Tell Me :
Talk
Two minors engaging in a sexual act together is totally different.
An adult engaging in sexual conduct with a minor is considered to be rape. One party is underage, so, legally, it cannot be consensual.
However, before you drop out of this, 24FPS, as you started all this, you might come up with a response to two posts that I think have added something essential to the discussion.
(I have taken the liberty to omit some sentences in the second quote, in other to highlight the remaining part.)
Added, as I had not discovered the preceding post: I guess the quote in the preceding post may refer also to experiences with situations, where one part is below the age limit, the other above.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 00:05 by Witness.
Of course there is. Obviously Woody's crime is much worse. It was also used to highlight power and celebrity making them immune to prosecution. Bill, much as I love him as a musician, had sex with a 14 year old girl when he was in his late forties. Mick, according to Rae Dawn Chong, when she was 15. Neither girl gave consent because they are not able to until they are of legal age.
Allen vs Farrow is not just about pedophilia, it's a story of power, money, and celebrity, and how it corrupts the system, at the expense of the victims. And the story is about the Rolling Stones (no, we NEVER talk about their personal lives here) as much as it is about Elvis, Jimmy Page, and others.
Some people get triggered when you mention their precious rock stars, without dispassionately discussing the issues at hand. Poor Gary Glitter didn't have the money, or celebrity to keep him from rotting in prison for his heinous deeds.
In March 1993, a six-month investigation by the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale-New Haven Hospital concluded that the child had not been sexually abused by Allen.
In October 1993 the New York Child Welfare Agency of the State Department of Social Services closed a 14-month investigation and concluded there was no credible evidence of abuse or maltreatment, and the allegation was unfounded.
Woody Allen took a lie detector test. He passed the test.
Mia Farrow refused to take a lie detector test.
The doctor who first examined the child said the child had been brainwashed to tell a rehearsed story and that the child had not been molested by Allen.
Not trying to debate with you on this, but evidently Chong never had a problem with the situation, and even worked with Mick several years later.
And just because she spills the beans all these years later doesn't make her a liar, especially considering she had (and has) has no interest in a legal situation.
According to her:
“He never asked me how old I was and I never told him. It never came up. I remember thinking he was really cute. He had tousled hair. I thought, 'Oh man, he is beautiful.' He said, 'What are you doing right now?' I said, 'Nothing really.' He grabbed my hand and we jumped in his limo and went straight to a recording studio. The (Rolling) Stones were there, I was in the background. I remember being in there for hours and hours. Then I slept over at his apartment. I knew what I was doing. I was experimenting with Mick. I was having fun. This is my story. I can only tell it as I see it. This is my truth. Yes, I was only 15. But it was my body, my choice, my decision. I'm not defined by what happened to me with Mick Jagger. I'm not upset by it either. I guess that's the point I'm trying to make. Sex has become a dirty subject. It's not. Sex is fun.”
>Rae Dawn Chong + Mick Jagger
Believe it or not, but that's her story, and can't think of any reason why she would lie.
The article in the link then ends with:
It should be noted that the statute of limitation for second degree rape is 20 years — and Jagger couldn't be legally prosecuted —
even if Chong did decide to press charges against him, which she clearly does not.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 00:14 by Hairball.
Stop messing up a good narrative with facts.
Sigh. Another one that assumes. Obviously hasn't read my most recent post, and is overly emotional. Just igniting conversation. Some people can't seem to handle a cool back and forth. Nothing is a new discovery for me when it comes to the Stones.(At least I haven't read anything new in quite a while). Yes, what Allen did was a crime. What Mick, Bill, Bowie, Elvis, and others did, was a crime. Yes, they are different levels. No one asked you to stop listening to the Stones. I won't. But I will stop watching Woody Allen films.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 05:10 by 24FPS.
What Allen "allegedly" did, you should say. As far as I can read, Allen has denied everything.
