however, to blame Mr. Polanski for this. By no stretch of imagination can this be considered his fault. “It was embarrassing to be a virgin among my friends,” she says, which means she wasn’t unique. So? A physically mature young lady of her own accord engaged in an activity which wouldn’t be considered “heinous” in other places and times. An activity in which many girls below the exaggerated American age of consent are engaged right now as you’re reading this, which is natural provided physical maturity and mutual consent, but still punishable by American laws under the preposterous name of “statutory rape”.


Julie said...

Reading Novalis Lore's blog, I discovered that there is some, not unfounded, suspicion that in March '77 Samantha Gailey was 14 and a half, not 13. It doesn't really change anything, because, as you say, she is medically defined as "adult female", and everyone thought her to be around 18, she was also sexually experienced, and all this is what really matters, but I would like to know what you think about these new findings.


Jean said...

Julie: thank you for commenting, and for bringing up this interesting fact. I have added a "New Findings" page where I will post all new materials I haven't been able to fully verify yet. As you said, her age is not of crucial importance, it's her maturity and consent that matter; but still it does add some curious obertones to the story. After all, if they could lie (as I have shown) about a great number of things, going as far as fabricating evidence, why wouldn't they lie about her age, too?

Sam said...

From the pictures you showed of her in the Jacuzzi I, personally, didn't think she looked 18. Maybe like 15 at most but anyway, from what I have read he knew she was 13before anyway. So, in my opinion, it doesn't matter what she looked liked or what she was medically defined as. Also you bring up a lot of great points that really made me re-think my stance on the case (great research by the way) but the point of her being sexually expeirienced before does not descredit her from being raped.
From what the whole case sounds like though I do not understand why he would plead guilty if there weren't even signs of any sexual intercoarse. It seems obvious to me that he would be found not guilty( if what you said is entirely true of course) but then I think that he should of just appealed the decision either way and not fled from the court system. That is one point that should not be argued. He should not of fled, he should of faced it like a man and beaten the case fairly. If he was indeed innocent.

Jean said...

Sam - thanks a huge lot for your comment. Since you are commenting Chapter 3, can it be that you haven't yet gotten around to reading the rest? I think I answer all of your questions in the next chapters.

Amy said...

It's not just Europe that allows low sex age consent.

13 - Japan, South Korea
14 - People's Replublic of China, Burma
15 - Cambodia, Laos, North Korea, Syria, Thailand

Jean said...

I am afraid our American friends would just dismiss those countries as "barbarian". I wonder what they think of Japan, though... But, then again, those who invented this sick "child rape" myth do not think, that's our biggest problem.

Elise said...

Although I commend you for the time and effort put into your research, I must say that many of your arguments are fraught with logical fallacies. The fact of the matter is that this was a child as defined by numerouse sources, regardless of appearance, and while residing in the USA, the laws of the land must be followed; the laws of other countries are irrelevant. I also find your definition of "pedophile" interesting. More and more female children are mensturating at a younger age, some as young as 7. Are you to say that someone who has sex with 7 year old mensturating females is not a pedophile? I would also suggest you do some more research into the psychological aspects of this case, as it seems that you have glossed over many important psychological elements. For instance, where is the discussion on the mental state of mind of a 13 year old who is under the influence? Your arguments seem to have a tone underlining them as if this child was in a proper state of mind. Once again, I appreciate the time and effort you have put into your investigation; however, I find the majority of your arguments unsubstantiated.

Jean said...

Thank you Elise, I am glad you read at least part of my research. I wish you would read the whole of it, because it contains the answers to the issues you seem to have with my conclusions.

1. I would be very grateful if you drew my attention to any of those “logical fallacies” you are claiming to have found. So far I can’t see any, and I would greatly appreciate anything that helped me to enhance the present research.
2. I have never denied that the act was illegal. That’s why it is called “unlawful sexual intercourse”.
3. The laws of other countries are relevant inasmuch as they show that the laws accepted at the moment in the USA do not contain any universal truth.
4. I didn’t intend to give any scientific definition of “pedophile”, it is enough for me to show, once again, that Polanski isn’t one. The conclusion of his psychiatric examinations must suffice.
5. Reversing your logic, is someone who has sex with a 17-year-old lady a pedophile? This would incriminate the whole of Europe, and those states of the USA where the age of consent is below 18. The line must be drawn somewhere, and I draw it, as common sense demands, at physical maturity.
6. The “under the influence” part is addressed in both the previous and the following chapter. This accusation, as we’ve seen, amounts to nothing.
7. Once again, I would be very grateful if you show me the arguments you find “unsubstantiated”. I thought the existing documents, such as the probation report that gives the only official conclusion on the case (“mature and willing” is how they define the young lady), the medical examination report and others I provide are enough to substantiate my cause. If you have any other documents, I’ll be happy to see them.

Thank you.