fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2684 ]

[ SECRET POST #2684 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2684 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07. [WARNING for abuse/child abuse]

__________________________________________________

08. [WARNING for depression]

__________________________________________________

09. [WARNING for eating disorders]

__________________________________________________

10. [WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

11. [WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

12. [WARNING for sexual abuse]

__________________________________________________

13. [WARNING for suicide]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #383.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

11. [WARNING for rape]
http://i.imgur.com/VzrxCOQ.png

Who is this?

bryan singer; some guy accused him of raping him when he was young, and because he's known to throw parties with twinks everyone thinks he's guilty

There's a lot of evidence that both the accuser and his lawyer are doing it for the fame and to try to get back into the film business (the lawyer's apparently filed a lot of pretty flimsy and deficient lawsuits).

No, I think it's because the "casting couch" in Hollywood is a huge thing. How many actresses have talked about it. It makes perfect sense for there to be a couch for gay actors as well. And Singer has a history of liking barely legal boys.

It's not that far fetched to believe the accuser given Singer's history.

Now if he had no history of going to and throwing Caligula style parties with barely legal and not so barely legal people as well as a history, I can see how you would think, "They are accusing him because he is gay!" But in this case, Singer doesn't have the best reputation.

how are those parties any worse than the type of stuff hugh hefner does, except with girls instead of boys?

I don't think that Hugh Hefner has a great reputation either. If there are any rape accusations against Hugh Hefner (I don't know whether there are/were or not), you'd be making a better comparison. Right now, you're argument is basically "what IF Hugh Hefner did this, and what IF he was treated differently."

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-09 23:29 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-09 23:33 (UTC) - Expand

Because no one has yet to accuse of Hefner of raping them at a party. However, if they did, I am pretty sure given Hefner's history for liking girls a quarter of his age, he would get the same treatment. But, again, since no one has accused him, we don't know how the public would react.

The fact is someone is accusing Singer of rape. Singer has a sketchy history. Because of this, it's easier to believe the accuser than to believe Singer. I feel the same thing would happen Hefner IF and again, IF he were ever accused of the same crime.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-10 03:14 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-10 03:25 (UTC) - Expand

It's not OK, no matter what sex the predators or victims are.

-Guy goes to a Brian Singer orgy because he wants to get a part in one of Singer's movies. He never got it.
-Guy is raped in the orgy. Guy continues going to the orgies. Guy complains because he's being treated as a piece of meat in the orgies.

Yeah, no. Singer probably fucked him, but I doubt it was rape. More like this guy is butthurt because Singer never hired him.

What kind of moron goes to an orgy not expecting to be a piece of meat. That's what orgies are about, everyone there is a piece of meat to fuck or be fucked. No one goes to a fucking orgy to have deep meaningful conversations.

One can be raped at an orgy, regardless of what they thought. Any time, anywhere no is no.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-10 18:09 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-10 06:55 (UTC) - Expand

Do you not know the connotations to "butthurt" or are you purposely using the term in this post for humor?

I don't really agree with the OP that this scandal is gaining traction because of Singer's sexuality.

However, I do find it interesting that so many people are saying Singer *definitely* sexually assaulted this guy. I am not aware of any concrete evidence that has been released. And it *won't* be released because discovery has not begun - no side is going to publicly release information in a civil suit before a case has gone to trial or been settled (and you can bet that any settlement will include an NDA). Parties are not proof. They may not speak well for his character, but they are not evidence.

Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone else. There's a famous case where a man sued the Devil. There's another case that went on (and possibly still is) over a dry cleaners losing a pair of pants - the costs of proceeding with the suit has exceeded a million dollars. Suing someone is not proof that something illicit, illegal or untoward happened. Cases like the one with the Devil are thrown out of court for failing to prove any injury (because the Devil cannot be proven, obviously). The case with the pants is *ridiculous*, but there is proof that the pants were lost, so there IS an injury. So the big factor in deciding whether there's any teeth to this (for the public anyway) will be whether the case will be tossed or if it goes past the initial filings. If it does continue, I'd say it looks a lot worse for Singer because an impartial party (the judge) has decided there's *possible* merit to the case. Even then, it's not for sure.

Also, was this ever brought to the attention of the police? If it wasn't, that is certainly interesting. Most states nowadays have a rather lengthy statute of limitations on sexual abuse of children.

TL;DR - Can we wait until more facts come out than just a simple court filing before anyone decides if Singer is the scum of the earth? If he is, he should rot. But I'm uncomfortable with condemning a man without evidence.

That's entirely reasonable and makes perfect sense. Which is why everyone's going to ignore it.

You are aware he was sued for filming underage boys naked in the movie "Apt Pupil" way back in the 90's, right OP? And that there are rumors that he's the one who got Brad Renfro (who was starred in that movie) hooked on drugs in the first place?

The man is a sick fuck, but go ahead and rationalize all you want.

http://www.donmurphy.net/naked.html

bryan singer's gross sexual harassment and exploitative behavior is not anything new or surprising, that chicken hawk is well known for that shit and there are yt twinks all over hollywood that could tell you that.

if anything it's surprising it took this long for someone to come forward, he's disgusting.

I don't doubt his being gay makes it more 'exciting' for the media but not everyone who believes his accuser is straight. everyone I know who believes bryan singer is an abusive asshole is a part of gay hollywood.

what, did those twinks say he raped them? or are you just jumping from "he likes younger guys" to "he drugged and sodomized someone"?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-10 02:07 (UTC) - Expand

I believe he's guilty for the simple fact there have been so many rumors for so long, dating back more than 15 years. (Apt Pupil, anyone?) If he was straight and the same rumors existed for actresses he'd worked with instead, I'd still believe it. It has nothing to do with his sexuality. It has everything to do with where there's smoke there's often fire.

...Did anyone besides me think that was Benedict Cumberbatch for a second or two?

~~Perhaps the next question would be how fast would BC run away from the lead in a Bryan Singer biopic?~~

*raise hand*

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-10 06:26 (UTC) - Expand

Me too! I just saw the picture and went "ugh, are people still complaining about that Star Trek movie?".

Nope. If someone tells me they were raped I'm going to believe them. Because way too often the majority of people believe the rapist ("he would never do something like that!").

Also with regards to this particular case, Singer has given me bad vibes for decades. I never could put my finger on why. I like his movies and I think he's talented but there was always something there and I learned a long time ago to trust my instincts.

Personally, I wouldn't base my decisions on doing the opposite of what the majority does. I'd look at the facts. Failing that, I'd go with my gut. Sometimes, though, things aren't just cut & dried, and it's hard to know who's telling the truth. I'm going to wait for more info on this case.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-10 07:02 (UTC) - Expand

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only