'X-Men' Director Being Sued For Sex Abuse Allegations - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
spideyboy_1111 said:
No one is saying "little boys" the guy isn't a pedophile.

I've seen him hit on 21 year olds (at least i assume they were 21) at a bar (though in weho it's not entirely hard to get in underage) who do look 16.... and play the "I'm the Director of the X-men Movies" card... it was all very very gross...

the issue for me isn't if the person is under-age though... that's not what im condemning the man for.. im condemning him for using his status to manipulate young gay men into sexual relationships. It's not illegal, but it's incredibly disgusting
Click to expand...


To be honest, I'm pretty much with you here. Though I'm wondering, if we look at, say, Hugh Hefner, can we consistently apply this standard?
I'm not talking about "going after" young men, vs young woman, nor heterosexual vs homosexual, but specifically using status and such to get people into bed.

The reason I bring up Hefner is because I wonder can he do anything BUT this? Even putting aside the fact that all of his girlfriends are models in his magazine, just the fact that he is who he is, built upon his business, and VERY recognizable, would seem to make it all but impossible for him to "hit on" someone without this being a factor.

Now, I'm not saying that Singer has that same sort of recognition, nor that he is inseparable from his position within his industry, just that the notion of "using one's influence" or "power" is, in and of itself, not necessarily sleazy, if you will.

Now, what I am hearing about Singer (all anecdotal at this point, but it is certainly painting a picture) would certainly suggest he is very, and I use this term NOT for the connotations it brings regarding criminal actions, but rather because it feels like an accurate descriptor, predatory.

There are many people who would suggest that ANY use of one's position to get someone into bed makes it rape, or at least, in their minds, tantamount to rape.
This would seem to either fall apart by the mere existence of celebrities, or at least prohibit them from getting involved with anyone who recognizes them; even others within the same industry as their careers can/will be affected by their relationship, and thus the "bigger" name is arguably inherently using their position/power, whether they intend to or not.

Any who, sorry about the tangent there. Not really sure what purpose this post has.
 
gdw said:
To be honest, I'm pretty much with you here. Though I'm wondering, if we look at, say, Hugh Hefner, can we consistently apply this standard?
I'm not talking about "going after" young men, vs young woman, nor heterosexual vs homosexual, but specifically using status and such to get people into bed.

The reason I bring up Hefner is because I wonder can he do anything BUT this? Even putting aside the fact that all of his girlfriends are models in his magazine, just the fact that he is who he is, built upon his business, and VERY recognizable, would seem to make it all but impossible for him to "hit on" someone without this being a factor.

Now, I'm not saying that Singer has that same sort of recognition, nor that he is inseparable from his position within his industry, just that the notion of "using one's influence" or "power" is, in and of itself, not necessarily sleazy, if you will.

Now, what I am hearing about Singer (all anecdotal at this point, but it is certainly painting a picture) would certainly suggest he is very, and I use this term NOT for the connotations it brings regarding criminal actions, but rather because it feels like an accurate descriptor, predatory.

There are many people who would suggest that ANY use of one's position to get someone into bed makes it rape, or at least, in their minds, tantamount to rape.
This would seem to either fall apart by the mere existence of celebrities, or at least prohibit them from getting involved with anyone who recognizes them; even others within the same industry as their careers can/will be affected by their relationship, and thus the "bigger" name is arguably inherently using their position/power, whether they intend to or not.

Any who, sorry about the tangent there. Not really sure what purpose this post has.
Click to expand...

honestly.. i almost feel like Hef hasn't been real "hef" for a long time... and most of it is just show and a character he portray's these days... I think taking advantage of people is wrong, but in Hefner's case.. it's not really lying.. he can't promise if they're going to be his next Marilyn Monroe or Jenny Mcarthy for instance... but he can give them a place to live, parties, money and being a star in magazines... and I think everyone knows that's what they're signing up for and getting. I don't really see it being delusional.

i think exploitation is wrong regardless though
 
spideyboy_1111 said:
honestly.. i almost feel like Hef hasn't been real "hef" for a long time... and most of it is just show and a character he portray's these days... I think taking advantage of people is wrong, but in Hefner's case.. it's not really lying.. he can't promise if they're going to be his next Marilyn Monroe or Jenny Mcarthy for instance... but he can give them a place to live, parties, money and being a star in magazines... and I think everyone knows that's what they're signing up for and getting. I don't really see it being delusional.
Click to expand...