Why do you think that the accusations are true? Because an HBO documentary says so?
Thank God none of us are famous or rich enough to justify these exercises of crap investigation journalism directed on ourselves!
C
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 10:07 by liddas.
Well what's law got to do with consensual love for example
Anyway, going back to the music, but enjoying Rickman's succinct and to- the-point posts here .....
Nobody knows what the truth is in Allen-Farrow case. Your argument about the signs already being there in "Manhattan" is not valid.
Or do you also read Oedipus the King by Sophocles as signs of Sophocles killing his father, marrying his mother and blinding himself?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 17:33 by GetYerAngie.
Sure, legally nothing is proven. At least not as far as I know. I'm just conveying my personal opinion and, I guess, the general opinion in this matter.
So....I'm assuming you saw the part where the Connecticut Prosecutor, in 1993, thought there was enough Probable Cause to file charges against Allen? And that he didn't because he didn't want to put Dylan Farrow through more trauma? And that he recently met with adult Dylan to explain to her why he did what he did?
I'm also assuming you saw the parts where Dylan's story was confirmed, that she was not coached, and her story never changed over the years? Or are you just cherry picking?
One of the telling things for me was in Allen's 2020 biography, where he's speaking. He cites that Dylan made it up because she recounted being on her stomach, looking at a toy train set, while Allen did his business to her from behind. Allen contends there never was a train set, and that she made it up. Yet police documents were produced from 1992, right after the alleged incident, with police investigator's drawings of the alleged crime scene. In those drawings was a toy train set.
Did you not watch the entire documentary? Or does certain uncomfortable facts not help your narrative?
And many witnesses, who were there, dispute what he says. The other children say he was never abused. It's not 'what's really going on', it's just another person's beliefs. Many others, who were there, deny Moses' assertions. So Dylan Farrow, whose story never changed, was never molested by Woody? She simply decided one day to come up with this story so she would never have to see Woody again? A man she adored, until then? And what about the time Allen was caught with his head in her naked lap, sniffing her crotch? Are those witnesses liars? Is Dylan, who maintains her story as an adult, a liar? What would she have to gain? It's not like she got some kind of civil settlement.
He's won for the last 30 years so I wouldn't be so sure of that. We knew almost all of this for 1/3 of a century. If people weren't paying attention, thats one thing, but it looks like, as evidenced by this thread, people have made up their minds one way or the other and aren't budging.
As I mentioned, its sad either way, and I think its short sighted, even if it is convincing, to say this was not one sided. Objectively, it was, and they aren't even hiding that fact. Doesn't necessarily prove he did it. There's a great 2 and a half hour YouTube video that tells the exact opposite story. Both are compelling. Robert B Weide did a documentary on Woody 15 years ago and combed through this stuff and came to the conclusion Woody is innocent. Is he right? Who knows. But IMO, his opinion is as justified as this new documentary's. There's murky stuff on both sides. I don't necessarily believe any of them fully. I think to fully blast someone for their beliefs on this matter is pretty unnecessary. Its one of very few cases I can think of this publicly where there's evidence on either side to justify people's feelings, and screaming about why they're wrong doesn't help anything.
The nanny's changed their statements after the trial, claiming Mia forced them to testify the way they did. There's plenty of stuff not in the doc thats compelling the same way all court documents referencing the train are compelling. I also appreciate that they contextualized Dylan's "coaching" that's been made such a thing all these decades. Perfectly makes sense if she was questioned 9 times about the matter. Do I think she was? I have no idea, but I appreciate the logical argument otherwise which I feel has been absent from the discussion forever.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-18 04:59 by RollingFreak.
I'm not in any way gonna condone it as normal. I think its sick and was wrong of him. Having said, does the fact that they've been married for 30 years mean nothing in that regard? Again, not defending it, and I'll never understand it, but an argument could be made that maybe they knew something was there given that its lasted all these decades. Just saying. I also really don't rate it as any less strange than what Bill Wyman and his son did. Creepy is creepy, I don't really know why people have different rules depending on who they like.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-18 05:02 by RollingFreak.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: March 16, 2021 23:41
Quote
Four Stone Walls
This is an odd thread really.
