Bryan Singer sex abuse allegations

[Rincewiend]

Not only that, pedophilie is about pre-pubescent kids...
So the wrong term to use in this case...
Not saying it's ok for anybody in a position like Singer(director) to abuse it for coerced/forced sex, but just that the man sueing Singer was a 17 year old teen/young adult, not a pre-pubescent kid...
Right now fashion photographer Terry Richardson is in the news for allegdly similair abuse of power/position...
http://jezebel.com/5494634/meet-terry-richardson-the-worlds-most-fked-up-fashion-photographer

 

[Guy Gardener]

Lets talk about how a movie director/star would coerce a 17 year old into sex where it is legal to #### a 17 year old.

"I have a hot tub, some blow and a lot of booze... Lets get naked."

Anyone earning moderately above minimum wage can do that a couple times a year.

But if this is illegal, that less attractive people who have worked hard can't use their money to impress very attractive people, then there is almost no reason to work hard if beggars in the gutter are operating on a level playing field.

 

[IndyJones]

Let's make sure we keep out of TNZ territory here folks. Fine to discuss it but not fine to duke it out over who's the bigot.

Is that possible?

The OP has a well-known anti-gay bias. And in the first post of this thread he somehow managed to conflate a Director being accused of sexual intercourse with a 17 year old with introducing a hidden agenda into a movie that makes it seem likes it's "Ok to recruit young straight kids into a gay lifestyle and convert them." That's nonsense, and it *is* an argument used only by bigots.

There was a point where it was ok to discuss ethnic minorities as being less than the white normal. That wasn't bigotry, it was the way of the world. Thankfully, we've moved beyond that.

Should we really only be able to discuss this in a hidden forum, when what he posts in the public fora is derogatory and discriminatory?

 

[Amaris]

'X-Men' director Bryan Singer accused of sexually abusing 17-year-old boy in 1999: The plaintiff in the lawsuit was named as Michael F. Egan III, a resident of Nevada. The lawsuit alleges that Singer "manipulated his power, wealth, and position in the entertainment industry to sexually abuse and exploit the underage Plaintiff through the use of drugs, alcohol, threats, and inducements." The lawsuit further alleges that Singer was part of a group of powerful men in the entertainment industry who "maintained and exploited boys in a sordid sex ring."

So, the X-men movies aren't just metaphors for accepting homosexuality, but for the less-innocuous idea of older gay men grooming teenagers to join their secret group (kind of casts a new angle over "Apt Pupil" as well)?

'X-Men' director Bryan Singer's accuser details alleged sex abuse at 15 years old: A man who claims he was sexually abused by "X-Men" franchise director Bryan Singer said Thursday that he reported the molestation to authorities at the time, and he does not know why charges were never pursued.

Singer's a film director. That's the ultimate pedo "get out of jail free" card. Just ask Roman Polanski and Woody Allen

But, seriously, there's been a certain amount of chatter recently, including from some former child actors, about there being a tolerance in Hollywood for sexually abusing young people. Whether or not Singer has been a beneficiary of that tolerance remains to be seen. In the more general sense, however, one wonders if the industry shouldn't be looked at more carefully.

I'm not defending Singer, as he may be innocent, he may be guilty, it's too soon to know, but this shit:

So, the X-men movies aren't just metaphors for accepting homosexuality, but for the less-innocuous idea of older gay men grooming teenagers to join their secret group (kind of casts a new angle over "Apt Pupil" as well)?

Needs to fuck right the fuck off, and shame on you for even suggesting it.

 

[Venardhi]

17 although not legal some places, is legal in a lot of other places, so while legally Bryan is a paedophile in this instance because of geography, 500 miles in several directions from where he fucked that boy, he wouldn't be.

No, he isn't legally a paedophile. He is legally an (alleged) rapist. This isn't that hard a concept.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Rape by deception is a weak call, depending on the colour of the lie being told.

Bryan created a situation full of wealth and celebrity which docilated the boy into being more compliant and agreeable.

Any woman that has ever had sex because a man said that her eyes are pretty, when they are not, can sue for rape by deception. When really did Bryan tell any lies or create an unreal world surrounding him? If this went down how we assume it went down... "I'm so awesome it would be moronic not to fuck me." And lets face it, Bryan Singer is kinda awesome if you are into movies.

Persons of either gender allow themselves to be told lies, or receive bribes like flowers, chocolate and jewellery, so that they can squeeze sex out of the only people precocious enough to offer it readily without references or an std panel: Douche bags.

From the link on page one...

This is paedophilia...

