Sharon Tate, Murdered Innocence - Part 3

Part 3

[@sammy7819]

That poor girl, she seems like a real sweet person. I can't believe Tex Watson is still alive after he brutally killed those people

[@lisabradford8180]

@Juxtaposition Stories bull💩 charles "tex" watson is a fucking murderer and not innocent of anything. i'll be glad when he and the others join manson and atkins in hell❤‍🔥❤‍🔥❤‍🔥❤‍🔥

[@sofiastrauss2373]

Not,linda kasabian leslie van houden and Patrícia krekiwell Assassin's ,love you Sharon Tate By Sophia Strauss composer ❤️❤️🇵🇹

[@ValerieNeely-e7f]

Yes,he's still alive,unfortunately. What a piece of garbage.

[@lesliemarks5625]

Damn sharon was absolutely gorgeous! Roman so didn't deserve her

[@paul-ku9ek]

How about Debra. Debra is same.

[@lesliemarks5625]

Yes Debra as well 😄

[@paul-ku9ek]

Leslie Marks correct. thanx.

[@Muirmaiden]

Jay loved Sharon so much. To the end, he defended her. Why Roman Polanski didn't appreciate her and treat her better is mind-boggling.

[@paul-ku9ek]

.

[@Muirmaiden]

zero Polanski was born in Paris but he is Polish. I'm not saying Roman didn't love Sharon, but European or not what he did was very hurtful. I doubt he would have held the same viewpoint if she had been unfaithful. He had definite double-standards.

[@paul-ku9ek]

Muirmaiden

[@Muirmaiden]

***** Polanski cheated on her constantly. I'm sure he regretted it later, but he didn't treat her as well as he should have.

[@wendymarielafogg9924]

+Muirmaiden: You're absolutely right about what you said about Roman, but he did NOT deserve to lose his wife and unborn child the way he did. He loved Sharon, but I agree, Sharon could have done WAY better and should not have married Roman. Why? Because he seemingly DID NOT DESERVE OR APPRECIATE HER.

[@cathykristensen4440]

I love her ADORABLE wedding dress!

[@dianabeurman9937]

It was divine!!

[@kittykitty7770]

Sharon tate only went with Roman because he had money and he was a big Hollywood director......♡

[@donovanmorton5946]

I see that also, it was like what he could do for her

[@simoneschwanitz1273]

@@donovanmorton5946 I heard he was not happy with Sharon being pregnant with bis baby and called her"fat cow".It always seemed to me that she married him for his fame and he married her for her Beauty. When she became pragnant she lost him

[@DeepScreenAnalysis]

No, she liked his intellectual capacity.

[@iTsEfFiNsTePhh]

A deep question that always pops up in my mind whenever I see Sharon is- say you're lucky enough to be born with an amazing personality, talent, amazing looks so much so you can't even walk down the street without getting looks being hit on and offered jobs, and get nearly everything you want from life without even trying but you'd die young at 26, die in a brutal painful way, on top of you dying your child would die with you, and your name would be forever tied with a group of killers on top of being tied to a sexual predator that you were married to (basically your life would be damn near perfect for almost 26 years but would end in one of the worst ways possible and for decades possibly longer after your death your death and who you were tied to would be mostly remembered next to never your actual life) would you still want that life? 🤔 (by the way her own family, friends, other people who knew her, and even she herself said those things so it's not just me). Just so sad 😕 I think it hits me harder because Sharon is my grandparent's age and her son is my parent's age so this easily could've happened to my family with the only difference being they weren't in California at the time had they been it easily could've happened to us too.

[@karenp.1634]

It's filmways fault she met Roman, a sexual predator

[@maryanncolyer1187]

I agree

[@mpirron1]

The talking heads wrote a song about it once.

[@RobertoLorenzPianist]

It's strange: artists always have the most beautiful women and cheat on them because they never feel on target, never are satisfied. However, I have no doubt that he loved Sharon with all his heart, but maybe didn't perceive it until he lost her. Even in 2011 he talked with wet eyes about her.

