Bryan Singer sex abuse allegations

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Screenwriters John August and Craig Mazin discussed the accusations against Singer, and issues of sexual abuse in Hollywood more generally, on their podcast. You can listen to it here. The relevant part starts at 18 minutes and 14 seconds.

 

[the G-man]

Your statement was bigoted, ignorant, and painted millions of law abiding gay people as pedophiles, or potential pedophiles, out to groom children. I don't appreciate being called a pedophile, and it's not a joke. Your post is disgusting.

The only persons lumping legitimate law-abiding homosexuals in with criminals and pedophiles are the people who can't see that criticism of (alleged) bad acts by a particular gay person does not mean criticism of gay people in general.

You insinuated as much in your opening post, and have danced around that insinuation throughout this thread.

No, you ( and others) took a legitimate point, namely, that a particular person, who happens to be gay, may be a sex abuser/pedophile as some sort of implied indictment against all gay people because you wanted to play the victim card.

Every comment I made, including a joke about what this may or may not mean for the message behind Singer's movies, was about the (possible) thoughts and practices of a particular gay man, not gays in general and how he may or may not have benefited from a culture in Hollywood that allegedly tolerates people-gay or straight-exploiting kids.

Defend the majority of homosexuals for being law-abiding decent people, as they are. Defend Singer if you want, on the theory he hasn't been convicted of anything, which he hasn't. But understand that, if you're so dead set on playing the victim and trying to shut down any discussion of sexual abuse just because a particular case happens to have been potentially perpetrated by a gay man, that you're the one perpetrating the idea that pedophilia and homosexuality are two sides of the same coin.

 

[beamMe]

The only persons lumping legitimate law-abiding homosexuals in with criminals and pedophiles are the people who can't see that criticism of (alleged) bad acts by a particular gay person does not mean criticism of gay people in general.

You insinuated as much in your opening post, and have danced around that insinuation throughout this thread.

No, you ( and others) took a legitimate point, namely, that a particular person, who happens to be gay, may be a sex abuser/pedophile as some sort of implied indictment against all gay people because you wanted to play the victim card.

Every comment I made, including a joke about what this may or may not mean for the message behind Singer's movies, was about the (possible) thoughts and practices of a particular gay man, not gays in general and how he may or may not have benefited from a culture in Hollywood that allegedly tolerates people-gay or straight-exploiting kids.

Defend the majority of homosexuals for being law-abiding decent people, as they are. Defend Singer if you want, on the theory he hasn't been convicted of anything, which he hasn't. But understand that, if you're so dead set on playing the victim and trying to shut down any discussion of sexual abuse just because a particular case happens to have been potentially perpetrated by a gay man, that you're the one perpetrating the idea that pedophilia and homosexuality are two sides of the same coin.

Oh, you were "joking" now?

I almost have to admire your chutzpah to try and cast the other posters in this thread in a bigoted light.

But then, of course, you ARE holding that particular torch.

 

[Gov Kodos]

You insinuated as much in your opening post, and have danced around that insinuation throughout this thread.

No, you ( and others) took a legitimate point, namely, that a particular person, who happens to be gay, may be a sex abuser/pedophile as some sort of implied indictment against all gay people because you wanted to play the victim card.

Every comment I made, including a joke about what this may or may not mean for the message behind Singer's movies, was about the (possible) thoughts and practices of a particular gay man, not gays in general and how he may or may not have benefited from a culture in Hollywood that allegedly tolerates people-gay or straight-exploiting kids.

Defend the majority of homosexuals for being law-abiding decent people, as they are. Defend Singer if you want, on the theory he hasn't been convicted of anything, which he hasn't. But understand that, if you're so dead set on playing the victim and trying to shut down any discussion of sexual abuse just because a particular case happens to have been potentially perpetrated by a gay man, that you're the one perpetrating the idea that pedophilia and homosexuality are two sides of the same coin.

Oh, you were "joking" now?

I almost have to admire your chutzpah to try and cast the other posters in this thread in a bigoted light.

But then, of course, you ARE holding that particular torch.

The comparing the X-Men films to NAMBLA was a hoot, as well. Who's been consistently constantly painting pedophilia and homosexuality as one and the same here other than 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..."

 

[JarodRussell]

He DID follow his initial statement with “but, seriously“ though, indicating that the section above it was not serious, though.

I think all of you guys need to take the chill pill. This all reminds me of the duck vs rabbit debate in HIMYM.

 

[beamMe]

He DID follow his initial statement with “but, seriously“ though, indicating that the section above it was not serious, though.

So all of this was a joke then?

'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

 

[Jedi_Master]

Ahh the best refuge for a comments that are exposed as ridiculous,bigoted, and prejudicial.

"It was a joke! Obviously no one here has a sense of humor!"

Well, guess what. No ones laughing, and for good reason. Some jokes are NEVER appropriate.

