Dylan Farrow Accuses Father Woody Allen of Sex Abuse

[Karina1974]

The younger person might think they know what they are getting into and that they can handle it, even with the power imbalance, but they often don't have enough life experience to make an accurate judgement.

And when they end up involved with someone who turns out to be a sociopath out to use the other person for their own gain, that is definitely an abusive relationship and a disaster in the making.

I lived that experience. As a result, I don't want any part of a "romantic" relationship, because I am scared shitless of opening myself up to someone after what I went through. I'm fine with platonic friendships, because there is some distance, but I opened my heart, my soul and my bedroom door up to someone who I feel is very dangerous to women, particularly the ones who aren't strong enough to see through his bullshit, call him on it and throw him out of their lives. Never a-fecking-gain will I take that chance.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

I had to do a lot of defense work on behalf of the guy I was involved with, because when I would talk about him to people, I was always getting cautionary responses back, and these were people who never met the man. I had to learn for myself what a fake, phony asshole he was. At this point, when I look back on it, it's with mixed feelings - sometimes I can recognize that I did become a stronger person for having gone through this, and other times I want to fecking kill the bastard ... and we still have not had a face-to-face conversation *ahem* confrontation about his conduct - but I definitely feel that I was lied to and taken advantage of. There were so many times when he lied when being truthful would have been the better move.

I'm so sorry you had to go through that. Sounds like he was a manipulative man, but I'm glad you feel stronger now because of it. A relationship between a 29 and 63 year old shouldn't be illegal though, and people of similar age to each other can be manipulative. Perhaps being much older makes it easier sometimes but not by definition, as long as both parties are of age and neither is in a position of power over the other.

Men are attracted to women of all ages, and that's fine, as long as it isn't acted on inappropriately, and the girl is of age. You can't control thinking a young woman is attractive, but you can keep it to yourself. A relationship between a middle aged man and his 19 yo stepdaughter is disgusting. No, I do not give him the benefit of the doubt. He was an experienced middle aged man who took advantage of an inexperienced young woman. Healthy middle aged men do NOT act upon the urge to take up an adult relationship with a teen. Like Karina said, it's all about power.

You sound like you're arguing against me, but I 100% agree with you. Not sure what I said that was misunderstood.

 

[overedge]

That's not to say he isn't creepy and immoral and likely didn't molest Dylan (as I also said in an earlier post, I think it's much more likely that he did so than that she is lying. But would I convict him based on the evidence I have in a court of law? Probably not, because I don't feel absolutely certain based on what I've read, enough to put someone in jail, even a pretty creepy-seeming person).

Just because he wasn't convicted of it doesn't mean that it isn't wrong. I think you are getting too stuck on the legal parts of the discussion.

And there is also a big difference between not being found guilty in a trial, and not being charged. In the latter (which is what happened to Allen) that doesn't mean that nothing happened, just that the DA thinks that there is not enough evidence to support a charge being laid.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

Just because he wasn't convicted of it doesn't mean that it isn't wrong. I think you are getting too stuck on the legal parts of the discussion.

Of COURSE it's wrong if Dylan's account of what happened is correct, charged or not, convicted or not. I didn't state otherwise. The allegations are disgusting and I suspect they are probably true. All evidence points to him being a creepy and in many ways immoral man (and as I mentioned in my very first post of the thread I had a visceral dislike of him from my very limited exposure to him even before I knew of these allegations).

 

[MacMadame]

I wouldn't consider 18 (or 17) to be on the verge of pubescence.

There are plenty of figure skaters that age who haven't really gone through puberty because athletics delayed it. As I said, Hemingway may have been older but she looked 12 in the movie in terms of how developed her figure was. (And she was 16, not 18. I know 16 year olds who are just getting their menses or haven't even yet.)

Much as Mia Farrow does.

Yes, but to me that just makes the whole situation that much more likely. If she was mentally healthy, she'd be more likely to get involved with someone mentally healthy as well. If creepy behaviors were normal at that house, then that means there was an atmosphere where unhealthiness can breed. Like mold.