[@simna32]

This guy old not stop eating even for the interview

[@shirleywoerner8538]

Ml

[@hobokenplayboy]

I do know that Michelle Phillips did the horizontal mambo with Roman, but I'm not sure if Mia Farrow was a secret affair. Sharon was a champion thorobred. Roman admitted years ago that he should have treated her with greater respect.

[@ferzach8687]

hey someone could explain me why did the mansons kill sharon tate?

[@michaelstratton6701]

The guy that actually lived there before was a producer of the beach boys, and he turned Manson down for a record, or something of that nature, so the people tex killed were actually the wrong people, but Hollywood celebrities just the same, Manson seen them all as pigs after his rejection

[@janetrainwater1505]

She wud have been great in rosemarys baby. 👍😉

[@starrdustt9717]

Polański is a jewish director. How many non-jews do u know that make it in jewish hollywood?

[@Luvie1980]

Several. Anti Semitic much?

[@starrdustt9717]

@@Luvie1980 name them. pro Christ murderers much?

[@PaperImagesArtStudio]

He is Polish

[@starrdustt9717]

@@PaperImagesArtStudio no, he's jewish and he belongs to israel

[@missbrown1698]

Jay Sebring must have worn Sharon High School ring around his neck, I haven't heard anyone said Sharon went to collage

[@xxcharmed1xx]

Its a shame she didn't stay with Jay.. She would still be alive today.

[@jwalkin5123]

Roman Polanski looked like an opossum.

[@Z3RO19]

She was indeed extremely beautiful. I feel so sad, that she had to die so gruesomely. RIP Sharon, and all the other victims.

[@dorseyann2611]

Roman didn't appreciate her. I think he was caught up in the lust of the 60s.

[@delorme9]

So was Jay

[@kennyjames5335]

he didn't appreciate her Roman was a Hoe and she knew it but married him anyway, The poor girl could've married any man she want to but she chose that a-hole

[@Luvie1980]

@@kennyjames5335 go away!

[@jennyh444]

How does a man cheat on a beautiful woman like Sharon? Roman was so lucky to have her! I guarantee no other woman he was with could hold a candle to her beauty. She deserved to be treated better than that! She should have married Jay Sebring. Not only was he better looking, but he absolutely loved her unselfishly. She would have never been at Ceilo Drive on that fateful night, either.

[@delorme9]

Jay probably would have cheated on her too.

[@Vesper_Songs]

Because there is more to a woman than her looks.

[@kittykitty7770]

Men CHEAT.. so there.

[@TheTurk56523]

The sex drive for young men to procreate is strong.

[@bonniemagpie9960]

jenny h, One of my past neighbours who is married to a Leo said she goes to bed just to sleep. She said "Leo's aren't great in bed".

[@DA90027]

This film is about Sharon keep your stupid comments about Polanski out of it. Sharon was a total sweetheart, probably would have gone on to much better films and work later on if she had lived.

[@bruneangus4180]

I feel so bad for Sharon.. n cant say anything about Roman.. We value people who are not with us anymore

[@donovanmorton5946]

TRUE If she were still here , we probably wouldn't know who she is

[@nicholasshade]

Sharon was really pretty, and the fact she did movies only added to what was already there. I love when people actually do things. I haven't seen Valley of the Dolls, but I'm really thinking about purchasing it.♏

[@thetommyknockerman7193]

Not only was she beautiful but she was the sweetest, kindest person you could ever hope to meet. I haven't heard or read one negative thing about her. She was very humble. Didn't even realize how stunning she was. Makes her stand out even more.

[@fabricatedreality8218]

sharon was a dream...

[@cookiewilliams8926]

I'm not sure but I think Sharon was in a Movie where she was life guard , It was like one of those beach movies from the 60's.I'll have to look it up to see, I remember watching it on late night tv as a kid , I just don't remember the name of the movie

[@shimmeringfairydust3275]

Don't Make Waves, I believe it was called. Sharon played a beach bunny named Malibu.