There is a difference between paedophilia and an underage person having consensual sex.
I expect that most of us here had some form of consensual sex before they were 18.
Rape is a non-consensual situation, isn't it?
I know nothing about paedophilia and don't want to either.
I do know thatJohn Phillips wrote a song called 14 about his daughter. Mick Jagger sung it. Keith plays on it. And Mick T I think, though in '76.
That is properly Stones- related.
Two minors engaging in a sexual act together is totally different.
An adult engaging in sexual conduct with a minor is considered to be rape. One party is underage, so, legally, it cannot be consensual.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: March 16, 2021 23:46
Quote
24FPS
………………………………..
Obviously YOU could argue. And you go on and on, further from the topic. I'm going to drop out of this. You're tiresome, and haven't added anything to the original conversation.
However, before you drop out of this, 24FPS, as you started all this, you might come up with a response to two posts that I think have added something essential to the discussion.
Quote
Rokyfan
(alleged) child molestation of an 8 (?) year-old
rock star sex with underage groupies
related?
a S T R E T C H
Quote
Four Stone Walls
This is an odd thread really.
There is a difference between paedophilia and an underage person having consensual sex.
I expect that most of us here had some form of consensual sex before they were 18.
Rape is a non-consensual situation, isn't it?
I know nothing about paedophilia and don't want to either.
…………………………………………………
(I have taken the liberty to omit some sentences in the second quote, in other to highlight the remaining part.)
Added, as I had not discovered the preceding post: I guess the quote in the preceding post may refer also to experiences with situations, where one part is below the age limit, the other above.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 00:05 by Witness.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Taylor1
()
Date: March 16, 2021 23:58
Until someone like Chong brings the accusation in a Court of Law where she is subject to criminal or civil penalties for lying and Mick would then have an opportunity to defend himself,no one should be saying it happened.I ignore it.Innocent till proven guilty.A great principle of Western Civilization
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 00:01 by Taylor1.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 00:01 by Taylor1.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 17, 2021 00:02
Quote
WitnessQuote
24FPS
………………………………..
Obviously YOU could argue. And you go on and on, further from the topic. I'm going to drop out of this. You're tiresome, and haven't added anything to the original conversation.
However, before you drop out of this, 24FPS, as you started all this, you might come up with a response to two posts that I think have added something essential to the discussion.Quote
Rokyfan
(alleged) child molestation of an 8 (?) year-old
rock star sex with underage groupies
related?
a S T R E T C HQuote
Four Stone Walls
This is an odd thread really.
There is a difference between paedophilia and an underage person having consensual sex.
I expect that most of us here had some form of consensual sex before they were 18.
Rape is a non-consensual situation, isn't it?
I know nothing about paedophilia and don't want to either.
…………………………………………………
(I have taken the liberty to omit some sentences in the second quote, in other to highlight the remaining part.)
Of course there is. Obviously Woody's crime is much worse. It was also used to highlight power and celebrity making them immune to prosecution. Bill, much as I love him as a musician, had sex with a 14 year old girl when he was in his late forties. Mick, according to Rae Dawn Chong, when she was 15. Neither girl gave consent because they are not able to until they are of legal age.
Allen vs Farrow is not just about pedophilia, it's a story of power, money, and celebrity, and how it corrupts the system, at the expense of the victims. And the story is about the Rolling Stones (no, we NEVER talk about their personal lives here) as much as it is about Elvis, Jimmy Page, and others.
