Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau
- October 17, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Comics A-Z Navigation
Doodles by Steve Sack and Craig Macintosh
The Doozies by Tom Gammill
About Doonesbury
G.B. Trudeau’s Doonesbury is currently in its thirty-ninth year, tracking its eighth presidential administration. Trudeau maintains his studio in New York and his Web presence at www.doonesbury.com.
Visit The Sandbox
© 2009 Universal Press Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (38) Jump to Comments Form
Margueritem
said,
about 1 month ago
The reality of it hits BD right where he lives…
Hugh B. Hayve said, about 1 month ago
Tell it like it is, BD.
cdward said, about 1 month ago
It all hits so much harder when you’re a parent. I have a 13 year old.
DavidDow said, about 1 month ago
Ah, the complex of emotions when parental love meets sexual love. Just as children must learn that their parents have sex, parents must learn that their children are having or will have sex. Someone will look at your baby & want to do “naughty things” with him/her. How nice & simplistic it feels to call someone else “sick”.
rayannina said, about 1 month ago
It’s not what you did, Sid – it’s who you are.
plus4 said, about 1 month ago
I have a daughter who’s just about to turn 13 so I know how BD feels.
Susan001 said, about 1 month ago
I had said in an earlier thread that I believe the mother of the victim in this case is just as culpable as Polanski.
I’m sure Boopsie has enough sense than to try to push Sam into a show-biz career, especially by pushing her towards a sleazy middle-aged director.
BTW, who is that in bed with Sid? A 13-year old?
Fer Lefer said, about 1 month ago
The problem is not when parental love collide with reality. Everybody knows that our “children” (in quotation marks) will have sex (not necesarily “naughty”)
But when sex meets our children (WITHOUT quotation marks), there’s a problem. Teenagers would crave for sex-related activities, but what if an adult (parent, sibling, relative or even unknown people) forces them (or younger ones, down to months-old, in some cases) to have sex?
Would be different the case if, instead of Polanski, we were talking about some illegal inmigrant?
bmwk12ltc said, about 1 month ago
Fer Lefer, Nope no difference to me, Pedophiles are pedophiles no matter which group they belong to.
DavidDow said, about 1 month ago
FarLefer, forcing anyone to have sex is rape & violence. The age is irrelevant. Roman Polanski didn’t force Samantha Gailey to have sex.
TeaneckerRob said, about 1 month ago
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.
palos said, about 1 month ago
Looking at the hairstyle of Sid’s bedmate, somehow I doubt she’s the same age as Sid
DavidDow said, about 1 month ago
Rob, “inappropriate” is one of those words that people use as a club to hit others with whom they disagree. When is sex “inappropriate” and why?
Look: We have established the facts of the event between Roman Polanski & Samantha Gailey. He pled guilty to unlawful sexual misconduct (so he agrees, I guess, with your use of “inappropriate”), but the judge reneged or refused the plea bargain, so Polanski moved to France, where he is a citizen. He settled a case with Samantha Geimer (née Gailey) and paid her at least part of the settlement ($500,000, I believe). To the best of my knowledge, as she has stated that she would prefer to see him free in Europe than re-tried in California, she hasn’t mentioned his still owing her money, so, perhaps, his payments to her have concluded. What is there left to discuss about this?
Rape is always violent, as it means the use of force, and it is always wrong. No one should be made to do anything against his/her will. That does not describe what happened between Polanski & Gailey.
Your argument about values undermines the rest of your statement, and supports my point that sexuality & sexual matters are exceedingly complex. People do not live in a non-sexual state from birth to the age of 17 years, 364 days, then suddenly wake and, at age 18, become sexual beings.
By the way, little Samantha, in the strip, was born in 1992. Trudeau is using some of that cartoon time (like Narnian time) to delay her age to thirteen. It’s fine by me. Cartoonists take this license all the time. He raced through Alex Doonesbury’s high school time in, like, three years. He aged different characters at different rates through the first ten years of the strip.
By the way, also: Mike Doonesbury is twenty years older than his wife, Kim, who is only seventeen years older than Alex, Mike’s daughter. When Mike & Kim began dating, she was 24; he, 44. Push it back seven years, and we’re not talking scandale de Polanski but scandale de Doonesbury.
blueprairie said, about 1 month ago
Someone will look at your baby & want to do “naughty things” with him/her. How nice & simplistic it feels to call someone else “sick”.
