Okay, people, thus far this community has been virtually completely supportive of Roman Polanski. I was completely supportive of him until I read Samantha's testimony. Now I am STRONGLY questioning whether this community should be supporting him. Please read on and give me your thoughts.
I was unaware of Samantha's testimony until the other night when a very respected friend of mine who is supportive of intergenerational love told me that he/she was dismayed at GC's support of Roman Polanski. Since this is someone who is fully supportive of age disparate love, and because I totally respect this person's opinion, I listened. And I listened strongly. And I was concerned. Then I saw Balancer's response today, and he is another person whose word I greatly respect. And he left me a link to Samantha's testimony, which I made a point to read.
For one thing, I am quite angry with Polanksi for giving the girl alcohol and quaaludes. I think any type of substance that is intended to "relax" girls or women and lower their inhibitions to make them more amenable to sexual activity are NOT an honorable thing for men to do. While it's quite possible that Samantha may have done something with Polanski if she wasn't drunk and high at the same time, by getting her into that state of mind it suggests that he wasn't confident that she wanted him on her own volition, when she had all her faculties. This was a MAJOR fuck-up on the part of Polanski, and one that causes me to lose respect for him. A lot of respect. Personally, I would avoid having sex with a woman who was drunk or on quaaludes or some other mind-altering substance, even if she got that way on her own, because no matter how enthusiastically she responded to me she still would not be behaving differently from the way she usually acted, and if it later turned out that she regretted having sex with me for whatever reason she could easily make an accusation and say that "she wasn't in her right mind" when she enthusiastically responded to my advances. However, according to Samantha's testimony, she wasn't enthusiastically responding to Polanski's advances. She was in a weakened state due to the alcohol and drugs, and Polanski was a fool to give her that junk to get her "in the mood." All he succeeded in doing was getting her spaced out and in no condition to give consent.
Now don't get me wrong...I DO NOT think it's a justifiable offense for a girl or woman accusing someone of rape to say, "I didn't resist his advances because I was afraid." Samantha said she was a bit passive due to fear. I think it's VERY important for a girl or woman to say "NO!" (and loudly) and resist with all their might if they DO NOT want to reciprocate a man's advances so that the man is well aware that she doesn't want to do anything with him. I don't buy the "I was afraid he would kill me if I resisted or said no" response, especially if the guy had no history of violence. However...there are exceptions and I think Samantha's case may be one of those exceptions. The exceptions are when the girl or woman is completely inebriated or given a powerful drug that put's them in a state of mind where they were unable to resist. And perhaps most importantly, Samantha said that she DID say "no" several times and Polanski continued on even after this. It's quite possible that Samantha was in no condition to fight. The fact that Samantha was sexually experienced before this was no excuse to do this to her.
Now, in all fairness, if Polanski really raped Samantha, then I'm a bit surprised he was able to plea bargain the whole thing down to statuatory rape, and I'm also surprised that Samantha has since forgiven him and believes the case should no longer be pursued. But if he really used drugs to put her in a state of mind where she couldn't resist even when she repeatedly told him "no" then he SHOULD have been punished for it by being sent to jail and this community should NOT support him. I am NOT going to support a celebrity hebephile simply because he is a hebephile if he truly raped a girl, because such an act was NOT in accordance with the principles of GL that I follow and it should indeed be considered a crime. The antis claim that we support the rape of minors and I am certainly not going to prove them right and I do not believe anyone in this community would support an actual act of rape; unlike the antis, we know the difference between real rape and consent. And I DO NOT believe Polanski should be free from punishment, or that it's no big deal, simply because it happened a long time ago.
As such, I hereby recant my support of Polanski.