RE: Hello Captain Obvious!!! LOL!!! But, what happened to my wife extended into the 70s. Everyone familiar with her knew about it, so your threats to look up who we are and expose her father’s identity are laughable as well.
You see, you can’t even understand what a person is thinking.
You use the word “threats” as if I am doing this to you.
What I am saying is this -— PEOPLE WILL KNOW HER FATHER’s IDENTITY SHOULD SEE DECIDE TO TELL HER STORY.
RE: Except that your response illustrates that you yourself threaten to use a survivors story against her. This makes you a pathetic excuse for a man, just like your hero the pretend tough guy.
1) I never threatened anyone (please re-read my post). I said PEOPLE WILL KNOW. Heck people she knows and who know her probably already know who her father is.
Should someone tell her story and (like the Natalie Wood articles supposedly told hers ), and cloak it in words like “someone related to her”, heck, people can put two and two together.
Such is NOT the case with Natalie Wood. There were many powerful Hollywood moguls then, how do you know that it is Douglas they were referring to when they never gave a name?
2) That you would repeat that silly tripe that Kirk Douglas is some sort of “hero” to me (Your words not mine ) despite my total denials and caveats simply shows that your intent is NOT to understand my point ( after I already repeated them ad nauseuam ) but to ATTACK ME PERSONALLY.
In fact, your use of the words “Pedophile defender” to attack me already shows that you are losing the argument.
Any decent, reasonable person would accomodate my demands by providing me with the evidence I asked for. You have not done that. What you are doing is simply insulting me and then insinuating that I am “threatening” you.
I even wonder whether you bother to understand what I am asking for for me to change my mind. No wonder you’re not convincing.
RE: In the 70s, no one, not the police, not my wife’s dad’s superiors in the army, not her teachers, not her mother’s family, not her doctors, or dentists ever did anything about it. And when she did tell people about it later, many did not really feel sympathetic to her, many used it against her... just like you.
STOP THERE. What do the words “just like you” mean? You are again trying to read my mind.
I WOULD BELIEVE HER. ESPECIALLY IF HER MOTHER, HER BROTHER AND SISTER SUPPORTED WHAT SHE SAID. especially if her mother had the bruises to show for it. Her brain aneurysm is EVIDENCE as well. You have PLENTY OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW. Where are Natalie Wood’s evidence?
I am sorry again that as you said, nobody believed her. BUT THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM SAYING THAT JUST BECAUSE IN YOUR PARTICULAR CASE, IT UNFORTUNATELY HAPPENED, IT WOULD HAPPEN IN EVERY CASE.
I am not so stupid to believe that just because there was injustice in Place X in America, injustice would occur everywhere.
But again, I repeat, your wife’s case is DIFFERENT from Natalie Wood’s case.
Your wife has PLENTY OF EVIDENCE. Natalie Wood has not shown one evidence.
Had her mother pressed charges, there were PLENTY OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW.
RE: Someone should lecture you on historical social norms because you are an ignorant fool.
NOPE, DISAGREE. YOU ARE USING YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE TO EXTRAPOLATE IT TO AN ENTIRE COUNTRY. The 1970’s was not the 1950’s and neither was the 1960’s. I reject your characterization.
RE: You have obviously led a sheltered life. I worked for 25 years on the streets of a large city known to be the most crime ridden city in a three state area.
HA HA HA. Sheltered heh. I worked in 5 different countries, speak 5 different languages and have experienced the good and bad of many cultures. I lived in New York City, the most culturally diverse city in America. Don’t lecture me about your mean streets experience.
The best you can say is that Your experience is DIFFERENT from mine and you are trying to extrapolate it to what might or might not have happened had Natalie Wood spilled the beans on Kirk Douglas ( IF HE DID IT ).
RE: Over the weekend I spoke to a woman who joined the army in the 70s. Her drill sergeant got her pregnant, and she wasn’t the first. She got kicked out of the army, nothing happened to him. They didn’t even change his assignment. The brass blamed her and the other women he got pregnant. That is the 70s you ignorant fool.
I saw two cases in NYC where secretaries charged their bosses ( big Wall Street executives ) with attempted rape. TWO SEPARATE CASES. Both successfully prosecuted because they could provide evidence. Yes, this was the 1970’s you fool. And such cases have been successfully prosecuted in the 80’s and 90’s up to now.
People are product of their experiences. You are trying to overgeneralize your experience to show that it happens in EVERY CASE. Again, I sympathize with you, but this sympathy does not mean that I should believe an accusation against someone else without good evidence.
So, here is what I want to say -— JUSTICE STILL WORKS IN THIS COUNTRY. It worked 50 years ago and it still works now. Otherwise, we might as well scrap all laws and all courts.
I’m sorry that your experience has caused you to feel that the oppressed women did not have a voice. But this is an error in reasoning. You are confusing SOME with ALL.
Now, I don’t want to talk about your wife at all. It is NONE OF MY BUSINESS and I wish you had never brought her up.
I want to talk specifically about Natalie Wood.
When the incident is alleged to have occurred, there was published news that at the time, was having an affair with 43 year old Nick Ray – director of her first big break in a mature role, Rebel Without A Cause.