Some people get triggered when you mention their precious rock stars, without dispassionately discussing the issues at hand. Poor Gary Glitter didn't have the money, or celebrity to keep him from rotting in prison for his heinous deeds.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
MrEcho
()
Date: March 17, 2021 00:08
The film presents one side of the story. But ...Quote
24FPS
Finished the four part HBO series on Woody Allen versus Mia Farrow. It appears he did molest their seven year old daughter. I can't watch his films now without his abhorrent behavior coloring my perception of him, and his work. Some of his work reveals his predilection for underage girls, not necessarily children. As often occurs with rich, privileged, celebrities, Allen got away with it, and no charges were ever filed, though the prosecutor found 'probable cause', but didn't want to put the child through more trauma.
On the subject of underage girls, Jimmy Page, Bowie, Mick and Bill, Elvis, Ted Nugent, and others, are all guilty of statutory rape. They all had affairs, or just sex, with girls under the legal age. Is it no hanging matter? No capital crime? Or just more entitled celebrities getting away with rape? And does it color your enjoyment of their music, or do you just accept that their creeps? Poor Gary Glitter.
In March 1993, a six-month investigation by the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale-New Haven Hospital concluded that the child had not been sexually abused by Allen.
In October 1993 the New York Child Welfare Agency of the State Department of Social Services closed a 14-month investigation and concluded there was no credible evidence of abuse or maltreatment, and the allegation was unfounded.
Woody Allen took a lie detector test. He passed the test.
Mia Farrow refused to take a lie detector test.
The doctor who first examined the child said the child had been brainwashed to tell a rehearsed story and that the child had not been molested by Allen.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 17, 2021 00:10
Quote
Taylor1
Until someone like Chong brings the accusation in a Court of Law where she is subject to criminal or civil penalties for lying and Mick would then have an opportunity to defend himself,no one should be saying it happened.I ignore it.Innocent till proven guilty.A great principle of Western Civilization
Not trying to debate with you on this, but evidently Chong never had a problem with the situation, and even worked with Mick several years later.
And just because she spills the beans all these years later doesn't make her a liar, especially considering she had (and has) has no interest in a legal situation.
According to her:
“He never asked me how old I was and I never told him. It never came up. I remember thinking he was really cute. He had tousled hair. I thought, 'Oh man, he is beautiful.' He said, 'What are you doing right now?' I said, 'Nothing really.' He grabbed my hand and we jumped in his limo and went straight to a recording studio. The (Rolling) Stones were there, I was in the background. I remember being in there for hours and hours. Then I slept over at his apartment. I knew what I was doing. I was experimenting with Mick. I was having fun. This is my story. I can only tell it as I see it. This is my truth. Yes, I was only 15. But it was my body, my choice, my decision. I'm not defined by what happened to me with Mick Jagger. I'm not upset by it either. I guess that's the point I'm trying to make. Sex has become a dirty subject. It's not. Sex is fun.”
>Rae Dawn Chong + Mick Jagger
Believe it or not, but that's her story, and can't think of any reason why she would lie.
The article in the link then ends with:
It should be noted that the statute of limitation for second degree rape is 20 years — and Jagger couldn't be legally prosecuted —
even if Chong did decide to press charges against him, which she clearly does not.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 00:14 by Hairball.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 17, 2021 00:41
Sex has become a dirty subject. It's not. Sex is fun.
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: March 17, 2021 01:01
Quote
MrEchoThe film presents one side of the story. But ...Quote
24FPS
Finished the four part HBO series on Woody Allen versus Mia Farrow. It appears he did molest their seven year old daughter. I can't watch his films now without his abhorrent behavior coloring my perception of him, and his work. Some of his work reveals his predilection for underage girls, not necessarily children. As often occurs with rich, privileged, celebrities, Allen got away with it, and no charges were ever filed, though the prosecutor found 'probable cause', but didn't want to put the child through more trauma.
On the subject of underage girls, Jimmy Page, Bowie, Mick and Bill, Elvis, Ted Nugent, and others, are all guilty of statutory rape. They all had affairs, or just sex, with girls under the legal age. Is it no hanging matter? No capital crime? Or just more entitled celebrities getting away with rape? And does it color your enjoyment of their music, or do you just accept that their creeps? Poor Gary Glitter.
