Why Arrest Roman Polanski?

Roman had plenty of time to deal with his legal issues and failed to do so. The girl was 13 ( a child) and he was the adult. If she was drinking then her ability to make a rational decision may have been affected due to her lowered inhibitions.
The fog of time is a great way to gloss over a person's indescretions however we are all accountable for our actions. There are a lot of elderly priests in prisons serving time for sex ( gay and hetero)crimes that they committed 10, 20, 30 or so years ago (am sure some even used holy wine to reduce the children's inhibitions). They did good work with their parrishes, how are they any different than a guy who makes movies??

Carlin I agree!

<br>

I recently spoke to a client who was in a similar scenario and was so afraid to talk about her feelings because she was led to believe that it was wrong. When i asked her how she felt through the entire ordeal, she told me that it was probably one of the best sexual experiences of her life. She was 12; her lover was 30.

<br>

And I'm sick of the feminists "trying to send a message" and making a whole witch hunt out of this incident... one that's older than me! Of course, there's the "if one gets away then it sends the message that rapists can get away with it too" Okay. I get that. There's also the message sent that a victim will always remain a victim, even after she's made peace with the situation. What business is it of ours or the law about the relationship Polanski and this girl shared and still continue to share (not because Polanski is harassing her; because the rest of us want justice!)

<br>

C'mon people. Life isn't so cut and dry. Who are we really getting justice for at the end of the day?  

"Illusion is the first of all pleasures" - Oscar Wilde

www.christinacicchelli.com

Rape is rape though, no matter what great films he made or that he is well respected in Hollywood. In Ireland we are trying to come to terms with the horrible abuse that happened in the children's homes run by the priests and nuns many years ago, that have left people who are now in their fifties and sixties mentally and physically scarred for life. Time does not justify leniency. A wrong was done to a child who was drugged and forced to have sex with a man who should have known better. Whether it happened twenty years ago or yesterday it is still the same. Yes he has had a hard and horrible life but that can be no excuse. Justice is supposed to be blind, remember?

going around about what exactly it is that Polanski did. I don't even know anymore. I had an uncomfortable conversation with my parents yesterday about why they don't understand why there's so many people who want to forgive him. My dad got all worked up and was like "he fed her drugs and then sodomized her!" (Like sodomy makes the rape even more disgraceful). I pointed out that many young women during that time in Hollywood were making the choice to take drugs and have sex themselves. I hate the implication in our society that a 13-year-old WOMAN would never make choices like that on her own. When I was 13, I wished I was taking drugs and having anal sex every day. Of course, I wasn't, and those would have been terrible choices for me to make. But that doesn't change the fact that, given the opportunity, I would have made those choices! And to tell me I would not have been capable of making those choices without a pervy old man forcing me into those things is even more insulting.

Ok,
As the father of a 20, 16, and 6 year old girls I can tell you that 13 year old GIRLS are not ready for sex. and certainly not with adult men.

Sex has consequences... not only physical, but mental, as everyone knows.
13 year olds will do just about anything to fit in, and do not make good choices. They don't see anything past the next weekend.

also, the adult that would have sex with a 13 year old, in my opinion, is not a person that I would put much stock into as a person.

The difference between a 13 and 18 year old person is huge.

I know for a fact that my daughters would have done anything for there "rock star" hero of the week. it is up to the parent to keep them out of that situation. (rock star or capt. of the football team)

Polanski was not in his right mind... for what ever reason. he should not have had sex with a 13 year old!

"If Teaching Evolution is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Evolve"

From a woman's point of view, there's not much difference between a 13 and a 18 year old. If I was 13, I would want someone Polanski's age for my first sexual experience. They're much more grateful. Besides, many boys between the ages of 18-35 are still too self-absorbed to please a woman (or themselves). Plus, is anybody in their right mind when they're having sex... especially with someone they shouldn't be? i agree with carlise. I would have dropped my panties in a second to share a jacuzzi with a talented producer or artist - not because of the fame itself... but because of the situation. he has power, talent, authority... mmm. anyway, if this was the brutal and violent rape of a young girl, and if that young girl grew up to continuously fight for the imprisonment of her rapist, then i would be tooting a different horn. But, that isn't the case... AT ALL. 13 year olds can want pleasure, and, personally, parents should know how to help their daughters and sons utilize that sexual pleasure in a way that doesn't exploit or victimize them. 

