So Whoopi doesn't think Polanski's attack on a thirteen year old child rises to the level of rape? Well, that certainly raises some questions, doesn't it?
For argument's sake, take the girl's age and the drugs out of it. We either accept that "no means no" or we don't. According to the testimony, the girl repeatedly told Polanski "no" and begged him to stop. Are Whoopi & Co. now saying that saying "no" is not sufficient? What, according to Hollywood, is the new standard for rape?
"No" and "stop" are not sufficient. Inability to consent, whether by age, because of drugs or one would assume, mental capacity, are not sufficient. Perhaps Hollywood in its desire to be inclusive, has adopted the Muslim standard for rape-it is always the female's fault.
Since even children are now by the Whoopi standard fair game does rape still exist? If so, it would be helpful for the sages in Hollywood to let us all know what the new definition is.
UPDATE via Memorandum:
Our 'it just keeps getting better' moment is brought to us by The Guardian, writing Release Polanski, demands petition by film industry luminaries. Now, I'm not the least surprised that seventy "film industry luminaries" are fine with child rape but one name does stand out as a perv extrodinaire: Woody Allen. I could say so much about Mr. Allen's lack of morals, but his own son says it all:
Allen and Farrow's only biological son, Ronan Seamus Farrow,
said of Allen: "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son
and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see
him. I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally
consistent.... I lived with all these adopted children, so they are my
family. To say Soon-Yi was not my sister is an insult to all adopted