Dankprofessor’s Weblog

A weblog examining sexual politics in higher education and beyond.

A rape victim on her rape and on Polanski’s “victim”

I encourage any one who wishes to have a fuller understanding of rape and its long term and short term consequences to read Samskara’s presentation and analysis of her rape.  In the context of her rape experience, Samskara explains why the so-called facts presented by Samantha Geimer, the alleged rape victim of Roman Polanski, leads her to conclude that Geimer was not a victim of forcible rape.

This is a must read for anyone seriously interested in the Polanski case and rape in general.  I hope readers circulate this so it might come to the attention of Polanski and/or his legal defenders.

January 12, 2010 - Posted by | consensual relationships, rape, Roman Polanski, sex, sexual politics

25 Comments »

  1. Dank:

    Thanks for the plug. I was only stating what needed to be stated. Rape means rape. It should not mean anything else. That Geimer largely has exonerated her with her public statemens, which seem to change as the wind blows, to her outright statements of, “It wasn’t rape…. He never hurt me…,” speaks t something ‘else’ that happened that afternoon. Though I still would love to know how if an average guy can ejaculate once ever 20 minutes, how is it that Polanski ejaculated not once, not twice, but three times on her body, according to her Grand Jury testimony? So that ‘rape’ should have taken roughly about 90 minutes to occur, yet she arrives home having not taken a shower or cleaned herself up at Nicholson’s house, and certainly no shower after she got home. So the ejaculate she says that was on her back (two fo the three times he did so), would have had to either still be there in a dried form, or caked into her clothes. Yet again, no evidence on her clothes, and none in her anal cavity, and none on her back. If he performed ‘cuddliness’ on her as she claimed, then certainly, there would have been evidence of saliva on her inner and outer lips. Yet, we have as Novalis Lore pointed out and as I read in the Barbara Leaming book, “Polanski: The Filmmaker as Voyeur” that all evidence came back negative. Then Geimer claims when she arrived home, she had a bowel movement and that may have cleared out her anal cavity. Impossible. She’s have had to given herself an enema and a douche to clear away any kind of evidence of anything. And there is no evidence according to her, she did so.

    Sorry for the graphic nature of this post, but I’m just following up my post on my blog and your linking to it for clarity.

    Comment by Samskara | January 13, 2010 | Reply

  2. That only shows that what she invented then wasn’t cleverly thought through to make any real sense, a typical teenager’s limited ‘knowledge’ no adult would have come up with, ref sodomy most of all – She invented too much that’s simply [physically] not possible and illogical altogether, too many implausible developments to cover her [sudden] ‘fears’ of him no one had noticed before, to top it all. Had she only cried [non-forcible] rape, that might have been trickier to discredit, but ‘dry [double] sodomy’ is simply out of the question. If she didn’t want any of it, she simply could have stayed at home for all the three photoshoots with him, or later walked out the door once he kissed her, told him off and that was that. But no, she stayed, she knew the score and she played the game. Regardless of her age. Which does not make her a whore, only a very mature teenager.

    Comment by Novalis Lore | January 13, 2010 | Reply

    • Novalis:

      HOLD ON! She had THREE shoots with him? I knew about the one in February where Polanski in his book said he took her to the hills above her house. He also recounted that she voluntarily took off her own top to wave it at those two men. But where did this third shoot come from?

      One other possible thing she could have done to ‘get out’ of it, was to simply excuse herself from the situation after Polanski asked her to take off her clothes and get into the jacuzzi, then leave the house to go to Jackie Bisset’s house and tell her what Polanski wanted to do. Certainly Bisset would have called her mother and or the police to report it. Not even friendship would have stopped Bisset from helping a ‘child’ she believed to be in danger.