"Illusion is the first of all pleasures" - Oscar Wilde

www.christinacicchelli.com

Maybe in todays world there is not much of difference between a 13 yr old and an 18 yr old female, but we're talking over 30 years ago...at that time their was a huge difference.

I'm really torn on this one, the years of counseling rape victims makes me think about only one person, the woman who was involved.  I understand the need to send a msg, but I also feel that perhaps all this would only force this woman to relive something that she has already come to terms with and undo all the work it has taken her to learn to forgive. 

I don't give a shit about Polanski or what the circumstances where at the time, he was 30, she was 13 it was statutory rape.  I worry more for the woman and how this will effect her.

I agree with you 100%. And how eloquently said!

I'd expect somebody with such a strong opinion, and to be so bold enough to post it to be very educated on the Polanski case. I'd suggest you read the court transcripts here: http://media.causes.com/ribbon/606941

He slipped sedatives in the 13 year old girl's champagne.
He proceeded to go down on her, and she begged him to stop.
He continued to rape & sodomize her, as she (still) pleaded for him to stop.
She wanted to drop the charges because when he fled, he caused more humiliation & controversy that she was tortured by it. Not because she changed her mind about whether or not he committed a heinous crime against her.

So...what part of this is consensual?

And even if she did give him permission, somebody would have to be pretty sick in the head to desire sex with somebody so considerably young. They're getting off on the notion that they're in charge - no matter what you say.

And if a young girl of 12 has sex (rape) with a 30 year old and said it was the best sex of her life, she's obviously put up a very strong defense mechanism for not being damaged by it and is in denial. Look up "cognitive dissonance", and study the subject. Even if she did "enjoy" the moment, the realization of the fact that an older man used her body because she was vulnerable is psychologically damaging enough as itself. I really hope you aren't this girl's therapist.

And wait. So because his wife was brutally murdered he should get a 'free rape' pass? He shouldn't be charged with the crime because... what? I'm sorry. This level of thinking I just can't bring myself to see.

So because my mother died and the experience was very traumatic for me, it's okay for me to seek out a vulnerable young male/female and have sex - whether they want it or not? And being that young is never consensual. Your mind, body, and spirit are going through all sorts of drastic changes... I could go on and explain this but I really think if you're still confused at this point maybe you need to extensively learn about puberty.

And he was in jail for 42 days for psychiatric evaluation. Nobody get's 42 days in prison if they rape a minor, so damn right the judge wanted a stronger sentence afterward! The original sentence was not enough!

Advice: Next time you form a strong opinion, save yourself the humiliation and educate yourself on the subject you so boldly defend.

oh & another thing.
He never finished his whole sentencing. He was initially sentenced 90 days, but was released after 42. He judge wanted him to go back and serve the remainder of the 90 days, but then he fled.

Excuse me, honey, but our bodies, minds, and energies change at any age. We're never the same person we were a year ago and, if you are, then you are unfortunately slighted by an existence that bares no challenges and no lessons for you to learn about the world itself. What Roman Polanski did to Samantha Geimer (By the way, why won't anyone say her name... ?) when she was 13 is considered rape not because you and I have defined it as such but she has. And, honestly, I may be speaking only for myself, but even as a young girl up until now, the definitions of rape go beyond the consensual and non-consensual, which is a definition only used to make it easier to pursue the rapist in court and in jail, an exhaustive process that only the victim (in this case, 13 year old geimer) can experience. Rape is more than an act, it's an emotion, a heightened fear, and a surrender of my powerlessness when I didn't have a choice to. According to the interview she gave to Larry King in 2003, she didn't report the rape, her mother did after her sister heard her talking about it to her boyfriend. And, even then, she didn't feel comfortable discussing it. In the next 24 hours her life was completely changed - does this make her encounter with Polanski any less criminal? Of course not. But, what we forget is that Geimer, even at 13, should have had the right to verbally address her feelings when she could have. Especially since she was subjected to a media frenzy that I'm sure none of deserve to endure, even when we hadn't the time or space to fully process what has happened. Now, Geimer finally has a chance to really define the situation for herself, and it's slipped right underneath her feet because the legal proceedings must make an example out of a man who (despite his talent and the brutal loss of his wife) had no prior history of abusing, sodomizing, raping, or even preying upon young women. Geimer even says in her interview with larry king that she understood why polanski fled. I would also like to point out that her lawyer said that Polanski did express remorse for what he did by pleading guilty to the felony of sex with an unlawful minor. I would like to further state that Geimer went on record to say that if she had a daughter and the same thing happened to her she would not have gone to the police right away. Sera, we all know the facts - I do too - but it's easier to read about the rape and form our own stubborn opinions than to listen to the victim, isn't it? Eleni is completely right; regardless of what has happened with Polanski, the victim's voice is of the utmost importance. And Geimer's voice only seems secondary to justice, which should be working for her, right? I, once more, would like to quote Geimer: "Well, yes, I was angry because he was the cause of the publicity and the publicity was the worst thing that ever happened to me."

