Woody vs. Hipsters - Oy Vey!

46. And the definition of children isn't universal. Check the DSM IV. After all, that's where the definition of pedophilia used by most is located.

Posted at 2:00AM on Apr 1st 2008 by ohGimmeABreak

47. Hey # 47, I lived in Canada and the age of consent was always sixteen.
But younger than 16 only with parental approval ( as in retroactively to avoid statutory rape charges in case of pregnancy followed by a shotgun marriage)for the benefit of the Inuit, Native North American Peoples and the French!
Your sylogism fails. It wasn't logical anyway.

Posted at 2:22AM on Apr 1st 2008 by Lou Shyster, Esq.

48. Well, #50, you're wrong about rational views of sex being wrong, But, if I read wrong data, my apologies. None-the-less, the definition of pedophilia as written by psychologists for the purpose of protecting children is that pedophiles prefer pre-pubescent children exclusively. Also, in America right now they are calling people that have sex with consenting sex with seventeen year olds rapists and pedophiles, which is totally warping reality. Control the language, you control the discourse.

And by the way, that wasn't a syllogism. This is that, that is them, thus this must be them. That's a syllogism.

But it doesn't surprise me that all of the hate spews forth from this subject. Like I said there are very few people rationally discussing the issues. I expect a lot of hate filled dialog or none. That's how the game is played.

Posted at 2:41AM on Apr 1st 2008 by ohGimmeABreak

49. Oh and one more thing number 50. If they raised the age of consent in Canada to 18 tomorrow, would that make every 20 year old with a sixteen year old girlfriend all of the sudden become a pervert? You see, that's the point that you so blatantly ignored and that's not a syllogism at all and that's what I was saying. So, now what you were doing yesterday with your sixteen year old girlfriend that she was enjoying would then be illegal. So, at first you couldn't date her anymore, and you'd have to keep your love hidden. Ten years after the hypothetical age shift happened, anybody having sex with the sixteen year old would be treated as a pariah.

Posted at 2:49AM on Apr 1st 2008 by ohGimmeABreak

50. Hi 47/51/52. I do see your points but don't agree with them; hopefully no "hate" seen as spewed here.

My idea was from your #47 was that it does not necessarily follow that if concern over child abuse/pedophilia/pederasty/sex ("the sexual panic") has been heightened in society that family law law lawyers will exaggerate facts to position the adversary in the very worst light (nor, if you meant it, that the lawyers are to blame). They have a license to protect and (unless really arrogant or really self-destructive) are not going to violate court rules or legal rules affecting their own professional conduct, which includes never misleading or trying to misrepresent facts/law to the courts. (Please don't remind me of what happened in the OJ case or the "Rodney King" police trials; truth, justice and the American Way ultimately prevails!) Nor are family courts running amok.

I don't buy that changing the laws implies what you call social constructs do or don't define (social) evils. That's where I suggested "the syllogism" (if this, then that; since it's like this, then it must necessarily mean that, at least when I went through a 4 -year university) failed. Thank you also for not trivializing things when I inadvertently misspelled the word (naughty keyboard!) as most others are wont to do here.

I do think that any guy in his twenties (or, say, a female twenty-something school teacher) has a screw loose if really attracted to a 17 yr old (or younger).

You are correct (re: "warping reality" at #51) insofar as biologically-speaking, post-pubescent teens are ready to reproduce, but that's related to the fact our long-ago ancestors tended not to live very long, generally speaking. But immediately post-pubescent teens aren't really ready (at least in modern times) for the consequences of sexual conduct (STD's, pregnancy & teen parenthood or adoption or abortion or miscarriage, you name it). Frankly, recent medical studies suggest a young woman's cervix has not even "matured" until she's 21-22, so sex before that age range also enhances her risk of cervical cancer (and her risk goes up with the number of serial partners until her cervix "matures").

By definition you are incorrect when you (at #51) suggest 17 year olds (in an 18 yr jurisdiction) can have "consensual" sex so that others are "warping reality". You may be right that they may feel and respond to biological drives, but they can't "consent," by law or under current mores, even if it's supposedly mutually acceptable (although legally illicit) sexual conduct.

Seventeen year olds may have the drive and may want to test-drive "the plumbing" but aren't mature enough, generally speaking, for the consequences, as above.That's also where NAMBLA has it wrong. Those clowns (and I'm not referring to South Park's" "Nat'l Ass'n of Marlon Brando Look Alikes"!) argue children act seductively and therefore do "consent" so that all consent rules should be thrown out. These folks are pedophiles and pederasts with a slogan of "sex before eight before it's too late" [close enough, anyway].

