General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBefore giving Woody Allen a pass for dating an "older" teen/ young adult, read this:
" The Chicago study also found that of the 2,200 priests, just one was a pedophile. Now, many people are confused about the distinction between a pedophile and a person guilty of sex with a minor. The difference is very significant. The phrase "pedophile priests" conjures up images of the worst violation of innocence, callous molesters like Father Porter who assault children 7 years old. "Pedophilia" is a psychiatric term meaning sexual interest in children below the age of puberty.
But the vast majority of clergy misconduct cases are nothing like this. The vast majority of instances involve priests who have been sexually active with a person below the age of sexual consent, often 16 or 17 years old, or even older. An act of this sort is wrong on multiple counts: It is probably criminal, and by common consent it is immoral and sinful; yet it does not have the utterly ruthless, exploitative character of child molestation. In almost all cases too, with the older teen-agers, there is an element of consent.
Also, the definition of "childhood" varies enormously between different societies. If an act of this sort occurred in most European countries, it would probably be legal, since the age of consent for boys is usually around 15. To take a specific example, when newspapers review recent cases of "pedophile priests," they commonly cite a case that occurred in California's Orange County, when a priest was charged with having consensual sex with a 17-year-old boy. Whatever the moral quality of such an act, most of us would not apply the term "child abuse" or "pedophilia." For this reason alone, we need to be cautious when we read about scores of priests being "accused of child abuse."
http://old.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20020303edjenk03p6.asp
Roberts: Bill is good but you cannot link homosexuality to a pedophilia crisis in the Catholic Church.
Bill Donohue: It’s not a pedophilia… most of the victims were post pubescent…
Roberts: You know…
Donohue: You’ve got to get your facts straight. I’m sorry. If I’m the only one that’s going to deal with facts tonight so be it. The vast majority of the victims are post pubescent. That’s not pedophilia buddy. That’s homosexuality.
http://crooksandliars.com/heather/bill-donohue-child-molesting-priests-weren
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Attraction to young people with adult sexual characteristics (post-pubescent) is not pedophilia.
It isn't. That is not a value judgment, it is definitional and common sense.
The OP suggests that the thrill of calling some priests pedophiles who are not pedophiles is so great that we need to rethink not calling Allen a pedophile (for a relatiuonahip with an adult, no less), lest we lose that fun of calling some priests pedophiles who are not.
An overt promotion of ignorance. Shameful and disgusting post.
You obviously didn't read the same OP I did.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)here have no problem castigating Catholic priests for exactly what Woody Allen did with Soon-Yi -- abusing their positions to have sex with teenagers. (Woody's position was as the father/father figure in the family.)
Most Catholic priests who were guilty of abusing their positions had sexual involvement with teens, not with children. And we all agree that is wrong. And yet some of us seem to be fine with Ronan's father having sex with his 19 year old sister, which from the children's perspective was incest.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Thanks.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Farrow discovered it when Soon-Yi was 19. There are many indications it started when she wasa 17 year old high school student.
And many of the priests who lost their jobs abused young people 16 and over.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Still creepy though.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Soon-Yi was one of Mia Farrow's adopted children, and Allen was a father figure to them all. He was the legal father of Ronan, Moses, and Dylan.
Mia Farrow and Andre Previn adopted Soon-Yi only one year before they got divorced, and Mia started seeing Woody a year after that. So Soon-Yi had had Woody in her life since she was a 6 or 7 year old.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mia_Farrow
In 1970, Farrow married the conductor/composer André Previn after having become pregnant by him while he was married to songwriter Dory Previn.[31] His former wife wrote a scathing song, entitled "Beware of Young Girls", about the loss of her husband to Farrow.[32] Farrow and Previn had three biological children (twins Matthew and Sascha, and Fletcher). In 1973 and 1976, respectively, they adopted Vietnamese infants Lark Song and Summer "Daisy" Song, followed by the adoption of Soon-Yi (born c. October 8, 1972) from Korea around 1978. Soon-Yi's precise age and birth date are not known, but a bone scan estimated her age as being between 5 and 7 years old at the time of her adoption.[33] Previn and Farrow divorced in 1979.[34]
In 1980, Farrow began seeing film director Woody Allen. During their relationship, Farrow starred in many of Allen's films, and several of her relatives also made appearances. Together they adopted Moses "Misha" Farrow and Dylan Farrow. Dylan was known as "Eliza" for a while and later known as "Malone". In 1987, Farrow gave birth to their son Satchel "Seamus"[35] O'Sullivan Farrow,[36] later known as Ronan Farrow. However, in a 2013 interview with Vanity Fair, Farrow stated that Ronan could "possibly" be the biological child of her first husband Frank Sinatra, with whom she claims to have "never really split up".[37]
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Now pardon me while I wash my brain with bleach 
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)he is father figure to ALL the kids. that is a reality, that any of us around kids know.