"Illusion is the first of all pleasures" - Oscar Wilde

www.christinacicchelli.com

I’m a mother with the responsibility for raising my daughter to be a healthy, independent, productive woman. I feel this responsibility to her, as well as our larger community. Right now she’s a 13 year old girl who gets nervous going into Victoria Secret with me, but also wants to have a serious relationship with Derik Huff from Dancing with the Stars (he is pretty hot.) Yes, 13 year old girls tend to live in fantasy land. As a 13 year girl, I thought I had it all figured out. As a parent, I see that I did not understand the ramification of the adult decisions that I thought I was ready to make.

We are a pretty open family when it comes to sexuality. She has/will have all the best info on enjoying herself, as well as sexual relationships when the time is right. Thanks goes to Betty D. and others who have blazed/are balzing that trail. I hope she becomes a sensual woman and not a sexual door mat.

However, at her current age, we still need to be very protective of her. She does not have the mental facility to make the kind of decisions that a healthy sexual encounter with a man requires. I would be surprised to find many parents that feel their 13 year old is mature enough to hang in a hot tub with an adult drinking and making good decisions. I want her to have a "fun" sexual coming of age experience, but at 13? What's the rush? She's probably still working on her masturbation technique, discovering herself in the safty and privacy of her room.

As a community, it takes a village, why would we want to excuse this man from his responsibility to not take advantage of our children/teenagers?

Oh….and by the way, is it to judgmental to ask where the hell her parents were as she got herself in the position to be taken advantage of? Our laws around the age of consent are in place to reinforce our community, even when parents fall down on the job.

Ok, so I obviously get it. You're too lazy to actually read the facts on the Polanski case, and are getting your facts from - who knows where. So I'm going to make this really easy for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCpRuxb9cJA

The video sums up everything I'm about to say.

"What Roman Polanski did to Samantha Geimer when she was 13 is considered rape not because you and I have defined it as such but she has."

Yes, and also because the law does as well. Your point is?

"....to pursue the rapist in court and in jail, an exhaustive process that only the victim (in this case, 13 year old geimer) can experience"

So because it's exhaustive for the victim, you're trying to say criminals shouldn't be prosecuted? Duh, what survivor of rape will be present at a trial and feel rejuvenated by the experience? Of course they'll be exhausted. So what's your point?

"According to the interview she gave to Larry King in 2003, she didn't report the rape, her mother did after her sister heard her talking about it to her boyfriend. And, even then, she didn't feel comfortable discussing it."

Show me a victim of rape that feels anything BUT uncomfortable in discussing what happened to them? This is the exact reason so many rapes go unreported, actually. Thank the world that her mother acted as a mother and protected her daughter by reporting it!

"Especially since she was subjected to a media frenzy that I'm sure none of deserve to endure, even when we hadn't the time or space to fully process what has happened."

Yeah but you're blaming the judicial system? It's Polanski who brought this upon himself and Gaimer! How backasswards is your level of thinking?

the legal proceedings must make an example out of a man who (despite his talent and the brutal loss of his wife) had no prior history of abusing, sodomizing, raping, or even preying upon young women.

Rapists don't just exist among the untalented. Just because he lost his wife doesn't not make it okay to rape. If someone doesn't have prior history of abuse this does not give them a free pass to rape someone. I again, don't understand your logic.

"Geimer even says in her interview with larry king that she understood why polanski fled. I would also like to point out that her lawyer said that Polanski did express remorse for what he did by pleading guilty to the felony of sex with an unlawful minor."

