|
Post by JangoB on Dec 18, 2018 11:00:12 GMT
Age of of consent in NYC was 17. The relationship started when the girl was 16. That's statutory rape. He did break the law, but he'll get away with it because the girl in question apparently wasn't traumatised by it, it was a long time ago and he's Woody Allen.Allen is a creep. How quick you are to read the law in such a literal way as to define statutory rape - 3 months away from 17 is this or that I see. Um........ He "did" (did he?) break the law but he'll "get away with it" (how sinister) because she wasn't traumatised by it (obviously), it was a long time ago (indeed it was) and "he's Woody Allen" - No, he'd "get away with it" for one and two but not the part in bold above because no one in this story would be charged with a "crime"..........not you, not I, not Woody Allen. Even if we disagree about movies, me and pacinoyes will always have one thing in common - defending Woody Allen against bullshit such as this. This E! article is total nonsense starting from the headline. ' Woody Allen Accused of Having 8-Year Affair With Teenage Model' - nowhere in the original THR 'exposé' does the lady accuse him of anything. On the contrary, she explicitly states that her goal is not to attack him. Her goddamn quote: " What made me speak is I thought I could provide a perspective. I'm not attacking Woody. This is not 'bring down this man.' I'm talking about my love story. This made me who I am. I have no regrets". If that's an accusation then we're truly living in a looney bin of a world. Now, it's pretty clear that she wants publicity. Otherwise why the heck would she come out of nowhere to just tell this story when it involves nothing shocking or accusatory and is just a collection of memories of how the relationship went down - and what a shameful thing to just appear like that to reveal all the private details of one's life for attention, one of the most sickening aspects of celebrity culture. There's a pretty interesting line in the THR piece about her having written two unpublished memoirs and one of them being about Allen, and that apparently she kept them private. I guess privacy ain't an issue anymore for her. But again, all right, whatever, there're tons of people who do stuff like that to leech their way to attention. The most important thing is that she doesn't accuse him of anything. And the E! headline tells precisely the opposite thing, completely lying.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 18, 2018 11:41:15 GMT
I'm not really competent on law. Would this still be statutory rape even if she was the one who made the first move?
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Dec 18, 2018 11:57:26 GMT
I'm not really competent on law. Would this still be statutory rape even if she was the one who made the first move? Yes, my dear.
|
|
LaraQ
Badass
English Rose
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 2,833
|
Post by LaraQ on Dec 18, 2018 12:29:08 GMT
This should(probably won't)be the final nail in his coffin.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 18, 2018 12:47:26 GMT
So he's "accused" (great word that is) of having a perfectly legal, consensual affair with the woman who famously inspired what he wrote about in Manhattan in the 70s - the 70s in NYC for Godsakes when sex with a teen goat/farm animal in public was actually as common as bad sideburns and unibrows. I bet he made her watch .............gasp!..............Bergman films too......the sicko. this is not the hill to die on dude
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 18, 2018 13:21:54 GMT
So he's "accused" (great word that is) of having a perfectly legal, consensual affair with the woman who famously inspired what he wrote about in Manhattan in the 70s - the 70s in NYC for Godsakes when sex with a teen goat/farm animal in public was actually as common as bad sideburns and unibrows. I bet he made her watch .............gasp!..............Bergman films too......the sicko. this is not the hill to die on dude Well look at the view on this hill - honest people, reasonable people - bright white smile informed by the shining power of moral decency. But look over there at that other hill though: hypocritical, ill-informed freaks with bad posture, distasteful dandruff, skin rash, male pattern baldness (on the females), flesh eating bacteria and with endless constipation or its opposite never-ending diarrhea. Yeah no, I'm good. My teeth are important to me......
