• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Woody Allen - Pedophile?

Woody Allen


  • Total voters
    64
Probably because she's angry? She knows he'll never be prosecuted. How would you feel?


I don't generally judge matters on how I would "feel". I'm a different person, with a different life experience. I know, I know... I sound like a man. You're not the first woman to say that to me. :shrug:
 
Really? Scarlett Johanssen? Emma Stone? Diane Keaton? Alec Baldwin? LouisCK? Cate Blanchett? They're all responsible for what happened to her? All they've done is work with Allen. I thought her letter was really good, until that last paragraph. That was totally uncalled for and unnecessary.

That's because she's hurting. When people have been hurt they lash out. All of her behaviors are completely consistent with her claims.
 
Whatever. There are MANY cases where a victim (a child) was kidnapped and repeated tortured and abused. There are parents who have done this to their own child too. Take the case of the girl who was held captive in the basement of her own home right under her mother's nose by her own biological father where she was raped and actually had like 3 or 4 children from him.

I see, so a biological father somewhere raped his daughter, therefore Allen must be guilty.

I trust that you are aware that the vast majority of men don't do things like this. You are aware of that, right?
 
I see, so a biological father somewhere raped his daughter, therefore Allen must be guilty.

I trust that you are aware that the vast majority of men don't do things like this. You are aware of that, right?

Where did I say that? We are talking about ONE man here, not the "majority" of men.
 
No, it doesn't.

Have you skimmed the 1992 court document I posted on the preceding page, though, and what the French tutor or babysitter (can't remember which) saw Woody Allen doing? What the then-child Dylan said he was doing?

Did you read the findings of the team of doctors that interviewed Dylan 9 times and found no evidence of abuse? Did you read the testimony of two of the nannies one claiming on the day of the alleged wrong doing the nanny testified at no time was Allen left alone with the child to venture up into the attic alone with her. Another nanny gave testimony that after she was subpoenaed to testify stating she thought the child was coierced into believing she was abused and claimed Farrow begged her to be on "her side". She was let go. Did you read the account of Allen's stepson Moses that his sister was "brainwashed by her mother" which pretty much goes along with the doctor's findings as a probable. Did you read the part that Allen voluntarily underwent a lie detector test and passed with flying colors. Mia Farrow didn't volunteer to take a lie detector test. But I guess it's true what they say, some folks will indict a ham sandwich.
 
I am pretty sure that we all know "breathing air into" a little girl's legs is inappropriate. And, in case this needs to be said, particularly not when she isn't wearing panties.
 
I am pretty sure that we all know "breathing air into" a little girl's legs is inappropriate. And, in case this needs to be said, particularly not when she isn't wearing panties.
There was testimony given by the nanny that was on duty that day stated at no time was Dylan without her underpants.
 
Can you link me up please?

And as a disclaimer, I haven't voted in this poll and have no dog in this fight. I think that there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides, and I have stated in another thread that I think it's entirely possible that Farrow has fixed a narrative in her kids' heads. This doesn't mean, however, that Allen didn't behave inappropriately with this child.
 
Can you link me up please?

And as a disclaimer, I haven't voted in this poll and have no dog in this fight. I think that there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides, and I have stated in another thread that I think it's entirely possible that Farrow has fixed a narrative in her kids' heads. This doesn't mean, however, that Allen didn't behave inappropriately with this child.

I think it's pretty clear that Woody doesn't know how to behave appropriately around children. However, none of his inappropriate behaviors seems IMO to have any sexual intent behind it. Instead, the inappropriateness of his behavior seems to be caused by his being completely clueless about children, a point which is explicitly discussed in the document you linked to

For example, he seems to believe that the children will recognize the differences between siblings who were adopted and those who were not and will respond accordingly emotionally and bond to the family differently. It takes a special brand of obtuseness to think like that.
 
I think it's pretty clear that Woody doesn't know how to behave appropriately around children. However, none of his inappropriate behaviors seems IMO to have any sexual intent behind it. Instead, the inappropriateness of his behavior seems to be caused by his being completely clueless about children, a point which is explicitly discussed in the document you linked to

For example, he seems to believe that the children will recognize the differences between siblings who were adopted and those who were not and will respond accordingly emotionally and bond to the family differently. It takes a special brand of obtuseness to think like that.

Another thing that he doesn't get to this very day is how his relationship with SoonYii looked to Mia's other children and to the outside world. To him it was and still is a simple matter of falling in love with a young woman and marrying her. He never stopped to think that this was not just any young woman. She was his ex-lover's daughter and sister to 3 of his own children. He's never understood why it was such a big deal.
 
Another thing that he doesn't get to this very day is how his relationship with SoonYii looked to Mia's other children and to the outside world. To him it was and still is a simple matter of falling in love with a young woman and marrying her. He never stopped to think that this was not just any young woman. She was his ex-lover's daughter and sister to 3 of his own children. He's never understood why it was such a big deal.

While his relationship with Soon Yi is creepy, it's far from illegal. There is plenty of evidence that Farrow brainwashed Dylan and the other children into believing Dylan was abused. That well surpasses creepy and into the realm of heinous.

Allen has finally responded to the latest resurrection of abuse claims.