In March 1993, a six-month investigation by the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale-New Haven Hospital concluded that the child had not been sexually abused by Allen.
In October 1993 the New York Child Welfare Agency of the State Department of Social Services closed a 14-month investigation and concluded there was no credible evidence of abuse or maltreatment, and the allegation was unfounded.
Woody Allen took a lie detector test. He passed the test.
Mia Farrow refused to take a lie detector test.
The doctor who first examined the child said the child had been brainwashed to tell a rehearsed story and that the child had not been molested by Allen.
Stop messing up a good narrative with facts.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: March 17, 2021 01:50
But is this about members of the Stones, Mick (even if Mick was known for his relationships to remarkable females) and, according to rumour at that time, especially Bill (not only as to Mandy), a new discovery for you then, 24FPS? For instance, I think I have known from very early in the '60s that girls literally threw themselves at them. When I gradually developed into fanship to the band, I was more or less aware that they were surrounded by quite lusty young females. more than willing to such acts, without there then being a thorough question about above or below legal age. Their security seemed to have looked out for girls to be invited. The decisive factor was the eager willingness of the girls to take part. Their lust made them old enough in their own eyes. I was led to consider that no concern of mine.
If I may express myself that way: Somehow you make out these widely different subjectmatters as only a difference in degree and not as a difference in kind. You use the term crime in much the same manner in both contexts. ( I don't know myself for certain what is established in the case of Allen, I have got to add. I stress that.)
And what do you want to do yourself, 24FPS? Sell all your Stones releases and stop listening to their music?
If I may express myself that way: Somehow you make out these widely different subjectmatters as only a difference in degree and not as a difference in kind. You use the term crime in much the same manner in both contexts. ( I don't know myself for certain what is established in the case of Allen, I have got to add. I stress that.)
And what do you want to do yourself, 24FPS? Sell all your Stones releases and stop listening to their music?
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
NilsHolgersson
()
Date: March 17, 2021 01:58
Jordan Peterson wrote: "If you're a number one, the highest level of status, you're an overwhelming success. If you're male, you have preferential access to the best places to live and the highest-quality food. People compete to do you favours. You have unlimited opportunity for romantic and sexual contact. You are a successful lobster, and the most desirable females line up and vie for your attention." Mick has been a top lobster for 60 years now.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 17, 2021 04:22
Quote
Witness
But is this about members of the Stones, Mick (even if Mick was known for his relationships to remarkable females) and, according to rumour at that time, especially Bill (not only as to Mandy), a new discovery for you then, 24FPS? For instance, I think I have known from very early in the '60s that girls literally threw themselves at them. When I gradually developed into fanship to the band, I was more or less aware that they were surrounded by quite lusty young females. more than willing to such acts, without there then being a thorough question about above or below legal age. Their security seemed to have looked out for girls to be invited. The decisive factor was the eager willingness of the girls to take part. Their lust made them old enough in their own eyes. I was led to consider that no concern of mine.
If I may express myself that way: Somehow you make out these widely different subjectmatters as only a difference in degree and not as a difference in kind. You use the term crime in much the same manner in both contexts. ( I don't know myself for certain what is established in the case of Allen, I have got to add. I stress that.)
And what do you want to do yourself, 24FPS? Sell all your Stones releases and stop listening to their music?
