Before giving Woody Allen a pass for dating an "older" teen/ young adult, read this:

[Squinch]

31. This is the crux of my problem with this discussion. There is an assumption that

Dylan is telling a story that never happened, and yet, for example, there is an assumption that children or teens who accuse priests are all reporting accurately. There is an insistence that because Woody is innocent till proven guilty, we shouldn't suggest he's a pedophile without a conviction, and yet no such qualms are there for others accused of pedophilia.

Why is Dylans story assumed to be untrue or imagined? People are not even considering that she might be telling the truth, and they don't seem to understand that that possibility is there to consider. Why is Woody immune to the same attitude that is routinely leveled at priests and other pedophiles here at DU? I think it was Blanche Splanchnick who asked whether it was because the accuser was female, but priests' accusers are sometimes female too.

And not only is the defense of Woody Allen something that we would never see if someone else was accused of pedophilia, like for example a priest, but also, the defense seems so desperate. It seems like these posters are so insulted and irate that his guilt or her innocence should be suggested.

I absolutely do not understand this.