Bullseye1
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,522
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
You besties with him?
From the previous posts sounds like his publicist.
You besties with him?
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
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.
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 would seriously lol at any silly thing who comes off the bus into LA with the stated goal of being the next Jenny McCarthy.
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.
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.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
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."
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.
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.
Others here and elsewhere want to condeem him already or say because he may have done other stuff let's crucify him.
Are Routh, Stanford, and Cudmore from Bryan's "casting couch" tho?
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.
Heavily rumored
Not sure it should be totally relevant to this case but Egan's lawyer was suspended in 2009 for actions involving dishonesty or deceit
(Edit: Just saw Serpico's post but here's the link)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bryan-singer-accusers-lawyer-was-697953
Hollywood executives Garth Ancier, David Neuman and Gary Goddard have been accused of sexually abusing teenage boys in lawsuits filed Monday in Hawaii federal court, sources confirm.
Ancier is the creator of “The Ricki Lake Show” and headed the Fox entertainment group while Neuman is the former president of Disney TV.
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.
When did Variety start talking about this?