There has been a lot written about what dynamics lead to incest and strained relationships between the parents is one of them. So the fact that there was a separation/divorce going on -- which is something that makes people doubt these accusations -- is actually something that can breed incest. There are guys who aren't normally pedophiles who find themselves engaging in it because they try to put one of their daughters into the position of their wife who is now unavailable to them, for example. (These guys are the ones who never do it again once the divorce is over.)

Mental maturity would still be a factor, especially if the man is in the relationship in order to get some kind of power trip out of it.

The older you get, the more mental maturity varies though. At a certain point, a large age difference is not automatically creepy because the older one might even be less mature than the younger one. Or they may both have arrested their development at the same mental age.

I think a more plausible defense would be that she is not making anything up, but that her memories are inaccurate; it wouldn't be unprecedented (ETA: here's a relevant article from the APA website).

And of course, I'm not suggesting that this is indeed the case.

This entry is not relevant because Dylan Farrow not claiming repressed memories. She accused at the time. She didn't repress and then say "I remember now what happened." She's just saying now "stop shoving this under the carpet year after year."

And there is also a big difference between not being found guilty in a trial, and not being charged. In the latter (which is what happened to Allen) that doesn't mean that nothing happened, just that the DA thinks that there is not enough evidence to support a charge being laid.

When it comes to cases involving sex, there is always a reluctance to prosecute especially when the victim is very young. Very few 7 year olds make good witnesses. In fact, that's basically what the prosecutor said -- that he did think there was enough evidence but that he didn't want to put Dylan through a trial.

 

[leesaleesa]

You sound like you're arguing against me, but I 100% agree with you. Not sure what I said that was misunderstood.

It wouldn't be a fair fight, so I won't get into much of an argument. You state you have little experience with the opposite sex, and I spent around ten years in the adult entertainment business, so I'm pretty confident in my ability to spot a creeper. Woody is a freaking Creeper.

Middle aged men don't go after 19 year olds because the 19 year olds are so hot and are their perfect soul mate, they go after them because 19 year old women have relatively little power. They can be controlled easier than an older, confident woman who can take care of herself. A creeper of this variety if given the choice between a 35 year old woman who looks like Scarlett Johannsen with an awesome career and sky high self confidence , or an unattractive, unemployed 19 year old with no self confidence will chose the 19 year old, again not because she's hot, but because she is controllable.

And when they end up involved with someone who turns out to be a sociopath out to use the other person for their own gain, that is definitely an abusive relationship and a disaster in the making.

I lived that experience. As a result, I don't want any part of a "romantic" relationship, because I am scared shitless of opening myself up to someone after what I went through. I'm fine with platonic friendships, because there is some distance, but I opened my heart, my soul and my bedroom door up to someone who I feel is very dangerous to women, particularly the ones who aren't strong enough to see through his bullshit, call him on it and throw him out of their lives. Never a-fecking-gain will I take that chance.

That is abuse, that is immoral, and reprehensible no matter the age, but targeting a much younger woman makes it so much slimier.

 

[agalisgv]

From a couple years ago, but Corey Feldman has spoken out about pedophilia in Hollywood. From an interview with him:

The 40-year-old former child star said that paedophiles were 'like vultures' in the entertainment industry and alleged that the 'casting couch' even applies to children.

He told Nightline: 'The number one problem in Hollywood was, is and always will be paedophilia," he said.

'It's all done under the radar... But it's the big secret.'

'There was a circle of older men that surrounded themselves around this group of kids. And they they had power or connections to great power in the industry.

'I was surrounded by them when I was 14 and I didnt even know it. It was only when I was old enough to know what they were.

'They all had either their own power, or connections to great power in the entertainment industry.'

In 2008, [Corey Haim and Corey Feldman] confronted each other on their reality show, The Two Coreys. Haim said to Feldman: 'You let me get f***** around in my life, raped, when I was about 14 and a half.

'So I'm asking you, what did you do when you saw that s*** going down?'

To which Feldman responded: 'I was being molested at the same time... what did you do about it?'

The 40-year-old previously revealed in an interview with GQ that he was molested by his assistant as a child.