Woody Allen Fires Back: Dylan Farrow Was Brainwashed By Her Mother, Mia Farrow - The Daily Beast



He brings up Mia's affair with Andre Previn while married to the song writer Dory Previn. Dory Previn went through a series of breakdowns over her husband's affair with Mia and ended up writing a song about it called "Beware of Young Girls". Previn and Farrow married, had children and adopted SoonYi and another child. On the same album Dory Previn wrote a song about incest titled "Daddy in the attic" which eerily mimics Farrows charges of Allen. A song Mia was quite familiar. Coincidence? I'll leave it to the shrinks to decide.

Did Mia Farrow Get the Molestation Idea from a Song By Ex Husband’s Wife? | Showbiz411
 
While his relationship with Soon Yi is creepy, it's far from illegal.

I know that. The legality of it is not the point. My point is that any other "normal" person with at least some sense of social convention would have long ago acknowledged that the relationship was highly controversial. Hooking up with your ex-GF's daughter, sister to some of your own children is not exactly something most men would embark upon without some great amount of soul-searching. Woody's take on it has always been: "What's the big deal?" , "My heart knows not of logic" and The heart wants what it wants". He's always made light of a situation that hurt and confused a lot of people very deeply.
 
I know that. The legality of it is not the point. My point is that any other "normal" person with at least some sense of social convention would have long ago acknowledged that the relationship was highly controversial. Hooking up with your ex-GF's daughter, sister to some of your own children is not exactly something most men would embark upon without some great amount of soul-searching. Woody's take on it has always been: "What's the big deal?" , "My heart knows not of logic" and The heart wants what it wants". He's always made light of a situation that hurt and confused a lot of people very deeply.

It's of a piece with his general self-centeredness and his lack of awareness of how his behavior affects others, particularly children. The court documents describe, for one thing, how completely unattached he was to Mia's many children for more than a decade. He was interested in Mia, and that was it. The children served no purpose to him, so he paid them no mind.

Then when his own children came into the picture, he began to pay attention, but only to his own children. He would focus exclusively on them, and only on them, even when the other children were present. It doesn't take a genius to understand how children are sensitive to being excluded like that, but Woody seems to have no clue about that even when it's pointed out to him. It seems that as far as he's concerned, since those other children are his, they are of no concern to him which speaks to his self-absortion and how it makes him incapable of understanding how his behavior affects other.

It's not a flattering portrait, but it's also not the portrait of a pedophile.
 
I know that. The legality of it is not the point. My point is that any other "normal" person with at least some sense of social convention would have long ago acknowledged that the relationship was highly controversial. Hooking up with your ex-GF's daughter, sister to some of your own children is not exactly something most men would embark upon without some great amount of soul-searching. Woody's take on it has always been: "What's the big deal?" , "My heart knows not of logic" and The heart wants what it wants". He's always made light of a situation that hurt and confused a lot of people very deeply.

That is a very valid point. However, that whole family situation had nothing normal about it so can one adequately use normal standards to make judgments? Fourteen kids, some from fractured relationships of Mia's, some she adopted solo. Soon Yi and her other adopted sister and the children that Mia and Previn had together had a very active father in their lives while growing up which in itself separated them from the other children. The three children between Mia and Allen, two being adoptions and one was suppose to be their love child and now claims he may well be Frank Sinatra's. When Allen came for visits, (because he didn't even live with them), his attention appears to have been on the three he had a connection to and later paid child support for. How do you judge all that using what is normal when it is clearly insane. :)
 
Woody Allen's adopted daughter accuses him of assaulting her at age 7 - CNN.com

Mia Farrow's daughter resurrects Woody Allen molestation claim | Fox News


So, what are your thoughts on Woody Allen?

Is he a pedophile?

Creepy bastard?

Harmless Peepaw?

Legendary director and actor?

Should legal action be taken immediately?

I may be wrong but I believe that the statute of limitations has been exceeded so no criminal legal action can be taken. Of course farrow and / or her daughter can sue.

There is more to this story than the victim and Farrow's side of it. Allen's public defense is also logical he had a letter placed in the NY times.

It seems this is a case of one persons word against another. Seperations and divorce often does get very nasty this way and accusations can fly for years. Unless they can prove it and press charges he is innocent until proven guilty.
 
That is a very valid point. However, that whole family situation had nothing normal about it so can one adequately use normal standards to make judgments? Fourteen kids, some from fractured relationships of Mia's, some she adopted solo. Soon Yi and her other adopted sister and the children that Mia and Previn had together had a very active father in their lives while growing up which in itself separated them from the other children. The three children between Mia and Allen, two being adoptions and one was suppose to be their love child and now claims he may well be Frank Sinatra's. When Allen came for visits, (because he didn't even live with them), his attention appears to have been on the three he had a connection to and later paid child support for. How do you judge all that using what is normal when it is clearly insane. :)

Pretty much. :) That's why the quotation marks around the word normal in my post.
 
Pretty much. :) That's why the quotation marks around the word normal in my post.

Well, first of all I'd like to apologize to you for being rude earlier. I'm sorry for that, and you are right that I get a little emotional concerning this topic, but that's not an excuse and you are a poster that I respect here, so I really am sorry for being kind of jerky.

I still believe Dylan though. I know there is no evidence to prove anything, and I'm not saying that he should be convicted of a crime, but IMO he fits the criteria with his strange actions with both girls in question (Soon and Dylan). Even though that isn't proof for a conviction or even to bring him to trial without something definitive, I still believe her accounts about what happened to her.
 
What kind of a name is Soon-Yi, anyway?

Why doesn't she change it to Beryl Fletcher or Susan Straker or some ****?
 
Back
Top Bottom