Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A friend asked me if I wanted to go see the movie "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" to which I replied "Isn't that a Woody Allen film?" Her response, "Yeah, I know, but he's just soooo talented."
Why do we as a society tolerate pedophiles, just beacaue they are talented? The names that immediately come to mind are: Woody Allen, R Kelly, Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski.
I think about all of the celebrities that have lined up to work with Woody Allen after the incident with his step-daughter and accusations regarding molesting his other children. I also think about how many songs by R Kelly have topped the charts since the long line of accusations about him having sex with one underaged girl after another have been known.
Would we give these men a free pass if they were mechanics, bus drivers or school teachers? Why do we tolerate (or even celebrate) them?
The same reason 95% of our so called upper-class criminals get away with their crimes. Money. If you have enough of it to throw around you will never be convicted of a real crime unless the public witnessed it broadcast on live TV. For instance, look at OJ. This is a man who was clearly involved in the murder of his ex wife. Did he do it himself, I do not know. But I am relatively certain he had some involvement. But at the time the charges were filed he was still the big time ex football player/actor with plenty of money to spare. Now, fast forward about a decade and here we see OJ in trouble again. Only problem is, he doesn't have the vast amount of funds he used to have and can't afford the big shot liar's team to back him up. So, he was convicted. It's all about the money man. All about the money.
The same reason 95% of our so called upper-class criminals get away with their crimes. Money. If you have enough of it to throw around you will never be convicted of a real crime unless the public witnessed it broadcast on live TV. For instance, look at OJ. This is a man who was clearly involved in the murder of his ex wife. Did he do it himself, I do not know. But I am relatively certain he had some involvement. But at the time the charges were filed he was still the big time ex football player/actor with plenty of money to spare. Now, fast forward about a decade and here we see OJ in trouble again. Only problem is, he doesn't have the vast amount of funds he used to have and can't afford the big shot liar's team to back him up. So, he was convicted. It's all about the money man. All about the money.
Yes but OJ was not revered and given Oscar nominations and Grammy awards after murdering his ex-wife.
Woody Allen's films have been nominated for numerous awards even after the child molestation allegations and R Kelly has sold millions after all of his ongoing allegations.
Thank you for posting this! I was just reading the news reports about Roman Polanski's court hearing and the transcripts from the Grand Jury hearing in the 70's...
This man is a tolerated pedophile because I think on some level since because he is/was perceived as being so avant garde that many people just shrugged their shoulders and wrote it off as a misled artist, wounded man because of Sharon Tate, and Americans have short memories about celebrities misdeeds. Pretty sad.
Take it out of the Hollywood arena and you have folks like Marion Barry, Louis Farrakhan Rush Limbaugh, Ted Haggard, Martha Stewart and obviously several more who are criminals (not implying they are pedophiles) but we forgive them their "indiscretions" for some reason.
I have made a conscious effort NOT to support people such as Woody Allen by not seeing/renting/purchasing a DVD for any of his works, same with R Kelly.
It has always bothered me that so many celebrities will be gungho about this cause or that but when it comes to standing up for the protection of children they decide to opt for a starring role in a Woody Allen film. Its beyond disgusting and its hypocritical.
Last time I checked Woody Allen is not a pedophile. He never had a step-daughter either. He was never married to Mia Farrow or adopted with her. He was also never indicted for anything. So I'm not understanding your hatred for him. Also she was 22 when Wood Allen married her. That isn't pedophilia. It is the strange old man going after a much younger adult woman. There is a difference.
Roman Polanski is a whole other story. I heard he had a sexual affair with a kid. That is very freaky and so wrong.
Last time I checked Woody Allen is not a pedophile. He never had a step-daughter either. He was never married to Mia Farrow or adopted with her. He was also never indicted for anything. So I'm not understanding your hatred for him. Also she was 22 when Wood Allen married her. That isn't pedophilia. It is the strange old man going after a much younger adult woman. There is a difference.
Roman Polanski is a whole other story. I heard he had a sexual affair with a kid. That is very freaky and so wrong.
His relationship with her started well before she was 18. Woody Allen was also accused of molesting his other children with Mia Farrow (his biological son and one of his adopted daughters with Farrow) However, the investigators who were fans of course "sanitized" their reports making it impossible to conclusivly determine in a court of law that he had commited the crime of molestation. The children's nanny caught Woody Allen in a very compromising position with his young daughter (not his wife Soon-Yi, but another daughter that was adopted w/ Mia) He was also caught by Mia Farrow "pleasuring himself" using child pornography.
