Call It For What It Is -- It's Not "Sex"

If anything, the recent Roman Polanski arrest "for having sex with a 13-year-old girl" has shown just how fucked up the media really is. For one, it's not "sex" when it is between a 44 year-old man and a 13 year-old girl. It's rape. Sex implies that its two consenting adults. Rape has completely different, and for Polanski, completely relevant connotations behind it. I cannot tell you how many media sources have referred to it as "sex" rather than "rape" and it got me thinking as to why the words are suddenly interchangeable in this case, when they clearly cannot be. A New York Times article opens with: "The matter of Roman Polanski, film director and fugitive from conviction for forcing sex on a 13-year-old girl, has been followed carefully" and continues by describing the event itself:

In March 1977, Mr. Polanski, 43 at the time, invited a 13-year-old to pose for pictures in a magazine he was guest-editing. He took her to Jack Nicholson’s house on Mulholland Drive and gave her Champagne and a Quaalude. He knew she was 13; he called her mother to tell her they were running late. Then he had...sex with the girl.

Never once in this article is rape mentioned in connection with the crime itself, instead we are presented with the word "sex," occasionally preceded by a word that implies rape, but why is rape so rarely used in these articles? I don't have an answer for that. But what bothers me even more is that, for some reason, the young victim is seen "as ‘loose’ or outside the neat victim box [and] the chances are low that someone will be held accountable" for rape if the victim falls into that category, says Rachel Lloyd. The victim is the one assumed to be at fault from the outset. It's victim-blaming at its worst. In past elements of the case Polanski's lawyers clamored to look at the young girl's sexual history, a history that, for all intents and purposes began with his client, but no one seemed to assume that. Instead the assumption is that Roman Polanski can't be the guilty one, the victim must be guilty of being a harlot. The 13 year-old girl must have seduced the 44 year-old man, not the other way around.

There is a power dynamic at work in rape, one that the "loose victim" argument intentionally works to debase in order to free the perpetrator. Polanski's status as a privileged (highly so, in his celebrity status) white male somehow shifts how the media sees his crime. I cannot tell you how often I've watched the local news and heard them talking about a rape case. The offender in the reported case is almost always black, and if he's not, he's a poor white man. Never do you hear about the rape that happens in the white collar home and workplace. It's always the poor (often "othered" race) that is placed as the perpetrator. And when that happens, he is described for what he is: a rapist and sexual predator. But in the case of Roman Polanski, it seems, the power dynamic is so far skewed in his favor that these labels cannot even be applied to him. So, while all male perpetrators of rape do have an unequal power dynamic on their side (both while committing the crime as well as when being charged, as our country loves victim blaming so much) Polanski and other celebrities like him, have the full weight of doubting the victim's honesty (and ultimately "virtues") on their side.

Is this why celebrities in droves have come out to support a man that committed one of the most heinous crimes I can think of? He raped a young girl, there's no way of getting around that. Let's call it for what it is -- no more wishy-washy terms that vaguely conceal the true nature of the crime behind a less loaded word, because there is no other way to describe what happened between Polanski and his young victim in 1978. Polanski was prepared to plead guilty, but he "skipped out on bail, and then fled the country" in order to avoid prosecution "for having sex with a minor." His guilt should not be questioned -- innocent people don't enter plea bargains, admitting to the crime. There should be no question here of his guilt, and yet we have a petition floating around expressing shock and outrage at his arrest.

We have droves of celebrities lining up to slap their John Hancock onto a document defending a sexual predator, saying his rights were violated by being prosecuted. Sorry, A-List Celebs, but this time you're out of your fucking minds. After raping a young girl, that man should have no rights. He should be in jail. Society demands that others who do such a thing forfeit their freedoms and rights, so why is Polanski any different? Because he has celeb backing?

I'm sorry, that doesn't fly. And that is my complaint with the justice system, the media, and how our culture as a whole "sees" rape. It is a crime that has exceptionally different qualities between rape as reality, and rape as perception. The reality of rape is that it is vastly under-reported, is not one limited to minority groups, and is an exercise of "a 'privilege' of power." And it is a widespread problem that is grossly under-reported because of the societal stigmas associated with it. That is where perception comes in. Victims that report rape often find themselves with the tables turned, as they suddenly must defend themselves (oftentimes more vigorously) than those they were trying to get put away for their crime. The societal perception is that "She must have been asking for it." She must have dressed provocatively, or was out too late at night. And while the situation with Polanski is not one that I would place my daughter willingly in, as her parental guardian did, that does not, no matter what you say, make Polanski any less guilty. He still committed the crime. The victim is cannot be made to suffer for circumstance, but ultimately, it seems she will.

The petition proves that. As long as you have celebrity on your side, it is automatically she who is impugned in some way. Kobe Bryant escaped rape charges and public shaming through a pay out, as his accuser's sex life was dragged throughout the media and she was called, among other things, "loose." Her word couldn't be trusted as a result, and she ultimately had to take an out-of-court settlement rather than face the shame and unfair questioning she would endure in such a high-profile case. Polanski's lawyers are now talking about a protracted legal fight. His victim has asked in the past that charges be dropped and that she forgives him. But who can blame her for wanting to close a 30+ year chapter of her life that has undoubtedly been a painful one.

I suppose my point isn't so much that his arrest is deserved, but more that this whole situation highlights how perceptions of rape are influenced by the media and other cultural factors. Polanski, a white male and Kobe Bryant, a black male (though, importantly, a black celebrity) both have the ability to escape the societal stigma of "Rapist." Bryant because he could pay out the woman that he, his legal team, and the media lambasted as, essentially, a whore until she broke down and accepted their payout. Bryant has emerged largely untarnished -- his career stats taking precidence over his sexual assault statistics. Polanski has, in a sense, a similar opportunity. He is wealthy, has the support of many important figures, is not having his crime widely referred to as "rape" in the media, and has the benefit of a victim who just wishes to move on with her life and her family without having to relive the assault that happened to her 30 some years ago.

Polanski may or may not get away a second time. That's not the point. Or, at least, its not mine. My point is simple: the media reports rape in the same manner that many perceive it -- a crime committed by poor, violent, non-white men against women who were probably asking for it based on their sexual history. A huge number of these crimes go unreported as a result, because there is little hope in the victim for getting a real resolution, and certainly not one without a substantial amount of emotional hardship as every sordid detail of your sexual history will be dragged out in front of a court of law. I understand it is our responsibility to establish guilt, not innocence according to the legal procedure, and I agree with that ideal. But its time to ask ourselves how much does the victim have to suffer on top of the crime itself to obtain justice?

-The Crier