There’s a weird thing that happens with celebrities – they seem to get a pass on the normal rules of behaviour.
It’s interesting to me that Polanski is treated differently in the 2009 media than Michael Jackson.
With Jackson, the excuse for his obviously predatory conduct to boys aged 11 to 14 as a result of a childhood lost to an abusive father – and proclaim he is innocent as a child himself in all regards – is horrifying.
It is irrational to accept that an abused child would grow up to be an adult who constantly seeks to invent childhood. It is not okay for an adult to seek out companionship from a rather specific age range and gender of children. Especially not children who are not merely offspring of his adult friends – but children who’s families are strangers.
If we took away that he was bold, underlined, italic Michael Jackson – and just look at the specifics – at the time of the first public claims – he was and adult male with no substantial adult romantic relationship, he was already a bit hermity and demonstrating odd behaviour – real or for publicity. He was also already remaking himself over into a Peter Pan of sorts, talking in a high voice, facial surgeries. And cultivating the companionship of boys 11 to 14.
If this was a man at the end of your street, are you really going to send your son to his house for sleepovers and weekend getaways?
Even without the behaviours, would you allow a non-family member or non-friend this unfettered access to your child?
But Polanski, who’s pregnant wife was murdered a few years before the incident is not given any sort of victim of trauma pass.
Polanski has not surrounded himself with 13 year old girls or trying to remake himself over – he’s been an adult and gotten on with his life – nor has he been accused by any other teen girls or seen in their near social company almost exclusively.
I have always thought the truth of the matter was closer to the casting couch/Lolita interpretation than the version in the court.
Celebrities never get a fair trial like a member of the general public would – it’s either too lightly considered in awe of their celebrity or too harsh so as to set an example for the mere mortals.
Polanski’s crime was with a 13 year old girl over 30 years ago.
Jackson appears to have for years cultivated relationships with other people’s children.
Is it because Polanki worked behind the camera or that he fled the US? So, the anger is less to do with his crime than he thwarted justice?
It’s curious especially, since there is generally more outrage over the sexual abuse of boys than girls.
Or is it because Polanski fits our image of a masculine and sexual man and Jackson does not? Jackson with his high voice, anorexic body, effeminate movements and overall soft and childlike presentation of himself, instead of appearing sexually attractive, he seems instead to be Peter Pan?
Now, I am not one for push for conforming to gender roles or acting and appearing as society thinks you should.
But to my mind, there’s such a sinister rather than sweet aspect to Jackson’s persona that he appears less like Peter Pan and more Pedo Pan.