A) Yeah, so she understands why he fled. And...? I know why he did too. Because he doesn't want to deal with the consequences of his actions.
B) I find it hilarious that you can only quote Polanski's lawyer and not Polanski himself, expressing remorse.
C) He pleaded guilty to serve a lesser sentence. And even if you were correct, that he felt remorse (which he doesn't, you can see a video of him here that would prove you wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvQ9GETrBhc ) he would've served his sentence and taken all the offers that were handed to him after he fled to deal with his crime.

"And Geimer's voice only seems secondary to justice, which should be working for her, right?"
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: She only wants to drop the charges because Polanski wouldn't settle for anything having to do with closing the case. NOT because she forgives him for his behavior.

"Well, yes, I was angry because he was the cause of the publicity and the publicity was the worst thing that ever happened to me."
Yeah, no thanks to Polanski. You can blame the media, you can blame Geimer, you can blame her mother. But Polanski is the only person you should be blaming. This isn't a matter of opinion, the facts are all there.

You know what? I actually have to apologize because if I had put up the link to the interview then you would have been able to understand that the lawyer's quote actually came from Lawrence Silver, Samantha Geimer's former attorney. 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/24/lkl.00.html

Obviously, this is becoming more of a debate club than anything else. Instead of asking questions and raising alternative (as well as traditional) thoughts about this case, we're just spouting off information that really concludes nothing... because the main argument between you and me is opinion-based. My opinion? This shouldn't become a fucking witch hunt because one man raped a girl over 30 years ago. There are other people out there who are so much more debase (i.e. Josef Fritzl) and corrupt (ie. Phillip Garrido) who dedicated their entire lives to torturing, manipulating, and abusing their victims without the rest of the world knowing. In this case, Samantha Geimer isn't a victim anymore and, if you read the transcript, she HAS forgiven him. I'm not angry at Roman Polanski. What he did was fucked up, sure. But, who I care most about is Geimer, and if I were to agree and completely believe everything that you think is right, then it seems like a slap in the face of a woman who really just wants to be left alone... but can't because the rest of the world believed Polanski should be penalized. Your opinion? Polanski should be persecuted regardless of the "victim's" interests. Polanski is to blame for this entire thing. He's a monster and must be an example of. Oh, and just because you watch youtube video (which proves nothing) and read court reports makes you an expert on the case. I read them too but I also wanted to read up on Samantha Geimer's story to see exactly what her feelings are about this... because, if there's any message we should be sending from this (since the anti-polanski party gets a hard-on for sending a message) it's that the victim (whether she be 13 or 45) should still have power and control over the encounter that occurred by deciding the fate of the accused. Doesn't that make sense? By the definition of the court, her mother and sister (who were acting out of their best interests), and everyone else, defined the encounter as rape, an incident where Geimer lost complete control over her own situation. Doesn't it make sense to give her that power back by listening to her wishes?

"Illusion is the first of all pleasures" - Oscar Wilde

www.christinacicchelli.com

This is a serious effin' crime, I don't understand how you talk about this case like he stole from a convenience store, and 711 decided to drop the charges. This is equivalent to a person being prosecuted for the murders of his victims. If the surviving family & everyone close to the victims wanted to drop the charges because the publicity humiliated them, would it make sense to release him? Uhhh no. The point is he is penalized for his horrible crime. He broke the law.

He didn't just break the law with Geimer, I should add - he also broke the law by fleeing. So his sentencing is partly Geimer, partly the Judicial system. Even if Geimer had the power to pardon him, the court won't. And anyway, she's already been exposed again in this whirlwind of media coverage ...would it really make a difference thus far if the court did the right thing and prosecute him?

Oh & by the way, when Roman Polanski was 43, he was in a romantic relationship with Nastassja Kinski who was 15 at the time. Just to retaliate from your comment on how Geimer was his first and last offense (like that matters, anyway). Source: http://www.moviecritic.com.au/roman-polanski-and-nastassja-kinski/

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!” - a year after he raped Geimer.

And... this really isn't a matter of opinion. This case is so black & white it's just a matter of how much you actually know about the law, this case, and whether or not you have a general understanding of ethical treatment.

Worldly Europeans wink at what Polanski did. Film stars and execs are expected to be lads. Judges and prosecutors privately assume that teenage girls are all too willing to throw themselves at such men, for a small chance that they will become the next Bardot or Kinski.