Sigh. Another one that assumes. Obviously hasn't read my most recent post, and is overly emotional. Just igniting conversation. Some people can't seem to handle a cool back and forth. Nothing is a new discovery for me when it comes to the Stones.(At least I haven't read anything new in quite a while). Yes, what Allen did was a crime. What Mick, Bill, Bowie, Elvis, and others did, was a crime. Yes, they are different levels. No one asked you to stop listening to the Stones. I won't. But I will stop watching Woody Allen films.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 05:10 by 24FPS.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: March 17, 2021 10:06
Quote
24FPS
Sigh. Another one that assumes. Obviously hasn't read my most recent post, and is overly emotional. Just igniting conversation. Some people can't seem to handle a cool back and forth. Nothing is a new discovery for me when it comes to the Stones.(At least I haven't read anything new in quite a while). Yes, what Allen did was a crime. What Mick, Bill, Bowie, Elvis, and others did, was a crime. Yes, they are different levels. No one asked you to stop listening to the Stones. I won't. But I will stop watching Woody Allen films.
What Allen "allegedly" did, you should say. As far as I can read, Allen has denied everything.
Why do you think that the accusations are true? Because an HBO documentary says so?
Thank God none of us are famous or rich enough to justify these exercises of crap investigation journalism directed on ourselves!
C
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 10:07 by liddas.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 17, 2021 10:23
Let he who has not sinned cast the first Stone ....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
windmelody
()
Date: March 17, 2021 13:25
Signed.Quote
Rockman
Let he who has not sinned cast the first Stone ....
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
emotionalbarbecue
()
Date: March 17, 2021 13:44
Jean Jacques Rosseau who is one of the founding fathers of progresive thought convinced his wife to abandon their 5 chidren to the orphanage.
Karl Marx family lived economical hardship and three sons died of hunger while their father refused paid work. Two daughters suvirved the hardship but commited suicide at 43 and 66 yo by the way.
Gandhi did not precisely treated well his wife...
Should we separate personal and public life of people?
Karl Marx family lived economical hardship and three sons died of hunger while their father refused paid work. Two daughters suvirved the hardship but commited suicide at 43 and 66 yo by the way.
Gandhi did not precisely treated well his wife...
Should we separate personal and public life of people?
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: March 17, 2021 13:49
Quote
Big AlQuote
Four Stone Walls
This is an odd thread really.
There is a difference between paedophilia and an underage person having consensual sex.
I expect that most of us here had some form of consensual sex before they were 18.
Rape is a non-consensual situation, isn't it?
I know nothing about paedophilia and don't want to either.
I do know thatJohn Phillips wrote a song called 14 about his daughter. Mick Jagger sung it. Keith plays on it. And Mick T I think, though in '76.
That is properly Stones- related.
Two minors engaging in a sexual act together is totally different.
An adult engaging in sexual conduct with a minor is considered to be rape. One party is underage, so, legally, it cannot be consensual.
Well what's law got to do with consensual love for example
Anyway, going back to the music, but enjoying Rickman's succinct and to- the-point posts here .....
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
GetYerAngie
()
Date: March 17, 2021 13:53
Quote
windmelodySigned.Quote
Rockman
Let he who has not sinned cast the first Stone ....
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 17, 2021 13:54
The accusations against Allen are most certainly true (not everyone of them though...). You don't need a documentary to realize that (I haven't watched it).
The signs were already there in "Manhattan". In Allen's case it's even worse because there is an oedipal twist to it also. Of course Allen denies everything.
What else can he do? Unnecessary to involve Jagger or Wyman in this though. That is another subject. Allen is a different ball game.
The signs were already there in "Manhattan". In Allen's case it's even worse because there is an oedipal twist to it also. Of course Allen denies everything.
What else can he do? Unnecessary to involve Jagger or Wyman in this though. That is another subject. Allen is a different ball game.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
GetYerAngie
()
Date: March 17, 2021 16:48
Quote
Stoneage
The accusations against Allen are most certainly true (not everyone of them though...). You don't need a documentary to realize that (I haven't watched it).
The signs were already there in "Manhattan". In Allen's case it's even worse because there is an oedipal twist to it also. Of course Allen denies everything.
What else can he do? Unnecessary to involve Jagger or Wyman in this though. That is another subject. Allen is a different ball game.