[@cookiewilliams8926]

Elaine Snow- Yes that's it, Thank You so much

[@shimmeringfairydust3275]

+CookieWilliams sure

[@nellsdaughter1960]

Don't make waves

[@BeatleLoverification]

Don't get me wrong I do feel bad for Roman he lost his wife and unborn son. But like you said artists think differently then other men and he did take her for granted, I can't imagine how much he misses her. :(

[@jamieburton8647]

This guy is disgusting. He should have treated her like a queen.

[@Specialized1993]

3:51 Scared pregnant girl in a horror film? Huh thats an interesting coincidence. Also a little later she plays a role of a " sex symbol victimized by everyone" and In part 5 like at 0:15 they say about Roman & Sharon being included in drug binges and wild orgy's... I personally dont like conspiracies but honestly all i can say is its a dark world and hollywood is a place of lost souls.

[@fabis4164]

that’s what i was thinking

[@ien2023]

A series of unfortunate events.

[@BeatleLoverification]

I can't believe that Roman had the nerve to cheat on her! She was one of the worlds most beautiful women that ever lived and he was well, not so beautiful. Shame on you Roman!!!

[@Sammy-mp9xn]

He had the dough tho'. 💰

[@PaperImagesArtStudio]

Cheating is wrong, no one is the world's most beautiful woman.

[@Badfingerbabe777]

In the Beatles books I read Sharon and Roman were friends with the Beatles when they stayed in London in the late 60's they got together with them. They were a very hip couple of the time. Ringo Starr said she was a very sweet girl and Beautiful. I don;t think Roman treated her very good from what I read he had many affairs on Sharon. I wish she had got with one of the Beatles and dumped Roman!She was also friends with Joan Collins and Michelle Pillips from the mamas and Papa's!

[@gretchenwaldvogel7805]

What did she see in him

[@jasnapanic3621]

Right question!

[@roksolana-zb4hu]

Career

[@lizhall2160]

Umm, she didn't go to college... How did he wear her " non existent" college ring???

[@faithwatkins7811]

They kinda used each other Sharon and Roman. She was an actress and he was a director with a trophy wife.

[@keganpinto45]

Sharon knew Roman was a means to an end! She knew if she left him she would find it difficult to work in Hollywood! She lacked confidence in herself though she's was absolutely stunning! Sad but true!

[@ziledevara1]

Yes, she herself never achieved anything great in her short career, her famous entourage and rich lifestyle came from marrying Roman

[@KatLeFay81]

Why would Roman want to cheat on Sharon; she was so GORGEOUS! He had it all in her; why did he need to go looking elsewhere? UGH.

[@karlknudson4991]

feel so sad for her!

[@crapple009]

Thanks for that info- I had never read any mention of Sharon and the Beatles in all my years as a Beatles fan till now, that is. I did google it and found a quote from both George and Ringo as well as a photo of Ringo with Sharon and Roman, around Feb. 1968, judging by Ringo's appearance. Many thanks for something new to me!

[@JohnBlessingPaligap]

Elizabeth Taylor?? No way man...

[@mgrosse24]

She was gross in personality 🤮🤮

[@haggis655]

The chances of Tate "falling in love" with Polanski if he were, say, a short order cook, would be about one in a million. And if that short order cook ever leaped up at her and kissed her he'd probably STILL be in a sex offender program to this day. The problem with exposing this, is women never fall in love with men BECAUSE they have money or power. THEY TRULY FALL IN LOVE WITH MEN WHO HAVE MONEY OR POWER.

[@haggis655]

