Dear Mr. Hoyt:
I am writing to express how disgusted I was by Dennis Lim’s February 12 article about Roman Polanski. Certainly, the Times has given plenty of coverage to Polanski’s crime, including a 2009 editorial which read: This case has nothing to do with Mr. Polanski’s work or his age. It is about an adult preying on a child. Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty to that crime and must account for it.
Unfortunately, the Times‘s feature writers don’t seem to share the editor’s outrage–witness the following line in Mr. Lim’s Polanski’s Visions of Victimhood:
“Every Polanski movie has a theme: corruption meeting innocence over water,” he says in Marina Zenovich’s 2008 documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” noting that Mr. Polanski had seduced his under-age quarry in a Jacuzzi.
His “quarry”? With those words, Mr. Lim figuratively dehumanizes a 13 year old rape victim. She’s not a child, or a girl, or a victim, but “quarry”–a hunted animal. How incredibly offensive.
With regard to “seduced”, Mr. Lim should read grand jury testimony of Polanski’s victim–see link–which makes it clear that she was drugged and trying to escape Polanski while in the Jacuzzi. That is not seduction. That was a grown man forcing drugs, and then himself, on an 8th grader.
I very much doubt the Times would print the same word choice in a Metro section article describing, say, the abuse of a 13 year old suburban girl by her middle-school teacher. But because Mr. Polanski is an artist, Mr. Lim–and the Times–apparently feel it’s appropriate to describe the same crime in this dismissive, quasi-poetic way.
That description of the crime is especially ironic given that the next line in the article talks about the “glib” connection between the depiction of water, corruption and innocence. Unfortunately, Mr. Lim seems to be equally glib, only about the rape of a 13 year old child.
Sincerely, Becky’s Real Name
Well said, Becky. Will this never end? Put the slimeball in prison already!
Bravo Becky. I want that douchebag in prison NOW. I am sick of people discussing the pros and cons of forcing this man to serve time for his crime of RAPING A 13YO!
Great letter, Becky’s Real Name!
Now I’m curious — what do you think about Oprah’s use of “seduction” when she describes sexual abusers’ tactics? She uses this language quite a bit, most recently in her episode earlier in the week with convicted pedophiles. I’m paraphrasing, but her argument seems to be that there is an element of seduction to these acts that helps to put the victim at ease and to preserve the secrecy of the act.
Part of me thinks that she’s projecting too much from her own experience onto the larger narrative, in the sense that non-violent forms of sexual abuse between social familiars (family, family friends, etc.) hinge on a certain comfort level that other kinds of sexual abuse do not. But again, I think that’s probably only true in certain cases, and even then you could argue that all acts of sexual abuse perform a kind of violence, in which case the idea of there being any kind of seduction is so problematic that we should stay away from the term altogether.
Anyway, I’d be interested in hearing what you and others think about this language as it’s applied more broadly.
@MadrasSoup: I think what Oprah’s describing is what most psychologists and criminologists call “grooming”, which is a much more appropriate term.
My problem with the word “seduction” is that it implies both parties are willing. Pedophiles may believe they’re seducing their victims, and they certainly employ similar tactics–romantic behavior, creating a sense of comfort, emotional intimacy or physical arousal–but when it’s an adult and a child, there’s no such thing as “willing”, because children are incapable of consent.
I suppose it would be correct to say that a child molester employs seductive techniques or behaves in a seductive way, but the inherent criminality and sickness of what they’re doing is very different from seduction as it plays out between consenting adults.
I was slack-jawed when I read that profile this afternoon. “Quarry”? QUARRY??? Did he purposefully flip through his thesaurus for the most offensive synonym?
The thing I honestly don’t get about this profile is that, while Polanski endured tragedy in his life, that has no fucking bearing on his current situation. It just doesn’t. I can’t think of any other rapist who would get away with being profiled as someone who may have “seduced” someone, but let’s not forget what his life pre-crime was like. Art does not absolve anyone of committing rape.
FWIW, I just got off the phone with father.of.a.lesser.god, who is as incensed at this as I am. “This does not have a ‘shades of grey’ aspect,” as he said.
Oh, and one more thing: “seduce,” in the etymological sense, is originally meant to convey a “leading down.” There was no leading. There was forcible compulsion. Big fucking difference.
@MadrasSoup: I also think that using the term “seduction” buys into the rapist’s point of view. He thinks-or wants to think, or wants us to think-that the grooming process was enjoyable for the victim, that they both knew where it was leading and consented to it, that he had some kind of normal peer-to-peer relationship with the victim.
And it puts the blame on the victim for not stopping the abuse. Seduction, after all, implies someone willing to be seduced. But, as BeckyS said above, children can’t be legally willing. It’s an insidious term.
