|
|
Post by ellie on Oct 15, 2017 21:51:20 GMT
Having no blood connection means it is not incest. It is inappropriate and, arguably indefensible, but it is not incest.
I guess I’m very fact orientated. I feel that in very emotive situations where the consequences of a decision are far reaching you have to disassociate yourself from your feelings and look at the evidence objectively.
My heart might want to convict Allen re Dylan but my head won’t let me do it on the basis of the evidence we are aware of thus far.
|
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Oct 15, 2017 21:55:48 GMT
I think I would convict. He has openly and admittedly committed a kind of incest once. Why would he get a clean slate? In addition to Dylan and Ronan, other people who saw him out in public with Dylan have said how uncomfortable his behavior made them.
But l’m not just talking about Dylan. He deserves to shunned and regarded with extreme suspicion just because of his relationship with Soon Yi.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 15, 2017 21:56:51 GMT
I think it “helped” him legally that he wasn’t the adoptive father of Soon Yi. It’s musician Andre Previn. Allen was just the husband of her mother and the father of three of her siblings which I agree it’s disgusting enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Oct 15, 2017 21:56:56 GMT
But horrifying as anything else might be, "what" Woody Allen is, was always incontrovertibly clear from the simple fact that he was a man in his 50's when she was a 17 year old girl (even if he did "wait", intent was there) effectively in his care. The girl had to have been being groomed for the physical abuse to follow, and it was abuse even if it wasn't "rape" because it was abuse of power. If he had been a teacher grooming a child, there would be no question re the morality of it. Things aren't always so black and white, but it is that clear in this case. Whatever issues there were re legal "proof" of other abuse is incidental, he should have become a pariah! This. There is no need for more. |
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Oct 15, 2017 22:03:40 GMT
But horrifying as anything else might be, "what" Woody Allen is, was always incontrovertibly clear from the simple fact that he was a man in his 50's when she was a 17 year old girl (even if he did "wait", intent was there) effectively in his care. The girl had to have been being groomed for the physical abuse to follow, and it was abuse even if it wasn't "rape" because it was abuse of power. If he had been a teacher grooming a child, there would be no question re the morality of it. Things aren't always so black and white, but it is that clear in this case. Whatever issues there were re legal "proof" of other abuse is incidental, he should have become a pariah! This. There is no need for more. And I totally agree with all of that. I just don’t agree that the case against him with regard to Dylan has been proven beyond doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Oct 15, 2017 22:09:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Oct 15, 2017 22:18:58 GMT
Interesting. I think the legal definition is still based on consanguinity otherwise Allen and Soon Yi would not have been allowed to marry. Maybe the legal definition will be changed to recognise the points made in that modern definition. |
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Oct 15, 2017 22:32:21 GMT
The legal definition actually varies quite a bit from country to country and state to state. What Allen did with Soon Yi was probably not illegal, but that’s not what I’m arguing - just that it was profoundly immoral by any meaningful definition of the word and catastrophic for those children. It also shows a proven tendency towards a kind of incest that should not be ignored when discussing Dylan’s accusations.
As DreamsInColor said, he should be a pariah.
|
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Oct 15, 2017 22:37:56 GMT
The legal definition actually varies quite a bit from country to country and state to state. What Allen did with Soon Yi was probably not illegal, but that’s not what I’m arguing - just that it was profoundly immoral by any meaningful definition of the word and catastrophic for those children. It also shows a proven tendency towards a kind of incest that should not be ignored when discussing Dylan’s accusations. As DreamsInColor said, he should be a pariah. Yes and as I’ve said I totally agree with you on the Soon Yi issue. |
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 16, 2017 0:23:58 GMT
About Bjork and Lars Von Trier is almost funny how most publications are trying to not name him directly: “she didn’t say the name of the Danish filmmaker but she has acted in just two movies, one by an American female director and another by a famous Danish male filmmaker” Who could be? Mmmmmm! Rolling Stone actually identified him and has some great quotes by Bjork from when they filmed Dancer in the Dark: She said today that he based his next movie in their relationship and I was wondering how? It was Dogville but apart of the obvious sexual abuse scenes there is this character, who actually doesn’t abuse the main character, who believes he is a rightful man and see himself as a moral philosopher but at the end decides to destroy the “bad woman” he saved (because he is good, you know!) when he understand that she is actually much more noble and good that he ever would be. He betrays her but at the end she is the one who destroys him. I am guessing that’s the part Bjork was talking about: a male who feel morally superior until discover a woman is better than him then he has to destroy her. Apparently she wrote a letter to Nicole Kidman warning her about him: www.rollingstone.com/music/news/bjork-details-danish-directors-sexual-harassment-toward-her-w509026 |
|