Er, this may shock you, but that's my very premise. And that's the paradigm that hominism is trying to establish. The fallacy of feminism was to denature the language of gender. That is, to focus only on issues divorced from their sexual context. This made is SEEM like men had power, women had no power; men were oppressing or exploiting women and women were not reciprocally oppressing men. Feminism accomplished this, as said, by denaturing the paradigm of sexual exchanges. In the feminist paradigm, the opposition is between male social power and female social power; usually denatured further into economic terms; i.e. male employment status and wages vs. female employment status and wages; a fallacy that persists to this day. But this, as hominist analysis shows, denatures the polarization of gender. Because the real polarization, or dialectic, is between male social power and female SEXUAL power. For a hominism, which rejects biological determinism for a phenomenology of tender relations, That is, how men and women perceive one another; this involves a negation of biological assignment from male and female into gendered relationships; thus in effect negating the negation and sublating or transcending it into a new reality of gendered identity, allowing for a series of such practices of negation and sublation, or transcendence. Unlike feminism, which is rooted in a fanciful rhetoric without adequation to, or correspondence with, a real or exterior world (hence I call feminism a "language," not a genuine discourse), hominism is eminently empirical; its adequation to what we see every single day and hour and minute can be verified in a real or exterior world, "out there," measured, quantified, etc. We begin as male and females, Subject to Subject, in a proceptive-receptive equal relationship. No man has social power over women; no woman has sexual power over man. The woman is as likely to be governor as she is to woo and court a male, to pay for a date with him, to DESIRE him, to ask him out, etc. We have a theoretical complete equality. Somewhere alone the line, anxiety sets in. Since hominism rejects the concept that one sex oppresses the other, or, absurdly, that masculinity "causes" femininity, or that femininity causes masculinity, we must assume mirrored anxiety in both sexes. In short, for hominism, as Sassure pointed out in linguistics, THERE ARE NO POSITIVE TERMS, only NEGATIVE TERMS. The SOLE meaning of masculinity is its opposite, femininity; and the sole meaning of femininity is its opposite, masculinity. Similarly the sole meaning of masculine aggressive practices are feminine passive sexual practices. There are no positive terms or positive practices, strictly speaking; anymore than "b" means anything apart from "p," or that d means anything apart from t, etc. As Levi-Strauss said of language, gender must emerge in one fell swoop. Hominism disposes of the absurd feminist premise that masculinity comes first ("patriarchy") and the man then oppresses the female, in effect "causing" femininiity. Then what DOES cause femininity (i.e. what hominism calls the FALL into gender from sex (i.e. the fall from male and female into masculinity and femininity)? For hominism this is caused by mutual anxiety, or mirrored anxiety. Both sexes feel anxiety over the risk of failed tumescence in the male. As I said, hominism is an eminently empirical discipline. We see this in everyday life. If the male does not get an eerection BOTH sexes feel shame: the male does not feel manly enough and the woman does not feel feminine enough ("Aren't my legs long enough for you?" "Sorry, I drank too much," etc.). Thus gender originates in anxiogenesis, that is, from anxiety. The Subject-Subject relationship, a relationship of mutual subjects, now deteriorates. The woman gives up her mutual pursuit of the male and assumes a passive role, compromising the Subject-Subject relationship into a Subject-Object relationship. This is still a merely privative object status, like her passivity is privative, not yet valorized, as it will later become as the woman presents herself as Other to the Subject male. Hominism calls this a presentative alterity, or Otherness. That is, the woman presents herself as Other. Hominism destroys the feminist myth, probably derived from Simone de Beauvoir's Second Sex, that man creates woman as Other. Hominism shows in psychodynamic (i.e. anxiogenic) terms how women creates herself as Other. But to be fair to women, the man fully reciprocates, based on the same anxious fear of intumescence (that is, inability to get an erection, which both sexes wants). To make this point concrete, if a man were to present himself as Other to another man, the other man would not reciprocate. It would be absurd (assuming we are not dealing with homosexuals). Male passivity to another male is still not a valorized passivity, but a mere privatized passivity, without power. Women's passivity becomes valorized by mirrored or reciprocal aggressive behaviors by men. Thus the original and equal proceptive-receptive relationship between men and women is now psychodynamically transformed into an aggressive-passive relationship and co-efficient praxis, that is, practices related to them (the well-known aggressive pursuit of women and the fetishization of the female body by women, thus setting up a WORKABLE sexualization between men and women. These aggressive-passive practices are soon NORMALIZED and then INSTITUTIONALIZED. We call this INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF passive and aggressive practices in opposite sexes as GENDER. Thus aggressive practices in males become MASCULINITY and passive practices in females become FEMININITY. As said, neither are positive terms; both terms are negative. No gender CAUSES the other. Men don't FORCE women to become FEMININE and women don't FORCE men to become MASCULINE. Neither oppresses the other; or both do, depending on how one uses language. The gender plot soon turns tragic. Because in a consumer society, the OBJECTIFICATION of the woman's body is then COMMODIFIED, while the male anatomy is negated or sublated in PATRONAGE. This is the foundation of an exploitative exchange between the genders and a series of SUBSTITUTIVE sado-masochistic, dominance-submission practices between men and women. Substitutive because, as Freud taught us in a psychosexual dialectic, as well as Hegel in an idealist dialectic, masochism cannot be separated from sadism; the masochist IDENTIFIES with the sadist, as the