With the Roman Polanski case getting a thorough re-airing, some of his Hollywood defenders have latched onto the fact that the 13 year old victim's mother gave permission for her to do a photo shoot with Polanski. Seeing a once-in-a-lifetime chance for her daughter to break into showbiz via a Celebrated Director, mom said yes. This initial approval clearly meant that her subsequent drugging, rape and sodomy were also A-OK with mom, according to Polanski apologists. Motherhood FAIL, they cluck.
Well at least his victim, Samantha Geimer, didn't have Brooke Shields' mom during the golden age of Hollywood debauchery in the mid-1970's:
Cropped: It's not Child Porn-Porn...
A display due to go on show to the public at Tate Modern tomorrow has been withdrawn after a warning from Scotland Yard that the naked image of actor Brooke Shields aged 10 and heavily made up could break obscenity laws.
The work, by American artist Richard Prince and entitled "Spiritual America", was due to be part of the London gallery's new Pop Life exhibition. It has been removed from display after a visit to Tate Modern by officers from the obscene publications unit of the Metropolitan police.
...
"Spiritual America" is a photograph of a photograph. The original – authorised by Shields's mother for $450 – had been taken by a commercial photographer, Gary Gross, for the Playboy publication Sugar 'n' Spice in 1976. Shields later attempted, unsuccessfully, to suppress the picture.
The Guardian's art critic comments on the (now removed) exhibition:
If "Spiritual America" is a comment on the commodification and premature sexualisation of Brooke Shields, who was complicit in turning her into a 10-year-old sex object? Not Prince. That had happened almost a decade before he re-used the image.
There is something horrible about the photo. I feel uncomfortable.
Ummmm, no shit.
So, of course, expect the very same depraved defenders of Polanski's Art to come out swinging against this heavy-handed, benighted censorship:
As Polanski's brutal seduction of a young girl is overridden, even negated, by his supposed status as a great artist, so the provocatively sexual picture of a minor will doubtless be celebrated, even more enthusiastically now that it has been removed, on the bogus grounds that it constitutes art.
It is as though art and artists occupy a different moral sphere to the rest of us.
...
Indeed, if a paedophile were caught downloading the very same picture he would almost certainly be in serious trouble.
And with that, no link to these easily-googlable pics from here. I'll leave it to your own judgment whether your morbid curiosity outweighs the risk of a) having child porn on your computer and b) the nausea of experiencing this Grade-A Polanski Art.
Muhammad married Aisha at the age of 6 but held his desires until she was 9 years old. Don't forget the Imams say it is a disgrace for a daughter to experience her first menstrual cycle while in her father's house because that means she isn't married off. The Imam's say no girl may marry before the age of 10. What more do you want? Even Salman Rushdie signed the petition to free Roman Polanski.
Posted by: FeFe | October 02, 2009 at 02:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tess
-- Taglines used to advertise the Polanski film "Tess" (1979) include:
* "She was born into a world where they called it seduction, not rape. What she did would shatter that world forever." [Not rape-rape?]
* "She was a poor man's daughter, an aristocrat's mistress, and a gentleman's wife. She was Tess, a victim of her own provocative beauty." [Whore was asking for it?]
Posted by: FeFe | October 02, 2009 at 03:22 PM
Nauseating are uninformed opinions, actually. The image of Brooke Shields is not child porn and Brooke Shields was not even allegedly raped. In fact, she has collaborated with Prince even as he shows and sells the photo. That should tell you that whatever "problem" she might have had with the work, she got over it. You should too. (In fact, she says she never really had a problem with the photographs, but didn't want them commercialized. She wasn't ABUSED. The photos have NOTHING to do with Roman Polanski)
As for Aisha and Muhammed, there is NO evidence that the betrothal at age 9 (not 6) was ever consummated prior to puberty.
Posted by: Otto117 | October 24, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Stay the hell off my blog, you fucking pedo.
Posted by: Cuffy Meigs | October 25, 2009 at 02:25 PM
Ten year olds cannot collaborate with adults perv-boy.
WTF was wrong with Brooke's mother that she allowed that? Nekkid baby pics are one thing because babies are so damned cute. Ten year olds, er..crossing a line.
Muhammed was doing the nasty with Aisha at nine. Perhaps Otto belongs to that cult?
Posted by: porknbeasn | October 25, 2009 at 02:39 PM
As for Aisha and Muhammed, there is NO evidence that the betrothal at age 9 (not 6) was ever consummated prior to puberty.
Except Muslim scriptures which say it happened. The Hadith, a collection of sacred Muslim texts, tells all about the event.
Ignorance is bad, I agree.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | October 27, 2009 at 05:43 PM