@105 Dunno what you're talking about, I'm not defending Polanski. Polanski is guilty of rape, no question about that.
@ 107, when I read what you wrote, it struck me as saying the only real difference between Polanski's victim and Allen's onetime girlfriend was their ages. If that's incorrect, I apologize.
#97 Allen married his children's sister while he was still in a relationship with the girl’s mother. His behavior was beyond fucked up. It was selfish to the point of pathological and extremely impulsive. Combine that with his dating a teenager and his fixation on young teen girls (it's really easy to look this up) and Allen's behavior is highly suspect. Mia Farrow's behavior is also questionable. No one has any idea what really happened. But either way it is reasonable for people to not be the least bit surprised if either party, Allen or Mia Farrow, was found guilty of what they are accused of.
Uh, gee. For all the 'there's no rape culture! Where do you see rape culture??' people: my god. Are you listening to yourselves? She's FINALLY FINALLY FINALLY saying something one hillion jillion years afterwards, and she is basically being called a vengeful liar who was manipulated by her mother - who ALSO was torn apart for publicly defending her daughter against a sexual predator. And at the same time, I guess you're all imagining that there is some amazing reward in store for her, for having come forward, right? Because bitchez be crazy, or whatever the god damn fuck you think might be the motivation here.

So for you people, I have a question: What would the benefits POSSBILY BE of reporting a rape, molestation, etc. by your INCREDIBLY FAMOUS, WIDELY-and-UNFAIRLY-PRESUMED-INNOCENT father soaking in famous-white-man privilege!? I can not fucking fathom the depths of the ignorance and fuckery in defending this child rapist. What does she stand to gain, exactly? Because as you can fucking see for yourselves, the defenders of the very-likely-rapist number in the ka-jillions, and those who believe her, so far in this thread, I can count on less that one hand. AND THAT IS REPRESENTATIVE EVERYWHERE this story (and pretty much every rape story everywhere, sadly) is being discussed. Now tell me: what is her motivation, again? You fucking god damned assholes.

Listen to yourselves jump to the defense of a man who waves every fucking red flag possible. And how much less than zero is the reading on the compassion-meter registering for his victim(s). You would have to believe that rapists were unicorns that no one has ever encountered in real life even to start to pick her apart, you inexcusable douche-canoes. THAT IS THE WEBSTER'S DEFINITION of rape culture. Where the rapists are constantly, constantly, constantly, given the benefit of the doubt, and the victims are given a wholesale evisceration, and the idea that rape might actually happen to human beings is some kind of fairy tale. God. Damn.
I love you, happyhedonist. And I feel you. Truly. You aren't taking crazy pills, neither is poor Cappellati and neither am I. But it really feels like it, doesn't it? Sometimes I think I'm just gonna lose it. I wonder how many women and girls are reading this shite online and have major triggering events? It's such a lonely feeling--and so supremely depressing. Frankly, I'm amazed we're not all barking mad.

Hey, has anyone *ever* known a woman who came out and told her hideous story of rape who then had it proven that it did not happen? Or was implanted in her head as a child? Because, though I know many survivors of rape and incest, I have never met even one who lied. But apparently, all these men have. Who were they, boys? And why do they stick in your minds so much more than the stories of your own mothers, sisters, lovers and daughters? Because that is who you betray.
You can bet if Woody Allen was a black man and his accuser was a white woman, Anzel would be giving him the benefit of the doubt.
"I'm not saying she's LYING or that she's committing a CRIME, just that she's too crazy and empty-headed to know what she's saying and that we shouldn't listen to her." Yes, that's not in any way propping up Woody Allen's credibility by undermining his probable victim, not rape-culturey at all.

1 -- why is it extraordinary? Sexual abuse is all too ordinary. And do you really intend to say that if a rape leaves no evidence, as many don't, survivors should expect to be interrogated as to their veracity everywhere they go?
@113: Implanted memories happen, and they do so under the same circumstances as happened with Dylan Farrow--someone the child cares about being upset, and asking a lot of leading questions. The kid wants to please the adult, and gives the answers they think the adult wants to hear. This happened in the early 90s, the heyday of false memories, before interviewing techniques were refined.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, and marries ex's adopted daughter, it's a fucking rapist.
Well, her own brother who was there the day in question doesn't believe her. he must also be a 'rape culture' promoter:

"Of course Woody did not molest my sister. She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him. The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces. My mother was conveniently out shopping. I don't know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother. Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible."