sadist IDENTIFIES with the masochist, or how else can they receive pleasure? From an Hegelian idealist perspective, the Lord or Master depends on the Slave or bondswoman, as she on him. Their relationship is interdependent and constantly reversible. Thus the power dynamic is substitutive. Hence the silly feminist model of power must be rejected. Who has the power? The male client of the prostitute or the prostitute? Moreover, contrary to our sanitized rhetoric, prostitution is not a distortion or normal relationships between men and women; rather normal relationships between men and women are a distortion of prostitution, or the dominance-submission relationship that is teh foundation of all gender exchanges and are reversible in a dialectical negation of each other. So how did feminism miss all of this? As said earlier, it denatured the discourse of gender into an ideological LANGUAGE, with a purpose but no real meaning (the purpose of course was to indict men and to absolve women of all culpability for gender polarization). We see this in the tendentious way the word "sexism" is used, accusatively and with purpose, rather than with meaning. If the word "sexist" had meaning, for example, then not only would the male scientist who wore a shirt showing sexy cartoon characters be called "sexist," but the women who dressed like that in real life would also be called sexist. But as we know this is not the case. I have elsewhere in my posts discussed the five fundamental fallacies of a denatured feminist language.These are five false antitheses: 1. The first is opposing male social power with female social power. But the true antithesis is between male social power and female sexual power. Historically, women could not BE a doctor, lawyer, etc. She could only MARRY one. Hence her social power was MEDIATED through the male. But the same was the case for the male sexually. Historically men could not BE sexy, a sexually desirable object. He could only achieve sexual status by coupling with or marrying a sexy woman. Notice that feminism, based on its denatured ideological language, has challenged the first mediation but not the second! Women can now BE lawyers, doctor, news anchors, etc. But men STILL cannot be sexy in themselves; they can only achieved MEDIATED sexual identity by asking an attractive woman out, paying for her body, marrying her, financing the relationship and often even the woman's lifestyle, etc. 2. The second false or denatured antithesis was between male aggression and female aggression or aggressive practices. Homiinism exposes this as a false opposition. The true opposition is between male aggressive practices (catcalls, harassment, rape, etc.) and female passive practices (passive aggression, ignoring men sexually unless he makes the first move, the fetishization of her body and SAMPLING of it for purchase by the male, pedomorphic, pediomorphic and theriomorphic presentation as Other, etc. Practically speaking, these hominist terms are translated as presenting herself as a child that needs to be taken care of, as a doll that needs to purchased, and as an animal that needs to be cared for. Pedomorphism presents as exposed skin, which only children are allowed in society; high heels to affect infantile ambulation, suggesting the woman needs to be taken care of since she walks like a child, etc. Mascara, painted cheeks, etc. and other dollish signifiers are examples of pediomorphism. Long fingernails, cat's ears, even affected purring are examples of theriomorphic behaviors in women. The third false antithesis, and one of the most critical, is between female sexual passivity and female sexual promiscuity. This may well be the most decisive of all errors in the denatured language of feminism, because it obscures all other issues. In the feminist antithesis, the traditional woman was sexually passive and the modern woman, thanks to the pill, is sexually promiscuous. This of course, in the feminist denatured ideology, proves that women and men are equals, since they both engage in promiscuous sexual practices. But it does nothing of the sort. Because the true antithesis to female sexual passivity is not promiscuity, as in "zipless" sex, but in AN AGGRESSIVE OR AFFIRMATIVE FEMALE SEXUALITY. That is a sexual aggression that AFFIRMS male sexual value, rather than the man affirming the female body as the only valorized gender. This is a fundamental error in the feminist denatured language. Women have convinced themselves that by engaging in promiscuous sex they are RECIPROCATING male desire. They are NOT. The only way to reciprocate male desire is by female desire of the same kind: women asking men out, women paying for men on dates, women making men feel that their sexual status is not mediated by the woman but is in fact a part of their nature, no less than society has now allowed being a news anchor, for example, to be part of woman's nature. The fourth false antithesis is between being a sex object and not being a sex object. The real antithesis is between being a sex object and being a sex SUBJECT. There is no alternative to NOT being a sex object than by being a sex SUBJECT, as # 3 has already demonstrated. The fifth and final false antithesis is between courtship and rape. One of the great contributions of a radical hominism is to show, related to all 4 false antitheses above, that rape is not, as a denatured feminist language would have us believe, the OPPOSITE of courtship, but stands in CONTINUOUS aggressive-passive praxis with courtship. That is, they are BOTH rooted in aggressive male practices towards the passive and fetishized practices of women; though in one case male has the power, and in the other case the female has the power. This substitutive dominance-submission dialectic was explained above. It is best demonstrated in the way that presumably normal courtship practices morph easily into date rape, showing the continuity of the two practices. We may idealize courtship as much as we like, but it is essentially based on the same passive-aggressive psychosexual dynamic as is rape, though one is institutionalized and romanticized and the other is criminalized. But their continuity is apparent in the way that, say, young men confuse the two. But this is no different from the way that date prostitution is opposed to statutory prostitution; as if they were opposites; when, in fact, all such commodity exchanges of the female anatomy for male patronage, whether in a restaurant or on the waterfront, is prostitution.