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 2,107
|
Post by cherry68 on Dec 18, 2018 15:34:42 GMT
I'm not really competent on law. Would this still be statutory rape even if she was the one who made the first move? The reason why there's an age of consent is that teenagers aren't supposed to know what's better for them nor are able to evaluate all the consequences of their actions because their personality and brain are still developing, thus are protected by the law.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 18, 2018 17:49:18 GMT
this is not the hill to die on dude Well look at the view on this hill - honest people, reasonable people - bright white smile informed by the shining power of moral decency. But look over there at that other hill though: hypocritical, ill-informed freaks with bad posture, distasteful dandruff, skin rash, male pattern baldness (on the females), flesh eating bacteria and with endless constipation or its opposite never-ending diarrhea. Yeah no, I'm good. My teeth are important to me...... no idea what you're talking about just please don't defend objective pedophiles
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 18, 2018 18:20:22 GMT
Oh see I thought that's what you were doing when you told me not to die on that hill, like that wasn't some kind of profound statement and rather was just selling me a form of a platitude.....so I just replied with a similarly benign salespitch for um.........dental care. Shrug.
Woody Allen doesn't need my defense when there's no one wanting to discuss it seriously first of all and he certainly doesn't fit the bill as a pedophile anyway - even if you (wrongly) think that's an "objective" (wrong again) truth, but let's settle on defining the word "objective", then we'll tackle the word "pedophile" FS.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 18, 2018 20:55:24 GMT
I'm not really competent on law. Would this still be statutory rape even if she was the one who made the first move? Unless she forced him, absolutely. If this story is true, he would have had the legal and ethical responsibility to reject offers of sex from a teenager. The onus is on the person of age who should know better.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 18, 2018 22:36:51 GMT
Oh see I thought that's what you were doing when you told me not to die on that hill, like that wasn't some kind of profound statement and rather was just selling me a form of a platitude.....so I just replied with a similarly benign salespitch for um.........dental care. Shrug. Woody Allen doesn't need my defense when there's no one wanting to discuss it seriously first of all and he certainly doesn't fit the bill as a pedophile anyway - even if you (wrongly) think that's an "objective" (wrong again) truth, but let's settle on defining the word "objective", then we'll tackle the word "pedophile" FS. someone who is attracted to children in a sexual way holy shit you're not a dipshit why are you trying so hard to convince people otherwise
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Dec 18, 2018 22:43:00 GMT
I'm not really competent on law. Would this still be statutory rape even if she was the one who made the first move? Unless she forced him, absolutely. If this story is true, he would have had the legal and ethical responsibility to reject offers of sex from a teenager. The onus is on the person of age who should know better. Well said ! So what if she was the one who seduced him ? It's still no excuse for what he did .She was still a kid ! He was the adult , he should have known better !
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 18, 2018 23:05:38 GMT
Oh see I thought that's what you were doing when you told me not to die on that hill, like that wasn't some kind of profound statement and rather was just selling me a form of a platitude.....so I just replied with a similarly benign salespitch for um.........dental care. Shrug. Woody Allen doesn't need my defense when there's no one wanting to discuss it seriously first of all and he certainly doesn't fit the bill as a pedophile anyway - even if you (wrongly) think that's an "objective" (wrong again) truth, but let's settle on defining the word "objective", then we'll tackle the word "pedophile" FS. someone who is attracted to children in a sexual way holy shit you're not a dipshit why are you trying so hard to convince people otherwise
Ah, but that isn't what a pedophile is - that is not the definition, you're just wrong. No big deal, maybe you're a nice person, I'm sure you are, maybe you know movies I dunno. Talk about that then (?) I assume people here are smart enough to look up the word pedophile and see the definition. Then I assume they are smart enough to read your post which used the words "Woody Allen" "objectively" and "pedophile", and see that's a preposterous thing to say. Not trying to convince anyone of anything, they can read. Also, knock off the name calling - you're being treated with respect, return it. You don't have to reply ........