Moses Farrow, people Magazine
Cases of implanted memories do happen, and possibly happened in this situation, but it's important to note that they don't occur nearly as often as actual rape or molestation. A bizarre number of people seem unable to understand this.
So if you don't believe Satanist cults were raping and eating babies in the 90s, you support rape culture.
No, I didn't say that. You said that. And you're being ridiculous.
Most of the warning signs of child sexual abuse are emotional, not physical.…

"6. Myth: Child victims of sexual abuse will have physical signs of the abuse.
Frequently, an absence of physical evidence is often used as support that a perpetrator must be innocent of an alleged sexual assault. The truth is that abnormal genital findings are rare, even in cases where abuse has been factually proven by other forms of evidence. Many acts leave no physical trace. Injuries resulting from sexual abuse tend to heal very quickly, and many times, exams of child victims do not take place on the same day as the alleged act of abuse."
Guys, it's simple.

If you want to "withhold judgement" on Woody Allen's guilt or innocence, the way to do that is to keep your mouth shut unless you've seen enough evidence to be objectively convinced one way or another (and, with the statute of limitations up, it's unlikely that any resources will really be devoted into gathering actual evidence).

However, when you insinuate that Farrow is lying and speculate on all the possible reasons she might have to do so (or just flat-out call her a "lying cunt"), you are NOT withholding judgment. You are simply condemning her without evidence, the same way you claim to abhor seeing others do to Allen. This is the point the author is trying to make: specifically defending Allen is not the same as withholding your opinion, and doing so does wind up being a de facto condemnation of Farrow.

Granted, we're not a grand jury. We're just a bunch of commenters on a web page. It's OK for us to speculate and insinuate. But as you do so, don't claim that you're bravely championing the American value of "innocent until proven guilty" by accusing an alleged rape victim of being a lying slut.

And as long as we're insinuating, it's important to keep in mind the relative likelihood of different scenarios. Which means that everyone should read comment #117 and think on it before they belch out their next little theory.
@121 I don't care if people think Farrow and her daughter are right. It doesn't bother me at all. I don't think people who think Allen is guilty are evil feminazis. What bothers me is being accused of supporting rape culture because I have a different opinion based on my interpretation of the evidence.

I can think Polanski deserves to be in jail and Allen not at the same time without being in contradiction.

I think Michael Jackson was a pedo, even though he was never found guilty. But I don't think people who think he was innocent are defenders of rape culture. They have an opinion that I judge is wrong and that's it. Unless they say that the boys deserved to be raped or they had it easy (poor kids getting money in exchange for getting blowjobs), or say that all children are liars, then it's not rape culture. In the end, Jackson was never found guilty and everyone settled out of court. All I have is a suspicion, not fate.

To say that not believing an accusation based on evidence is rape culture is a gross distortion of that concept. I never said she asked for it. I never minimized it. I don't believe it happened. If Allen was making a crazy accusation I wouldn't trust him either. But in that case it's Mia Farrow making the accusation, she's nutso (you can't deny that) and the evidence isn't on her side. So I'm perfectly justified to hold judgment without supporting rape culture.
Credibility with regards to pedophily, of anybody who is friendly with Polanski, is null.

I agree with Eva Hopkin's post.

I believe there was a sexual molestation of Dylan Farrow. Because what she describes is not one isolated molestation part, but plenty of sexual grooming beforehand.

As for why would she out with it now. Most victims of childhood sexual abuse speak out in their thirties. Because only then do they feel sufficietly secure to do so. In their 10s they shut up. In their 20s they want to create a life for themselves and to forget about it all. In their 30s they realize they can't get away from it, and they have to deal with it, or they'll become nuts and/or kill themselves.

