Mel Gibson or Roman Polanski: who is the bigger celebrity dirtbag?

Understanding that voting one man's transgressions as being worse than the other's is not the same as excusing/endorsing/ignoring/dismissing/apologizing for them, whose transgressions were worse? Child rape or misogyny/anti-semitism/racism?

That tape, assuming it is real, puts him into a pit of fire by his own f'ed up religious nonsense.

Can't say the guy lacks passion

I mean, how can anyone honestly think that words, no matter how vile, equate to raping a child?

Yet interestingly enough, it would seem many in Hollywood were willing to forgive or defend Polanski, but few will take up for Gibson.

One is a crime, the other a social indiscretion.

Oh, and Gibson is a dirt bag. He can take his misogynistic/anti-semitic/racist views and shove them.

So maybe I should have voted for Polanski because it would seem to me he probably was more in control of his mind when he committed his crime than Gibson did with his rants/alleged crimes.

Neither of them are invited over to dinner, and that's really all that counts in this household.

PB

I mean, his mother was killed at Auschwitz. Years later, Polanski's pregnant wife was brutally murdered by the Manson gang. I'm not saying that gives him a free pass to inflict pain on others, but you want to talk about life events than can give one serious issues...

Jesus, talk about having a weird life.

PB

i think he just didn't think there was anything wrong with it and if he could do it again and get away with it he would.

The guy's a major arse.

Not excusing the other dirt bag, though...

At least Mel's victim is an adult and has apparently separated from her abuser.

just saying. That baby is a victim as well

I think Gibson and Polanski are equally sociopathical.

Meanwhile that movie icon Reagan, who not only called for a bloodbath on our college campuses as the Governor of CA, he went on to kill millions of innocents as President of the US. Not only did he walk away clean from that, but he even fooled a large number of people into idolizing him, literally.

Gibson and Polanski are pikers by comparison.

He is icky, but not a decapitating murderer, a pedophile, or a violent woman beating nazi nut case.

But he seems to not rise into Mel's pantheon of psycho-celebs. OJ, yes. Polanski sure. Sheen, not unless there is a tape of him bragging about what a sick fuck he is.

At age 19, Allen married 16-year-old Harlene Rosen...In his act, Allen said that Rosen sued him because of a joke he made in an interview. Rosen had been sexually assaulted outside her apartment and according to Allen, the newspapers reported that she "had been violated.". In the interview, Allen said, "Knowing my ex-wife, it probably wasn't a moving violation."...

The film Manhattan is said to have been based on his romantic relationship with the actress Stacey Nelkin. Her bit part in Annie Hall ended up on the cutting room floor, and their relationship, though never publicly acknowledged by Allen, reportedly began when she was 17 years old and a student at New York's Stuyvesant High School.

Allen and Farrow's 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 children."<72>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_allen


maybe he broke no laws -- that he got caught at, at least -- but that's creepy.

Gibson's a superficial misogynist who needs to join Stormfront just to legitimize himself and his statements. Words. Polanski drugged and raped a child.

Gibson is just a douchebag for invoking hate. His actions, afaik, haven't done anything. Michael Vick is a bigger celebrity dirtbag than Gibson, because actions speak louder than words.

Lot of soundbyte warriors out there. They didn't rape children though.

either

uh no. He is seriously deranged and is facing a criminal investigation for beating up his ex-girlfriend, an incident he seems to have admitted to on a tape his lawyers attempted to suppress. You need to listen to the tape. The crap Polanski did was horrible, but now a very long time ago. Mel is an ongoing horror show.

Why did he allegedly beat up his ex-girlfriend?

Gibson is under investigation for domestic violence which came out of the released telephone conversation in which he appears to admit to hitting his ex-girlfriend, which doesn't necessarily mean he 'beat her up'. I do not believe she filed any type of complaint or ever sought medical treatment as a result so it seems likely the "hit" could have been anything from a tap to something which caused no more than superficial injuries. My guess is his verbal abuse is most likely far worse than anything he ever did physically. Even if you assume the worse and say his abuse caused bruises, that's still not even within a cab ride of drugging and raping a child.