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 18, 2018 23:12:34 GMT
someone who is attracted to children in a sexual way holy shit you're not a dipshit why are you trying so hard to convince people otherwise
Ah, but that isn't what a pedophile is - that is not the definition, you're just wrong. No big deal, maybe you're a nice person, I'm sure you are, maybe you know movies I dunno. Talk about that then (?) I assume people here are smart enough to look up the word pedophile and see the definition. Then I assume they are smart enough to read your post which used the words "Woody Allen" "objectively" and "pedophile", and see that's a preposterous thing to say. Not trying to convince anyone of anything, they can read. Also, knock off the name calling - you're being treated with respect, return it. You don't have to reply ........ someone who is defending pedophilia and rape is not someone i have to be immediately respectful of; we can all examine the facts here and not call names but the absolute min anyone should be doing is saying "that sounds pretty fucked up and exploitative." i get if it was a long time ago, or i have reason to believe he matured, or there is some degree of doubt with the validity, but none of that is really what you're going for - from what i can tell you seem to be implying that if this happened again today that it wouldn't be a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 18, 2018 23:19:58 GMT
Oh see I thought that's what you were doing when you told me not to die on that hill, like that wasn't some kind of profound statement and rather was just selling me a form of a platitude.....so I just replied with a similarly benign salespitch for um.........dental care. Shrug. Woody Allen doesn't need my defense when there's no one wanting to discuss it seriously first of all and he certainly doesn't fit the bill as a pedophile anyway - even if you (wrongly) think that's an "objective" (wrong again) truth, but let's settle on defining the word "objective", then we'll tackle the word "pedophile" FS. someone who is attracted to children in a sexual way holy shit you're not a dipshit why are you trying so hard to convince people otherwise A 16 year old who is finished with puberty is physically not a child. The age of consent is 16 in a lot of the world and even some US states. I'm not going to deny that this was a poor decision on his part, but it's not remotely the same thing as raping a pre-pubescent child as in the Farrow allegations. Those two things have nothing to do with each other.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Dec 18, 2018 23:21:54 GMT
Oh see I thought that's what you were doing when you told me not to die on that hill, like that wasn't some kind of profound statement and rather was just selling me a form of a platitude.....so I just replied with a similarly benign salespitch for um.........dental care. Shrug. Woody Allen doesn't need my defense when there's no one wanting to discuss it seriously first of all and he certainly doesn't fit the bill as a pedophile anyway - even if you (wrongly) think that's an "objective" (wrong again) truth, but let's settle on defining the word "objective", then we'll tackle the word "pedophile" FS. someone who is attracted to children in a sexual way holy shit you're not a dipshit why are you trying so hard to convince people otherwise The word you're looking for in the case of Woody Allen vs. Teenage Girl is "Ephebophile." Defined by Wikipedia's opening paragraph with "Ephebophilia is the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.[1] The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century.[1] It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction."
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 18, 2018 23:36:03 GMT
someone who is attracted to children in a sexual way holy shit you're not a dipshit why are you trying so hard to convince people otherwise The word you're looking for in the case of Woody Allen vs. Teenage Girl is "Ephebophile." Defined by Wikipedia's opening paragraph with "Ephebophilia is the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.[1] The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century.[1] It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction." ancaps get out
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 18, 2018 23:38:09 GMT
someone who is attracted to children in a sexual way holy shit you're not a dipshit why are you trying so hard to convince people otherwise A 16 year old who is finished with puberty is physically not a child. The age of consent is 16 in a lot of the world and even some US states. I'm not going to deny that this was a poor decision on his part, but it's not remotely the same thing as raping a pre-pubescent child as in the Farrow allegations. Those two things have nothing to do with each other. and if he would have done this in some US state where it was legal i would be saying the same things; stuff like this is hugely exploitative and not okay even if sometimes it happens to be legal (many exploitative things are, in fact, legal; which is why they are called exploitative and not illegal).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 18, 2018 23:38:48 GMT
someone who is attracted to children in a sexual way holy shit you're not a dipshit why are you trying so hard to convince people otherwise