Feldman says he believes the trauma of the abuse affected Haim for the rest of his short life. He died last year aged 38.

He said: 'The person that knows who did it and knows who he is is watching right now I guarantee it.

'There's a lot of good people in this industry and there's a lot of really, really sick corrupt people in this industry.

'And there are people that have got away with it for so long that they think there above the law and that's got to stop.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...problem-alleges-child-star-Corey-Feldman.html

 

[VGThuy]

That was very enlightening. Thank you.

I also read a bit more about the defenses of Allen, and a lot of it clings to the fact that there wasn't much evidence to support sexual assault. However, what evidence could there be? Inappropriate touching and many of the things Dylan Farrow charged Allen with would not have left evidence outside her testimony.

 

[Allskate]

According to the prosecutor, he had enough to charge Woody Allen, but decided not to do it because he wanted to avoid a traumatic trial for Dylan.

But, evidence of sexual assault often can boil down to a "he said/she said" and it therefore can be difficult to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It's even more difficult when the victim is a child. Most sexual assault goes unreported and lots of reported ones end up not being prosecuted even though there really was a sexual assault. Unfortunately, a lot of offenders therefore remain free to victimize others.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

From a couple years ago, but Corey Feldman has spoken out about pedophilia in Hollywood. From an interview with him:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...problem-alleges-child-star-Corey-Feldman.html

Disgusting.

According to the prosecutor, he had enough to charge Woody Allen, but decided not to do it because he wanted to avoid a traumatic trial for Dylan.

But, evidence of sexual assault often can boil down to a "he said/she said" and it therefore can be difficult to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It's even more difficult when the victim is a child. Most sexual assault goes unreported and lots of reported ones end up not being prosecuted even though there really was a sexual assault. Unfortunately, a lot of offenders therefore remain free to victimize others.

Unfortunately so. But it was very brave of Dylan to speak up and share her story because if no one did so NONE of the offenders would ever face any legal consequences (but I don't know how they can possibly live with themselves after taking advantage of a child for their own sick pleasure. ).

 

[Ziggy]

You seriously think they would admit it if the relationship began when she was a minor?

According to Mia Farrow's own account, he had hardly any contact with her (and they didn't live together).

This is one reason why I don't really care how old Soon-Yi technically was. So maybe she was 18 when the relationship started and so legally an adult. Maybe she was 17 and that's the age of consent in NY. Who cares? The issue is what was her mental maturity -- she was a kid who still lived at home with her mom! Technically an adult but not living like one.

And there are plenty of adults with emotional and/or intellectual development of children. Would you want to ban them from having sex?

Children don't "willingly participate". RFOS, your posts seem to trying to find excuses for WA.

Some of us don't like mob mentality and jumping to conclusions when you don't actually know what happened. Especially when the 'argument' mostly being used is: 'He creeps me out.'

The thing which really bothers me is this romanticised, idealised image of childhood as being pure. When in reality, once you enter puberty, sex is obviously something that you think about a lot. And unless you're extremely shy, you're likely to be flirting/making passes at much older people. It's normal human behaviour and not some kind of depraved and exotic 'Lolita personality.' We are sexual beings, after all. So no, children definitely aren't 'willing participants' but teenagers can be (which is why the age of consent is 15 in most European countries). Obviously none of that justifies sexual abuse or taking advantage of somebody when there's a power imbalance. But it's a very big (and unjustified) leap to brand somebody having sex with a post-pubescent teen a paedophile. Paedophiles are interested in pre-pubescent children.

 

[taf2002]

According to the prosecutor, he had enough to charge Woody Allen, but decided not to do it because he wanted to avoid a traumatic trial for Dylan.

I mentioned this before but I find this disgusting. So he decided for Ronan Dylan that she was too fragile for him to prosecute a crime. Wouldn't that be something for a psychologist to make a judgement on? That means he decided to let someone who he really thought molested a child to go on his merry way & do it to other children. And it wasn't like she didn't have to relive it over & over anyway.

BTW I never said I though RFOS was condoning pedophila but I do think he is giving Woody too much benefit of the doubt.