Nobody knows what the truth is in Allen-Farrow case. Your argument about the signs already being there in "Manhattan" is not valid.
Or do you also read Oedipus the King by Sophocles as signs of Sophocles killing his father, marrying his mother and blinding himself?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 17:33 by GetYerAngie.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 17, 2021 17:26
Quote
GetYerAngieQuote
Stoneage
The accusations against Allen are most certainly true (not everyone of them though...). You don't need a documentary to realize that (I haven't watched it).
The signs were already there in "Manhattan". In Allen's case it's even worse because there is an oedipal twist to it also. Of course Allen denies everything.
What else can he do? Unnecessary to involve Jagger or Wyman in this though. That is another subject. Allen is a different ball game.
Nobody knows what the truth is in Allen-Farrow case. Your argument about the signs already being there in "Manhattan" is not valid.
Or do you also read Oedipus the King by Sophocles as signs of Sophocles himself killing his father, marrying his mother and blinding himself?
Sure, legally nothing is proven. At least not as far as I know. I'm just conveying my personal opinion and, I guess, the general opinion in this matter.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 17, 2021 18:13
Quote
GetYerAngieQuote
Stoneage
The accusations against Allen are most certainly true (not everyone of them though...). You don't need a documentary to realize that (I haven't watched it).
The signs were already there in "Manhattan". In Allen's case it's even worse because there is an oedipal twist to it also. Of course Allen denies everything.
What else can he do? Unnecessary to involve Jagger or Wyman in this though. That is another subject. Allen is a different ball game.
Nobody knows what the truth is in Allen-Farrow case. Your argument about the signs already being there in "Manhattan" is not valid.
Or do you also read Oedipus the King by Sophocles as signs of Sophocles killing his father, marrying his mother and blinding himself?
So....I'm assuming you saw the part where the Connecticut Prosecutor, in 1993, thought there was enough Probable Cause to file charges against Allen? And that he didn't because he didn't want to put Dylan Farrow through more trauma? And that he recently met with adult Dylan to explain to her why he did what he did?
I'm also assuming you saw the parts where Dylan's story was confirmed, that she was not coached, and her story never changed over the years? Or are you just cherry picking?
One of the telling things for me was in Allen's 2020 biography, where he's speaking. He cites that Dylan made it up because she recounted being on her stomach, looking at a toy train set, while Allen did his business to her from behind. Allen contends there never was a train set, and that she made it up. Yet police documents were produced from 1992, right after the alleged incident, with police investigator's drawings of the alleged crime scene. In those drawings was a toy train set.
Did you not watch the entire documentary? Or does certain uncomfortable facts not help your narrative?
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
NilsHolgersson
()
Date: March 17, 2021 19:30
I'm watching it now
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 19:34 by NilsHolgersson.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-17 19:34 by NilsHolgersson.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Pietro
()
Date: March 17, 2021 20:41
If you want to know what's really going on here and how Woody Allen is being railroaded, you can read this blog post by Moses Farrow, one of the couple's adopted children. He writes, "...given the incredibly inaccurate and misleading attacks on my father, Woody Allen, I feel that I can no longer stay silent as he continues to be condemned for a crime he did not commit."
By his account life was torture in the Farrow household and Farrow encouraged her children to hate and vilify Allen.
A SON SPEAKS OUT By Moses Farrow
By his account life was torture in the Farrow household and Farrow encouraged her children to hate and vilify Allen.
A SON SPEAKS OUT By Moses Farrow
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 17, 2021 20:49
Quote
Pietro
If you want to know what's really going on here and how Woody Allen is being railroaded, you can read this blog post by Moses Farrow, one of the couple's adopted children. He writes, "...given the incredibly inaccurate and misleading attacks on my father, Woody Allen, I feel that I can no longer stay silent as he continues to be condemned for a crime he did not commit."
By his account life was torture in the Farrow household and Farrow encouraged her children to hate and vilify Allen.