“Sick” is an accurate but woefully inadquate description of Polanski and this child’s mother, both. Words like disgusting, twisted, abhorrent, greedy, cruel, cowardly, depraved, warped and abominable could be used here as well.
We are not talking about consensual sex between a slightly under-aged girl and an older partner. We are talking about a thirteen year old who was fed drugs and booze and then vaginally and anally violated by a middle-aged man.
Joe Allen Doty said, about 1 month ago
Consensual sexual activity between a 17 year old and an 18 year old is considered statutory rape of the 17 year old by the 18 year old in some states.
There are people who had to have their parents consent to get married; but, when their children reached that same age, they refused to allow that to happen if they wanted to get married before they were of adult age.
There are parents who say, “Do as I say; don’t do as I did.”
Dypak
said,
about 1 month ago
Dow, you have the heart and soul of a rapist. Rape is about control. There doesnt have to be any violence involved at all.
Roman Polanski used his status to rape that poor girl. His money, his experiance, his position all combined to not only push that girl into a decsion she would not normally have made, it dragged her mother along with it. Not only was the girl influenced, her mother was as well.
Clinton did the same thing with Monica Lewinski. I dont care how old she was, when a man in power and authority applies that power in the right way he can convince, persuade, coerce an immature young girl, or even boy, to do something that they should not do and will regret later.
People are not meant to be used as objects.That’s what Polanski, and Clinton, did. Using a person as an object is rape. Violence isnt necessary. Only a rapist at heart, trying to protect himself, to convince himself that it’s ok, would think something like that.
A man can even rape his wife. When he uses guilt and shame to ‘persuade’ her to have sex when she isnt up to it or in the mood. Making her think she’s inadequate and that he’ll leave her if she doesnt perform. This is an evil, evil rape. The rape of one who loves and trusts you.
Dow, we are supposed to protect our children. Yes, I know that they are born and live their lives as sexual beings, with desires and interests. But it is our RESPONSIBILITY to protect them until they are mature enough to make those decsions on their own. The law says 18. In many cases even that is not old enough. I have seen many adult women, and men, make foolish mistakes in this area. But in this case they are considered mature enough to make their own decisions and should be able to protect themselves. A 13 year old child has not.
An adult can say, “I want to have sex with the person” and understand all of the implications and consequences. A child of 13 cannot. They might have the intellectual ability to understand, but they dont have the emotional wisdom or experiance to truly understand the gut wrenching reality of what sex with someone like Roman Polanski can really mean to them.
Dow, do you honestly think that if that girl knew what having sex with Polanksi would have meant to her life she would have ever said yes? Here it is, 30 years later, and she’s still having to relive it. It never ends.
And to prove my point that many ‘adults’ are incapable of making the decision to have sex lets look at Polanski. Here he was, a grown man, married, a father. He should have known better. But he didnt, he did a thing he knew was wrong and he knew was evil. He knew and he did it anyway. He did it knowing the consequences. Apparently he was incapable of making the proper choices regarding his sex life. And he should be held responsbile for his crime. For a long, long time. Especially as an example to anyone who thinks that rape without violence is not rape.
notinksanymore said, about 1 month ago
According to the law, rape is obtaining sexual favors through intimidation or violence. Some states even consider sex by coercion rape.
In Louisiana, statutory rape requires the “victim” to be under 17, and the “offender” to be more than two years older. So a 17 year old having sex with an 18 year old is perfectly legal. In fact, a 16 year old having sex with an 18 year old is legal.
Dypak
said,
about 1 month ago
Intimidation can be many things. Starting with ‘You would if you love me.’
kauri44
said,
about 1 month ago
As I understand it, she didn’t say yes. She said no, repeatedly, but he still forced sex on her at least three times. And she said that she was afraid.
Fer Lefer said, about 1 month ago
And call me old-fashioned, but there are things that are right and things that are not…and what Polanski did to that girl is not.
Trials, law enforcemnt, payments: all that is not priority when talking about ethics.
But, then again, the law (in France, USA, or México) state what is a criminal behavior for some reason.
MatureCanadian
said,
about 1 month ago
I think that he is guilty. Period. I’m sure the girl is just fed up with having to live with notoriety for so long. Polanski paid off the victim. Ergo he admits his guilt. I also think the mother should be convicted for selling her daughter.
13 year old girls are interested in sex, just ask Juliet. However, in the ‘70’s having some 40 year old ply you with booze and compliment you was taking unfair advantage. I still get creeped out when I think of Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his 13 year old cousin. Ick. To me he and Polanski even look alike. That creepy, sneaky look.
