There are a number of ideas in this world that should never be introduced to each other.

“Christian” and “rock” is one example. “Movie” and “wholesome” is certainly another. And, really, one thing we’ve always been able to count on is the boundless depravity of Hollywood. For this, I used to be grateful.

Obviously, those of us with even a tenuous grasp of decency or respect for the rule of law understand that filmmaker Roman Polanski — who, need we be reminded, alleged loaded up a 13-year-old with alcohol and Quaaludes before raping her in 1977 — should find himself putrefying in prison. Even actors must believe this, right?

No?

The subsequent skirmish over Polanski’s arrest — not exactly a momentous international incident — isn’t between right and left or blue state and red state or secularist and social conservative. It’s between a gaggle of actors and directors against everyone with a moral IQ above Woody Allen.

Harvey Weinstein, the noted producer of “Pulp Fiction,” has been one of Polanski’s staunchest defenders, claiming that the Polish director had already served his time (directing movies in Europe) and that we should trust his take on the situation because “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion.”

Imagine, if you can, the impenetrability of this man’s iron-clad bubble. Weinstein’s success is predicated on dispensing tales from the darkest, twisted corners of the imagination. Don’t get me wrong, for this I am also grateful. Some of Weinstein’s ethically magisterial works, for instance, have included: “Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead” (tagline? “They can die quickly. They can die slowly. But they must die!”) and “Death Proof” (plot? “Two separate sets of voluptuous women are stalked at different times by a scarred stuntman who uses his “death-proof” cars to execute his murderous plans”).

Now, I ask you, if Weinstein possessed even a scintilla of decency, would he have subjected this nation to “The Nanny Diaries”?

When Weinstein began circulating a pro-Polanski petition after the director was apprehended in Switzerland, Allen — a man who, somewhat prophetically, carried on an affair with a teenager in his film “Manhattan” — immediately signed.

As did Martin Scorsese, a true giant of cinema, whose depiction of psychotics, mobsters, teenager prostitutes, drugs, mayhem and crass violence can only be called genius.

But moral? Compassionate? Not exactly.

Polanski himself made a name directing “Repulsion” (Plot? “Left alone when her sister goes on vacation, a sexually repressed young beauty goes insane with surreal fantasies of seduction and rape”) and “Rosemary’s Baby,” wherein a housewife is imbued with the devil’s spawn (co-starring Charles Grodin!).

I enjoy many of these charmingly decadent films for what they are: fantasy, titillating, coarse, absurd and escapist. There are few people who possess the talent to send us to a world where violence is without consequence; where serial infidelity is patched up with a couple of witty sentences; and where middle-aged men (often, incredibly, resembling the ones directing the film) can secure companionship from lithe 20-year-old beauties as effortlessly as they can jump from building to building chasing would-be terrorists.

The problem is that apparently many of these people have a problem distinguishing between art and reality. As well-known blogger Allahpundit recently twittered, “Word on the street: Polanski’s next film is so good, Europe’s going to let him (redacted) an eight-year-old. It’s THAT GOOD.”

Where are the average, serial-marrying, middling Hollywood immorals as their profession is sullied by the likes of Whoopi Goldberg, who asserts that Polanski wasn’t guilty of “rape rape” or Debra Winger, who calls the rule of law “Philistine thuggery”?

What is the average American to make of this incident? Despite the coverage, not much.

1. Hollywood denizens are extraordinarily out of touch.

2. We send them to jail when necessary.

3. Always, always ignore them unless they have a script in hand.

by Eric Allie

View all recent cartoons

The man raping the girl in the alleyway, or the passive bystander who neither stops the attack nor calls the police? The mother beating her children, or the husband who goes to work and leaves the children with her?

Who is worse? The abuser, the attacker is worse. But we are revulsed and disgusted by the people who aid and abet and ignore the perpetrators, and rightly so.

Last week, ten women were the subject of a cyber-rape. That is, without their consent, they were subjected to one misogynist, Guy Cimbalo, and his rape fantasies, which appeared in his Playboy article titled “Ten Conservative Women I’d Like To Hate F***.” (The article has since been taken down.)

Perhaps you think “cyber-rape” is extreme. But consider what was said about Mary Katherine Ham:

You get this one pregnant, she stays pregnant. Karma’s a b****, isn’t it?

Implying that she wouldn’t want a baby resulting from rape, but because of her belief system, she’d have the child. Of course, she would deserve this treatment and fate, because Ham is pro-life. Carrying the baby would be karmic retribution for holding her disagreeable belief.