Yep, this was in 1954 and 1955. She was still a teenager then. Don’t believe me? Here are some links:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/natalie-wood-death-rebel-without-266053
TITLE: How Natalie Wood Seduced Her Way Into ‘Rebel Without a Cause’
Director/Producer Nick Ray was already 44 years old.
Do you believe this article or not? If so, this does not sound like a girl who was traumatized by rape not too long ago.
READ THIS ARTICLE FROM THE BALTIMORE SUN:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2001-07-08-0107080329-story.html
The article states that she also had a “serious friendship” ( whatever that means ) with Frank Sinatra as a teen ( Sinatra was close to 40 then ). If true, then she does not look like the innocent, traumatized teen who was raped that you depict. Who to believe?
Then we have articles like this:
Wood’s romantic relationships seemed typically dysfunctional and short-lived. She had flings with, among others, Warren Beatty, Elvis, Steve McQueen, Frank Sinatra, and American politician Jerry Brown (whose manhood she described as being “like a wand”.)
So many stories about her relationships with men that we can’t make head or tail of what to believe.
Suffice it to say that if these stories are true, how do we know that the one who raped her ( if it happened ) was not any one of these men ( especially the Director Nick Ray )?
NOTE: knowing that you are a person who likes to jump into conclusions without bothering to try to understand what I am trying to say, let me clarify -— I don’t KNOW if I can believe half the allegations in these newspaper articles about Natalie Wood. All I am saying is this -— THERE ARE TOO MANY STORIES ABOUT HER such that we have to sort out fact from fiction. The difference is this -— you are peddling the Kirk Douglas “rape” story as A FACT without showing any evidence at all. You refer to other people’s writings just as I refer to these articles.
So let’s examine Kirk in 1955, described by the conspiranoids as “ultra-powerful in Hollywood, and a one-man money machine at the box office”.
Here’s what I gathered though: Douglas hadn’t been nominated for anything since 1952, and had still to make the films Paths of Glory (1957), The Vikings (1958), Spartacus (1960), Lonely are the Brave (1962) and Seven Days in May (1964). HIS BIGGEST AND MOST FAMOUS ROLES.
It was thought by some at the time, in fact, that Douglas made the Disney potboiler 20,000 Leagues under the Sea in 1954 because he needed the money.
At this point, other elements of the rape accusation begin to look increasingly feeble. Kirk Douglas did indeed need money, because he was busy putting a production company called Bryna together, in order to make himself independent of studio control. Far from seeing him as the golden boy, at least two studios were pissed off with him walking away from their contracts. The idea that – at such a sensitive time – Douglas would risk all as a result of an isolated sexual brainstorm is pretty far-fetched.
Natalie, meanwhile, was already a 3-time Oscar nominee fully tied up making Rebel Without a Cause and then publicising the movie as James Dean’s reputation grew during production. She was also already committed to a role in John Ford’s classic The Searchers.
She had no reason, motive or need to go visit Kirk Douglas about a part for an indie production company that might fold at any time.
But there is far more to the Douglas’s lifetime desire for independence than just money: only the previous year, he had married his wife Anne, with whom he stayed for 65 years.
He didn’t have a film to “cast” for in 1955, and he did not act in a casting role for Bryna: his only two motives were to make money and thus fund general quality control at all times. To describe him as some sort of all powerful Harvey Weinstein like character in Hollywood is simply an exaggeration.
But back to you -— SHOW ME. Again let me repeat this SHOW-ME EVIDENCE OTHER THAN SOME DOCUMENTARY THAT NEVER NAMED THE ALLEGED RAPIST in order for me to overlook the other articles about Natalie Wood.
Let me help you here so that you don’t have to refer to your wife or anybody in your life that I don’t know:
* The notes of Natalie’s therapist ( if it exists )
* A contemporaenous diary written by either her or those close to her who were supposedly in the know
* Any convincing document that NAMED — Kirk Douglas in the 1950’s.
Absent these -— I’m sorry, I remain skeptical.
The idea that she went to Douglas’s Hotel room about casting for a part without knowing the Hollywood score is thus, shall we say, a little open-minded? This was, lest we forget, 1955.
If that is not a threat, I do not know what is??? But you are right no one can read your mind. After trying to follow your posts I have concluded it is a jumbled mess of conflicting reasoning and attitudes. More than a few negative stereotypes come to mind
Probably the biggest flaw in your reasoning is that you refuse to acknowledge that there was a social stigma in the 50s, and in the 70s, that caused rape victims not to want to come forward. I had a fiancé who was raped in the 80s who refused to come forward. Even now most studies conclude that a third or less of rapes are reported. As I read through your posts it is pretty easy to understand why no woman has ever confided in you that she was raped.
Here we have an example of you threatening to expose my wife, her dad and me about domestic violence that she experienced growing up. There is less of a stigma against victims of domestic violence than there is against victims of rape, yet you felt that threatening us with exposure would cause me to shut up. I am not sure that you are even consciously aware of how your actions and words can and will be interpreted and would result in people and especially women not confiding in you.
As far as you being a New Yorker... from your writing style I doubt that would be any big surprise to anyone reading your posts. But no matter where you have resided, your mannerisms and thought process has most likely prevented many people both women and men from confiding in you. I know that I have shared way too much. Unfortunately, that has resulted in you leading a very sheltered life regardless of where you have worked. It is very obvious from your posts.