ETA-thanks for the name correction MacMadame.

 

[MacMadame]

Would you want to ban them from having sex?

I would if it was with one of their parents. And even a step-parent.

 

[MacMadame]

ISo he decided for Ronan that she was too fragile for him to prosecute a crime.

Ronan was the brother.

I think it was more that the knew she wouldn't hold up as a witness on the stand. He may have said it another way but he's a prosecutor and they are always thinking about whether or not the case can be won.

 

[MsZem]

This entry is not relevant because Dylan Farrow not claiming repressed memories. She accused at the time. She didn't repress and then say "I remember now what happened." She's just saying now "stop shoving this under the carpet year after year."

When it comes to cases involving sex, there is always a reluctance to prosecute especially when the victim is very young. Very few 7 year olds make good witnesses. In fact, that's basically what the prosecutor said -- that he did think there was enough evidence but that he didn't want to put Dylan through a trial.

I chose to use the APA article because it dealt with the issue of false memories in a relatively measured way. Using the childcare center sex abuse cases of the 1980s/early 90s as an example would have implied that I think that Dylan did make things up, which I don't want to suggest at all.

Prosecutors are right to be cautious in using children's testimony, both to protect young and vulnerable victims and because children (and sometimes adults) can sometimes be swayed by the questioning. But if there was enough evidence to indict Allen, I think the prosecutor failed Dylan and failed society at large by not doing so. To leave her knowing that the man who molested her was getting away with it (and maybe hurting others) strikes me as no less traumatic in the long term than going to trial.

 

[Japanfan]

I don't understand how the Hollywood crowd can be so accepting of and rewarding to such people with such appalling behavior....think Polanski. I understand being inclusive....but how do these people avoid the distinction between inclusive and lost-their-right to be included? What happened to right and wrong?

It's entitlement, a combination of male entitlement, rich and powerful male entitlement, and celebrity entitlement.

Woody will be surrounded by people who want to defend him in this situation because they envy him or have reason to suck up to him.

Even if had been taken to court on the issue, he would have hired lawyers who would have destroyed the case and destroyed the alleged victim.

It's downright scary IMO. And made all the more scary by shoe who defend alleged cases of statutory rape on the basis the teenage girls, some underage, seemingly seek the attention of old famous guys like Woody Allen.

 

[MacMadame]

I think a more relevant article would have been one about witness leading and how social workers sometimes inadvertently lead children when they don't mean to though. Because if Allen is innocent, then that is most likely what happened and not what that article talks about.

In terms of prosecution, it's hard to know since we weren't there. Maybe Mia Farrow agreed with the prosecutor. Or some shrink expert said it would be more traumatic to have a trial than not. Or maybe the prosecutor was being an idiot and paternalistic. I know I would have been furious if I had been Dylan but a lot of kids would have been totally traumatized by a trial. It's kind of a lose-lose situation.

 

[MacMadame]

It's entitlement, a combination of male entitlement, rich and powerful male entitlement, and celebrity entitlement.

Woody will be surrounded by people who want to defend him in this situation because they envy him or have reason to suck up to him.

And also even if he wasn't famous and powerful, lots of people react this way when it's just someone they know. People don't want to believe that someone they know and like(d) could do such a thing. They want to believe their creep-o-meter would tell them something is wrong. But a lot of people's creep-o-meter doesn't work very well, not as well as they'd like to think.

 

[MsZem]

I think a more relevant article would have been one about witness leading and how social workers sometimes inadvertently lead children when they don't mean to though. Because if Allen is innocent, then that is most likely what happened and not what that article talks about.

In terms of prosecution, it's hard to know since we weren't there. Maybe Mia Farrow agreed with the prosecutor. Or some shrink expert said it would be more traumatic to have a trial than not. Or maybe the prosecutor was being an idiot and paternalistic. I know I would have been furious if I had been Dylan but a lot of kids would have been totally traumatized by a trial. It's kind of a lose-lose situation.

You're right, that would have worked better. And I agree that Dylan was in a lose-lose situation no matter what.