There is also pedophilic boasting of Allen before that :
"I'm open-minded about sex. I'm not above reproach; if anything, I'm below reproach. I mean, if I was caught in a love nest with 15 12-year-old girls tomorrow, people would think, yeah, I always knew that about him."

I mean, who finds 12-years-old sexually appealing but some pedophiles ?

and recently, his triggreing jokes about an adult molested as a child :…
"Inexperienced ? He turned me this way, he turned me that way. That's when I knew he needed reading glasses"

As for Dylan's virginity and whether there are/were scars in her vagina... don't be silly. A girl has two holes, and don't pedophiles know all about that.
And also the part over trying to contact her and making her want to contact her, not fo the sake of himself, but for the sake of his wife and daughters :

"Dylan says she's avoided Allen ever since. But in the Vanity Fair interview, she says he did try to contact her twice by mail. The second time, a large envelope with a stranger's return address arrived in her college mailbox. Although she says she "should have recognized the handwriting," Dylan opened the envelope. It was full of pictures of her with Allen and accompanied by a note that read:

"I thought you'd want some pictures of us, and I want you to know that I still think of you as my daughter, and my daughters think of you as their sister. Soon-Yi misses you."

It was signed "Your father.""

I have received the same type of letter from my pedophile father, minus the pictures.
@123: I took the 'he' in that quote to refer to Sam, and not to Uncle Shlomo.
To bonefish, sissoucat, and all the other commenters valiantly wading through the truly depressing rape culture apologist posts on this thread: thank you. You have a stronger stomach than me. I'm sure there are people learning from what you write, even if the loudest people on this thread can't.
@17: Except that her daughter brought this up, not her. Which makes it creepier.
@127: Sissoucat's voluminous ramblings on the Amanda Knox threads demonstrate that he or she:

A) will always jump to a presumption of guilt -- the more heinous the accusation the better;
B) indulges in extremely selective presentation of evidence -- the more hearsay-based and logically-contorted the better; and
C) views the pursuit of vengeance against those he or she thinks have done wrong as a personal quest.

A jury of 12 Sissoucats would be capable of the most heinous miscarriages of justice.
122: Doubting any given rape case isn't what usually gets people accused of participating in rape culture. Nobody requires you to believe every accusation, and you're being disingenuous when you pretend like that's the case. Simply wondering if someone's innocent (unless the case is clearly obvious) won't, all by itself, get you accused of participating in rape culture by most people.

Whether or not you get accused of rape culture tends to depend on your rationale for doubting someone's guilt.

Do you doubt it because there are gaping, factual holes in the evidence and a clearly demonstrated motive on behalf of the accuser to levy a false accusation? Not rape culture. Do you simply want to withhold declaring whether or not the accused is guilty unless/until definitive evidence somehow surfaces? Also not rape culture.

Do you doubt his guilt because you've severely overestimated the abundance of women willing to levy false rape accusations for no reason and have decided, based on next to nothing, that this must also be the case here? Pretty fair to call that a part of rape culture.

Or maybe you doubt it because of some flaw the alleged victim has, which you believe automatically absolves the accused (as if flawed people and genuine molestation victims NEVER coincide). Also kinda rape culture-y.

Are you pretending that doubting the accuser’s account is somehow more “objective” than doubting the accused’s account? Are you grasping desperately at barely-related straws to rationalize your opinion on the case (such as your mentioning that the victim's mother is generically “crazy,” as if that is evidence of anything)? Are you treating the accused’s good reputation as actual evidence of their innocence? Are you accusing the accuser of “palpable bitchery” for bringing all this up? Are you generally trying to splice in some nefarious motive on behalf of the accuser with no proof (usually under the guise of “just asking questions”)? All these are more than fair to slap with the “rape culture” label, and hopefully you can see the very obvious differences between these fallacies and actual reasonable sources of doubt.

I’m not saying you, specifically, are doing all of these. I’m just saying that when you observe someone (whether or not it’s you) being accused of perpetuating rape culture, make sure they aren’t taking one of these flawed approaches before you decide that they’re just being frantically condemned by some crazed loon for merely doubting a certain case.


You're welcome. Helping out other survivors, by letting the public know about what we suffer, is also a path to healing.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.