 

[Sindatur]

The only persons lumping legitimate law-abiding homosexuals in with criminals and pedophiles are the people who can't see that criticism of (alleged) bad acts by a particular gay person does not mean criticism of gay people in general.

You insinuated as much in your opening post, and have danced around that insinuation throughout this thread.

No, you ( and others) took a legitimate point, namely, that a particular person, who happens to be gay, may be a sex abuser/pedophile as some sort of implied indictment against all gay people because you wanted to play the victim card.

Every comment I made, including a joke about what this may or may not mean for the message behind Singer's movies, was about the (possible) thoughts and practices of a particular gay man, not gays in general and how he may or may not have benefited from a culture in Hollywood that allegedly tolerates people-gay or straight-exploiting kids.

Defend the majority of homosexuals for being law-abiding decent people, as they are. Defend Singer if you want, on the theory he hasn't been convicted of anything, which he hasn't. But understand that, if you're so dead set on playing the victim and trying to shut down any discussion of sexual abuse just because a particular case happens to have been potentially perpetrated by a gay man, that you're the one perpetrating the idea that pedophilia and homosexuality are two sides of the same coin.

If you're so misunderstood, why are you still using the word Pedophile, other than to make it sound even worse? Even if you didn't know previously that it is a word specifically discussing Pre-pubescent kids, you have been informed numerous times.

There was no indication you were joking (IE: A winkie-face emoticon) and why would you wait two weeks, and 142 posts into the thread to come up with "It was a joke" excuse? Even if it was a joke, it was a pathetic joke.

 

[IndyJones]

No, you ( and others) took a legitimate point, namely, that a particular person, who happens to be gay, may be a sex abuser/pedophile as some sort of implied indictment against all gay people because you wanted to play the victim card.

Yeah, it's absurd for anyone to see you make a post about one gay man in Hollywood and assume that you're applying that to *all* gay men.

 

[the G-man]

It's kind of sweet that you're obsessed with me.

However, the post that you dug up (or had bookmarked in your shrine to me [either way, the obsession is there]) tends to disprove your whole point about me.

In said post, I was criticizing the creator of Glee for certain actions that made gays look bad.

If I was as anti-gay as you want to portray me, why would I have criticized him for that? Instead I would have said his bad behavior "typified" gays.

Still interesting that you're more upset about criticism over Singer and fixating over me than you are about the idea that Hollywood (gay or straight) may be exploiting young people. Anything in your background we should be looking at? You're not-ahem-researching a book are you?

 

[Gov Kodos]

Still interesting that you're more upset about criticism over Singer and fixating over me than you are about the idea that Hollywood (gay or straight) may be exploiting young people. Anything in your background we should be looking at?

And what about Indy are you trying to infer here?

 

[Mudd]

Still interesting that you're more upset about criticism over Singer and fixating over me than you are about the idea that Hollywood (gay or straight) may be exploiting young people.

Probably because you're the only person in America to whom this is news?

There's a difference between disapproving and being surprised. That wealthy people get away with a lot of exploitation is not a revelation.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Still interesting that you're more upset about criticism over Singer and fixating over me than you are about the idea that Hollywood (gay or straight) may be exploiting young people. Anything in your background we should be looking at? You're not-ahem-researching a book are you?

What's more interesting is that you chose to make your point about how you're not playing up the false narrative of gay men as more prevalent sexual abusers of minors by not so subtly accusing a gay man of possibly doing just that. It's a pretty reprehensible tactic, not to mention (again) a homophobic one.

You could have just admitted that you worded the OP poorly and apologized if you truly meant no offense, but the fact that you instead chose to double-down on the stereotype and baselessly extend your offensive accusations toward posters who disagreed with your attitude shows pretty clearly that making homophobic remarks and insinuations was your intention all along.

 

[cultcross]

.

Still interesting that you're more upset about criticism over Singer and fixating over me than you are about the idea that Hollywood (gay or straight) may be exploiting young people. Anything in your background we should be looking at? You're not-ahem-researching a book are you?

Insinuations like this are not acceptable and have gained you an infraction for trolling. Comments to PM.

Everyone - I think this might be a good point to drop this topic.

 

[Tosk]

Looks like Singer (and Goddard) have another one on their hands now.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...dard-sex-abuse-lawsuit-20140504,0,31916.story

 

[Professor Zoom]

Looks like Singer (and Goddard) have another one on their hands now.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...dard-sex-abuse-lawsuit-20140504,0,31916.story

Filed by the same attorney... huh.

 

[BillJ]

Feels like a shakedown.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Just because it's a shakedown, it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

 

[Mister Fandango]

But he made some movies these guys like. How could he possibly be guilty of wrong-doing? Come on, man.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Maybe Directors shouldn't be allowed to put their names in the credits any more if regular people can be unnaturally compelled to fuck them without passing the deushbag test?

http://www.gotoquiz.com/ultimate_douchebag_test

I got %52 Douchebag.

I knew I shouldn't have admitted that Grey's Anatomy is better than House, but fuck it the empire building is just more compelling.