Turns out Woody Allen was the one who called a press conference

[BainsBane]

back in 1992. It was he who filed a custody suit after Farrow had waged allegations that he was involved with Soon Yi and had molested Dylan. So the entire story that she made it up to get custody of the kids is patently false given the time line of the events.

[dionysus]

1. obsessed much?

[BainsBane]

2. Yes, I am.

I gather you are too because you are in this thread. Suddenly facts aren't so important. Gosh. I wonder why? Now perhaps you can tell us why you are so obsessed with ridiculing people who have the audacity to talk about rape and child abuse? I recall your doing the exact same thing to me in threads on similar topics.

[dionysus]

3. you can try your well worn tactic of shoving words into my mouth all you want, it won't work.

allen is more than odd, he may very well have molested that child. In my opinion he's creepy, but then again, I don't know him personally. but we weren't there, so you we don't know what happened.

no one posting on any of these zillion flamethreads knows what happened for sure. but knock yourself out.



and if you don't mind, please refresh me with a link about those threads you recall.

[BainsBane]

4. I love how it's always my posts that are flame fests

Why exactly should a piece of information be a flame fest? Fascinating how it's also women who criticize rape or rape porn that are engaging in flame fests and not those who defend Woody Allen or talk about how fantastic rape porn is. Funny how that works. I suggest you use the ignore function. The fact I post about what I want is clearly something you find unacceptable. Surely you have more productive things to do with your time than mock people who dare to hold thoughts that you don't approve of?

No one needs to put words in your mouth. You make yourself completely clear. Ignore is your friend. Add my name: BainsBane.
Anyone who finds a piece of information so threatening really shouldn't be careful what he reads. I wouldn't want to damage your delicate sensibilities by exposing you to irritating facts.

[dionysus]

7. i don't find anyone\thing here threatening. in fact, i have pretty much stayed out of these wars.

I have noticed you like to jump at people and ascribe them with false motives fairly consistently.

[BainsBane]

8. Please don't change on my account

Keep staying out. What I have noticed is you like to tell me to shut up a lot. I don't need to ascribe false motives. You make yourself perfectly clear.

[dionysus]

9. i've told you to shut up? a lot, even? where have i done this?

[BainsBane]

10. "obsessed much"

several times when I've posted about issues of rape. In fact, it's a habit of yours. Denouncing people's threads as a "flame fest" is also a clear effort to delegitimate the post. No one but you has flamed this thread. Others are simply exploring the events, yet you are more interested in telling me what's wrong with my posting what I am interested in that discussing the subject matter.

For the record, hell yes, I'm obsessed. I care about violence, whether rape, child abuse, domestic abuse, or gun violence. That is what I care about most, and it is my RIGHT to care, regardless of what you think about it.

[merrily]

11. An attempt to shame people for posting on a certain topic does seem like an attempt

to make them stop posting on that topic.

[chervilant]

28. What?

"in fact, i have pretty much stayed out of these wars."

That statement alone belies your assertion, as does your presence here, and in many of the anti-porn threads posted recently.

Please stop being blatantly disingenuous.

[Soundman]

30. Predictable as clockwork isn't it? N/T

[BainsBane]

35. Indeed.

Child abuse is a serious issue, as is rape. There is no question where I stand on it. Others are entirely predictable as well., There are some you can count on to disbelieve every single victim and to stand behind every single accused predator.

[CSStrowbridge]

17. What facts?

"Suddenly facts aren't so important."

Facts? What facts? Woody Allen was accused of a crime and he held a press conference and tried to get custody of the kids away from the person he thought was trying to destroy him. What does that prove?

Woody Allen took a polygraph test and asked Mia Farrow to do the same. She refused.

Mia Farrow took Dylan to the doctor and when the doctor asked where Woody touched her, she pointed to her shoulder.

Mia Farrow pressured the nanny into back up her accusations and the nanny quit instead.

There was a six-month investigation and the team concluded Dylan was coached.

The evidence points to Mia Farrow making up these accusations as revenge against Woody Allen cheating on her.

[BainsBane]

19. evidence does NOT point to MIA Farrow making stuff up

That you are regurgitating what Allen's publicist says only shows you have no interest in the actual facts. Earlier today everyone said she made up the case in order to gain custody. Now the story changes, yet you still repeat what his publicist says.

It is FAR more likely Dylan's account is truthful. She first told a babysitter, who then told Farrow. The CT prosecutor did not conclude the girl had been coached. He determined she was too fragile to go through a trial. That is precisely what predators depend on to make sure they continue to offend with impunity.