it is that father figure, the power and the trust, that allows him to take advantage of a child. hence our laws and eeeeew factors. cause we have to put our foot down to our children being abused, seeing how they are the vulnerable ones, and it is our responsibility to stand with the children.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Since this is an instance where all three agree on something, it's probably true.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is the role he is in that home and in that environment. there is a since of trust in the collective of family unit. and though he may not have stepped in voicing parental opinions, he was still that role for all the kids in that home. regardless of closeness or not. it was a family unit for a decade.
that is a reality.
that creates the trust and power structure of it all.
but... and i have yet to share my opinion on all this. when i heard about it, and the big mess of it, it is, she is 19 or 21. theres to do.
even with that attitude, i am not going to ignore the reality of possible abuse.
stories are told to make it legal and as digestible as ones PR can make it. i do not place a whole lot of trust in a person that betrays not only his partner but his children. and that is the reality of what he did. judge or not
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)But people in their late teens (16-19) are usually adults who can consent to what they do sexually. There are some cases (especially those involving authority figures) where the age of consent is and should be 18, but I know plenty of people in that age group who are perfectly capable and willing to participate in consensual relationships with people older than them.
I just turned 23, so maybe experiences are skewed by being recently part of this age group. But didn't people defend Dustin Lance Black (who is nearly 40) dating 19 year old Tom Daley?
kcr
(15,315 posts)is enter relationships with their step parent/step parent figure because of the creep factor because there's a emotional boundary there. All the stuff about the definition of pedophile ignores the fact that not all people who molest children are pedophiles.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)Or, we could bar anyone, by law, say, that is older than a 5 years age difference from dating an 18 year old. 
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)about a joke about being in a "love nest with 12 yr olds." And why, if the joke is totally cool and hysterical, is it such an outrage to repost it in GD?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)explain it to those who "don't get it". Also, in my humble opinion, its very important to have a sense of humor in the first place, in order to attempt to understand it. Otherwise, it would be like saying something in a foreign language, and expecting the other person to completely understand what you just said, even if they have no clue about what the language is.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)I find lots of things funny. Rape and child abuse isn't among them.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)1. You have to have a sense of humor.
2. Then, you have to be able to grasp subtleties and nuance in the humor itself.
You may as well ask me to speak Japanese to you, and then ask me to explain it to you in Japanese.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)If I don't think assaults that destroy lives, indeed generations of families, are a hoot, that means I have no sense of humor? Or is it that I think of the pain of those events rather than seeing them as a source of my own amusement?
Could I call anything a joke and it would be okay? I can think of a lot of really funny jokes about Woody Allen's fans. I suspect if I posted one, you wouldn't find it so funny. In fact, you or someone else would probably alert, and I'd get a post hidden.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)The making up stuff that people never said, and then replying to it, as if they said it, ain't working out so well. People are catching on.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Why did you twice say a person would have to have a sense of humor to understand the joke? Are you saying you did not intend that to mean if I didn't get the "joke" about the "love nest of 12 yr olds," I had no sense of humor?
And if it Allen's comment was just a good natured joke, why did you write this about the OP recounting it? :
Mind you, the "salacious" edit was about the omission of a single word: "if." If the joke wasn't salacious, or inappropriate, how could the post reporting it be?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)People aren't "catching on". Most folks caught this a while back..it's a running joke (a sad joke, not a funny one).