 

[taf2002]

That's very true. And once again, there are gray areas there, but the age of consent gives a hard dividing line when it comes to sexual activity (as well as some regulations relating to people in power relationships that exist in at least some places -- I'm not a big expert on those). It's not a perfect solution since life isn't black and white (where in one state you can have sex on your 16th birthday but in another you can't), but I do support age of consent laws in general and can't think of a better solution. A "squicky" relationship that might be illegal one place might be legal somewhere else. Woody and Soon-Yi's is definitely "squicky" and maybe even SHOULD have been illegal, but I haven't seen evidence that it was. That's not to say he isn't creepy and immoral and likely didn't molest Dylan (as I also said in an earlier post, I think it's much more likely that he did so than that she is lying. But would I convict him based on the evidence I have in a court of law? Probably not, because I don't feel absolutely certain based on what I've read, enough to put someone in jail, even a pretty creepy-seeming person).

But you're not on the jury. If you were you would have a lot more evidence. But age of consent really doesn't have much to do with this situation. Looking at a post-pubescent teen & finding her attractive is not what any of us are talking about. That's normal & not anything to feel guilty about. Acting on that attraction if you are 51 & the girl is 19 & is all but legally your step-daughter....well, in my world that's more than creepy. There are a lot of men who would find that acceptable. Are you one of them? It seems that is what you're arguing.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

It's entitlement, a combination of male entitlement, rich and powerful male entitlement, and celebrity entitlement.

Woody will be surrounded by people who want to defend him in this situation because they envy him or have reason to suck up to him.

Even if had been taken to court on the issue, he would have hired lawyers who would have destroyed the case and destroyed the alleged victim.

It's downright scary IMO. And made all the more scary by shoe who defend alleged cases of statutory rape on the basis the teenage girls, some underage, seemingly seek the attention of old famous guys like Woody Allen.

It is sad when people are treated with bias. Anyone can do unethical things and powerful people often face fewer consequences, and it's downright appalling.

I don't think people are clear what I meant when I said the situation between Woody and Soon-Yi wasn't COMPLETELY black and white. I was not intending to defend his behavior as not creepy or inappropriate, but rather to defend HER by questioning the assumption that she couldn't possibly have wanted to be in the relationship. In Soon-Yi's case she was 19 when the relationship was confirmed to have started, and we generally assume 19 year olds are capable of deciding they want to enter romantic and/or sexual relationships and grant them the legal right to do so. However, because of the huge age gap and obvious power dynamic, WOODY should have behaved better EVEN IF she did want to, because her want may have been tainted by the power dynamic and it's up to him to be the bigger person and NOT enter into such a relationship. It may not have technically been illegal in his case, but I feel he WAS taking unfair advantage of the situation.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

There are a lot of men who would find that acceptable. Are you one of them? It seems that is what you're arguing.

If it seems that way then I've been misinterpreted. I find his behavior creepy too. See my post just above this one.

 

[Ziggy]

And also even if he wasn't famous and powerful, lots of people react this way when it's just someone they know. People don't want to believe that someone they know and like(d) could do such a thing. They want to believe their creep-o-meter would tell them something is wrong. But a lot of people's creep-o-meter doesn't work very well, not as well as they'd like to think.

This is a dangerous way to think about this. It's as if people who commit sexual abuse have some kind of aura that you can notice if you're observant enough. Well, they don't. They can lead perfectly ordinary lives in all other respects.

Acting on that attraction if you are 51 & the girl is 19 & is all but legally your step-daughter....

The argument in Allen's defence is that she was his 'step-daughter' in theory and name only. She was the daughter of his girlfriend whom he didn't live with and with whom he had hardly any contact with, according to Mia Farrow.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

This is a dangerous way to think about this. It's as if people who commit sexual abuse have some kind of aura that you can notice if you're observant enough. Well, they don't. They can lead perfectly ordinary lives in all other respects.

Excellent point.

 

[elka_sk8]

Ugh this story makes me sick. I actually just watched Midnight in Patis over the weekend, which I quite enjoyed, although partly because Woidy Allen wasn't in it himself honestly. This makes me want to boycott his films entirely though.