He did adopt two children and had one bio son with Mia Farrow (his wife Soon-Yi's siblings) and they refuse to have a relationship of any sort with Woody Allen. The children's relationship with Woody's now wife Soon-Yi was that of brothers and sisters; so it would be like your "sister" marrying your father - that was how Woody Allen's bio son w/ Mia described how he felt about the relationship between his father and his sister by adoption.
Farrow herself eventually concluded that her adopted daughter was a "survivor" of a very stressful previous experience (long before Woody came on the scene), and was acting in an opportunistic fashion. At a minimum, the reality is that the affair and subsequent changing of relationship status was a consensual affair between two people of legal age. Get over it.
I think that the hardwiring argument for some behaviors has a lot of merit, although I lay a lot of it to hormones and pheromones rather than just neural synapses. When people fall in love at first sight, there is stuff going on that is beyond the conscious decision-making part of the brain. When there are biological attractions similar processes are involved. Are some of those considered inappropriate based on the mores of societal norms? Sure.
The Shakers took the evil dirty sexual mind concept to the extreme logical limit and avoided all conjugal relations. To those folks, EVERYTHING that has to do with sexuality was taboo and we are all sinners. Fairly predictably, that point of view as an organized religion kind of died out.
The ancient Greeks (upon whom Western civilization is founded) were famous not only for their philosophies, architecture, music, arts, epicurean adventures, but for pederasty. Eventually their civilization was subjugated.
A strong correlation can be made between innovative artistry and thought, and the failure to heed the rules of the mother society. Artists allow the rank and file to explore areas that they would never dream of exploring on their own. The original loaded question really comes down to "Why do we tolerate any excesses by the talented?" The pedophilia label is little more than the use of a hot-button topic-du-jour to enflame emotions, generate an argumentative thread, and massage a personal vendetta.
Should adults of either sex avoid sex with minors? Sounds good to me unless there is a desert island scenario where humanity will die out otherwise. My reasons are a little less legalistic though. Having a sexual partner that wants a cookie and a Transformer would be far less than emotionally satisfying to me.
The current mania about sexual predation by strangers is a mania that is less based in fact than media rating points. We've known for years that sexual predators tend to be family members more than "talented" artists. On the other hand, we've known for years that the "casting couch" is more than a myth, sexual predation of adults in the arts is more common than many other areas, and that the testosterone level of many artists is off-the-charts.
Why do we tolerate the excesses of artists? Do Mick Jagger's rolling stones make him any less talented? Nope. Could he be arrested for his liaisons in any of a number of states? Sure. Is it a big deal? I guess for some it is, but for me it is an excess that is less troubling than the shafting of the American public by the leaders of the banking world and politics.
We all choose our battles. Dragging Polanski's 13 YO through another round of public scrutiny in an attempt of retribution, when she herself has petitioned the court to knock it off, is as much an excess as Jagger's excesses of the flesh. Claiming Allen as a pedophile when he found that his muse was not Mia Farrow but a 22 YO adopted child, and making a public case out of it has its own aspects of perversion.
All of us have our own sins and shortfalls. Those who are famous or brilliant or talented tend to have their shortcomings blasted as headlines unless the media has been told hands-off. Those rocket scientists that came over from Germany at the close of WWII? Did you know they witnessed the slave labor of Jews and others being used to build their rocket centers in Germany that were used to bomb London? Talented scientists or war criminals?
In a famous mea culpa, Rush Limbaugh finally, after years of railing against druggies, admitted that he was in fact one himself. Was his audience any less willing to listen to his vitriol and slanted reporting? Was there a court system that put him away for years as a bad influence?
The list of heroes with feet of clay extends backward through history to the beginning of civilization. To me, this points out that we are a flawed species, and that excesses of adulation and condemnation are more indicative of the nature of the observer than the "talent."
Last edited by Ibginnie; 12-05-2013 at 11:52 AM..
Reason: deleted quoted post and reply
I'm fairly sure there is another thread on Woody Allen in the C-D forums. I don't have the inclination to look it up for you, since it is obvious that you have already made up your mind on the subject (this is NOT just about Woody Allen) and wouldn't be swayed by arguments to the contrary. I will say that Farrow herself eventually concluded that her adopted daughter was a "survivor" of a very stressful previous experience (long before Woody came on the scene), and was acting in an opportunistic fashion. At a minimum, the reality is that the affair and subsequent changing of relationship status was a consensual affair between two people of legal age. Get over it. (Their "affair" started well before she was 18 and they married when she was 22. At best Woody Allen took advantage of a situation with a young girl who was having major issues already...pedophiles are opportunists and master manipulators.)
