DavidDow, you’re missing the point, and Fer Lefer, you get it. I doubt anyone here is opposed to sex; but there is such a thing as inappropriate sex, sex that does harm.
Samantha may not have been raped in the stereotypical image of something happening violently in a dark alley, but there is a good reason the law is written as it is.
Something else has to be remembered here: Our culture’s values about sex have changed enormously since the Polanski incident. Remember all that stuff about “free love” and “anything goes?” That was part of what Samantha and her mother were steeped in, and it adds to the confusion of her case.
Since those days, we have at once moved both forward towards more individual sexual freedoms (same-sex marriage, freedom to enjoy sex outside of marriage, legalized abortion) and, in some ways, back to the more conservative values that predated the 1960’s & 70’s.
The Poles… The French… I’m still thinking about that last panel in the strip and the poke at the role of film critics in all of this. Does a critic have a moral responsibility to take a filmmaker’s private life into consideration when reviewing the filmmaker’s public work? I think Trudeau is suggesting that they do.
Oh, well. So much for my saying how much BD has evolved (Oct. 13). But that’s part of what’s so real and so great about this strip. Like everyone else on the planet, BD’s personal growth is, at best, uneven.
As I’ve said, I’m new here, but I’ve been reading Doonesbury since MIke showed up in his dorm to find that BD would be his roomie. Call me Pollyanna, but I just think it’s so cool that we’re all here debating this strip this way. Ever wonder if Trudeau reads any of this? Who knows, maybe jimpow’s real name is…
re: Polanski: There is no such thing as truly consensual sex between a 13-year-old and someone more than twice their age. Even if Polanski was not in a position to help the child’s career, there still was a tremendous power imbalance. And even if the child threw herself at him, he was the adult, and he was obligated by our society’s rules & norms to behave responsibly.
Situations likes this are tragic. Everyone involved gets their life screwed up.
When I was a photographer, a woman used her aspiring 15-yr-old daughter to try to get my attention for herself. I cordially ignored her. I just wanted to take good pictures.
Thanks, David, for setting the record straight.
Forgive me if I change the subject - I’m new to this forum - I was just thinking about how much Trudeau’s characters have evolved over the past 40-some years. Real evolution is very rare in the funny papers. For instance, BD has mellowed so much since Iraq and PTSD, when he finally removed his football helmet (a tremendous symbolic gesture).
DavidDow, you’re missing the point, and Fer Lefer, you get it. I doubt anyone here is opposed to sex; but there is such a thing as inappropriate sex, sex that does harm. Samantha may not have been raped in the stereotypical image of something happening violently in a dark alley, but there is a good reason the law is written as it is. Something else has to be remembered here: Our culture’s values about sex have changed enormously since the Polanski incident. Remember all that stuff about “free love” and “anything goes?” That was part of what Samantha and her mother were steeped in, and it adds to the confusion of her case. Since those days, we have at once moved both forward towards more individual sexual freedoms (same-sex marriage, freedom to enjoy sex outside of marriage, legalized abortion) and, in some ways, back to the more conservative values that predated the 1960’s & 70’s.