Dypak
said,
about 1 month ago
Being interested in something and having the maturity level to make decisions on your interest are two different things. When I was 13 I was interested in riding the rails like a hobo. Sure glad an adult stopped me.
fbjsr said, about 1 month ago
Daviddow I think I speak for all of us when I say your one of creepiest people that I have ever come across
Ronshua
said,
about 1 month ago
Hear , hear .. fbjsr !
Dypak…..Eloquently ascribed rebuttal , thank you .
michaelwme said, about 1 month ago
My gay wife divorced me. Her gay boyfriend said he’d beat any heterosexuality out of my children, and the US was the greatest county in the world since, if I tried to stop him, the restraining order Judge Culpepper of Morgantown West Virginia had issued against me would see that I went to jail for life without parole.
baslim_the_begger
said,
about 1 month ago
Dypak: Excellent. The master would be proud.
Why does he who shall not be named keep bringing up the married name of the victim?
Sorry folks, but I am going quasi-legal on you again: No I am not a legal expert, but I did sleep in a hotel last night! 8^) (apologies to holiday inn)
Someone likes to say “the facts” are known.
But the facts include that a grand jury heard evidence and testimony from witnesses (not including Polanski, of course) and found probable cause for indictment on six counts including
Furnishing a controlled substance to a minor (felony)
Lewd or Lascivious Act on a Child under fourteen (felony – and I am guessing consent is not relevant, but the grand jury would ask for clarification)
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse (felony under 18, not his wife)
Rape by use of Drugs (felony)
Perversion (felony )
Sodomy on a Person (felony)
(note that the Perversion was for a different act than the Sodomy)
Now a grand jury finding for probable cause is not a conviction by a jury or a judge.
A person may in fact be innocent or there may be mitigating circumstances of any or all charges. His attorney offered a plea bargain, which would save costs of trial, spare the defendant and victim further humiliation, etc. So Polanski plead guilty to a charge. In other words, he admitted a crime had been committed.
Susan001 said, about 1 month ago
Dypak, at the time of the incident, Polanski was NOT married, his wife, Sharon Tate, and unborn son having been brutally murdered by the Manson Family.
It doesn’t excuse what he did, but I think you should get all the facts straight.
Anyway, BD sure changed his mind quickly about the subject once he looked at his sweet, 13-year old daughter.
DavidDow said, about 1 month ago
So, Blue, we should try Samantha Geimer’s mother, too? I am interested in where you draw the line: You find it repulsive that Samantha Gailey was thirteen & Roman Polanski was 43. If Gailey had been fifteen & Polanski 33, then would that be equally as repulsive or less repulsive? If Gailey had been sixteen & Polanski 31, would that be equally as repulsive or less repulsive? Where does sex between a younger female and an older male cease garnering your exuberant spate of adjectives?
Oh, and your statement, with its juicy use of “violated” becomes less histrionic if you used the word “penetrated”, which is equally accurate. That you want to envision Polanski violating Gailey says much about you, doesn’t it?
Rape is about force & violence or threats of violence, Dypak. You stretch the definition of rape beyond the breaking point, and you pretend to knowledge that you do not have. There is no evidence of anyone treating anyone else as an object in either the Polanski matter or the matter of Bill Clinton & Monica Lewinsky.
It speaks volumes about your view of sex that you consider it something that people should be protected from. Your notion of the law is mistaken. Firstly, most people have sex before the age of eighteen. Secondly, most states permit sexual activity before the age of eighteen. When Polanski & Gailey had sex, California’s law would have permitted them to wed with her mother’s permission. Thus, so much for laws of consent beginning sharply & suddenly at age eighteen.
Your contentions that a thirteen-year-old person cannot make these decisions are simply empty statements. Prove them. Firstly, define your terms: “emotional wisdom”, “experience”, “maturity”. Secondly, prove that no thirteen-year-old has measures sufficiently in these respects to decide about sex.
What you are using here, Dypak, IS emotionality. What we need is more rationality. Moreover, your claim that the poor “girl” still must relive it thirty years later is BECAUSE of your point of view! Your desire to chase down, arrest, & re-try Polanski leads to Geimer’s reliving this matter. She had been able to put it behind her until Switzerland arrested Polanski.