The story constantly shifts but what remains the same is disbelieving a rape victim and adamant defense of a predator. You know the guy took nude pictures of the sister of his children and carried on a secret affair with her from at least the age of 18. A person who does that has pathological boundary issues. When confronted with the facts, he insisted he had done nothing morally questionable. he didn't give a fuck about the impact that relationship would have on his own children. He has a history of prettying on underage girls. It is hardly a stretch that someone like that would molest a child. Given Dylan's current testimony, your assertion that the evidence points to Mia making the story up is LUDICROUS.

[El_Johns]

25. "The CT prosecutor did not conclude the girl had been coached." No, it was the investigators

who concluded that she may have been coached.

The prosecutor doesn't conclude anything except whether there is a strong enough case to prosecute.


"He has a history of prettying on underage girls. It is hardly a stretch that someone like that would molest a child."

It is, actually, because men who are interested in post-pubescent women typically aren't interested in pre-pubescent women, and vice-versa.

"Underage" in Allen's case:

First wife, married when she was 16 and Allen was 19.
Second wife Louise Lasser, 27 at marriage.
Diane Keaton: 24 when they started their relationship.
Stacey Nelkin: 17 when they started their relationship.
Mia Farrow: 35 when they started their relationship.
Soon-Yi Previn: 19 when they started their relationship.

So far as I know there is only one accusation of Allen behaving sexually with someone under age 17, and that is with 7 year old Dylan Farrow.

By all accounts I've heard, Allen basically doesn't like young kids, isn't interested in them, and that includes Farrow's accounts of him "ignoring" hers.

[leftyohiolib]

29. with mia forgetting about her pregnancy from a marrried man

[chervilant]

27. And, your response indicates?

Are you being snarky? Or do you support Allen in spite of the disclosure of his adopted daughter?

In either event, your response discredits you AND the author of this OP.

[PDJane]

5. It's not that he's creepy, it's that he is sexually obsessed, often with very young women.

The fact that he now has two more adopted little girls should give anyone pause. He doesn't get a pass because he's funny and talented.....but he has been given a pass for treating a little girl in a manner that caused her pain for a couple of decades. It invalidates her as a human being.

He's a funny, talented man....but he is in no way admirable.

Very, very few little girls make unfounded accusations, and Dylan is no exception. That her abuser is still getting accolades is a kind of mental anguish that I wouldn't want to deal with.

[BainsBane]

6. You know, I wondered if he had young children at home

and the fact he does scares me. I hope authorities do look into the situation for the sake of those children currently in his home.

Did you see the woman on Piers Morgan turn around on a dime and lie by changing her story from being involved with Allen at age 17 to 18 when Morgan pointed out the age of consent in California is 18? I realized at that point she would say anything.

[merrily]

12. Stacey Nelkin? Wasn't she in high school in Manhattan then?

His wiki says that she was, at the time, a student in Stuyvesant High. That's in Manhattan.

[BainsBane]

13. She was living in LA

Yes, that was her. She appeared in Annie Hall, which is how Woody Allen met her. This was all a secret affair. She was seventeen when it started, as she said several times. Then when Morgan pointed out the age of consent in LA was 18 at the time, suddenly she was 18. I don't buy it.

I don't know what the age of consent in NY was then.

[merrily]

14. From his wiki:

Stacey Nelkin

The film Manhattan is said by the Los Angeles Times[107] to be widely known to have been based on his romantic relationship with 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, and a student at New York's Stuyvesant High School.[108][109][110]

I did not see the Piers Morgan interview. Did she say during that that she had been living in LA when they met?

My point right now is not about the age of consent in either state. I am just trying to get the basic, garden variety facts straight first.

[BainsBane]

15. I am recounting her interview

which gives her point of view. The account was she met during filming of Annie Hall. She dated him for two years. He lived in Manhattan and she in LA. He would fly her out to NY and would occasionally visit her in LA. When queried about the age of consent in CA., she suddenly said "oh, yes, I was 18 then." So did they avoid sexual relations while in California and only have them in NY until she turned 18? Or did she change her story on the fly because she was pressed by Morgan. It appeared to me to be the latter. You might be able to find the interview online to watch it and make your own determination.

[merrily]

16. Thanks. Nothing in that pins down where they first met, which

may have been deliberate on her part. I will indeed google for video or transcript.