      Comment by Samskara | January 13, 2010 | Reply

      • That’s exactly where they had the ‘second’ shoot – at Bisset’s house for a while before they went to Jack’s house for the better light there right after for the third. It’s all in my blog. Bisset might have done so, but she was friends with him since many years and taken her allegations with a pinch of salt, since she thought she was much older and knew what she was doing. She and her guests watched them taking the photos at her poolside. Geimer had enough chances to leave but she never did. He even phoned her mother before the Jacuzzi session after they had taken photos already, to tell her that it might take a bit longer which she didn’t mind, and then Geimer talked to her and said that she was fine. That was after she had taken the champagne and Quaaludes already.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | January 13, 2010

  3. [...] for rape victims, speaking up in support of Polanski, click here and for a detailed account of the circumstances involves in the Geimer statutory rape, click [...]

    Pingback by On defending Roman Poklanski « Dankprofessor’s Weblog | February 5, 2010 | Reply

  4. Novlais Lore is a pompous tool who seems to suffer from an acute case of always needing to be the smartest guy in the room.

    Comment by vernon | May 16, 2010 | Reply

    • No problem, he almost always is the smartest guy
      in the room.

      Comment by dankprofessor | May 16, 2010 | Reply

    • Vernon:

      Obviously you are not a woman. If you were, you’d know that any kind of intercourse whether it be via penis, digital or through a sex toy invariably leaves SOME sign of penetration. In Samantha’s case, there was ZERO evidence of sperm, saliva or blood. In my case, there were scratches from my rapist’s zipper on the insides of my thighs and there was blood due to the force of which he raped me. And every single time I’ve had anal intercourse, there has been a small amount of blood, even with KY Jelly. To have been dry humped anally as Samantha claims she was, there would have been tears, blood and pain. That’s the one thing that Samantha has never EVER mentioned: The PAIN of the supposed rape she endured. It’s always her being scared of Polanski or her fear….never her pain. And believe me a rape victim remembers the pain.

      Comment by Samskara | May 16, 2010 | Reply

      • Well put, Samskara. Maybe these know-nothing Polanski detractors should ask genuine rape victims like yourself, and in fact myself as well & others I know who fully support Polanski, to finally get the idea that what Geimer claimed was pure fantasy and is an insult to us. THAT is why there was no trial, not to ‘spare’ her, but not to humiliate her in a serious cross-examination before a jury, for perjury.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | May 17, 2010

  5. Also, it was Anjelica Huston who stopped by the house that night, not Jacquelyn Bisset. She said she saw the girl and she seemed fine. But she also said she asked her how old she was and before the girl could say anything, Polanski answered “She will be 14 in two weeks. So he knew exactly how old she was before he drugged, raped and sodomized her. ‘

    Comment by vernon | May 16, 2010 | Reply

    • Did he now? You seem to suffer from the delusion that forcible rape let alone ‘sodomy’ leaves no bloody marks. Maybe you try the latter to find out. You live in the land the mantra of: he raped, drugged… when no medical evidence supports any of that. Maybe you should ask a physician how that’s possible without any pain and injuries. Besides, Huston only saw her AFTERWARDS, and said she was alright. Go figure that one out.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 16, 2010 | Reply

  6. well you said she had reached an adult stage of physical development. (That sure doesn’t make her or any 13-year old an adult female) whereas you boy is probably endowed like a toddler. Seriously, whether he was mean or forceful or not he was 43. Voila – whatever he did was rape. And precociously pubescent girls need more not less protection for predatory creeps like Polaanski. I was a strapping 6-1, 170-pound senior in high school in 1977. When I wanted action I did’t need to go to the 8th grade. I can’t believe Polanski did.

    Comment by vernon | May 18, 2010 | Reply

    • ‘I’ didn’t say she was an ‘adult female’, the examining doctor did, mere hours after the alleged ‘rape’ & ‘double sodomy’, which never happened to HIS own word. She looked like a twenty yr old to Huston’s words, & she was a ‘Hollywood’ bred teen, not your average teen down the road who however get pregnant just the same by any older man.
      And ‘rape’ by legal definition is ONLY the forcible penetration of the vagina by a penis, ergo, NO ‘rape.
      The age difference has zero meaning to any intelligent person, it’s only ‘moralists like you that think it immoral & ‘predatory’ while NO anti-sex laws should dictate when to have sex or with whom.
      In the UK we don’t have damaging anti-laws like this that send innocent men into hell for sleeping with a minor, even their own girlfriend. Here the ‘victim’ can put a stop to any proceedings, unlike in the US with half their prison population consisting of men who had sex to get gang raped by inmates & staff. Great system, ‘Vernon’.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 18, 2010 | Reply