Ah, but that isn't what a pedophile is - that is not the definition, you're just wrong. No big deal, maybe you're a nice person, I'm sure you are, maybe you know movies I dunno. Talk about that then (?) I assume people here are smart enough to look up the word pedophile and see the definition. Then I assume they are smart enough to read your post which used the words "Woody Allen" "objectively" and "pedophile", and see that's a preposterous thing to say. Not trying to convince anyone of anything, they can read. Also, knock off the name calling - you're being treated with respect, return it. You don't have to reply ........ someone who is defending pedophilia and rape is not someone i have to be immediately respectful of; we can all examine the facts here and not call names but the absolute min anyone should be doing is saying "that sounds pretty fucked up and exploitative." i get if it was a long time ago, or i have reason to believe he matured, or there is some degree of doubt with the validity, but none of that is really what you're going for - from what i can tell you seem to be implying that if this happened again today that it wouldn't be a bad thing.Whoa hold on a second, you're the one who called me a name, so I accept your apology (I guess?). But don't make it sound like we've been equally guilty here of your temper tantrum FS. But, sure, no hard feelings, of course. All I did is tell you your understanding of the words "objective" and "pedophile" were wrong - you can't redefine words like that - and they were wrong. From "what you can tell" and "seem to be implying that if this happened again today" -------- No, the precise point is that "it" never happened. No one is defending pedophilia and rape. You told me not to die on a hill, misused the words "pedophilia" and "objectively" and called me a profanity. That's what happened. No one is implying anything as grotesque as you suggested I get it, you don't like Woody Allen and you think he's guilty of things I do not see any evidence of.......but I know the meaning of the words you used I know that when you use those so cavalierly.............well, you should't. The argument you want to make is ruined.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 19, 2018 0:08:18 GMT
someone who is defending pedophilia and rape is not someone i have to be immediately respectful of; we can all examine the facts here and not call names but the absolute min anyone should be doing is saying "that sounds pretty fucked up and exploitative." i get if it was a long time ago, or i have reason to believe he matured, or there is some degree of doubt with the validity, but none of that is really what you're going for - from what i can tell you seem to be implying that if this happened again today that it wouldn't be a bad thing.Whoa hold on a second, you're the one who called me a name, so I accept your apology (I guess?). But don't make it sound like we've been equally guilty here of your temper tantrum FS. But, sure, no hard feelings, of course. All I did is tell you your understanding of the words "objective" and "pedophile" were wrong - you can't redefine words like that - and they were wrong. From "what you can tell" and "seem to be implying that if this happened again today" -------- No, the precise point is that "it" never happened. No one is defending pedophilia and rape. You told me not to die on a hill, misused the words "pedophilia" and "objectively" and called me a profanity. That's what happened. No one is implying anything as grotesque as you suggested I get it, you don't like Woody Allen and you think he's guilty of things I do not see any evidence of.......but I know the meaning of the words you used I know that when you use those so cavalierly.............well, you should't. The argument you want to make is ruined. i called you a name because you were defending a pedophile; should you ever not do that in the future, perhaps i will not call you a name objectivity doesn't exist, sure whatever, but i don't expect metaphysical explanations when it comes to calling a spade a spade in general discussion he never slept with a 16 year old? so you doubt her testimony? i have no idea what sort of evidence you would even need at this point - what type of a person do you condemn? who actually does things that aren't okay in your mind? posters who call you names?
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Dec 19, 2018 0:22:38 GMT
Whoa hold on a second, you're the one who called me a name, so I accept your apology (I guess?). But don't make it sound like we've been equally guilty here of your temper tantrum FS. But, sure, no hard feelings, of course. All I did is tell you your understanding of the words "objective" and "pedophile" were wrong - you can't redefine words like that - and they were wrong. From "what you can tell" and "seem to be implying that if this happened again today" -------- No, the precise point is that "it" never happened. No one is defending pedophilia and rape. You told me not to die on a hill, misused the words "pedophilia" and "objectively" and called me a profanity. That's what happened. No one is implying anything as grotesque as you suggested I get it, you don't like Woody Allen and you think he's guilty of things I do not see any evidence of.......but I know the meaning of the words you used I know that when you use those so cavalierly.............well, you should't. The argument you want to make is ruined. i called you a name because you were defending a pedophile; should you ever not do that in the future, perhaps i will not call you a name objectivity doesn't exist, sure whatever, but i don't expect metaphysical explanations when it comes to calling a spade a spade in general discussion he never slept with a 16 year old? so you doubt her testimony? i have no idea what sort of evidence you would even need at this point - what type of a person do you condemn? who actually does things that aren't okay in your mind? posters who call you names? God, you're such a MASSIVE fucking imbecile. And Woody Allen is NOT a pedophile, and nothing about this story indicates otherwise. As many have tried to get through that willfully thick head of yours, someone attracted to a 16-year old is NOT a pedophile.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 19, 2018 0:41:59 GMT
Well, no.
