Now Saletan lectures us about the importance of "knowing and thinking more" about the Polanski case. Given that he just got flayed by his readers for omitting significant evidence from his analysis, namely the victim's own testimony, this is a pretty breathtaking example of chutzpah.

It's especially annoying in light of the fact that Saletan clearly has not read the actual probation report and is relying simply on the NYT article. It's available here:

<link>

It's a monstrosity. The report bends over backward to cite any fact and draw any inference in Polanski's favor. It discusses those portions of the victim's g.j. testimony that describe her drinking champagne, but it completely neglects to mention her testimony that she said no to Polanski multiple times. It quotes multiple people saying that the victim looked older than she was, and it discusses her prior sexual experience and drug use. It goes into a lot of detail meant to establish that the victim was not screaming and bleeding after the rape.

So, it's offensively nonsensical for Saletan to say that it's "legitimate and relevant to cite evidence 'that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing.'" A look at the actual report shows that there is no such evidence. The probation report's conclusion that she was "willing" was not based upon any objective facts but rather upon the probation officer's inferences from preconceived prejudices about how a good girl behaves as opposed to a little slut. That's the equivalency that Saletan is drawing, perhaps unwittingly -- that the sexist assumptions of the past deserve as much weight in evaluating Polanski as do the actual facts of the case.

We've learned a lot in the last thirty years about sexual assault, victim psychology, coercion, and consent. Saletan would have us throw all of those advances away.

You accuse Saletan of all sorts of things and then you post 'perhaps unwittingly'. You really don't believe that do you. I believe you are only reading what you want to read. i.e. anything that doesn't say Polanski should be hung means someone wishes young girls to be raped.

Polanski raped that girl and to me that is clear. It was the DA's office that accepted a plea of statutory rape which imples consent was granted. Thus it was the DA's office that commited the travesty of justice here, that didn't respect this girls rights and the rights of all women and victims.

All I see Saletan doing here is asking where does a society draw the line of when a young teen can grant consent. OK if not 13, how about 14, 15, 16, 17?

Most states say the age is 17 or 18. Question answered, problem solved.

So a 17 year old cannot grant consent by definition? So if an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old the 18 year old has commited rape?

Show me a state that has this law!!!!

Willfull denseness isn't becoming, Jazz.

"All I see Saletan doing here is asking where does a society draw the line of when a young teen can grant consent. OK if not 13, how about 14, 15, 16, 17?"

?????

The "young teen" (only barely qualifying for that designation) did NOT grant consent. So what Saletan is really asking, at what age can a slutty 'young teen' be forceably raped.

Also, at what age can a 40-something man give drugs and alcohol to a young teen to try to make her less capable of resisting?

This world is full of very scary people.

Really, if I'm clueless here I'm willing to listen. But the other poster did say that only 18 year olds could grant consent. I went back and read the post again.

Thus since a 17 year cannot grant consent than an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old would be rape since rape is defined as a non consentual sex act.

If I'm being dense please help me understand.

Ok, I'm not going to defend Saletan. He is a rape loving, hate young girl asshole! Ok we agree on that now. Also, as I said 100 times Polanski raped the girl and should of been charged with the crime of rape.

So can we move on to the question about consent:

Where does a society draw the line of when a young teen can grant consent? OK if not 13, how about 14, 15, 16, 17?.

Can a young teen age 17 grant consent or NOT? Note that if a 17 year old can NOT grant consent than sex between an 18 year old and a 17 year old would be defined as rape.

I'm not sure what the answer is regarding 17 and 18 year olds, but I think I'll go out on a limb and suggest that there's no gray areas when it comes to 40 year old men and 13 year old girls.

I really don't see why so many posters fail to understand what Saletan is getting at in his post.

Really is it just this; There are gray areas!

All you do is go back to the specific Polanski case. This is what is crazy here, the inabiltiy of people at this forum to move beyond the Polanski case and discuss these gray areas.

I see that you mention the age of the man AND that you mention gender. Well should GENDER be a factor AND the age DIFFERNCE of each party? This has been a hot topic in news with the women teachers and their minor boy victims.

For example, if this a crime:

21 year old women with 17 year old boy? Is this the same type of crime:

21 year old man with 17 year old girl?

How about 28 year old women with 16 year old boy?

How about 28 year old man with 16 year old girl?

These are all issues that society needs to discuss. The fact you are not sure what the answer is is what Saletan was discussing and NOT that Polanski isn't a rapist!

If that's what he wanted to discuss, he should have said so. Here's one for you:

40 year old man and 13 year old girl.

See the gray area there? Saletan apparently does.

As I said 100 times the girl did grant consent and that she was raped. No gray area there.

I don't thing Saletan apparently did but really you and others just wish to hate him so be my guest.

I guess it is too difficult to address the gray areas and instead it is easier to just say Saletan supports the rape of young girls.

OK, now you show me where I said that. I disagree with his premise that the girl's actions in this case -- or whether she was sexually mature, knoweldgeable, or when she had her first period -- have anything to do with anything. He raped her. There are no gray areas. End of story.

Are you aware of any state that doesn't have a Romeo and Juliet clause in their AoC laws?

Your argument seems to be predicated on the notion that we cannot draw lines in a continuous variable (in this situation, the capacity to give sexual consent). Yet, we do this ALL the time. When is someone old enough to drive?: The US says 16, most of Europe 18 When is someone old enough to drink alcohol? 21 in US, not sure in Europe, but younger than that. When is someone old enough to make reasoned political decisions? We say 18 now, because someone pointed out that if you were old enough to go to war at 18, you shouldn't have to wait until you are 21 to have a say about who might/might not send you to war. When is someone old enough to sign a contract/rent a car/watch an R or X rated movie? 18 for most of those, and for some bizarre reason 24 to rent a car. We make these decisions because we intuitively understand (and we now have neuroimaging to prove) that it takes a while for the brain to fully mature (particularly those areas of the brain that are involved in making rational decisions). The problem is that there is no "oven timer" that goes off to tell us "bing" that particular person is old enough to make a decision about "X", so we draw an artificially dichotomous line in a continuous process. Arguably any black/white distinction is somewhat wrong, but it is even more wrong NOT to try to make some distinctions. I, for one, am grateful that there are not a bunch of beer drinking 14 year olds driving around my neighborhood (beer drinking college students are bad enough) and I am also glad that I would have some legal leverage if when my daughter is 14, she brings a 30 year old home to meet the family.