Cimbalo says of Amanda Carpenter:

She is also a columnist at TownHall, a website for illiterates who disprove evolution by their very existence.

She has been dealing with the fallout all week. Amanda Carpenter shared that on Monday — instead of working — she had to explain the controversy to her male coworkers. She said it was embarrassing and distracting. A friend sent her an excited email: “You made a list of the best conservative blogger women for Playboy!” The friend hadn’t read the article.

And now, when someone Googles her name, the Playboy list shows up prominently.

So imagine, if you will, that the list consisted of liberal women bloggers. Imagine if Amanda Marcotte, Jane Hamsher, Jill from Feministe, and some of the more vocal feminist bloggers made up the list. Right now, they’re all upset over a National Review caricature of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. (It’s called satire. Remember this?)

First, the list would never be made. Why? Because Playboy considers liberal women to be sympathetic compatriots. Ironically enough, they’re on the same team.

Second, the outrage would be vocal and ubiquitous. Playboy made the miscalculation of assuming that conservative men are misogynistic pigs and, yes, sent the press release to them. They thought they would have a friendly audience that would link back.

Did liberal men bloggers get the list? Probably not, but Playboy would have found more sympathy with them. As conservative women know, the most vicious attacks come from leftist male bloggers. Spending some time in the comment section of an opinionated conservative woman blogger will curl toes. It’s not for the faint of heart.

Conservative women bloggers are used to being sexualized, objectified, and called names. Conservative women generally know that any voiced public opinion or any public involvement will mean attempted personal destruction. Which is the point of the Playboy list — get conservative women to shut up. Specifically, get beautiful, smart, young conservative women to shut up. Get them to leave the public sphere. Can you say Sarah Palin?

When Teri Cristophe — executive director for Smart Girl Politics, a conservative women’s activist group which includes male members — contacted liberal U.S. News blogger Bonnie Erbe about Playboy’s list, here’s what Erbe said:

A couple of caveats are in order. First, I probably disagree politically with much of SmartGirlPolitics.org’s agenda — I know I disagree completely with the group’s position on abortion rights. But as a nonpartisan, I’m also a firm believer in supporting all members of my gender when attacked due to their gender. I am supporting these women herewith.

I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her “routine” are so venomous and predictable, in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago.

Others on the list, however, are not venom-spewing at all. One woman mentioned on the atlasshrugs2000 blog is a regular guest on my PBS show. Amanda Carpenter, on the show at least, eschews personal judgment of people with whom she disagrees politically. So her inclusion on the Playboy list is much more offensive to me than is the inclusion of Ms. Malkin, although their political views may not differ greatly.

So a rape-fantasy list is fine for a “venom-spewing” woman. That’s right. Most women don’t deserve rape except for the ones who “have it coming.” You know, the girls wearing short skirts, they kinda ask for it.

It’s nice to see a modern feminist clarify her position. Cyber-rape is fine for some people.

Bonnie Erbe’s opinion is rare — rare in that she actually hinted, if mildly, that the list is distasteful. She actually said something. Anne Schroeder Mullins of Politico acted the role of passive bystander by whitewashing and sanitizing the list.

Most feminist women did what they abhor the most: they remained silent.

Rather than coming to the defense of the sisterhood, feminist writers and bloggers turned their heads. Conservative women get what they have coming. They aren’t sisters anyway. They are women who have the nerve to disagree with the “real” women. Real women have one central belief and that is the right to abortion.

Ray Cimbalo committed the crime that the Playboy editors and public relations department set up. Feminist women watched the crime from the sidelines and did nothing. They remained silent. Feminist men defended the cyber-rape.

Meanwhile, besides the women on the list and other conservative women media members (Megyn Kelly, Michelle Malkin, Elizabeth Blakney, the Smart Girls ladies, etc.), who presented the most vociferous defense?

Conservative men. That’s right. Conservative men wrote ardently for of the attacked women. Ed Driscoll, John Hawkins, Ed Morrissey, Caleb Howe, Allahpundit, Jim Treacher. One liberal man likely lost his job for decrying Playboy’s misogynistic actions.

The feminist women remain silent. I don’t expect them to find their voices anytime soon. These are the same women who defended Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment and blamed the victims. These are the same women who savaged Sarah Palin based on her hair, her clothes, and her choice to have a special needs child. And now, these are the women who stand by and watch other women get attacked because they are beautiful and believe differently. The feminists say nothing.

The fact is, feminists want conservative women muzzled. And evidently, even cyber-rape is an acceptable way to silence their ideological opposition. Duly noted.