I have not read anything by Geimer or seen her talk on TV. But I would expect that she was more than consenting. She was deeply moved by the interest Polanski took in her, simply because of his stature in the world film industry. If she had been raped in the emotional sense, I think that given all the feminist reenforcement of recent decades, she would have gone public with that. There are many women who daydream of being swept off their feet by an alpha male.

The issue is that Polanski is a scofflaw. Recent hehaviour by his legal team in LA has reenforced that. That team filed legal papers that amounted to calling the LA criminal justice system wimpy and incompetent. It never pays to sneer at cops, judges, or DAs. It is well known that they try to get even. In the country I live in, if you quietly refuse to carry out a direct order from your work boss and he fires you, you have a lot of rights under our labour law. But if you tell your boss to his face to go to hell, if you tell him "no effing way, Jose" you are being "defiant" and your being fired on the spot will be upheld unless what he ordered you to do was clearly illegal. Well, I submit that Polanski's lawyers were being "defiant." Not a smart thing to do, baby.

I am raising daughters. And I can assure you that they view show business as the ultimate career, and success in show business as the ultimate accolade. They understand perfectly well that the favourable opinion of a middle aged alpha male can make all the difference in the world between being a star and a wallflower. Many teenage girls will gladly slip out of their knickers if they think that will increase the likelihood that they will be cast in a film or TV series. The result is that a guy like Polanski will have sexual opportunities of a kind the rest of us males can only daydream about.

Parents do not want their daughters preyed on in this fashion. Teens who get caught up in this can easily get pregnant or catch an STD. The resulting sexual flings are not relationships. It encourages girls to take a very cynical and instrumental view of their emerging sexuality: "the attractiveness of my body is a legitimate way for me to get ahead in life." The spouses of men in show business live in fear that their husbands will behave in this fashion.

As a str8 man, I do not want sexual favours from a girl who is too young and immature to be anything but in awe of me. I am far far more flattered by the sexual favours of a much older woman who has been around the block many times, who has no trouble saying no and throwing a man out of her life, who has experienced a lot of men and still finds me exciting. Girls who are still in school simply do not have the knowledge and experience to think highly of me as a partner.

If Polanski is let off the hook, that will up the sexual competition of young women wanting the attention of film execs and producers. I can easily imagine a world where the typical young woman wanting a shot at a career in Hollywood includes explicit nude shots of herself in her portfolio, with women climbing over each other to be more perverted than thou. If that happens, show biz will cease to attract women like Meryl Streep. Pop music will cease to attract women like Tori Amos. Jazz would not attract Nina Simone. And we would all be much the poorer for it.

But, why even view sex as an advantage for a chance to get ahead the game? Whatever happened to sex simply for pleasure.

In this wonderful, unadulterated, big book of porn I own, a pornographer comes forward to discuss his role in both the adult entertainment industry and in Hollywood (many crew members, writers, and directors work in porn under a pseudonym... then and now). He said that the proverbial "casting couch" in Hollywood was no different than the "auditions" a lady may endure for a role in a porno. In fact, he said once that a desperate mother had told a producer that he can do whatever he wanted with a daughter, so long as she receives exposure!. This was happening about the same time as this incident occurred. Is this to say that what went down was right? No. But, we're avoiding an issue that not only affects the entertainment biz, but all of us. We forget that young girls (12 and up) are desired. Many of them have experienced puberty, once they receive their period they're bodies let them know that they're fully operational to give birth (and, thus, have sex). But, most times, they're not mentally or emotionally prepared to do so... with anyone (be it a boy her age or a man over a decade her senior). Does no one see anything wrong with that? 

Honestly, in my opinion, Geimer's mother was an actress. Around this same time Brooke Shields' mother plans to have her daughter pose nude for a photograph and plans the whole thing. Given what could happen behind closed doors, I really can't believe that Geimer's mother would not know that this would happen. Samantha Geimer already had sex twice, so Polanski didn't "steal" her virginity (how can anyone "steal" someone's virginity anyway)? While financial gain could be motivation, couldn't Geimer's mother just give her the straight talk about the business and about sex? At least give her a clue. 

