So you defend Roman Polanski.
Then someone reads your biography from four years ago where you say:
"I got into the habit of paying for boys . . . The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire that I no longer needed to restrain or hide"
Then someone reads your biography from four years ago where you say:
"I got into the habit of paying for boys . . . The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire that I no longer needed to restrain or hide"
"All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously ... the abundance of very attractive and immediately available young boys put me in a state of desire."
Let it be clear the age of these boys is not clear, they may be legal age.
However, it is a big oops.
He COULD come out and say the boys were legal age, I have no shame about exploiting prostitutes from developing countries who consented and were (young) adults (!). There is no proof he has broken any laws.
However defending Polanski does not make for a good look. Polanski no doubt was excited enormously and was in a state of desire, so he drugged and raped a young girl.
It is THAT that denies his moral authority for certain, whether his rapacious hedonism also does so is something we may not ever know.
1 comment:
Says it all really doesnt it?
No need to wonder why politics world wide as become such a corrupt sleazy business.
French Minister of culture likes paying for Boys. Head of the American committe to reform tax owes the IRD approx 1.3mil and is not paying. 3rd in UN is our own ex pm who if she wasnt corrupt herself (which I doubt) tolerated it in her government. American President with a somewhat shady past Etc Etc Etc
Post a Comment