I would seriously lol at any silly thing who comes off the bus into LA with the stated goal of being the next Jenny McCarthy. :hehe:
 
Pink Ranger said:
I would seriously lol at any silly thing who comes off the bus into LA with the stated goal of being the next Jenny McCarthy. :hehe:
Click to expand...

oh i would too.. but at the same time, she's pretty much the most famous "modern" bunny. She's had a very successful career for a bunny when in comparison to most
 
Pink Ranger said:
spideyboy_1111 said:
honestly.. i almost feel like Hef hasn't been real "hef" for a long time... and most of it is just show and a character he portray's these days... I think taking advantage of people is wrong, but in Hefner's case.. it's not really lying.. he can't promise if they're going to be his next Marilyn Monroe or Jenny Mcarthy for instance... but he can give them a place to live, parties, money and being a star in magazines... and I think everyone knows that's what they're signing up for and getting. I don't really see it being delusional.

i think exploitation is wrong regardless though
Click to expand...
I would seriously lol at any silly thing who comes off the bus into LA with the stated goal of being the next Jenny McCarthy. :hehe:
Click to expand...

Lol


spideyboy_1111 I'm not sure what the truth about what they can or can't do for someone's career is a pertinent aspect.

Bryan Singer isn't lying if he tells someone he can get them in a movie, or influence their career positively or negatively, or if he "allows" them to infer it.
Now, arguably he could be lying about whether or not he WILL do that.

Even still, people lie about their jobs, influence, experience, etc, all the time, be it in pursuing romance, or a job.

None of that is meant as a defense of anything Singer has been alleged to have done. More of a tangent of musing on what is or is not "exploitation."
 
gdw said:
Lol


spideyboy_1111 I'm not sure what the truth about what they can or can't do for someone's career is a pertinent aspect.

Bryan Singer isn't lying if he tells someone he can get them in a movie, or influence their career positively or negatively, or if he "allows" them to infer it.
Now, arguably he could be lying about whether or not he WILL do that.

Even still, people lie about their jobs, influence, experience, etc, all the time, be it in pursuing romance, or a job.

None of that is meant as a defense of anything Singer has been alleged to have done. More of a tangent of musing on what is or is not "exploitation."
Click to expand...

lol he's not lying about getting a few screen time.. but he's certainly yet to make any of his rumored "boys" are star... Cudmore, Routh, Stanford, etc.. closest ones with decently regular acting gigs have been the Ashmore twins.. that's been about it. Singer has had plenty of boys in his web, and he's not really gotten any anywhere... There's like... 1... who he happened to get in the pilot of the canceled 1313 Mockingbird lane show.. but ugh.. yeah...

Im just saying, money, fame, power... he's abusing it. Weather he means to lie or not... it's all false promises.
 
Not sure if this has been posted already

http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/the-man-suing-x-men-director-bryan-singer-and-the-actor-who

Alleged Bryan Singer Associate Was Sued In 2000 For Sexual Abuse By X-Men Actor

Marc Collins-Rector — who allegedly hosted parties where he, Bryan Singer, and others sexually abused teenage boys — was sued in 2000 by three people for sexual abuse. One of them was Alexander Burton, who played Pyro in the first X-Men movie.
Click to expand...

May explain why he didn't appear in X2.
 
true, it does however make me wonder how MC-R got a hold of Alex though... X-Men 1 was the only film he ever did period... I wonder how MC-R and Alex were placed together when what seems like the only common thread is Bryan Singer
 
spideyboy_1111 said:
lol he's not lying about getting a few screen time.. but he's certainly yet to make any of his rumored "boys" are star... Cudmore, Routh, Stanford, etc.. closest ones with decently regular acting gigs have been the Ashmore twins.. that's been about it. Singer has had plenty of boys in his web, and he's not really gotten any anywhere... There's like... 1... who he happened to get in the pilot of the canceled 1313 Mockingbird lane show.. but ugh.. yeah...