[El_Johns]

20. She wasn't 7, however.

[BainsBane]

21. Who said she was?

[El_Johns]

22. Didn't say anyone did; just pointing out the fact.

[BainsBane]

23. Yeah, being over age 4 myself

I do know that 17 is more than 7.

[El_Johns]

24. Glad to hear it.

[CoffeeCat]

33. Did you ever notice that Woody Allen's "girls"

...who are 17 or 18 when he begins these relationships--all look like 12-year olds?

Stacy Nelkin looked young and Soon Yi looked extremely young.

This man has issues. I don't see how anyone could deny that.

He dated his girlfriend's adopted daughter for Pete's sake. He'd been with Mia Farrow for ten years. They were the "adults" in that house. Mia Farrow found nude pictures of Soon Yi, that Woody Allen took. That's how she discovered that Woody Allen was in a sexual relationship with Soon Yi. That's when the shit hit the fan.

What mother would not be enraged and disgusted???

Woody Allen's behavior is so over-the-top revolting. How anyone can defend it, is beyond me.

And now we have his grown, adult daughter giving a very detailed account of Woody Allen abusing her in an attic. She describes so many incidents that she has always remembered. I believe her.

[CSStrowbridge]

18. It is rare, but...

It is rare, but there are false accusations. That's why you have to look at the evidence.

Remember, in an interview done in the 1990s, Mia Farrow said when she took Dylan to the doctor and the doctor asked where Woody Allen touched her, she pointed to her shoulder. She then took her to another doctor a little later and Dylan made the accusations.

There was a six-month investigation and the team concluded Dylan was coached.

But here's a thought. What if she were molested. Mia Farrow's brother is currently in jail for child molestation. What if he molested Dylan but Mia Farrow coached her into accusing Woody Allen and not her brother.

"That her abuser is still getting accolades is a kind of mental anguish that I wouldn't want to deal with."

Sort of like Roman Polanski, who admitted to raping a 13-year old girl. Yet Mia Farrow testified on his behalf during a 2005 trial. Where's the rage against Mia Farrow from those declaring Woody Allen is guilty?

[msanthrope]

32. The character testimony on behalf of an admitted child rapist provided by Farrow

is puzzling until you put it in a particular context... then it is not puzzling it all, but gives insight into the narcissistic and vengeful and rather calculated decisions that Farow made.

[Shankapotomus]

26. It's possible Allen could have engaged in abusive behavior

But I'm not sure what those advocating he has would have people do, BainsBane.

Are you asking the public to convict him out of court? To punish him without a trial?

[el_bryanto]

31. It's about his art - because he is (allegedly) a despicable person

We shouldn't defend him or enjoy his movies. If we choose to buy his movies on DVD or go see his movies in the theater we are giving money to a pedophile.

Bryant

[BainsBane]

34. I would like to see people take a victim seriously for a change

and stop making excuses for predators. Rape culture is constructed one case at a time, wherein every single victim is disbelieved, ignored, shamed, or worse. I'm sick of seeing people defend every single accused rapist with the same tired invocations of rare cases of false accusation. How about people stop reflexively assuming women are lying? How about challenging rape culture rather than reinforcing it?

[Shankapotomus]

36. I gave thought to this all day

and, although not to this extreme, I know what if feels like for an abuser to get away with their abuse while nobody else sees it or admits it happened. While, if it were me, I wouldn't personally expect others to act on my accusations outside of a formal investigation, I do understand how one could have the compulsion to speak out publicly against an abuser and garner support, convicted or not.

I have been swayed by Dylan's appeal and the members such as yourself on DU. As we all respond to abuse differently, especially abuse we haven't directly experienced ourselves, I can't harbor the same anger but I do agree, at the very least, honoring Woody Allen should be suspended until this is ever officially resolved. Mr. Allen has plenty of close supporters in his life and he has already received enough honors to establish him as a talented director. There is no need for further accolades and they should rightly stir controversy as long as this remains unresolved or justice is not served. He is comfortably financially. Enough to last him the rest of his life.

Dylan is not asking a lot. I think the least we can do for Dylan is to suspend honors for Woody Allen and cease viewing his films.

You're right. Just because there is a dark area in Woody Allen's life where there is bitter debate and where the truth is difficult to ascertain, doesn't mean we ignore it and act like the debate isn't there.

[BainsBane]

37. Thanks for thinking about this carefully

and looking at it from another perspective. One doesn't see that often.