Objectivity exists, it just doesn't exist nor is it defined the way that you were using it.
I do not doubt that he slept with her at 16. That again is not the definition of pedophilia, that matters, I know you think it doesn't, but we've already established you're arbitrarily changing defined words to suit .........something?
What type of person do I condemn? Well, gee, I don't know but a guy who is f*cking a 16 year old a few months (or weeks) short of turning 17 in 1977 NYC isn't that high on the list.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 19, 2018 2:24:21 GMT
The word you're looking for in the case of Woody Allen vs. Teenage Girl is "Ephebophile." Defined by Wikipedia's opening paragraph with "Ephebophilia is the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.[1] The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century.[1] It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction." Very familiar with this argument and it's always felt like a fall-back technicality. "It's ok, guys, it wasn't technically illegal." I agree pedophilia isn't the right word to describe this situation but argument over terms is completely irrelevant and simply muddies the waters. Whether having sex with a teenager or having a sexual proclivity for teenagers, it's still creepy and predatory. At the least a massive red flag for a middle-aged person to be sexually attracted to young, inexperienced and/or underdeveloped people, especially for someone in a position of influence. And the Wikipedia article you cited states as much: i.e. a man in a position of power having sex with teenagers, especially in an industry as predatory as the film business.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Dec 19, 2018 3:18:38 GMT
The word you're looking for in the case of Woody Allen vs. Teenage Girl is "Ephebophile." Defined by Wikipedia's opening paragraph with "Ephebophilia is the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.[1] The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century.[1] It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction." Very familiar with this argument and it's always felt like a fall-back technicality. "It's ok, guys, it wasn't technically illegal." I agree pedophilia isn't the right word to describe this situation but argument over terms is completely irrelevant and simply muddies the waters. Whether having sex with a teenager or having a sexual proclivity for teenagers, it's still creepy and predatory. At the least a massive red flag for a middle-aged person to be sexually attracted to young, inexperienced and/or underdeveloped people, especially for someone in a position of influence. And the Wikipedia article you cited states as much: i.e. a man in a position of power having sex with teenagers, especially in an industry as predatory as the film business. I was simply trying to give him the proper terminology, since Pacinoyes was arguing about his use of the word pedophile. I don't have a big stake in the matter (although I lean towards Pacinoyes's side), but since I found it possible that Socialism truly didn't understand the word he was using, I was giving it to him so he could accurately speak in the future. I see now that he has no intention of using accurate language, so my interjection didn't truly matter.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Dec 19, 2018 3:33:37 GMT
The word you're looking for in the case of Woody Allen vs. Teenage Girl is "Ephebophile." Defined by Wikipedia's opening paragraph with "Ephebophilia is the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.[1] The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century.[1] It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction." Very familiar with this argument and it's always felt like a fall-back technicality. "It's ok, guys, it wasn't technically illegal." I agree pedophilia isn't the right word to describe this situation but argument over terms is completely irrelevant and simply muddies the waters. Whether having sex with a teenager or having a sexual proclivity for teenagers, it's still creepy and predatory. At the least a massive red flag for a middle-aged person to be sexually attracted to young, inexperienced and/or underdeveloped people, especially for someone in a position of influence. And the Wikipedia article you cited states as much: i.e. a man in a position of power having sex with teenagers, especially in an industry as predatory as the film business. Waah waah waah! Technically wasn't illegal?? There's no such thing as "technically wasn't illegal". All that means is NOT ILLEGAL, period. End of argument, all that matters, get off his ass, etc. Whether someone's delicate SJW sensibilities are offended by someone having a legal "creepy" relationship with a teenager is meaningless. If he didn't break any laws, all we're arguing about is someone's opinion of a legal affair, and that's 100% IRRELEVANT to anyone but the triggered snowflake with said opinion.
|
|