[@charlottecorday9106]

Wow, John Jones. You have serious issues.

[@donovanmorton5946]

TRUE!!!

[@donovanmorton5946]

Nope she only like him for what his name could do for her, But it still didn't work that's why they didn't want her in Rosemary's Baby. She came off as just a pretty girl with very little talent

[@simoneschwanitz1273]

@@donovanmorton5946 Sharon would have been awful as Rosemary .She was beautiful but she couldn't act. I'm glad Roman gave the part to Mia Farrow.She was great in this Movie.

[@kathyeverhardt5412]

MAY SHARON AND BABY PAUL REST IN HEAVENLY PEACE ANGEL"S

[@PrimetimeGoody]

hard to believe how they died!

[@jansdoe6963]

"Oh the hell with them. Let em droop." Sharon Tate

[@reilgs]

if you read and believe the papers but have you Ever Heard anyone who knew her say anything bad about her? "sweet,gentle soul and we (i) loved her" is what they all say

[@Kimberly-rj2sc]

2:38 mins in.. Sharon went to college and had a ring?

[@johnandrew1727]

Sharon was flavor of the week for Roman, sure he liked little young girls as he was popular film director at the time. It’s sad what happened but I doubt the marriage would have lasted anyway.

[@Fiftynine414]

Sharon was not a good actress, but she sure seemed to be a lovely person. She didn’t deserve Roman’s mistreatment or Tex Watson’s lethal viciousness…so sad. God bless her soul.

[@pattyreedjohnson5251]

Roman was a terrible spouse. He didn't deserve the love, kindness, and beauty that Sharon possessed. May the beautiful Tate women rest in peace.

[@Telboy555]

Sharon loved him !!

[@MoveOverCasanova]

"murdered innocence" -- now i know how innocence looks..

[@PaperImagesArtStudio]

Yes Playboy, drugs, = innocence NOT

[@sugartits1876]

Roman was ungly we no why she married him for. For cash. Jay was much cuter

[@bonniemagpie9960]

Let's face it. Can any Leo man stay faithful ? Look at Mick Jagger and the sun King Louis XlV.

