Mia Farrow's son -- Ronan Seamus Farrow -- really creeps me out!

OK, fine, I stand corrected. (Though I cannot also but point out how many people have pointed out exactly how abusive and coercive and unhealthy the relationships depicted in the Twilight series are, so that example in particular is not a good one. But again, some women also have rape fantasies; that does not justify rape, nor does it justify rape culture being a masculine creation.)

There are many, many problems here. I am at a distinct disadvantage in discussing this topic with anything approaching rationality, because of personal experiences. I can't discuss it as an adult, only as a 13 year old. But the whole "this is a trope in fiction, therefore it's understandable in real life" argument deeply, deeply skeeves me out.

But I guess Noodle Vague is right, in that it gives me a good idea of who to avoid in future.

"this is a trope in fiction, therefore it's understandable in real life"

but... who made this argument? certainly not me. i didn't argue that anything was "understandable"; in fact, i made the opposite argument, that I didn't feel qualified to make a blanket judgment one way or the other. maybe your experience makes you more qualified to do so, maybe it just makes you feel more qualified, i don't know. we're talking about a relationship between two consenting adults, and it seems to me worthwhile to start from the premise that each adult relationship is established on its own terms and has its own dynamics. which is to say, such relationships could be hideously exploitative, or they could be relatively healthy, or anywhere in between. i say this despite, as i've noted, having a visceral disgust for this sort of thing. there are many things that reflexively (?) disgust me that i don't feel qualified to judge.

now if you can demonstrate that this particular type of relationship tends strongly to fall into abusive/exploitative patterns, perhaps I would feel more qualified. so far I see assertions "very real problems with this kind of behavior in the modern era" without explanation.

amtst, have you ever thought about why statutory rape laws exist? a white middle class 15-year-old can give her "consent" to a white middle class 40-year-old but we as a society have decided that the power imbalance is so great as to render that consent unreliable.

similarly, when the power imbalance is as great as that between father/daughter, or world-famous celeb/abused child left for dead with lingering social difficulties, "consent" seems like a pretty flimsy hook to hang your "hey, who can REALLY know the interiority of a love affair?" hat on

as for your second graf i can only assume you're setting aside what dylan says woody allen did to her. i can't think that you require any explanation of why that's wrong.

Thank god no one has thrown out that chestnut known as "innocent until proven guilty"

it's certainly a staple of literature until early this century

By this standard, all bets are off.

btw am I misremembering or didn't Mia's lawyer also accuse WA of molesting Satchel/Ronan? That the Farrows are silent on that now ... dunno.

Thank god no one has thrown out that chestnut known as "innocent until proven guilty"

― Pale Smiley Face (dandydonweiner), Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:24 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the courts have already said the case was 'inconclusive', so as far as legalistic ideals goes we're left... talking about what has come out via journalism

this is 2014 America, ddw, i-til-pg went out awhile ago.

A state's attorney in Connecticut said yesterday that he had "probable cause" to prosecute Woody Allen on charges that he sexually molested his adopted daughter, but had decided to spare her the trauma of a court appearance

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/25/nyregion/connecticut-prosecutor-won-t-file-charges-against-woody-allen.html

xp

as for your second graf i can only assume you're setting aside what dylan says woody allen did to her. i can't think that you require any explanation of why that's wrong.

i wasn't speaking about the woody situation specifically, so no.

presumption of innocence is a legal principle designed to protect ppl from wrongful prosecution, not to keep ppl from forming their own opinions based on available evidence.

this is 2014 America, ddw, i-til-pg went out awhile ago never existed.

fixed that for you

ok. less dissent about it now tho.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard juries use to consider verdicts. It doesn't require people to suspend judgment based on known or easily-inferred facts or, more importantly, to act like morons. Nobody should need to point this out to a grown-ass man, and yet here we are.

xxxp

exactly. And particularly in a child molestation case, where it's SO difficult to actually prove a case.

morbs, come on

it's just funny that the "i'm not comfortable issuing a verdict on woody allen" sentiment even comes up, because no one is asking anyone to issue a verdict. the guy was given a bafflingly tone-deaf celebration on network tv, the brother and mother of the daughter who accused him of molestation called out the celebration and linked to the vanity fair articles covering their side of the matter. unless you work for the golden globes, all anyone's asking is for you to be aware of this shit. if it keeps you from wanting to see his movies, fine. if they don't, fine. but unless your public interaction with all things woody suggests a lack of awareness, nobody gives a fuck whether you think he's guilty, innocent, or if you're uncomfortable of making that call.

the thing is, as with the OJ Simpson trial, I do not give a good goddamn about anyone's opinion, including my own.

prove it

"I object, your honor! This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery ..."

http://lawinthereelworld.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/bananas.jpg

also, the thread is off topic.

Woody responds.

https://twitter.com/Maloneyberry/status/215558750893903873

lol @ the onion

?? @ that tweet

Onion otm

any particular reason you linked to that tweet, jaymc?

(and yes, i realize who wrote it.)

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard juries use to consider verdicts. It doesn't require people to suspend judgment based on known or easily-inferred facts or, more importantly, to act like morons.

right, which is why I always delight when someone throws out the chestnut

I didn't know "guilty until proven innocent" was a Millennial thing, mea culpa.

― eclectic husbandry (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:18 AM (12 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you all are underselling morbs inability to differentiate between a court of law and the rest of the world by ignoring the fact that it was all a gambit to sarcastically condescend to millennials, it really demands some sort of lifetime achievement award for ignorance and wrongness

guys quit it you're trampling all over his first amendment rights

tbf his defense of child molesters here is nothing compared to when he gets started on the catholic church

his defense of the catholic church is kinda sensible imo its just wildly out of whack w his moral absolutism about every other thing in the world (except childhood sexual abuse i guess)

you're both garbagemen.

balls, show me one place where i defended child molesters, you motherfucking asswipe

www.ilxor.com

nice plagiarism btw, weird yr spec freelance film crit career didn't gain more traction w/ secondhand goods like that

you're both garbagemen.

― eclectic husbandry (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:53 PM (27 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no youre garbage, man *high fives balls, double over the shoulder birds to morbs as i walk away*

Woody responds

Woody would never say "doozy," "gosh," or "go to bat."

lah di dah

Looking at the evidence: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/culturebox/2014/01/did_woody_allen_molest_his_adopted_daughter_22_years_ago_reviewing_the_evidence.html

ha.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/boy-ive-really-put-you-in-a-tough-spot-havent-i,34949

Turning this into a stalker thread

could we maybe be moving away from "describing things as stalking is hilarious" just wondering thanks

Oh man, if there was any doubt before, the photo with that story dispels it. He is absolutely Sinatra's genetic material

yeah that picture's the first one i've seen that felt decisive

Ronan Farrow, the estranged son and brother-in-law of movie-making legend Woody Allen, shelled out $1.495 million for a swanky Upper West Side pad, in advance of his cable-TV debut, The Post has learned.

Also refering to him as "blue-eyed." Why not go all the way and call him young blue-eyes?

that photo looks like he is in the midst of crooning

kind of don't get why that is a story

this kind of story is all the news is unless there's a school shooting or jennifer lawrence does something semi-endearing.

Like, dude comes from a family that probably has money (although I don't know what his mom's financial situation is exactly), he's a Yale grad lawyer, and he probably got a sick advance on his show. The average sale price of a Manhattan apartment now is over $800K, and over $1.3 million for new construction. Dude is moderately rich and bought a moderately rich dude apartment.