"Hollywood has a problem with the sexual exploitation of children," Egan's attorney, Jeff Herman, told The Hollywood Reporter. "This is the first of many cases I will be filing to give these victims a voice and to expose the issue."

And this is also paedophilia...

"Hollywood has a problem with the sexual exploitation of children," Egan's attorney, Jeff Herman, told The Hollywood Reporter. "This is the first of many cases I will be filing to give these victims a voice and to expose the issue."

But this is regular rape...

The suit details one encounter in which Egan claims Singer asked Egan to perform oral sex on him by the Encino estate's pool. When Egan refused, Singer pushed his head underwater before sexually assaulting him.

Tricking a child into agreeing to become compromised seems to be the first prong of their grievance, being gay is second, and holding the kids head underwater while receiving a blow job is a distant third.

Besides, if it was really a problem, at the time, if it happened, you bite down hard.

Only a moron risks castration by angering the person blowing him.

 

[beamMe]

17 although not legal some places, is legal in a lot of other places, so while legally Bryan is a paedophile in this instance because of geography, 500 miles in several directions from where he fucked that boy, he wouldn't be.

No, he isn't legally a paedophile. He is legally an (alleged) rapist. This isn't that hard a concept.

Why did you feel the need to put brackets around the word "alleged"?

 

[BillJ]

Let's make sure we keep out of TNZ territory here folks. Fine to discuss it but not fine to duke it out over who's the bigot.

Is that possible?

The OP has a well-known anti-gay bias. And in the first post of this thread he somehow managed to conflate a Director being accused of sexual intercourse with a 17 year old with introducing a hidden agenda into a movie that makes it seem likes it's "Ok to recruit young straight kids into a gay lifestyle and convert them." That's nonsense, and it *is* an argument used only by bigots.

There was a point where it was ok to discuss ethnic minorities as being less than the white normal. That wasn't bigotry, it was the way of the world. Thankfully, we've moved beyond that.

Should we really only be able to discuss this in a hidden forum, when what he posts in the public fora is derogatory and discriminatory?

+1

 

[JacksonArcher]

Is that possible?

The OP has a well-known anti-gay bias. And in the first post of this thread he somehow managed to conflate a Director being accused of sexual intercourse with a 17 year old with introducing a hidden agenda into a movie that makes it seem likes it's "Ok to recruit young straight kids into a gay lifestyle and convert them." That's nonsense, and it *is* an argument used only by bigots.

There was a point where it was ok to discuss ethnic minorities as being less than the white normal. That wasn't bigotry, it was the way of the world. Thankfully, we've moved beyond that.

Should we really only be able to discuss this in a hidden forum, when what he posts in the public fora is derogatory and discriminatory?

Well said.

 

[beamMe]

Is that possible?

The OP has a well-known anti-gay bias. And in the first post of this thread he somehow managed to conflate a Director being accused of sexual intercourse with a 17 year old with introducing a hidden agenda into a movie that makes it seem likes it's "Ok to recruit young straight kids into a gay lifestyle and convert them." That's nonsense, and it *is* an argument used only by bigots.

There was a point where it was ok to discuss ethnic minorities as being less than the white normal. That wasn't bigotry, it was the way of the world. Thankfully, we've moved beyond that.

Should we really only be able to discuss this in a hidden forum, when what he posts in the public fora is derogatory and discriminatory?

+1

 

[Marc]

Anyone know if the complainant took the matter to cops?

If the actions of Singer veer into the category of sexual assault (for example Singer got the young man drunk/stoned in order to take advantage of him) then it should be prosecuted as a criminal act with the appropriate punishment.

When you run straight to the civil courts demanding compensation it just before the statue of limitations on such actions runs out it comes across as suspected. The plantiff had better make sure he's got a water tight case because I don't think Singer is going to take this lightly because the potential loss of income for him is too great.

 

[the G-man]

I'm not defending Singer, as he may be innocent, he may be guilty, it's too soon to know, but this shit:

So, the X-men movies aren't just metaphors for accepting homosexuality, but for the less-innocuous idea of older gay men grooming teenagers to join their secret group (kind of casts a new angle over "Apt Pupil" as well)?

Needs to fuck right the fuck off, and shame on you for even suggesting it.

Yep, because NAMBLA is a complete figment of someone's imagination...and sexual predators (gay or straight) never, ever, groom their victims....

I would also point out I followed that observation (and one other) by stating "But, seriously..."

 

[beamMe]

I'm not defending Singer, as he may be innocent, he may be guilty, it's too soon to know, but this shit:

So, the X-men movies aren't just metaphors for accepting homosexuality, but for the less-innocuous idea of older gay men grooming teenagers to join their secret group (kind of casts a new angle over "Apt Pupil" as well)?