It is a lovely circular argument: underage sex is wrong because the underage “victim” must keep reliving it over & over because we must prosecute the “victimizer” thirty years later in order to prove that underage sex is wrong.
Your slavering desire to control Polanski has blinded you to both reason & facts: Polanski was not married when he & Gailey had sex. As for “knowing his acts were wrong & evil”, well, Dypak, you haven’t been able to explain its wrongness or evilness, so why you expect another grown man to agree with claims that you cannot support is certainly beyond me.
Thanks, Ntinks. You can see the peculiarity of the law: A female who just turned 19 having sex with a male of 16 years & 11 months has committed a crime classified as rape.
Kauri, according to the published excerpts of Gailey’s grand jury testimony, she said “no” twice. She did not resist physically or attempt to get away or cry out. This does not absolve Polanski. It means that we need to have more information about what precisely happened, how she said “no”, whether Polanski heard her say “no”, &c. Except that we don’t need any of this, because Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sexual conduct, and if the original judge had accepted the plea bargain, then this case would’ve been over thirty years ago.
Thank you, Fbjsr. I attempt to bring another voice to this discussion, and fifty years ago, people used to find the notion that women liked sex creepy, too.
canarynoir said, about 1 month ago
DavidDow - next time you drive 200 miles to have sex with a minor you met online, I hope Chris Hansen is there to greet you.
Ira Nayman said, about 1 month ago
Rape is about consent. Violence is obviously coercive, but there are other ways of gaining sex without consent. Drugging the person is one.
Statutory rape is something different. It is a recognition that, because children under a certain age do not have the mental capacity to understand the sex act, they cannot consent to having sex. EVER. They may not put up a fight. They may even agree to the act. For purposes of law, however, the fact that they agree is irrelevant because they do not have enough knowledge to know what they are agreeing to. The onus is on the adult, as it should be, to determine if the person they are contemplating having sex with is old enough because, according to the law, the adult has the ability to discern right from wrong and know the consequences of his actions.
Ira Nayman said, about 1 month ago
Yes, at the borders, the law may seem absurd. However, this is always the case with borders; that doesn’t mean that they aren’t necessary.
Dypak
said,
about 1 month ago
Susan, I know the facts behind Polanski, Manson and Tate-LaBianca. I didnt want to cloud the issue at hand with discussion of something while important is irrelevant to this issue. He had been married, he would have been a father. That’s good enough, he should have known better. He should have known better without those things. We all know you’re the smart one and Mom loved you best!
Dow - You just keep going on and on about the law and legality. All the law does is protect the criminals. This is an issue of right an wrong. What Polanski did was wrong. Only an anti-social deviant would try to defend it.
My desire to have Polanski put away for years is only partially motivated by any thoughts of retribution for what he did. My greatest concern is that he go to prison as a message to all others like him who consider such an act apppropriate and acceptable. If you do this we will hunt you down and lock you away, no matter how long it takes. Justice delayed is justice denied. In this case we’re talking about the justice for the victim.
I find it reassuring that an adult with the opinion that a grown man having forceable sex with a minor can be considered acceptable disagrees with my view on sex. Dow, I would really be concerned if you agreed with me.
Sex can be complicated, messy and is often violent and unpleasant. Anyone realistic enough to live in the real world knows that. Sure, it can be a wonderful experiance, a time of sharing and closeness with another. But you know what? I highly doubt that that’s what the experiance was like for Samantha. And to be honest I bet there are very few people out there who have not been hurt or harmed because of a sexual relationship in some way. It’s obvious someone damaged you a long time ago. Hopefully you havent damaged too many others in your lifetime.
People use sex as a weapon Dow, men and women. That’s why we have to protect those who need it. It’s what men do. They’re not supposed to condone the violation of children, they’re supposed to stop it. To protect them at least until they’re old enough and experianced enough to protect themselves as best they can in an evil world.
And your statement that Samantha is reliving anything because of me is ridiculous. I wasnt the one who raped her, lets keep clear who the criminal is. Rapists like Polanski count on their victims being too shocked or scared to stand up for themselves and demand justice. It’s just another way for society and our legal system to keep women subservient to men and ‘in their place.’ We prosecute criminals for society, not as revenge for their victims.
My definition of rape and abuse is dead smack on. Physical violence isnt necessary. There doesnt even have to be the threat of violence for it to be rape. If I can dominate you and push you down to where you are submissive to my will do I need to smack you around just to have sex with you? No. But it is still rape. It is still evil and wrong.