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Just compare them to Nabokov and Mark Twain, and pretend it's about book burning and pearl clutching when people are offended.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and they are being little puppets for the puppeteer comedian. then, when people are offended, the whole purpose for these types of jokes, ..... they pretend it is a joke, not meant to offend.
it is all ridiculously silly
i prefer not to be lead with a hook in the nose, by some asshole supposed comedian. he ahs to use wit and intelligence to earn my laugh.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I imagine they don't hang at libertarian sites because it's hard to be the biggest bully when you're in that Lord of the Flies atmosphere.
So, they poison this site w/ nanny this, pearl clutcher that. Yuk.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It looks like you won't be getting an answer, but I wanted to say thanks for not letting it slide.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)seems to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your point that be careful about insisting nothing is wrong with a middle-aged man having a secret affair with a teenage girl. Or if you think that is okay, perhaps you ought to rethink your position on the Catholic clergy abuse scandals since most of the victims were actually teenagers rather than pre-pubescent.
The first response above is particularly odd to me.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)upon how we view the person(s) involved. I think anytime there is a significant difference in power/status there is a problem.
It doesn't even always have to involve minors:
think college professor and student, officer and enlisted, boss and subordinate. Among adults, those linkages are sometimes examples of true love, but all too often there is coercion, subltle or blatant, involved.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)Dylan is telling a story that never happened, and yet, for example, there is an assumption that children or teens who accuse priests are all reporting accurately. There is an insistence that because Woody is innocent till proven guilty, we shouldn't suggest he's a pedophile without a conviction, and yet no such qualms are there for others accused of pedophilia.
Why is Dylans story assumed to be untrue or imagined? People are not even considering that she might be telling the truth, and they don't seem to understand that that possibility is there to consider. Why is Woody immune to the same attitude that is routinely leveled at priests and other pedophiles here at DU? I think it was Blanche Splanchnick who asked whether it was because the accuser was female, but priests' accusers are sometimes female too.
And not only is the defense of Woody Allen something that we would never see if someone else was accused of pedophilia, like for example a priest, but also, the defense seems so desperate. It seems like these posters are so insulted and irate that his guilt or her innocence should be suggested.
I absolutely do not understand this.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)and whether or not it was wrong. I posted this because I found the points raised in defense of Allen to be very similar to those raised in defense of some priests. ( with the priests, there is the additional defense that it's "all due to homosexuals", ignoring the abuse of females.)
- in this particular case, Dylan's story is entwined with Soon Li's, for good or for ill; so discussions of whether he was wrong to get involved with Soon Li and when the involvement began go back and forth into discussions of Dylan's testimony.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)But I will fight tooth and nail all those posts that kept showing up that began with the assumption that it didn't. Though I don't think any of those posting those assumptions even knew that they held those assumptions. Which is where the problem lies.
And, too, I think it is possible to extricate it from the situation with Soon Li. I am from a family with a lot of adopted children. His actions are repugnant to me, but I understand that they are not illegal. It is amazingly cruel and scummy, but that is all. It's on the level for me with, say, vocal homophobia, or those who picket abortion clinics and hurl insults at the patrons. They're awful, but you're not going to arrest them.
If Dylan was assaulted, I think that is whole universe worse. It's on a different scale from just about anything else. So while the Soon Yi situation is distasteful to me, it isn't in the same league, and its easily separated. That is me, though, and I understand that others feel differently about that.
ETA: all those comments about Soon Yi are made with the assumption that she WAS 19 when the affair began. That's a big assumption, I know.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)People who otherwise wouldn't believe sexual offenders guilty do so because they are part of the Catholic Church, which they hate anyway. Now I know full well most of those priests are guilty, but then my bias is always toward a credible witness. I don't pretend otherwise. A number of others here have a bias in the other direction, and they express it consistently. It's true that Allen has more defenders than most, which I don't understand. However, we see those same arguments regularly for rapists of women. It is rape culture in action. Throughout this nation, victims of sexual assault are doubted in ways victims of other crimes are not, as you well know. This site actually seems worse than most, possibly because some interpret liberalism to mean a libertine attitude toward sex, including with teenage girls. I see a lot of condemnations of people for "judging other people's sex lives," which I find particularly repulsive in the context of an allegation of child abuse. Many insist their truly is nothing wrong with Woody Allen taking up with the teenage sister of his children. That it is was not illegal (or that he wasn't caught when Soon Yi was still underage) doesn't change the fact it is a severe and pathological boundaries issue that caused great pain for his own biological children.