[@sofiastrauss2373]

Beautiful Lady By Sophia Strauss composer ❤️❤️🇵🇹

[@miriamwright4328]

they killed her just because she was there

[@11808Clover]

I here some people on her like, she is so beautiful why did they kill her? So beauty is where the line is crossed when someone is killed? Some 7 year old gets killed, people put on their facebook walls RIP and forget in a week. But oh fuck, if a hollywood sex symbol gets murdered, it isn't forgotten in decades to come!

[@kamilmalinowski1267]

I’m polish and she was making polish dishes 😩😩😍😍😍

[@todaynow1563]

She had it all and would of been a top actress had she lived, she was talented.

[@floydfletcher4313]

not

[@karlknudson4991]

you know what they say car parked in the parking lot dont apreciate it till it gone

[@rajrammbbs]

Freakishly Flawless beauty .

[@foxibot]

Polanski himself said Sharon did not smoke marijuana.

[@ccjjpp1966]

Did not smoke MJ during her pregnancy. However, she did smoke it prior to her pregnancy.

[@PaperImagesArtStudio]

You can see her smoking in the home movie

[@MsFanmail]

she would have been 68 this year

[@crapple009]

Sharon hung out with the Beatles?? Do tell...

[@daisycatdaisycat8873]

Look her looks don’t make her more worthy to be mourned for her terrible death than any person murdered... even the sex workers ... easy to be “sweet” when you have no kids and are rich and married and no problems

[@nataliemeenakshithegreat7780]

Then he was truly a sex addict after her death he left fast and on interviews never spoke of Sharon very sad how can you not be faithful to Sharon tate

[@Jezebel260]

I'm sure the feeling would be mutual if she met you.

[@11808Clover]

"hear"

[@edit1661]

Poor woman married a child rapist then got murdered.

[@donovanmorton5946]

She didn't fall for him because of his looks. she fell in the Hollywood life style. That's why she never got any Big breaks. You have to be more than just a pretty face to make it in Hollywood. The only movie she known for Is Valley of the Dolls, And the author of Valley Of the Dolls wanted Tina Lousie in that part but they didn't cast her because she wasn't in her 20's anymore and when you look back Tina Lousie from Gilligan Island is way more beautiful than Sharon. The part was for women in there 20's and Tina was like 34 at the time, Oh and The studio wanted Raquel Welch for the part but she turned it down

[@audreyann1975]

She wa murdered before she ever got an opportunity to be in any big movie with a big name. She was well on her way. Reading your comment, if didn't know any better, I would think she was a 40 year old still trying to get the big break shes been waiting for her entire career. I am certain she would have gotten that big break. Or maybe she would have fell madly in love with motherhood that she would have disappeared from the silver screen. Who knows. She was gorgeous though. She was meant for Valley of the Dolls and that's why she ended up with the part. 👍

[@windymcgee6833]

@@audreyann1975 She was 26, already getting long in the tooth for back then.

[@Jezebel260]

Wrong. Some of us are not only Jewish, but gay, lesbian, black, white, pious or atheist, etc., et al. Your bigotry is dangerously similar to that of Manson's himself, and while leatherandlace7 is entitled to her opinion about Polanski's sexual conduct, is it still disturbing that she or he would agree with the likes of you.

[@sweetiehogg7249]

This is not about what you or any body is..really jerk

[@davidmclendon8987]

Roman is CUTE AS HELL! What an INSPIRATION Roman is....as a human... such an EXAMPLE....hey if I cry about losses I HAVE SUFFERED.....NO....Roman has suffered way more.... thank you, Roman 😍

[@zzzbbbooo]

@@my55chevy43 Well, given he would be arrested immediately if he returned to the US, it's not a shock to find out he hasn't visited Sharon's grave, duh.

[@my55chevy43]

@@zzzbbbooo well he did return to the US in 1977 and had his chance to visit her grave and never did! So duh

[@michellewaldrop6187]

cant stand mia farrow,

[@jackr1779]

Romans nose!!!!!

[@travels129]

She could hav married bruce lee ??

[@taliaprice1909]

The comments here are so ludicrous. Many of you have no idea how Hollywood works.

[@kennyjames5335]

yeah like your some kind of expert on Hollywood

[@Luvie1980]

@@kennyjames5335 I am d-bag!