MatureCanadian
said,
about 1 month ago
Dypak - Thank you for putting it so eloquently. As adults it is our job to protect children and that is what a 13 year old is. A child. Depending on birth date, either in grade 8 or just starting high school in grade 9. To me, and thank goodness legally, that is a child.
DavidDow said, about 1 month ago
Roman Polanski didn’t rape Samantha Gailey, either, Dypak, but you want her to relive the experience repeatedly. She wants it to end. I feel sorry for you and for Canary, who apparently is so intrigued with pedophilia that he/she knows whom to avoid when arranging trysts with minors.
This has taken up too much of my week. I may return for a few minutes after I get some of my work done. Over the course of this week, we have stated the facts. That some get so excited by pedophila that they need to ignore some facts, distort others, and outright lie shows the weakness of their psychologically tenuous position.
I plead with everyone to do some research on this subject. Read James Kincaid’s CHILD-LOVING, Camille Paglia’s SEXUAL PERSONAE, Michel Foucault’s HISTORY OF SEXUALITY, & Kinsey’s books–just to name a few. Human sexuality is fascinatingly complex, and this simplistic name-calling is an insult to humanity.
I hope that everyone will leave here treasuring the miracle of human sexuality.
Roadbuster said, about 1 month ago
DavidDow:
First, let me say this: I disagree strongly with your position. In fact, I find it repulsive. But it IS your position, and it would be a waste of my time, and yours to try and change your mind.
Though, there IS a salient point here.
Intercourse with a minor is against the law, as many people have noted. Just because you don’t agree with the law doesn’t make it any less the law of the land.
Roman Polanski committed Statutory Rape. He is guilty.
And he essentially bought his way out of a prison sentence.
We have every right to be upset that he’s evaded justice by fleeing the country.
Dypak
said,
about 1 month ago
Don’t feel sorry for me, you’re the one with the problem. The only one discussing pedophilia, with apparent gusto, is DavidDow. I have been discussing the horror of rape. You, apparently, have been defending the idea of CHILD-LOVING. Your caps, not mine, from the title of the book you promote and asked us to read.
You have persistently tried to defend adult congress with minors. You’ve tried to say that simply because children are curious about sex that’s ok for adults to help them satisfy their curiosity and desires. I fear for you Dow, and the children around you.
You see, there are predators out there. Bad people. People who prey on the young, the innocent, the unsuspecting. They know and understand the same things that you do. They use the innocent curiosities and desires of our children as tools to trap and abuse them. And guess what DD? The bad people use the same arguments that YOU do to try and prove that it is ok, that it is simply natural for them to do what they do. They think that it’s almost justifiable to do what, apparently, you are defending.
You’re a dangerous man Dow. An intelligent man who can express himself well and make a horrible, disgusting thing seem reasonable and natural. And you have a knack for making those who disagree with you seem foolish and stupid. You use little tricks like presenting sources out of context to try and bolster your argument. You snidely remark on the passion and emotions of those who disagree with you. You ask for proof of things like emotional wisdom, maturity and experience, knowing that they are intangibles, and then scoff because proof of those things must be established over time. You try to use the law to defend your argument on one hand and then ridicule it when it disagrees with you.
Please believe me, I am not trying to accuse you of anything. I think that sadly you really do believe that this kind of thing is reasonable. The problem is that those evil, bad people I mentioned earlier, the true, predatory pedophiles? Well, they use people like you as well. They take advantage of you and manipulate you into trying to justify and explain their crimes as being only natural. They want you to help us question whether such crimes on children are right or wrong. They use you to try to make the rest of us prove something is evil, and wrong. But when it comes down to it something like that should not have to be proven. It is wrong. Morally. Ethically. It’s wrong because we simply know it is. It does not need to be proven. But if that’s not good enough for you it’s wrong because it is against the law. Whenever anyone, man or woman, violates a child, boy or girl, they should be swiftly and severely punished.
wrong. No one should coerce another into something they don’t want to do. And no one should try to make someone make a decision that they are not experianced enough or mature enough to make capably.
You have persistantly tried to defend adult congress with minors. You’ve tried to say that simply because children are curious about sex that’s ok for adults to help them satisfy their curiosity and desis.
jimpow said, about 1 month ago
Methinks we have too many lawyer, ethicist, and theologian wannabes posting here. It’s becoming tiresome and boring.
Dypak
said,
about 1 month ago
Amen.