That the victims are women likely does play a role. Did you see the post from the guy who said "I know what women are capable of"? He couldn't have been clearer: woman = vindictive liar. People also take it very badly when you point out their inconsistencies between assuming priests to be guilty and assuming Allen to be innocent.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)As I say, I come from a family with adopted children and step-children. The idea that he is sexually involved with the sister of his children, the child of his significant other, is disgusting to me. If it were to happen in my family, I wouldn't get past it. So, yes, it's awful.
But the idea of molesting your own child is still, to me, light years worse than even that.
And yes, those posters who use the Soon Yi situation to prove what a libertine they are, and who accuse others of prudery for saying that it is inappropriate to be sexually involved with your children's sister, are either seriously lacking in any understanding of what it means to have adopted children in a family or they are, as you say, pathological.
And good God, no I didn't see that post. Really, sometimes you see something here and think you've been thrown back to the middle ages.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)serious mental issues. historically, there is no shortage of men imagining the ideal husband/wife relationship as something very much like a parent/child relationship (even if the two aren't physically related). recall of course that marriage vows in the western world (and probably a lot of other places) contained the wife's promise to "obey" her husband.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)A relationship between an older man and a younger woman has immense potential to exist lopsidedly in terms of power relations and intellectual and emotional maturity.
However, that such potential exist does not guarantee that every relationship between an older man and a younger woman suffers from any of these potential problems.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)The finding of the judge in the custody case that Woody Allen waged against Mia Farrow. It explains the relationship with Soon Yi and the circumstances surrounding Dylan's alleged sexual assault.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)While I still believe there is a lack of conclusive evidence that Dylan was molested by Allen, the odds seem to weigh in the opinion that such abuse did take place.
I can say, however, based on what I've read that it appears both Mia Farrow and Woody Allen were terrible partners to each other. Both appear to have engaged in substantial, long-lasting affairs despite being in a "committed" relationship. Which isn't surprising to me since my personal opinion is that dysfunctional individuals are attracted to one another (for obvious reasons).
And maybe that's one of the more important take aways from this entire thing. That to condemn one is not to make the other totally angelic.
I think Mia Farrow was a caring mother who was unable to foster healthy relationships with her life partners (much like my own mother). I think Woody Allen was both a terrible parent (although one must consider whether he did much parenting at all) and a terrible partner (oddly enough, exactly like my own father).
My father was extensively sexually abused by his father. He is a totally underdeveloped adult with an incredible intellect and ability to manipulate gullible individuals into believing things that simply aren't true. He is a habitual liar who I honestly believe believes much of his own bullshit. Despite his history of being abused, I myself do not recollect any time that he sexually abused me. Although, as I've discussed with other other abuse victims, not to remember does not mean it didn't exist. I choose not to dwell on the idea because I believe it is a pointless endeavor. To know that he sexually abused me would not change my opinion of him, which is already so low that it could not descend further. He was already a terrible, manipulative parent. Both him and my mother used me and my siblings as pawns in the divorce and custody proceedings. I love my mother because she is in many ways a genuine individual (although the damage done by her manipulation will never go away). My father possesses none of that genuineness and so he is a stranger to me and to everyone else.
I say all of this because I think I'm beginning to more fully understand the circumstances of the dissolution of Mia's and Woody's relationship. As if a light in my mind that was loose (probably from personal bias and ignorance) was screwed back in and is now on.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)The court record supports none of his claims, none. His experts were not credible. The Yale team refused to testify. Their report was not done in accordance with professional standards. Schultz discredited herself by first lying in saying that Dylan hadn't told her she was abused. Then a week later she called Woody BEFORE calling the NY Child welfare office. Today that would be the end of her career. That is a violation of the law because she is a mandated reporter. Damn, I worked in group homes in the 80s and I was told to immediately report any signs of abuse. I wasn't a therapist. I wasn't licensed, but it was the law because I worked with vulnerable adults. It's at least as important with children.
No evidence of coaching or brainwashing. None.
Even Moses at the time was furious at his father for how he had behaved with Soon Yi and how he had tried to turn the family against one another. He has now bought all of Woody's story. Based on the court record, I'm afraid he might be the one who has been unduly influenced, but by Allen. The judge said he feared Woody would do that to the kids.