I think that the hardwiring argument for some behaviors has a lot of merit, although I lay a lot of it to hormones and pheromones rather than just neural synapses. When people fall in love at first sight, there is stuff going on that is beyond the conscious decision-making part of the brain. When there are biological attractions similar processes are involved. Are some of those considered inappropriate based on the mores of societal norms? Sure.
The Shakers took the evil dirty sexual mind concept to the extreme logical limit and avoided all conjugal relations. To those folks, EVERYTHING that has to do with sexuality was taboo and we are all sinners. Fairly predictably, that point of view as an organized religion kind of died out.
The ancient Greeks (upon whom Western civilization is founded) were famous not only for their philosophies, architecture, music, arts, epicurean adventures, but for pederasty. Eventually their civilization was subjugated.
A strong correlation can be made between innovative artistry and thought, and the failure to heed the rules of the mother society. Artists allow the rank and file to explore areas that they would never dream of exploring on their own. ( I agree however these artists should not be allowed to "explore" without limits and accountability)The original loaded question really comes down to "Why do we tolerate any excesses by the talented?" The pedophilia label is little more than the use of a hot-button topic-du-jour to enflame emotions, generate an argumentative thread, and massage a personal vendetta (Personal vendetta? That was a part of my life experience and it is valid).
Should adults of either sex avoid sex with minors? Sounds good to me unless there is a desert island scenario where humanity will die out otherwise. My reasons are a little less legalistic though. Having a sexual partner that wants a cookie and a Transformer would be far less than emotionally satisfying to me.
The current mania about sexual predation by strangers is a mania that is less based in fact than media rating points. We've known for years that sexual predators tend to be family members more than "talented" artists (except when that "talented" artist is a member of one's family or has a close connection to the family). On the other hand, we've known for years that the "casting couch" is more than a myth, sexual predation of adults in the arts is more common than many other areas, and that the testosterone level of many artists is off-the-charts. (You can not fairly equate the casting couch with two adults to the situation of an adult over a child)
Why do we tolerate the excesses of artists? Do Mick Jagger's rolling stones make him any less talented? Nope. Could he be arrested for his liaisons in any of a number of states? Sure. Is it a big deal? I guess for some it is, but for me it is an excess that is less troubling than the shafting of the American public by the leaders of the banking world and politics.
We all choose our battles. Dragging Polanski's 13 YO through another round of public scrutiny in an attempt of retribution, when she herself has petitioned the court to knock it off (as an adult she can petition the court all she wants but the crime happened when she was a child who could not rationally make that decision of having consentual sex with adult), is as much an excess as Jagger's excesses of the flesh. Claiming Allen as a pedophile when he found that his muse was not Mia Farrow but a 22 YO adopted child, and making a public case out of it has its own aspects of perversion (Soon-Yi was not yet 18 when the affair started - the perversion comes when Woody Allen's own biological son and two adopted children with Mia Farrow saw their sister (by adoption) having a sexual relationship with THEIR father - Woody Allen as the adult should have exercised greater restraint - he indulged his own sexual desires and destroyed his bond with his own children)
All of us have our own sins and shortfalls (I don't disagree with this statement but the degree to which our individual sins affect others is the issue). Those who are famous or brilliant or talented tend to have their shortcomings blasted as headlines unless the media has been told hands-off. Those rocket scientists that came over from Germany at the close of WWII? Did you know they witnessed the slave labor of Jews and others being used to build their rocket centers in Germany that were used to bomb London? Talented scientists or war criminals?
In a famous mea culpa, Rush Limbaugh finally, after years of railing against druggies, admitted that he was in fact one himself. Was his audience any less willing to listen to his vitriol and slanted reporting? Was there a court system that put him away for years as a bad influence?
The list of heroes with feet of clay extends backward through history to the beginning of civilization. To me, this points out that we are a flawed species, and that excesses of adulation and condemnation are more indicative of the nature of the observer than the "talent."
I find it really interesting that fans of these talented perverts always tend to point the finger at the victim and society in order to justify their support of the artist.
I also wonder how many of these same people would leave THEIR under age child in the care of these talented artists with a history of indiscretions. How many of these people would expose their children to these talents in an unsupervised setting. Michael Jackson comes to mind with people letting their children sleep in his bed for sleepovers (with a 40 year old man!)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
