1923: The Art of Charm

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane

Pat, when K & C asked you, you said that you would leave your niece alone with Woody. A man whom the police said they had probable cause to put on trial for child molestation. My question to you is: is that thinking critically?

My niece is pushing 40 and a lesbian. Good luck, Woody.

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

My niece is pushing 40 and a lesbian. Good luck, Woody.

can u post pix of her pushing a lesbian?

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

And Mary Kay Letourneau is still married to the kid she started raping when he was 12. She's still a rapist and their relationship is still fucked up.

Soon-Yi was 20-21 by the time she seduced her mother's boyfriend, so I fail to see any similarity.

Plus, MKL did 7 years for fucking that kid and still came out in love with him, so I think you should show some respect.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by JSZilla

I wasn't aware we knew for a fact Woody manipulated Soon Yi into doing anything. There certainly are some facts that seem to point to the possibility. But that is what is called circumstantial evidence. I am glad you mentioned Stockholm though, because that could be said why she is still with him as a counter to "yo dawg, I heard your heart likes what it likes". I was just thinking that this morning actually. If she was fucked with, why would she stick around. Other than money.

Soon-Yi Speaks: 'Let's Not Get Hysterical'

[Bucho]

Originally Posted by Keith

Where's my link? Where's your proof that those pictures were on the up and up? And who knows if there even WERE pictures?

Eat a dick.

Only one of us claimed he has a source. And only one of us insists on steering attention away from the mountain of facts Pat has provided and onto his meaningless throwaway lines. And you accuse Pat of playing games?

Eat three dicks and a hysterical testicle Tricksy McGhoo.

[Enunciated Piffle]

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by TAFKAP

So, Pat's stance is that a teenage girl has enough sense to have a relationship with her mother's ex-lover, but a grown woman doesn't have enough sense to know whether or not she was molested?

I hear and appreciate your point of view. There are reasons most people don't engage in these kind of May-December romances and those reasons are, in my opinion, generally valid.

I also understand that there's an emotional truth that exists simultaneous to the literal truth, which is that such a thing is legal and technically ok. That's the root of your feeling (which you struggle to articulate) that it's "just wrong."

My biggest concern would be that the younger person hadn't dated enough people yet to see and understand the relative quality of his/her relationship with the older person, and how things might be different with another person. I often understand issues better in my current relationship by looking at past relationships, seeing patterns and many other things of value.

However, this would be the case even if the couple in question were both similarly aged. As neither of the partners has significant experience in relationships, it's arguably worse for a 20-year-old to settle down with someone their own age.

Ultimately, for me it would depend on whether the much older person in the equation TRULY cared for the younger person, and whether or not this person had the foresight and wisdom to act in the younger's best interest.

I would argue that Woody deeply cared for Soon-Yi, but unfortunately didn't have the foresight or wisdom to understand how harshly Mia, and in fact most of the world, would react to their affair.

My interpretation is that he was blinded by his new affection for Soon-Yi, especially as it stood in contrast with his relationship with Mia. It's well-documented that Mia had been steadily distancing herself from Woody since her pregnancy with Satchel (now Ronan) in 1986. I believe that by 1990, this distance had created a void in which this romance had an opportunity to grow. And with the excitement of feeling something good again, Woody proceeded without enough caution.

Of course, this is just informational. Further information, Mia was 21 when she MARRIED Frank Sinatra who was 51. Slightly less than the age difference between Woody and Soon-Yi, and without the family connotations. But considering the distant nature of Woody's interaction with the Farrow-Previn children (and this is supported in the text of Judge Wilk's ruling in the custody case, which was boldly anti-Woody), I give that familial context almost zero weight.

Woody, in fact, has always understood peoples' judgments of his relationship with Soon-Yi, and said "I'll take the heat." His quotes to this effect are easy to find. I respect that fact that he doesn't expect people not to wag their fingers at him.

However, Woody and Soon-Yi have been happily married since 1997 which is longer than most marriages last, and they have adopted two children. All things considered, I would place this as a better example of sane and balanced parenting than what Mia has done.

Until such a time as feminists (or anyone who would advance this point of view that young women don't know what they're doing) are willing to put an asterisk next to everything an 18-20 year old woman says or writes partially disclaiming it's value, or attribute her only a partial vote in a general election, I think it would be only fair to give them the same courtesy in deciding who to date. If they can pick the president, I think they can pick their boyfriend. And if they pick their mom's boyfriend, then they should take some heat for that.

To say young women are fully empowered and knowledgeable in the ways of the world, EXCEPT when the choices they make seem creepy to you and your favorite podcast hosts, is to dis-empower them at your convenience and for the sake of your own comfort, and to force your values on her.

When viewed as being automatically naive and stupid, young women only have the power of choice you're willing to grant them, as you don't even allow them to accept responsibility for their choices, placing that all on whatever man is in the picture, who happens to be outside the age range which is arbitrary in the minds of whatever disinterested and uninvolved judging parties.

And what's that range, by the way? And who decides it?

Do most young women get duped into dating or fucking 50-year-old men? No, of course not. Is that because there's a shortage of 50-year-old men who want to fuck them? No, of course not. It's because they don't want to. And the ones that don't want to, don't. Because they're too smart and savvy to get duped by some old man's bullshit.

And the ones who do want to, do it. Because they're legally entitled and they can get as weird as they want. You're free to think its gross, but if you blame the man every time a woman fucks an old guy, you're selling young women short. They're not as dumb as you think they are.

And why is it when an older woman goes after a much younger man, she's celebrated as a "cougar" instead of being condemned as a "creepy old lady"? Why do we generally not have the slightest concern for the well-being of a "young stud" who gets plucked for the entertainment of a wily old beast?

Consider whether you truly grant women FULL equality, or if you grant them equality only when it's convenient and doesn't challenge your emotional truth. There are many challenges in truly assessing the equality of men and women, and many of those challenges fall to men in terms of adjusting our levels of respect, courtesy and, yes, pay!

But sometimes when fairness demands an adjustment to our deeply engrained assumptions about the relative power of men and women, it's the protective instinct that has to be shouted down. After all, young women have changed the course of history at times by manipulating much older men. Gold diggers tip fortunes into their bank accounts. And home wreckers…well, you know.

And thanks but I decline your invitation to call Dylan Farrow a liar, or to say she doesn't have any sense. Your little sloganeering post was cute though.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

Hey Pat Dixon,

on your very hilarious and enjoyable NYC Crime Report podcast you often trash a newspaper for being salacious and misleading.

Is it the NY Times or Washington Post? I can't remember.

I never read any of those rags!

Ny Post is salacious but only misleading in a good way, to make the headlines more interesting, you're probably thinking of that. Thanks for your comment!

[Enunciated Piffle]

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

Hey Pat Dixon,

It's interesting that you point out that unless a victim is substantiated; they remain simply an accuser.

Why do you, personally, guess as to why Dylan Farrow has accused Woody of molesting her?

I'm really curious. Hope you answer this. Thanks.

I don't personally guess things, that would compromise my integrity as a journalist. And although Dylan's claims of victimization, despite all the efforts of the DA and the state police, have never been substantiated, I decline your invitation to call Dylan Farrow a liar, albeit indirectly. I'm surprised you don't know me better than that!

According to the Yale-New Haven Child Sex Abuse Clinic who worked on the case for half a year and interviewed Dylan and everyone else involved at the time:

“It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”

Dylan's brother Moses says this:

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."

Woody Allen himself:

Not that I doubt Dylan hasn’t come to believe she’s been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root? Is it any wonder the experts at Yale had picked up the maternal coaching aspect 21 years ago?