@MM: So true. To thread-jack a little here, the kind of behavior you describe is why I was absolutely convinced that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. His behavior towards his alleged victims was textbook grooming–every single element of it.
I’m kinda confused. Maybe I don’t understand the use of quotation marks anymore, or in this context. What, exactly, is this dude trying to say here? “…Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty to “unlawful sexual intercourse” with a 13-year-old girl.” Maybe he’s just trying to accurately quote the charges, but that’s not how it read to me.
The letter you wrote kicked ass, Becky’s Real Name.
Thank you for writing to them. I read that this afternoon and got so angry. I had a lot of work to do, and I’ve already spent so much emotion on that horrible man, that I just couldn’t engage. But knowing that someone else did engage them on that language, that sly *wink wink* tone, the stupid “maybe he apologized with his next movie” the “since he left America” … that piece was so I Think I Am The Only One Who Can Be Objective About This Because I Am Deep Enough To Understand His Art, Man, His Aaaart. And it made me shaky with rage. Now I am better. Thank you Becky.
I’ve reread that paragraph, I’m aware that it veers into incoherence. But stream of consciousness gets my shaky rage across, so I’m leaving it as is.
Yvan…THAT’S exactly what I was trying to say. That *wink wink* tone.
@TVille: Ugh, yeah, I didn’t even address the whole “scare quotes” around “unlawful sexual intercourse” (aka RAPE).
I sent this from my personal Gmail account and signed it with my real name…not sure if I’ll get any response, but hey, it needed to be said.
“Grooming” is the technical term, but I think “seduce” is an accurate description. A “successful” sex offender does persuade the child to participate, rather than forces, because violent forcing makes it more likely that the sex offender will be caught. And the child may actually “enjoy” some of it — the extra attention she gets, or the gifts, or the money, or the feeling of being “special,” or even some of the sexual contact itself. And all this is happening in the context of the child feeling guilty/confused/embarrased/horrified.
@pedimd: I think you’re correct about the methods and the effects, but I don’t think it’s seduction because when it involves an adult and a child, it’s straight-up victimization, not persuasion. That’s why I think the use of the word “seduction” is inappropriate for child molestation.
A “successful” sex offender does persuade the child to participate, rather than forces,
I very strongly disagree with that. The abuser isn’t persuading the child to participate–they are coercing them. It might not be physically violent, but it’s still 100% coercion. To say otherwise implies that the child is partially to blame for being molested.
@Pedimd: I understand what you’re saying, but I’d argue that the rapist can’t persuade the child to do something s/he doesn’t understand. The child may not have any concept of what is going to happen to him or her, nor is the child emotionally ready to cope with the consequences. The latter applies, I think, even to kids who know “the facts of life”.
@ BeckySharper and mischiefmanager — It is straight-up victimization and it is coercion, but the experience of it (for some kids) is also one of seduction. Most child molesters are well-known to the child, so the child might love the molester and really want the attention being offered, and they participate in the sexual abuse because they want the other stuff and because they’re confused and manipulated. And in the meantime, the molester is telling them they really did want it because they let him do it again, and now everyone will blame the kid too . . . So by the end, the kids do think it’s their fault and maybe they did want it? And now their good feelings of love/affection/attention/self-worth/pleasure are completely contaminated. So I think it’s accurate to describe the child’s experience as being seduced, in the most manipulative and fucked-up sense of the word.
@pedimd: Don’t get me wrong–I think your description is completely accurate, but I’d say the majority of people out there don’t have your nuanced understanding of the situation, and use the term “seduction” as a kind of rape apology. Personally, I prefer to avoid the term “seduction” entirely because it implies willing participation, and when it’s used to describe rape/molestation, it’s used that way by people like Dennis Lim or any of the gazillion rape apologists who would argue that what Roman Polanski did was not rape.
@BeckySharper: I totally understand your point. For me, it’s hard to decide what language to use sometimes. When kid victims (or former kid victims) talk about this, they sometimes say some really disturbing stuff that could get used against them, and yet they’re describing their own experience. So in talking about it, should I protect and respect them by accurately reporting what they say? Or should I protect and respect them by using technical words like “grooming” so that “seduction” won’t be used against them? Some days it’s really clear to me and other days not so much.
@pedimd: Ugh, that’s SUCH a tough call. Because children/teens who have been molested will say things like “I did it because I love him and he loves me” or they’ll describe how they liked the sexual contact. That’s only proof of how thoroughly they’ve been victimized, but the apologists just latch onto that shit and run with it.
I don’t do what you do, so it’s hard for me to say how I’d react if I were in your shoes, but I’d err on the side of protecting them by including as little of that language as possible in a report and focusing instead on the molester’s actions rather than the response they evoked.