So, yeah, he beat her pretty badly. She was also holding their child in her arms when he did it.

That said, I still think raping a child is worse. The calculation involved in doing such a thing I find to be more disgusting than a sudden violent abuse as a result of being unable to control bad emotions. Polanski planned to do what he did, had plenty enough time to realize what he wanted to do and did was wrong but didn't care. It also disgusts me that she was a child. Abusing another adult is bad enough, but I believe abusing a child is worse... a child is always in a far weaker position in every way than an adult and an easy target. Taking advantage of the weakest among us I find to be especially dispicable.

And he is on tape bragging about it. I don't think Polanski is bragging about what he did 35 years ago. Drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is seriously wrong, as is beating up a woman. The poll asked us to choose one over the other, and as I stated, the freshness and apparently unremorseful nature of Gibson is in my opinion more creepy than the ancient pedophile Polanski. But it is simply an opinion regarding degrees of sleazyness, not the objectionableness of their crimes.

However, it seems fair to ask, do you find beating up women and bragging about it and threatening to do it again less objectionable? Why?

Adult domestic violence isn't uncommon - and while it's never "ok" the reasons for it are all over the map.

I had a good friend who I got out of a couple bad boyfriend violence situations before I learned that.
Nice girl.. but she repeatedly picked men that were prone to smacking her around ... and would then engage them by initiating violent acts.
I say this because I actually witnessed it on more than 1 occasion.
That doesn't mean it was OK for somebody to hit her - but it became obvious that she played an active roll in perpetuating that cycle.

Every situation of domestic violence has it's own backstory - often that colors events in a different light.
The point is that we don't know what the actual story is with Oksana or Gibson (nor do I particularly care) and there's a better than even chance we won't learn it from the media.

Adult domestic violence is often shades of grey rather than black and white.
Knowing what has *actually* happened can make a difference in how you feel about either party or any particular act.

A 44 year old adult voluntarily sodomizing a 13 year old is seriously wrong.
Period. Always. Black and white.
There are no mitigating circumstances I can imagine that would make it less objectionable.

Gibson, apparently, didn't hang out with the right crowd to earn the title of artist.

It's 2:1 Gibson at the moment, with just over 30 votes cast. Interesting

The results of this poll are sickening!

i have told them, a girl can hit puberty at ten. and i got no disgusted comment back, about the absurdity of doing a ten year old.

yes

they are out and about on du.

should tie their tails together and throw them over a clothesline?

nobody's entitled to rape little kids

he hit his ex girlfriend while she was holding their infant daughter. hard enough to knock two of her teeth out.

They are both horrible people..... but I did vote for Polanski... for now.

He has acted on his perversions while Gibson has mostly whined on the phone under the infuence

I'm at a loss for words

I've seen some stupid shit on this site over the years but this takes the cake

amazing

Mel is being accused now of assaulting his ex-girlfriend while she was holding their infant daughter. That is certainly reprehensible. I think drugging and raping a 13 year old is "worse" so I voted for Polanski, if I can say that without trivializing domestic violence... but if it's true he's done more than just yell racist remarks.

What Polanski has actually DONE so far is definitely far, far worse, no doubt about it.

However, I think Gibson, being a much younger man who hasn't been beaten down as much, is more likely to cause more harm in the future. Men as full of rage and hate and with as little self-control as Gibson...well, it's a good thing his ex is documenting and publicizing. That's smart, when you've got someone that ugly fixated on you. At least when, er, I mean, if, something happens to her, the whole world knows who the #1 suspect is.

so pedophilia and racism are now entertainment issues?

after getting her drunk.

Yeah, yeah, Polanski's first wife, Sharon Tate, was brutally murdered by followers of Charles Manson, but that's no excuse to rape a young girl after getting her inebriated to the point where she couldn't really fight back.

management. How can you change child rape?


No doubt Gibson is a pig but Polansky is the bigger pig.