Tuesday, January 26, 2010

A Wife in Defense of a Rapist

If there was an award for the most delusional, out of touch with reality, human being on the planet, I'm pretty sure that Emmanuelle Seigner would be a hands down winner. Um, who?

Yeah, that's what I said when I heard the name, too. Emmanuelle Seigner would be the woman who is married to self-admitted child rapist Roman Polanski. Granted, you have to assume quite a bit of non-reality touchiness if you're going to consider marrying and then actually do marry Roman Polanski. That's a given. But for some reason, her comments about where his legal problems are at recently still astounds me.

According to the folks over there at ABC News, Ms. Seigner spoke with Elle magazine about her husband's recent re-incarceration. (For those of you late to the party here, Roman Polanski pled guilty in 1977 to unlawful intercourse with a minor, having plea bargained down from charges of rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. These charges resulted from, according to testimony by the 13-year old victim, Polanski giving the victim champagne and a Quaalude and then, despite her repeatedly telling him to stop, performed intercourse (it's called rape), oral sex and sodomy upon her. She was thirteen. He was 44. Again, she was 13 and he was 44. Insert colorful adjective describing what kind of person does such a thing here.) What she told Elle was unbelievable. Then again, I find the fact that someone would actually marry a cretin like Roman Polanski unbelievable, so at least this broad is consistent.

This woman claims that "...she "understands perfectly" that women, particularly mothers, have been shocked by the 32-year-old charges." That sentence, in and of itself, is indication of quite the opposite of what she is saying. I don't know that you have to be a mother to be particularly appalled at the fact that a 44-year old man would rape a 13-year old girl as she begged him not to. No, I think you just have to be human to understand that it's a degree of sick and wrong that can't really be defined.

She continued with "But she added that at the time the crime took place, in the late 1970s, "people did not live and did not react in the same way. It was a time of craziness, the relationship to drugs wasn't the same, the relationship to sexual liberty and permissiveness neither. Today, public opinion has considerably evolved on the subjects." Oh, for the love of God. What?!

I'm pretty sure that the public opinion to a 44-year old man (have I mentioned that he was 44?) raping a 13-year old girl (have I mentioned that she was 13?) was pretty much the same in the 1970s as it is now. The only difference that I can see is that now people are more apt to use the colorful adjectives that come to mind when voicing their opinion on such a person, whereas in the 1970s they might have been more reserved in their choice of vocabulary. Either way, I'm pretty sure that acts of sodomy upon children have been frowned upon (to say the very least) in our society for quite some time...even as far back as the seventies! Good Lord, what is wrong with that woman?!

I have absolutely NO idea what in the world she could be talking about by the "relationship to sexual liberty and permissiveness". That was part of the problem. See, there wasn't permissiveness on the part of the 13-year old girl and that's why he raped her. Oh, he had to get her intoxicated with some champagne and drug her up with a Quaalude first, but there was a rape. Make no mistake about it.

The article states "Seigner said her husband of 25 years faced up to his responsibilities at the time. "My husband never believed he was above the law. The proof is that he pleaded guilty for having illegal sexual relations with an underage girl, that he got a prison sentence and that he served it," she said." Um...no he didn't. He didn't face up to squat. He was sentenced to jail for 90 days to be evaluated. (I could have evaluated him in an hour, but they wanted to take 90 days to figure out what a sick pervert a-hole this guy was.) He was in jail for 42 days and was supposed to show up for formal sentencing 3 days later. But your pussy of a husband was afraid that he wouldn't just get probation and was afraid that the judge was going to recommend a longer jail sentence. That's when he did all of the fleeing to France.

He didn't serve a sentence, you enabling twit! But regardless of that fact, let's just say that we believe you. Let's just say that you, Ms. Seigner, in all of your delusions, let's just assume that you are correct. If that's the case, then what's the problem with him coming back to the United States to straighten this thing out? If he has already served his prison time as you claim, then there should be no problem with him coming back and explaining that to the court, correct? Why is he fighting extradition from Switzerland?

Do you want to know why she was so surprised when they arrested her child-raping husband? She said, "....It seemed absurd to arrest him now, while we've been coming to Switzerland for 25 years and ... legally acquired a chalet three years ago." ::: blink:::: ::: blink ::::

You bought a chalet? You bought...a...chalet?! THAT is why you think it was absurd?! Because you bought a chalet?! Well, for God's sake! Do the courts know about the chalet?! I didn't know about the chalet! Why didn't you say so in the first place?! A chalet?! If I had known that, if I had known that you and your child-raping husband had bought a chalet, do you know what I would have thought? I would have thought that he's the same child rapist that he was before you bought the damned chalet and that he needs to come and finish standing accountable for his crimes. A chalet. God, that's weak.

You know, I suppose that it takes a certain kind of woman to be married to a guy who drugs and rapes a 13-year old when he's 44. You'd have to be the kind of woman who could justify in her own mind actually marrying someone like that. It would seem to me that Emmanuelle Seigner is exactly that woman. She's about as much in denial as someone can possibly be. This isn't about societal attitudes. This isn't about a changing of the times. This is about the rape of a 13-year old. There's not a lot of spin that you can put on something like that which will make people see it your way. There's not a lot of spin that you can put on something like that which will lessen the fact that is was a rape. And the more that you say, the more that you try to spin it, the more people will despise you and (if possible) the more people will despise your lowlife scumball of a husband. Please pipe down, stop talking and go back to your magical chalet which makes all of the wrongs of the world right again.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content


Anonymous said...

Very well said. I agree. What an idiot this actress sounds like. I sure hope that he never gets a chance to do this to any other child. That is the fear that when someone doesn't pay for their crime, then they get away with it and everyone defends them because they feel "sorry" for them and they do it again. How pathetic. It sounds like she'll be guilty with him if he ever does this atrocious act again.

Anonymous said...

The world would be a better place without moralists of your ilk.

Mind your own business.

Viagra Online said...

I totally agree with you, I heard the piece of news on ABC News show and I was in shock that she actually said those words, she must be sick in her head

Anonymous said...

Charlotte Lewis lives in my neighbourhood and I've spoken to her on a couple of occasions. I've been tempted to ask her about Polanski but it feels inappropriate, obviously.

I have never understood how he escaped serving proper time for what he did, and more so how so many high profile people have chosen to defend him.