Im just saying, money, fame, power... he's abusing it. Weather he means to lie or not... it's all false promises.
Click to expand...

Are Routh, Stanford, and Cudmore from Bryan's "casting couch" tho?
 
There's an update from THR that says Egan's lawyer was suspended for 18 months and nearly dis-barred in 2009 for "conduct involving dishonesty". He was suspended by the Florida Supreme Court.
 
So basically what we have is one party having a reputation of skeezy, but legal, sexual behavior, and another party having a reputation of skeezy dishonesty, one side accusing the other of misconduct and now the accused party firing back at the accuser.

Basically, its like what I said in the original thread. Just because one party is guilty of being skeezy doesn't mean the other party is innocent. Both things can be true. Singer is -probably- innocent of these specific charges, but still a skeeze, and while Singer probably did something less than noble with Egan, Egan is not some innocent victim who was forced into a bad situation.

I'm so glad that I was raised better than to find myself in this kind of life.
 
marvelrobbins said:
Others here and elsewhere want to condeem him already or say because he may have done other stuff let's crucify him.
Click to expand...


:applaud:applaud:applaud:bow::bow::bow::bow:Yes,is very sad!

xmen05.jpg
 
Nell2ThaIzzay said:
So basically what we have is one party having a reputation of skeezy, but legal, sexual behavior, and another party having a reputation of skeezy dishonesty, one side accusing the other of misconduct and now the accused party firing back at the accuser.

Basically, its like what I said in the original thread. Just because one party is guilty of being skeezy doesn't mean the other party is innocent. Both things can be true. Singer is -probably- innocent of these specific charges, but still a skeeze, and while Singer probably did something less than noble with Egan, Egan is not some innocent victim who was forced into a bad situation.

I'm so glad that I was raised better than to find myself in this kind of life.
Click to expand...

I second, all of this
 
spideyboy_1111 said:
Heavily rumored
Click to expand...

Well I know Cudmore wasn't given the Colossus role cuz of his award winning acting talent.

But Stanford, while far from a "known" actor, I have seen in some things other than X-Men. Rough can't say much for. Don't follow his career in even the slightest.
 
Nell2ThaIzzay said:
Well I know Cudmore wasn't given the Colossus role cuz of his award winning acting talent.

But Stanford, while far from a "known" actor, I have seen in some things other than X-Men. Rough can't say much for. Don't follow his career in even the slightest.
Click to expand...

Stanford was rumored to be dating him on some sort of level
 
i've said before that there is little evidence from both sides to make an actual decision, but on saying that jesus christ some of you really need to step away from this.

a few select posters in here are taking this far to personal to make any form of rational conclusion. on both sides some want to railroad singer and some treat him like the second coming who cant ever do no wrong
 
Gary Goddard! The guy that directed Masters of the ****ing Universe! Talk about washed up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
'X-Men' Director Being Sued For Sex Abuse Allegations - Part 1
38 39 40
Replies
986
Views
29K
Thread Manager
T
terry78
Marvel being sued over X-Men TAS theme song
Replies
4
Views
530
DarthSkywalker
DarthSkywalker
T
Abuse of Power Thread (Cops, Governments, Etc.) - Part 2
61 62 63
Replies
2K
Views
181K
Teelie
Teelie
T
  • Locked
Abuse of Power Thread (Cops, Governments, Etc.) - Part 1
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
65K
Thread Manager
T
T
Creepypasta - Part 2
6 7 8
Replies
190
Views
36K
Guts
Guts

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Staff online

  • C. Lee
    C. Lee
    Superherohype Administrator

Members online

Total: 1,244 (members: 8, guests: 1,236)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,560
Messages
21,760,239
Members
45,597
Latest member
Netizen95

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"