Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Weighing in on Roman...

I think that we need to get some sort of clarity here. On the news and in the celebrity world I hear them saying that Polanski had sex with a 13-year-old girl. In what realm does a grown man have sex with someone who has barely reached puberty whom he also drugged and we call it sex? That's a distortion.

We have a better word in the lexicon for what happen: rape. We might choose two more: sexual abuse. Or two others: child abuse. Even our arch-conservative paper here in Oklahoma City failed to call a spade a spade as they so often relish doing when liberal people do something wrong.

I think this has wider implications for the role and perception of women in society. Imagine, for a second, if Polanski had had sex with a 13 year-old boy. The media, especially conservative outlets, would scream about that as child abuse or molestation. What, then, are the different dynamics here? Is it more acceptable  for men to have sex with women or girls because that's just the way things are. Men should be pleasured-- especially a powerful and artistic one? No one said that when Michael Jackson was up for similar charges but with young men.

I find the double standards disgusting. What are your thoughts? Is sex just sex regardless of age? If so, surely it should be so regardless of the gender makeup of the participants. Otherwise, we need to call out aggregeous things for what they are: violations of the law-- not to mention personal dignity. To use tranquil language, sex, in the face of violence, is wrong and misleading.

No comments:

There is power in your voice. Use it!