  7. Anyway Dr. Novalis, can we find any common ground here? We must agree on something. How about – among the fundamental tenets of human decency are the concepts that adults are supposed to protect children, not sexually exploit them. And the powerful are not supposed to take advantage of the weak. Since neither of us was there neither of us can know exactly what happened. But can we agree that something happened that definitely should not have? Even Woody Allen and Bernard-Henri Levy concede that point. That kind of stuff might have gotten winked at in the swinging ’70s, but no more. Polanski will return to an America far less tolerant of child sex predators than the one he fled. That said, the CA courts have made it pretty clear that he faces no serious incarceration when he gets here. But I think I saw picture of that Judge Peter Espinoza guy and he did not have a beard. So he must shave. Meaning he has to look in the mirror. I don’t see how he could if he took dictation from a fugitive child rapist or his mouthy lawyers.

    Comment by vernon | May 18, 2010 | Reply

    • Vernon:

      We can agree to disagree and be all PC about all of this, but the point is, I’ve seen more young girls going after older men than you can shake a stick at. Certainly back in 1977, most of my contemporaries from about 13-16 were already pregnant…with the babies of men around 30-40. They didn’t want ‘boys’ they wanted MEN. Yes adults are supposed to protect children, however, in cases like Geimer’s, it should be a case-by-case basis, not this tendency to pigeon hole each and every single teenager into one mailslot. And it doesn’t matter if Polanski faces further incarceration time if he returns. The point here is that this case should hever have gotten to this point. Had Judge Rittenband accepted the original plea and not grandstand, this case would be over and done with. But it isn’t and that is not Roman Polanski’s fault…it never was.

      As for agreeing that something happened that shouldn’t have…you’re right. Susan Gailey shouldn’t have prostituted her daughter and Samantha should have told mommy to stuff it. That no other person in this case faced the same jeopardy as Polanski is mind boggling. From the 18 year-old boyfriend right on up to Rittenband, it seems no one else has been made to pay for their complicity in railroading Roman Polanski. In another venue that would be called either collusion or a pyramid scheme. But because it’s Roman Polanski, it’s called ‘justice’. And there’s ample evidence to state that nothing happened. From the lack of sperm and saliva where Samantha Geimer said it should be, to the fact that the panties were never tested alongside a sample of Polanski’s blood shows again ample evidence that Polanski’s side of the story is the correct one.

      Comment by Samskara | May 18, 2010 | Reply

      • well put, Samskara. As usual.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | May 18, 2010

    • Levy & Allen only said that ‘something happened that should not have’, not to be laughed at in their support for him. They know perfectly well it was ‘unlawful’ to sleep with a minor & concede to THAT part alone, while thousands of others did the same but never were busted for it, & they just as might mean the judicial shenanigans should not have happened that turned this case into a political farce by now. THAT is more than ‘unlawful’.

      This has absolutely nothing to do with ‘child protection’ agendas, since she wasn’t a ‘child’ in the eyes of the law then, or they’d brought in other charges, only in the eyes of today’s overzealous feminists issues & people like you she is. You cannot apply today’s ‘morals’ or standards let alone laws to anything that far back.

      Your pointless rhetoric of ‘child rapist’ therefore is also more than null & void, since he’s not a rapist by legal definition, let alone paedophile. Try clutching at more straws if you like, but he’s neither. Not then not now.

      Polanski will NOT return to the States, since he was already sentenced & did his time for what he did, not what people think/wished he did, or they’d gone for a trial to nail him to the wall.

      A mother that doesn’t press for a trial but handy plea deal, or at least demands him to be sentenced to the max applicable after that deal was struck, but that he be set free on probation at no incarceration at all, only proves that her oh so innocent daughter told porkies.

