We don't know anything about the dynamics of the relationships involved though, so comparing it to our own lives and how we relate to people in them is pretty meaningless.
^ If I were talking about the legality or morality of their relationship, yes, my own life and relationships would be irrelevant. But I'm only talking about creepiness. That's always a personal judgement call.
Exactly. From a legal standpoint, the relationship between Woody and Soon-Yi, before they got married, was no different than that of any two random strangers meeting on the street. Starting an affair with your non-live-in girlfriend's adopted, legal-age daughter may be tacky, but personally I don't find it "creepy." YMMV.
Of course, Mia was 21 when she married Frank Sinatra, who was 51 at the time... Personally, I don't know who to believe. I think there's a tragedy in all of this playing out in public. I don't see it as actually helpful to anyone involved. And to add further confusion: Moses speaks. Sigh.
^ Um, no, she wasn't his adopted daughter. That's part of what we've been discussing for 25 messages.
Yes, 19 is an adult. Issues of propriety and legality aren't necessarily the same thing. The age difference here is made especially problematic given the nature of the interlocking relationships. He of course would have known that starting a sexual relationship with Soon-Yi would risk tearing his longtime girlfriend's family apart and risk destroying the relationship between mother and daughter. Soon-Yi bears culpability in that, too, but Allen as the much older and worldlier person involved in the affair bears greater culpability.
Well, here's someone who hasn't read the thread. I'm with most here, it really isn't any of our business, especially since there's no evidence. You know, rape and child abuse are such horrible crimes partly because they are so hard to prove. Sometimes we feel so much for the victims of these crimes (of which there are many) that, since these crimes are so hard to prove, we tend to disregard the "innocent until proven guilty" rule. It's a hard thing to do, but we always have to remind ourselves of this rule, even in something like this. I'm glad most people in this thread seem to follow it. I thought much the same thing back when Pola Kinski claimed to have had been sexually abused by her father Klaus Kinski from age 5. That one was even more difficult, since Klaus Kinski wasn't around anymore to respond to it. Her sister, Nastassja Kinski, said that he "embraced her sexually", but never had actual sex with her. That's no good, either, since "sexual embrace" is such a subjective term. Could be he just touched her bottom while lifting her up, that could be innocent or it could be sexually, no way to look inside his head, especially since he's dead. And we don't even know what this "sexual embrace" was. Also, the interview was done by the BILD, basically the German pendant of the British The Sun, so there's also the possibility that it was spun in the editorial process. And then, he could have done it, and it all could be true. There's no way to know.
While it is true that we will never know the complete facts of the case, there is enough here to raise doubt. In that regard, I can't fully understand the people who are saying that it is not any of our business. If we don't address this heinous crime it will continue in silence. I know I was hugely grossed out when I saw "Manhattan" when I was about 19. I was side eyeing him at that point. Then I found out that he took nude photos of Soon Ye when she was a teenager. Every creeper/pervert detector I had was going off. Then they married. Wow. There was just such a huge power/control differential there. Then the rumours about Dylan came to my attention. Knowing abuse survivors (and the mind control that their fathers used to convince them nothing had happened) I decided the only response I had was to boycott his films. I have read so many accounts of this lately that they are all one huge jumble in my head, but a few pieces indicated that he refused to take that lie detector test with the state police. Instead he chose to take one set up by his lawyers with their own hand picked examiner. The notes from the detailed investigation he says the hospital did were destroyed before the report was issued. Psychologists suggested that charges not be pressed once Mia won custody in order to protect Dylan. Considering that some studies put the incidence of child sexual abuse at almost 1 in 3, I do have to put my support behind Dylan in this case.
Just to be clear, when you say "when she was a teenager," you mean "when she was a 19-year-old adult," right? Link:
10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation Pretty good round up of why the case against Allen is, while not proven by a criminal standard, a lot stronger than his apologists would have one believe. And here's a decision of the appellate court, where a panel of judges upheld the bulk of the trial judge's decision.
Soon-Yi was not their sister, because as has been pointed out about a hundred times in this thread, Woody and Mia NEVER MARRIED and Soon-Yi was only Mia's adopted daughter, not both of theirs. Look, I'm hardly a Woody Allen fan (I've never even seen any of his movies), but it would help if we got the facts straight here.
Soon-Yi was their sister. The fact that Allen and Farrow never married doesn't change the fact that they were all Farrow's children and hence siblings. Not full siblings related by blood, but siblings who grew up together nonetheless.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but in this country the benefit of the doubt is supposed to be accorded to the accused, not the accuser. We are supposed to assume someone accused of a crime is innocent until he is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Not the other way around.
IIRC, Woody can't be criminally charged, because the statute of limitations has run out. Dylan can bring a civil suit against him though.
Even casting it in that light, which is not entirely accurate to the facts but has already been parsed by others, that's not what pedophile means. Pedophilia involves sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It is a specific medical diagnostic term that has a specific meaning, despite being widely misapplied by the media and the public.