A SON SPEAKS OUT By Moses Farrow
And many witnesses, who were there, dispute what he says. The other children say he was never abused. It's not 'what's really going on', it's just another person's beliefs. Many others, who were there, deny Moses' assertions. So Dylan Farrow, whose story never changed, was never molested by Woody? She simply decided one day to come up with this story so she would never have to see Woody again? A man she adored, until then? And what about the time Allen was caught with his head in her naked lap, sniffing her crotch? Are those witnesses liars? Is Dylan, who maintains her story as an adult, a liar? What would she have to gain? It's not like she got some kind of civil settlement.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
wonderboy
()
Date: March 17, 2021 21:34
Allen began a 'relationship' with the adopted daughter of his partner when she was in high school. That's enough for me. Any teacher or parent knows that's a taboo, a betrayal. Even more so when you take her background into consideration.
That was enough for me to conclude he's a @#$%& creep.
That was enough for me to conclude he's a @#$%& creep.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 17, 2021 23:45
Stranger things have probably happened
in that Appalachian Mountain area for many a year ....
ROCKMAN
in that Appalachian Mountain area for many a year ....
ROCKMAN
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 18, 2021 01:53
Of course legalities do not matter here. Allen can't win this even he wins in court. In the eyes of the public he is doomed anyway. Which I'm sure Allen is painfully aware of.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 18, 2021 02:54
.... Yep .... mud sticks ....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: March 18, 2021 04:57
Quote
Stoneage
Of course legalities do not matter here. Allen can't win this even he wins in court. In the eyes of the public he is doomed anyway. Which I'm sure Allen is painfully aware of.
He's won for the last 30 years so I wouldn't be so sure of that. We knew almost all of this for 1/3 of a century. If people weren't paying attention, thats one thing, but it looks like, as evidenced by this thread, people have made up their minds one way or the other and aren't budging.
As I mentioned, its sad either way, and I think its short sighted, even if it is convincing, to say this was not one sided. Objectively, it was, and they aren't even hiding that fact. Doesn't necessarily prove he did it. There's a great 2 and a half hour YouTube video that tells the exact opposite story. Both are compelling. Robert B Weide did a documentary on Woody 15 years ago and combed through this stuff and came to the conclusion Woody is innocent. Is he right? Who knows. But IMO, his opinion is as justified as this new documentary's. There's murky stuff on both sides. I don't necessarily believe any of them fully. I think to fully blast someone for their beliefs on this matter is pretty unnecessary. Its one of very few cases I can think of this publicly where there's evidence on either side to justify people's feelings, and screaming about why they're wrong doesn't help anything.
The nanny's changed their statements after the trial, claiming Mia forced them to testify the way they did. There's plenty of stuff not in the doc thats compelling the same way all court documents referencing the train are compelling. I also appreciate that they contextualized Dylan's "coaching" that's been made such a thing all these decades. Perfectly makes sense if she was questioned 9 times about the matter. Do I think she was? I have no idea, but I appreciate the logical argument otherwise which I feel has been absent from the discussion forever.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-18 04:59 by RollingFreak.
Re: Allen vs. Farrow, Stones related
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: March 18, 2021 05:01
Quote
wonderboy
Allen began a 'relationship' with the adopted daughter of his partner when she was in high school. That's enough for me. Any teacher or parent knows that's a taboo, a betrayal. Even more so when you take her background into consideration.
That was enough for me to conclude he's a @#$%& creep.
I'm not in any way gonna condone it as normal. I think its sick and was wrong of him. Having said, does the fact that they've been married for 30 years mean nothing in that regard? Again, not defending it, and I'll never understand it, but an argument could be made that maybe they knew something was there given that its lasted all these decades. Just saying. I also really don't rate it as any less strange than what Bill Wyman and his son did. Creepy is creepy, I don't really know why people have different rules depending on who they like.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-18 05:02 by RollingFreak.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.