As for #52, I have neatly assumed away your 20 & 16 year old hypothetical couple by stating a twenty-something has a screw loose if really attracted to a 17 yr old (or younger)!

Okay, but more seriously, if they changed the consent law in Canada to age 18, then: a) 20 year olds would date people 18 and over and stop hanging around high schools (just like other sex offenders [just teasing you here!] must stay away, too!), or, b) Canada might "grandfather in" (deliberate pun) and "license" (deliberate pun) the older guys and their 16 year old girlfriends who were together before the enactment. (Optional: proof of prior consensual over-16 sex required and signed consent by all parents). Just as Ontario did when they grandfathered-in and "deemed" persons already over 18 as of the date of the enactment of a new (older) legal drinking age to be "of legal age for purchasing/consuming alcoholic beverages". So the argument about ten years later (and a "pariah') is of no moment, just as the cops & judge would turn a deaf ear to a 36 year old mom telling them she used to be able to drink at 18 and she could consent to sex 'way back when when she was just 16 (and thus begat) her 20 year old son now up for underage drinking (under 21) and for statutory rape of a sixteen year old.
Have a nice day.

Posted at 5:01AM on Apr 1st 2008 by Lou Shyster, Esq.

51. It should be noted that Mia Farrow and Woody were never actually married. They had three children during hte time they lived together, two adopted and one biological. All three have the last name "Farrow". The judge ordered visitation only with the bio son, and that was supervised. Mia had six children with her second husband Andre Previn., two of whom were adopted. One of them was Soon-Yi Previn. Technically Woody was never Soon-Yi's step father because he was never married to her mother, but he was the father to some of her siblings and a father figure to her. Though the relationship was highly inappropriate and disgusting, it was never incest by the legal definition.

Posted at 7:26AM on Apr 1st 2008 by Debik

52. The erudite and seemingly well constructed comments by #47, #49, #51,and #52, are a growig and disturbig trend by pro-ponents of pedophilia to use the long-term strategy and incorporate the idea of alledged intellectual, dicounted scientific and psychiatric academic anlysis, and similar academic analysis, as well as the outrageous and long ago refuted by scientific, criminalogy, legal, sociologica, and psychiatricac as well as psychological evidence that children do not posess the adult capacity to consent to let alone understand the ramificaitions let alone the actions of sex.

Noneheless, groups of pedophilles and other child sex deviant organizations globally continue this PR offensive, and you can see their tenacity by viewng sexually driven postings on every single child star on TMZ or any other such site on the internet,but sadly for them, they are mentaly distubed, and will always be an insignificant criminal minoriy in the world. But , they are profoundl dandgerous, and they cost the lives of millions of chidren in the world each year, so do not feel sorry for them, and #54, you seem to be an educated, intelligent, and well spoken individual, never apologize to a pedophile - you might as well hand him his next victim.

From, The Lancet (Medical Journal) ; 359:1417-1422: "prostitution is a significant global problem that has yet to receive appropriate medical and public health attention. Worldwide, an estimated 1 million children are forced into prostitution every year and the total number of prostituted children could be as high as 10 million. Inadequate data exist on the health problems faced by prostituted children, who are at high risk of infectious disease, pregnancy, mental illness, substance abuse, and violence. Child prostitution, like other forms of child sexual abuse, is not only a cause of death and high morbidity in millions of children, but also a gross violation of their rights and dignity." There is a clear nexus between prostitution and violence against children."

The individuals that wish to have the legisative movent to decrease the age of consent, are the same one' that want to legalize the child pornography industry, and are the one's that in the meantime utilize third world countries as a killing field for the blatant freedom of expression of their psychiatric illness - pedohillia.

So, in the end, it is up to you, the individual, whether you, allow, approve, or simply put a stop to these individuals. The proof is there people, every day in the news, the FBI reports, the Interpol reports, and the Medical Journal reports, and if you wish to find out what these people are really all about just look at the group N.A.M.B.L.A. or other related groups, and next time a story on Miley Cyrus or anyother child star is posted on TMZ or anyother website, watch the comments.

This is a county based on faith, principles, and morality, and wil always keep the monsters at bay.