In fact, why can't most mothers do that with their daughters? And not the "Oh wait until you're in love..." or "You should do it with a boyfriend and someone whom really loves you" because WE all know that is not the case. We have sex to feel pleasure and give pleasure to our partner. Once a young girl learns that she can sex for pleasure, you give her power. You give her the power to choose if encounters (like the one Geimer experienced with Polanski) are going to be bad ones or good ones. You give her the power to choose her lovers based not on how much they love them (anyone can say I love you) but based on if they turn you on and give you the pleasure you deserve (not just anybody can eat you out/have sex with the way the way you like). You teach a girl about masturbation and she can understand the different sensations that occur not just with a man her age, but with older men too. Making sex real for young girls gives them power early on in life, and personally women are a minority and are so for reasons such as this one. 

Giving young women this type of power takes away power from their male partner, which, in this context, is the big shot producer. It no longer becomes a competition and, instead, women can just have sex with the guys they want to have sex with. And, if they feel like there needs to be a sexual exchange. then at least they can receive pleasure from those experiences. I hope Polanski's release doesn't up the sexual competition. It shouldn't because sex doesn't guarantee anything unless you get the money/signed contract up front. Maybe Meryl Streep and Tori Amos already knew that so they rather not take the chance. 

Also, let's not assume that only non-talented women would "Stoop so low" to sleep with a producer for a role. Given the atmosphere, I wouldn't be surprised if a few notable actresses did whore themselves around Hollywood for roles. And all the more power to them! 

"Illusion is the first of all pleasures" - Oscar Wilde

www.christinacicchelli.com

"Yes, she was 13 but she had nonviolent sex with a celebrity."

This has already been pointed out, but it needs to be reiterated – Polanski gave this girl a combination of alcohol and Quaaludes, then performed sexual acts on her after she repeatedly said no. I don't think there's anything "non-violent" about that. That would be rape if she was 23 years old, and the fact that she was 13 and he was an adult only magnifies the abuse of power.

I also wish supporters and detractors alike wouldn't conflate Polanski's relationship with Natassja Kinski with his actions toward Samantha Geimer. Those were two different things, the only common denominator being that both were "underage" by contemporary American standards. Taking age out of the issue, one was a consensual relationship, the other was a forcible rape. Big difference.

If you want to make a point that the sexual standards of the 70s that condoned things like the Kinski/Polanski affair or the fictional relationship in Woody Allen's Manhattan as better than contemporary "feminist" sexual morality, I'd actually be with you. But calling Polanski's forcing himself on a very young teenager "non-violent" is an entirely different story.

I do agree, the Kinkski and Polanski relationship isn't the same because one was rape and one wasn't. What is fucked up, however, is that they are both still considered rape... we must save the children, right? 

You can call it what you want to. We all know we have to call it rape. We know that. No one needs to bash this over the head and no one needs to contest it. So, let's get off of this high horse that we need to straddle to define all and every sexual encounter. What I will most certainly call it is non-violent rape because that is exactly what it is. 

Just because you offer someone drugs and alcohol - at any age - doesn't make it violent. 

Just because he didn't listen to her doesn't make it violent. 

Just because someone puts their dick inside of me doesn't make it violent. 

What makes it violent are verbal and/or physical attacks, intimidation, threats, and abuse. Otherwise, the only reason it is seen as violent is because of the following: 

1) He penetrated her and she said no - rape, not violent

2) He's an authority figure... ? 

The latter is a bogus excuse and an example of not being able to empower children enough to confidently listen to their instincts and tell said "authority figure" to fuck off. You know what? He's an older man but that doesn't mean he has authority over anyone. And being an older man doesn't make it any more violent. 

I could see it being violent if her pussy wasn't fully lubricated and it did hurt. But, penetration, alone isn't violent. And his ignorance of her telling him no isn't violent. It's rape.

This behavior does prove Polanski to be an asshole (obviously) and, in the eyes of the law and society, it's rape. But to call it violent is to undermines the fact that women - at any age - DO NOT HAVE to be victims of this scenario of rape. 

This needs to be clear because we cannot continue to put women - at any age - in a position where they need to be or feel like victims. We need to re-educate ourselves and young women to remember that can always gain control of a situation, especially one like this. 

Understand, you can put rapists in jail and somehow pretend that it somehow "sends a message" or deters men from raping other women. But, obviously that doesn't work. So, we need to restructure and reconsider how we teach young ones about sexual power and pleasure so that they can readily be prepared for moments like this one. 

"Illusion is the first of all pleasures" - Oscar Wilde

www.christinacicchelli.com