Needs to fuck right the fuck off, and shame on you for even suggesting it.

Yep, because NAMBLA is a complete figment of someone's imagination...and sexual predators (gay or straight) never, ever, groom their victims....

Now you compare the X-Men films with NAMBLA? Seriously?
Get a grip on reality, and fast.

I would also point out I followed that observation (and one other) by stating "But, seriously..."

Yeah, and you go straight on to insinuate that Singer's a rapist.

 

[the G-man]

Yeah, and you go straight on to insinuate that Singer's a rapist...

Title of the thread: "Bryan Singer Sex abuse allegations" (definition of the word "allegation" at the link)
First sentence of final paragraph of initial post: "Whether or not Singer [is guilty] remains to be seen."

Look, it's okay. Just admit that you (and a few others) overreacted here and didn't read what I wrote carefully. I won't even speculate on why. We'll just chalk it up to a failure to communicate. I'll even cop to not issuing the standard police/DA disclaimer at the end of my post (now included in my sig for everything I might write that isn't a complete ass kissing of a celebrity). It's all good.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

So you were forced to start posting borderline hate speech and conflating NAMBLA with gay men in general? I don't think so.

 

[beamMe]

Look, it's okay. Just admit that you (and a few others) overreacted here and didn't read what I wrote carefully. I won't even speculate on why. We'll just chalk it up to a failure to communicate.

There is no communications-failure. Everyone here understands perfectly well what you are driving at.

 

[Jedi_Master]

So, the X-men movies aren't just metaphors for accepting homosexuality, but for the less-innocuous idea of older gay men grooming teenagers to join their secret group (kind of casts a new angle over "Apt Pupil" as well)?

Yep, because NAMBLA is a complete figment of someone's imagination...and sexual predators (gay or straight) never, ever, groom their victims....

I would also point out I followed that observation (and one other) by stating "But, seriously..."

[/QUOTE]


The quoted excerpts of two posts contain the following:
1) A personal opinion as to the metaphorical meaning of the X - Men movies, based on the poster's interpretation of an interview with one person on the creative team.
2) Additional unsubstantiated metaphorical meaning to those movies based purely on the personal biased opinion of the poster.
3) Attempts to create a false connection between a disgusting organization, sexual predators, and a person who is not being tried in a criminal court, and whose guilt in a civil trial has not been established.
4) Pitiful attempts to tie homosexuals to acts that are criminal and reprehensible.

The content of those comments add nothing to the discussion at hand. Each comment instead cheapens the conversation, makes false correlations between unrelated facts and opinions, and is designed to inflame other poster's emotional feelings in an attempt to gain some psychological benefit, or perceived advantage. Comments such as quoted above are shameful attempts to get attention or to hurt others, and have no value.

 

[beamMe]

The quoted excerpts of two posts contain the following:
1) A personal opinion as to the metaphorical meaning of the X - Men movies, based on the poster's interpretation of an interview with one person on the creative team.
2) Additional unsubstantiated metaphorical meaning to those movies based purely on the personal biased opinion of the poster.
3) Attempts to create a false connection between a disgusting organization, sexual predators, and a person who is not being tried in a criminal court, and whose guilt in a civil trial has not been established.
4) Pitiful attempts to tie homosexuals to acts that are criminal and reprehensible.

The content of those comments add nothing to the discussion at hand. Each comment instead cheapens the conversation, makes false correlations between unrelated facts and opinions, and is designed to inflame other poster's emotional feelings in an attempt to gain some psychological benefit, or perceived advantage. Comments such as quoted above are shameful attempts to get attention or to hurt others, and have no value.

The incorrect use of the hyphen aside - I think I'm starting to like you.

 

[Casas9425]

Anyone know if the complainant took the matter to cops?

If the actions of Singer veer into the category of sexual assault (for example Singer got the young man drunk/stoned in order to take advantage of him) then it should be prosecuted as a criminal act with the appropriate punishment.

When you run straight to the civil courts demanding compensation it just before the statue of limitations on such actions runs out it comes across as suspected. The plantiff had better make sure he's got a water tight case because I don't think Singer is going to take this lightly because the potential loss of income for him is too great.

Egan and his mother filed and won a lawsuit in 2000 against sex ring-leader Marc Collins-Rector who was supposed to pay up several million dollars, he fled the country and they got nothing. Singer was never mentioned in the lawsuit.

 

[Melakon]

Maybe this is how the Egan family makes a living. Others have filed similar types of lawsuits against celebrities in the past.