Posted at 7:32AM on Apr 1st 2008 by Do Not Waste Your Time Arguing with Pedophilles

53. #47--You are agruing the critic Camille Paglia's views, that our Puritanical society over-reacted and that Allen's actions were not incestuous. But Paglia, like the public, had little real insight into the particulars of this unique family. His actions were furtive and stealthy, but they were discovered. His actions impacted others (Dylan and siblings) and disrupted Soon-yi's mother-daughter fealty. He put his own sexual desires over the well-being of his family; he effectively chose to rather have sex with his step-daughter than have a parental relationship with the remaining children. This was a major character flaw, this was narcissism .

I can't believe that intellectuals are still defending his behavior.But then, too, there are some who defended Roman Polanski's rape and drugging of a 13 year old girl. Yes, Allen is a talented artist, a good director and writer, and was reliably funny, but his inappropriate sexual dalliance with his step-daughter changed everything. And it was his clear, conscious choice to seduce her and he groomed her for years while she still lived with him as his daughter.

Let's stop defending the indefensible.

Posted at 7:47AM on Apr 1st 2008 by Carolyn (Abernathy)

54. I don't think you can use anyone's image in ads without permission, so I understand W.A. suing, but claiming the ads are damaging his moral integrity is a bit crazy. Also if I am reading between the lines here, did Allen agree to having the ads used overseas? So he was paid for the image being used, but didn't want it displayed in the USA? If that was agreed on in writing I would think the company should be sued.

Posted at 8:12AM on Apr 1st 2008 by nance

55. He would be wrong not to sue they used him for their ads without his permission without giving him money for it.
He needs to sue for MORE than 10 million

Posted at 8:18AM on Apr 1st 2008 by Silvia

56. #57 and #58,

I'm sorry that your own personal issues are so blinding and impacting for you that you can't allow other's to have intellectual an Socialogical, Cultural level discussions that hopefully will allow our culture and Society to grow and finally move into the 21st century in harmony and synchronicity with the rest of the world. You feel the need to sanction, chstise and abuse for what is a healthy, productive and benefitial and ultimutly fruitful discussion for society and individuals in the long run. It is unfortunately you who's thinking is distorted and jaded and I hope that you will eventually come to have a more balanced and reasonable understanding of abuse versus rights and personal freedoms in the future for your benefit as well as others.

Posted at 8:24AM on Apr 1st 2008 by USB

57. People, you need to quit using the post numbers to refer back to peoples' posts, because the numbers change and it gets confusing who said what. Thanks.

Posted at 1:26PM on Apr 1st 2008 by tjx

58. Number #60 and #61, without the benefit of disclosure or any relevant jurisprudential analysis, you have both fomed definite opinions on the case that this pedophile should make for recovering alledged damages. Well, I applaude your ability to do something most first semester law students would be unwillng to do, but having said that, may I add a simple suggestion, since on WestLaw you will be able to find the Family law rulings involving this pedophile and the life long damage he has caused to the children he left in Mia Farrows care with insufficient support, perhaps, any and all damage rewards should be immediately seized and put into a trust for the treatment, education, and life of his past, present, and future victims. Now, that would be the proper and ethical use of the law.

Posted at 8:31AM on Apr 1st 2008 by #60 and #61 are absolutely right sue and then give the money to his victims

59. USB, there is a simple rebuttal to your attempt attempt at a responable response, simply provide your real name,date of birth, address, and I will gaurnatee that you are indeed a registered member of a pedophille support group or a registered sex offender, law enforcement, academic,, and psychiatric journals and studies have thousads of objective as well as independent works and profiles of individuals with your proclivities and attititudes.

The government provides free and heavily compensated psychiatric and psychological treatment for proactive outreach for individuals with your attitudes and dysfunctions.

And, for your information, even Dr. Dworkin, prior to death, a strong advocate for the legalization of adult prostitution, was unable to justify the stand because of the pedophilic communities influence in creating a global market for child prostitution, trafficking, and pornography.

Social evolution is based on principles of intellectaul, cultural, ethical, gender, and political advancement. And, not the de-humanization and sexualization of our children.

Your movement will always lose, parents will always protect their chidren from the monsters in the dark.

Posted at 8:43AM on Apr 1st 2008 by USB simply sign your real name, DOB, and address

60. Oh, geez, jokes about Woody Allen's (adopted at 18 years old) daughter. How original and unique.

Posted at 9:05AM on Apr 1st 2008 by Todd Hunter