@BeckySharper: Ok, well now you’re getting into “techniques of proper child abuse report writing,” which I can’t help but think is totally and utterly fascinating only to me and maybe like two of my professional colleagues. I can tell you that including some of the icky stuff in reports can be very effective in getting people’s attention (in a good protective way) if the icky stuff is said by a little kid, whereas with a teenager, it produces a different response. Which gets us back to Roman Polanski . . .
When is Roman Polanski going to go away? He is like poison for the contemporary movie-going experience. Here I am, trying to enjoy Ewan McGregor and Johnny Depp’s performances/faces, and here they are, working with/defending Polanski. Which is not such an intellectual response to Becky’s excellent letter. But a bonerkiller nonetheless.
@Pedimd: But that’s the thing: under the law, a 3 year old and a 15 year old are identical. Neither of them is able to consent. And although teenagers are often (although by no means always!) more knowledgeable about sex, anyone who has lived with-or been, for that matter-a teenager knows that their decision-making processes are not mature. I agree that it’s probably hard to get that across to a jury, especially when the teenager is saying stuff that is disturbing. But I agree with Becky. the point is what the rapist did and said, not what the victim did and said. The victim is legally unable to consent. Period.
Of course, I know that in real life it doesn’t always work that way, but any prosecutor who lets a defense attorney turn the focus onto the victim is failing at his or her job.
@mischiefmanager: Actually, a 3 year old and a 15 year old are not always the same legally — it varies from state to state, and also depends on the age of the molester. But my point wasn’t really about legal consent, but more about the experience of the child victim. I think there’s a reason that Oprah keeps using the term “seduction,” and I’m not afraid to try to speak to the kids’ actual experiences just because it sounds bad. It doesn’t mean that I think they actually have the capacity to consent — although, again, with teenagers it is not always so clear cut, especially as they get closer and closer to 18.
And I don’t think it’s fair to make blanket statements about prosecutors not doing their jobs. (OK, some don’t do their jobs.) Kid victims often do a number of things that make them look really bad — they don’t tell right away, they don’t tell everything at once, they tell and then say they lied, they act out, etc. etc. This is totally normal behavior under the circumstances, but it makes them look less credible (totally not fair, but true anyway). And the defense attorneys do use this against them– it’s not the prosecutor’s fault, it’s just the facts of the case, and everyone is entitled to a defense, no matter how disgusting they are. So if I’m asked about the “bad stuff” the kid did or said, and I don’t address it explicitly, it looks like I’m covering something up, which looks even worse, and does not help the kid.
I’m curious if you saw that episode of Oprah, Becky? IMO, she was very clear on how massively damaging pedophilia is to the children involved, and how “seduction” is not mitigating, but part of the psychological component of the abuse, not implying consent.
That show was about the thought process of pedophiles. The men in the group talked about how they believed that they loved their victims, that they wanted to make them feel good and give them pleasure. Oprah described how common it was for victims to feel physical pleasure, to not experience violence, and to feel invested in protecting their abuser, who is usually a family member or close family friend. This is why children often don’t tell, and why they often feel a lot of guilt and shame and denial. She emphasized that this was a manipulation that served the purposes of the abuser. One of them said “I murdered the person she could have been” and Oprah was almost seething as she agreed emphatically with that statement.
None of this has anything to do with Roman Polanski. As far as we know, he’s not a pedophile. He’s an ephebophile who violently raped his victim and has “dated” teenage girls since. People who defend him don’t do so because there was any indication that his victim felt physical arousal, they do it because they’re piece-of-shit misogynists who really, really liked The Pianist…or something.
Oh, and I love you for that expert takedown, Becky.
@Hana: Thanks! And I completely agree about the Oprah show. I’ve seen that show and other ones she’s done about pedophiles and where she’s talked about her own experience being raped and abused as a child. I think she’s dead on in her evaluation of the psychological process that takes place with victims, especially victims who are abused by family members.
Still, I think the word “seduction” is loaded. Like I said to pedimd, there are a lot of people out there who are looking to blame victims–the Polanski case proves that more than just about any other situation in recent memory. Saying that victims were “seduced’ is a time-honored way of apologizing for the attacker and implying that victims were asking for it, so I’d just as soon avoid that term entirely. No reason to give the apologists something to run with…
Great letter Becky. It’s absolutely true that they would never use such language to describe a violent sexual assault by Mr. Joe Average around the way, yet Polanski’s crime somehow deserves this romantic treatment? sickening.
[...] birth control. There’s also an example of being a bitch (in the best sense of the word!) Be A Bitch: To the New York Times Public Editor – [Potentially triggering] calling out the NYT coverage of Roman Polanski. Yes the Roman [...]
This is awesome. Fuck Polanski, he belongs in prison.
Just commenting to add my kudos to Becky’s Real Name. Perfectly said.
[...] The Pursuit of Harpyness: Be A Bitch: To the New York Times Public Editor [...]