      The Swiss will have to let him go, end of.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 18, 2010 | Reply

    • Well yes it was a crime of the 70’s. And nobody at that time in California got any jail time and nor should Polanski have got jail time. Apparently the Hollywood police were having sex with underage girl scouts at the time. So all the California guys were at it too including Arnie

      The police on the case was the same as who was investigating the murder of his wife, child and friends ten years earlier. The criminal justice system in Calfornia were fooling around with him in 1977.

      Also California Officials and the Justice system and the police are supposed to be honest not corrupt and in the same way the “powerful” with the men in black robes and the men with guns are not supposed to exploit the weak. They are just supposed to be just, not corrupt no more and no less.

      Comment by Sonny | May 26, 2010 | Reply

  8. I never thought of myself as a moralist. But if refusing to accept the notion that a 13-year old and a 43-year old should be held equally culpable for a sexual encounter between them makes me one, I guess I am. That’s just wrong on every level.I know she wasn’t a pigtailed virgin walking home from school when Polanski jumped out of the bushes and attacked her. But he knew he old she was and presumably was also aware of how old he was. That means the responsibility was 100 percent on him to be the adult in the situation.And legally she was in fact a “child” for two more weeks until her 14th birthday. Finally, if the Swiss choose not to honor their treaty obligations and hand over a fugitive with a valid international warrant for his arrest it’s to their discredit.

    Comment by vernon | May 18, 2010 | Reply

    • Apparently Vernon, you’ve never been a 13 year-old young woman. So you cannot speak for us.

      As for the treaty…. I’m laughing my ass off at the notion that the United States has the timerity to ask for Polanski’s extradition when it refuses to hand over their citizens to courts of law the world over.

      Right now, the United States is fighting an extradition order from Italy where five CIA agents were tried and sentenced in absentia for the abduction and torture of a citizen they delivered to Eqypt on the charge of terrorism. This man was waterboarded and had nother things done to him. The Italians sought their extradition through legal means, but the United States refuses to hand them over. Yet, the US is really strident about handing Polanski over. Apparently kidnapping and torture is a lesser crime to the US than a consensal sex case. Go figure.

      If the Swiss refuse to honor the treaty, then it will be because the US has failed to honor its word in handing over all relevent documents to the Swiss in terms of Roger Gunson’s sealed testimony in support of Polanski.

      Weird that one.

      Comment by Samskara | May 18, 2010 | Reply

      • Well said, Samskara – I have nothing to add.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | May 18, 2010

    • If you ask the original Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson who was on Polanski’s case he has testified that the 90 day sentence was the total sentence, and that that was the agreement, and that there was judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The Los Angeles Court this year has mentioned the same thing time served, and has not issued a higher sentence in absentia.

      If the Swiss honor their treaty apparently Polanski would have to have 6 months or more to serve before the Swiss would agree to extradite him.

      If the sentence remaining remains unclear – it is possible that the Swiss may decide not extradite him since the current Los Angeles Judge mentioned time served, not another jail sentence, and since no charge has been added for fugitive status.

      Comment by Sonny | May 26, 2010 | Reply

      • Exactly – time served no one in fact wanted at all, release him NOW.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | May 27, 2010

  9. Here’s some more hypocrisy.

    The Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger could and should give Polanski a pardon after all Arnold also has slept with underage girls in California .

    So if you are the actor in Terminator or work for California as California’s Governor you get a free pass and are forgiven for having sex with minors and for sexually assaulting women who are not minors with impunity.

    but this same forgiveness standard has not been extended to Roman Polanski.

    So California Government employs one standard for Arnold with its Body Built In Government Claim 910 oppression against sexual assault & sexual discrimination victims,

    but not the same forgiveness standard is applied to Roman Polanski who does not work for California.

    Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said that Polanski should be treated like everyone else, and since the Californians and their government pardoned Arnold for his prior transgressions (of course he was never charged), so to California’s Governor Arnie should pardon Roman Polanski.

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    See below for links to more info:


    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-6270067-the-groping-governor.do



    
http://www.liberty-ca.org/recallgraydavis/swartzenegger.htm


    Comment by Sonny | May 25, 2010 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49 other followers

%d bloggers like this: