The citation is page 54 of John Baxter’s Woody Allen: A Biography. Incidentally, if every 20-year-old guy who married a 17-year-old girl that he had been dating for a little more than a year. was thrown into jail, the prisons would explode. Do you have any memory of 1956? Those sorts of ages for marriage were common.
Also, Rosen’s parents knew about their dating and didn’t stop it. Their real objection to the marriage was that Allen was an intelligent Jewish boy who wasn’t studying to become a doctor. He was a college dropout who was doing some job related to the entertainment industry.
Who said anything about imprisoning him? His first wife Harlene Rosen age 17, then 17 year old Stacey Nelkin, then Soon Yi. he gets older but he goes right back to barely legal girls.
I don’t understand the support he gets.
Magiver, the reference to prison was a joking analogy. Do you not understand the idea of a joke? Do you not understand the idea of an analogy? Of course I wasn’t suggesting that Allen should be imprisoned. Do you know anything about what life in 1956 was like? My point was that 20-year-old men marrying 17-year-old women who they had been dating for a year was reasonably common in 1956, and it wasn’t thought of then as if it was child abuse. Indeed, the things that are commonly thought of as child abuse today is much broader than it was back then. The term “child abuse” didn’t even exist until the 1960’s.
A 17-year-old women getting married to a 20-year-old man wasn’t a big deal back then. Nobody would ever thought to themselves, “Oh, no, she’s marrying a man three years older than her. That’s so terrible.” The point that I was making with my joking analogy was that that kind of marriage was so common that nobody really thought it was a big deal.
There’s nothing wrong with dating ‘barely legal girls’, if they’re in fact legal. (17 is borderline, since the ‘federal’ age of consent/adulthood is 18, but Ms. Previn was 18 or 19 at the time, and unquestionably legal in every state).
There were a million other things wrong with Woody Allen being involved with Ms. Previn (viz., the quasi-family connection), her age doesn’t even enter into it. And no, I have no particular fondness or interest in supporting him, per se, just taking issue with the apparently problem you have with men dating younger women in general.
I think a lot of people wouldn’t consider it a big deal now.
Woody Allen certainly has, or at least had, a thing for young women, and his marrying the daughter of his un-married spouse was way out there, but he’s now (depending on the dates used) been married to her for about 17 years and has been in a relationship with her for about 23 years, so something about the two of them seems to have worked, despite having arisen out of something barely legal on two counts. I wouldn’t put Allen in the same category as Polanski, who drugged and anally raped a young teenager.
You’re a piece of work, aren’t you?
You said
I clarified that they were in fact not living together. So you move the goalposts.
Pedophilia is defined as desire for prepubescent children. Whether you like it or not, that’s what it means.
And since I dare to disagree with you, I am “uh huh” defending Allen? Is that the best you can do - attack people who disagree with you? I guess you really don’t need facts?
Allen and Farrow were never living together and he didn’t sleep over. Soon-Yi has always been extremely clear that she never even met Allen until after her mid-teens and never saw him as a father figure, just her mom’s boyfriend.
Yes, that’s still creepy as hell, but not as twisted as many make it out to be.
Beyond that, I don’t think Allen is really comparable to Polanski once you scratch below the surface.
The evidence against Allen was never nearly as strong as the evidence against Polanski.
Strange as it sounds, Allen and Farrow never lived together. He always maintained his own residence. To Farrow’s children, he was the occasional visitor who was in a long-term relationship with their mother. Even after he adopted some of them, he didn’t live with them. Farrow’s children actually never saw their mother and Allen enter a bedroom together. Soon-Yi always considered Andre Previn to be her (adopted) father.
Also, if it’s really true that Farrow was also occasionally sleeping with Frank Sinatra at the time of Ronan’s conception, as Farrow now claims, I wonder what you think of Farrow as a mother.
Until you bring in the fact that his daughter Dylan claims he molested her.
Thanks, I stand corrected. I’d put Allen and Polanski in the same basket with respect to Polanski’s anal rape of a youngster, and Allen’s ongoing ick and alleged sexual touching of his spouse’s young daughter. I wouldn’t put them in the same basket when it comes to Allen and his now long term spousal relationship with another of his spouse’s daughters.
BTW, for those who are interested, here is the Allen v. Farrow custody/access judgement. It’s safe for work, but not safe for the soul.
Re Allen: It doesn’t matter how often someone says Farrow was his spouse, that still doesn’t make it true. They were not married and therefore she was not his spouse. Also, it doesn’t matter how often someone says Previn is Allen’s son’s sister, it doesn’t make her Allen’s daughter, stepdaughter, or adoptive daughter. In fact, there is no kinship relationship between Previn and Allen other than their current one: she is his actual spouse.
I mean, yes, but it certainly was traumatic for his other children (who considered her a sister).
It is pretty messed up though to cheat on your girlfriend with her teenage daughter. Even if he didn’t have children with Mia, that alone makes him a creep.
A prosecution wouldn’t have required it. Or required anything really besides a prosecutor aware of the case and willing to prosecute it. But a successful prosecution would certainly have required the cooperation of either the American authorities or the victim, and probably both.
However, there’s no “pursuing extradition instead”. The extradition of a French citizen is right off the table. French law doesn’t allow it (except recently for some crimes with some European countries, but that’s a novelty). American authorities have requested extradition from other countries, but not from France. The options were having him tried in France or not tried at all.
It’s possible that they deliberatly didn’t request him to be prosecuted in France because they prefered the trial to take place in the US and thought at the time that they would eventually get him someday, I wouldn’t know. Or maybe they didn’t care enough about the case. This is very possible, since statutory rape wasn’t as much of a big deal at the time as it is now. Or maybe they thought/were told that France wouldn’t bother prosecute him and so didn’t even try. No clue.
Yes, and I mentioned it. French courts are competent for crimes commited in France, or when the victim is a French citizen, or, in this case, when the accused is a French citizen, regardless of where the crime was commited, providing it was a crime in both juridictions (which it clearly was).
A 20 yo dating (and marrying) a 17 yo would be considered a big deal? Huh?
What? Have you not been paying attention – it wasn’t just statutory rape. She didn’t consent, and in fact said no several times. This wasn’t just a case of an older man sleeping with an underage girl.