Totally different story from what we get in the press and what Allen's defenders have been saying. Only one of Allen's defenders went into that thread, and he cherry picked quotes out in the strangest way. The rest are currently avoiding it. Maybe facts don't matter anymore. Really. It's pretty horrible. I do hope they decide to read the ruling and think about things a bit. It sure is a lesson in assuming victims aren't telling the truth. I hope some learn from the situation and take it that way.
Sure, he's not convicted of child abuse. He's legally innocent. But none of his story holds water, and none of the story the folks here have used to defend him holds water. Dylan told multiple people at the time of the assault, and a babysitter witnessed her with no panties after she returned with her father. I hope everyone reads it.
The link again is here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993
The thread to discuss it is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024461709
It's okay for people to be wrong about things. We all are from time to time. The important thing is to learn from it and rethink one's approach. (Not directing that to you but rather those who have defended Allen so vociferously).
Whisp
(24,096 posts)what would the average acceptable age be for screwing or molesting kids
for those who are too quick to dismiss stories of molestation and defend the rights of the accused rather than the accuser - (statistically there is a high percentage that these charges are true - about 93% if I recall from some info posted here earlier).
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I bet anything too many men wouldn't care till they had daughters themselves. That's when all women suddenly cease to be considered "fair game".
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)puberty, free game.
as in predator/prey? free game?
i asked. what about hte girls that hit puberty at 10
crickets.
not one, eeeeeew.
telling. scary. repulsive.
for the men that were in that thread and said nothing.
RichGirl
(4,119 posts)...we are so protective of gay people, allowing them to love who they love. Yet, we can't extend the same right to consenting ADULTS. Soon-yi and Woody have been happily married way longer than a lot of "appropriate" couples...gay or straight.
If Woody molested Dylan, why didn't Mia take action then...when it was still fresh in Dylan's mind. If it were my child, I'd rip the guy apart with my bare hands and if I couldn't do that I'd move heaven and earth to put him behind bars. Why didn't Mia? Twenty years later...right when Woody gets honors, they spill the story. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
And by the way...Huff post has an article about an interview with Woody where he shares a psychotic valentine he got from Mia. She is wierd.
One of Mia's sons is defending Woody saying he was there and Woody never molested Dylan. Some of her adopted daughters have said that she treated them like hired help.
They should have dealt with all this privately instead of bringing it to the public. Especially since Ronan, who I greatly admire, is just starting a new show on MSNBC.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)How is this at all relevant to anyone not personally involved?
This is a personal and familial tragedy, but it is not at all unusual in any way other than the last names of those involved.
And here's another: Every time a celebrity is shown to have serious personal defects, people act like this is the first time this has ever happened, whatever 'this' is in any specific case.
One would think that eventually the followers of celebrity would, at some point, conclude that celebrities can be at least as fucked up as anybody else, and it certainly seems to be more prevalent with artists. Add this to the indisputable fact that the people whose names you are most familiar with are the people that were willing and able to win the lottery/blood sport of fame.
Alec Baldwin did a fascinating interview years ago on The Actor's Studio in which he stated (paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to dig it out), "You should understand that we, the stars, we're the sharks. We're the ones that chewed up the competition, stabbed each other in the back, and are still standing, We're not nice people".
So assuming all the accusations are true, does the fact that Woody Allen is a sick fuck make his films any less good or bad? Is Chinatown any less a masterpiece because Polanski is as well? Or Jack Nicholson for that matter? He's a fucking major asshole that has created and spread an abundance of misery in his life, but does that make any of his roles (the ones he actually showed up for) less brilliant? The list is endless and encompasses all the arts throughout history. Van Gogh, Lautrec, Clark, Sinatra, ad infinitum.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)Can we separate the art from the artist? It seems like we should be able to do that, but knowing the artist is part of knowing the work. For example, how does it affect our understanding of her paintings to know that Artemisia Gentileschi had been raped but received no justice? It's only been in recent years that it's been widely acknowledged that Michelangelo was most likely gay; how does that change our view of his works?
I think artists can produce great works and be lousy people at the same time. For comparison - do we judge Roosevelt on his affairs or the New Deal?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)and not the celebrity?