At one point Dylan says:

That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye.

I'm curious who she's referring to here, as in who were the few in hollywood who didn't turn a blind eye?

 

[BittyBug]

I mentioned this before but I find this disgusting. So he decided for Ronan Dylan that she was too fragile for him to prosecute a crime. Wouldn't that be something for a psychologist to make a judgement on? That means he decided to let someone who he really thought molested a child to go on his merry way & do it to other children.

But if there was enough evidence to indict Allen, I think the prosecutor failed Dylan and failed society at large by not doing so. To leave her knowing that the man who molested her was getting away with it (and maybe hurting others) strikes me as no less traumatic in the long term than going to trial.

This is not a defense of Allen, just a general comment not related to this case, but finding sufficient evidence to indict someone for an alleged crime does not necessarily mean the person is actually guilty as charged. People are indicted all the time and then found innocent. We'll never know in this case, but there's a reason why people are given actual trials.

This is a dangerous way to think about this. It's as if people who commit sexual abuse have some kind of aura that you can notice if you're observant enough. Well, they don't. They can lead perfectly ordinary lives in all other respects.

Yes. A hallmark of many child molesters is that they are typically very likeable. Molesters need to gain access to their victims and they do it by engaging and building false trust and appearing normal. If all of them had a loud "creep alert," we'd probably see a lot less abuse.

 

[MsZem]

This is not a defense of Allen, just a general comment not related to this case, but finding sufficient evidence to indict someone for an alleged crime does not necessarily mean the person is actually guilty as charged. People are indicted all the time and then found innocent. We'll never know in this case, but there's a reason why people are given actual trials.

I've actually been very careful to avoid a presumption of guilt on Allen's part; my take is that I believe Dylan is telling her truth but I have no way of knowing if it is an objective truth. I did qualify the statement you quoted by noting that if the prosecutor had sufficient evidence to try him, then there should have at least been an indictment and the case should have been tried in a court of law rather than the court of public opinion. Doing nothing ensured that neither the accuser nor the accused would get any sort of resolution.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

This is not a defense of Allen, just a general comment not related to this case, but finding sufficient evidence to indict someone for an alleged crime does not necessarily mean the person is actually guilty as charged. People are indicted all the time and then found innocent. We'll never know in this case, but there's a reason why people are given actual trials.

Yes. A hallmark of many child molesters is that they are typically very likeable. Molesters need to gain access to their victims and they do it by engaging and building false trust and appearing normal. If all of them had a loud "creep alert," we'd probably see a lot less abuse.

 

[Allskate]

This is not a defense of Allen, just a general comment not related to this case, but finding sufficient evidence to indict someone for an alleged crime does not necessarily mean the person is actually guilty as charged. People are indicted all the time and then found innocent. We'll never know in this case, but there's a reason why people are given actual trials.

It goes both ways. In many, many, many sexual assault cases, including child molestation, a person who committed a crime is never even indicted. In some cases, people are indicted for sexual assault and it is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. The person goes free.

The person is found "not guilty." The person is not found "innocent." That is a result of constitutional protections to help prevent innocent people from going to prison. We err on the side of protecting the innocent. That's very important. But, the price we pay for that protection is that somtimes people who committed crimes go free. I think that this constitutional protection is very important, but I don't pretend that, just because someone has not been convicted in court, that they are free. And I know the different between the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that applies in a criminal court and the standards that people use in the court of public opinion. O.J. Simpson may have been found "not guilty," but that doesn't mean I think he didn't kill a couple of people.

I think prosecutors are placed in very difficult positions. Sexual assault cases can be very difficult to prove and they can be traumatic for the victims. Making the decision about whether to prosecute is not necessarily that easy.

 

[MacMadame]

The argument in Allen's defence is that she was his 'step-daughter' in theory and name only. She was the daughter of his girlfriend whom he didn't live with and with whom he had hardly any contact with, according to Mia Farrow.

Except several of Allen's children don't see it that way. They talk about how their father is also their brother-in-law.