Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



This is all pretty hosed up and crazy.

I don't want to defend Takei per se, because I find him sort of creepy and vile when he does his "leering old gay man" act, but I sincerely think it's *mostly* just an act.

What he's describing is something that actually is incredibly common in consensual gay sex and - I have to imagine - in heterosexual sex too, when both parties are consenting but things are nervous and awkward. Probably this sort of thing is more common with gay folk in general? Being straight things are a bit more, well, straightforward in how sexual roles are defined and who takes the initiative in touching what at which time, and so on. Or maybe not and those are just silly notions I have about het sex. Not to talk *too* much about myself, but I'm a cis gay guy who is incredibly shy and "skittish" in such situations. I'd probably still be a virgin at 32 if it weren't for other people taking the initiative.

I just mean to say that there's a BIG goddamn difference between initiating sex with a skittish and shy (but consenting) partner by proactively doing something physical, and forcing yourself on someone who is unconsenting or unconscious. I just think it's important to make the distinction here, because I honestly think Takei was trying to talk about the former situation, NOT the latter in that clip. I just think it's a stretch to call that "gleefully recalling past assaults."

This does not excuse Takei from anything, and it doesn't mean his accuser his wrong. I actually think his accuser was probably correct, and listening to that clip and how easily he is making *jokes* about the whole situation is kinda hosed up and makes me believe his accuser even more. So I *really* don't want people to take this as me defending Takei, it's just that it feels like gay sex is being demonized enough as a result of Kevin "loving" Spacey that I feel some deep need to defend the basics of consensual penis-touching.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I cannot express how deeply terrifying this clip now is to me. Jeff Bridges' reaction shots have only gotten better, though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYxGA8QaoC0

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I'm sorry but that video really is misleading as hell because at no point are "boys" mentioned ("guys" are mentioned for whatever it is worth I don't think the word "boy" is ever said")and at no point does he "justify" any behavior, nor does he talk about the allegations made towards him.

I'm just very afraid that this whole thing will devolve into "HOMOSEXUAL MEN ARE ALL PERVERTED PEDOPHILES" and there are lots of people who sincerely believe that who are crowing over this.

As a gay man who *was* sexually assaulted numerous times as a child and works with counseling young people who have experienced similar things and have nobody else to talk to. It just... There is already the stigma about being gay and all the baggage that comes with, and the speed at which we go from Kevin Spacey assaulting people to George Takei (who, yes, may or may not be scum who tried to sexually assault a *man* on one occasion) talking about consensual sex is downright frightening. And yeah, all he is talking about is consensual sex in his home with a partner who was a little bit hesitant or nervous. There are LOTS of people (especially gay people) who are very hesitant and nervous about sex, as I have said. It's not an uncommon thing. That is EXPLICITLY what Takei is talking about here, and there is nothing wrong with it. This does NOT preclude Takei from being a creep or a rapist; it just means that what he is discussing in this 2-minute claim is nothing unusual or wrong and I kinda take exception to painting it that way.

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I find this whole revealing of creepy Hollywood stuff simultaneously exciting and also (literally, physically) sickening and nauseating, the way you just KNEW the moment you read the name "Tom Sizemore" in this thread that it was going to awful and it just sends this wave of nausea coursing up through your body (and hopefully you didn't eat recently when that wave gets to the top).

Hilariously, that's the hardest thing about posting in this thread for me. I am kinda well known for writing out long posts which usually take at least 5 or 10 minutes (rather than the 5 or 10 seconds that go into a twitter post). The downside is that on issues like this, just... so much as thinking about this subject for more than a passing moment (I still have PTSD/agoraphobia/assorted social anxiety disorders from my childhood so draw your conclusions) usually causes me to feel really and truly sick to the point where there's a total possibility I might throw up. So I keep trying to write posts or finish a post on something and I have to stop and like, walk around and swish water or mouthwash around and spit it up and splash cold water on my face or do whatever I can from getting rid of that horrible sick nauseous feeling in my gut.

Which I have right now. This is like, the human body's idea of a brilliant defense mechanism probably, my psychiatrist would confirm I imagine

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004




surprising absolutely NOBODY IN THE WORLD

gently caress james woods with a demagorgon bat

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Al Borland Corp. posted:

Who is Elizabeth Perkins?

I'll always remember her as Tom Hanks' love interest in the film Big. I think she was pretty great and memorable in that flick, actually.

Who woulda thought Robert Loggia could ever pull off such a heart-warming role as he did in that flick

edit: To illustrate the above point I'm gay/queer and could understand the innately heterosexual appeal of Elizabeth Perkins in Big just fine

kaworu fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Nov 14, 2017

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I wonder if we are going to get into the massive clusterfuck of sexual harassment that still exists and goes on all the time in Washington, DC too. I mean, if people remember the scandals a while back involving the congressional page[s] (high-school age kids who get to do intern-type work with big-time legislators) that I think Mark Foley was harassing/sending creepy texts and pics to. The Page program apparently ended in the House in 2010 when Pelosi got rid of it, but there is still a *Senate* page program.

I knew a couple people who worked in the Page program in DC, one of them in particular. The way he described it made it seem like the pages (male and female) *all* had plenty of sexual harassment stories from the same sorts of people to varying degrees, generally not outright rape though but who the gently caress knows. What I thought was interesting was he said he knew guys awho'd had sex with some of these congressman either for career advancement or sums of money and he elaborated on all of this in a way that seemed pretty legit - although I should say he really was one of those cats who seemed like he belonged in a Bret Easton Ellis novel. He might've been loving with me but I kinda sorta doubt it was - the fact that he told me BEFORE the Foley scandal broke is why i actually believe him.

But I never really thought much of it given that Washington is a cesspool and a ton of these guys are creeps anyway. Terrible idea to being with. I mean I wouldn't assign hundreds of 16-year-olds to do intern work at the goddamn House - it even sounds like a disaster in the making! Though they did shut it down I still wouldn't be surprised if this winds up being the source of all kinds of bad poo poo down the line for the vast number of creepy sweaty pervy politicians working in DC without their wives and family around.

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I'm still waiting for the Spielberg domino to fall. That's bound to be a big one.

I'n fairly convinced that's the super-powerful and well-known pedo that Feldman is terrified of, too. It's not that I have 'proof'. Like any artist, you look at the work. One thing about Spielberg is that there is always at least one child character in every single one of his films, nearly. I think the exceptions are... well there's a schoolbus of kids in 'Duel' but they aren't really characters. Munich, that's the only one I can recall without any kids either front and center or at least in the background. Plenty of other directors make scores of movies without any children; in fact, most directors find them difficult and troublesome to work with. I cannot imagine Spielberg feels that way.. A number of his films also involve children going through horrible, traumatic experiences where they are terrorized or suffer. Jurassic Park comes to mind, Empire of the Sun, Temple of Doom has lots of scared, suffering, abused children in it..

And when I think about these things I can't help but... sort of mentally contrast it with the "PENIS BREATH!" insult from ET used by one little boy against another. I dunno if I'm alone here, but even after seeing ET and absorbing lots of insults from other movies, I never called another boy "penis breath" and I can't say that I was ever called it as a kid, either. Um, now, jokingly it comes it up at times, but I'm 32. Makes me wonder if "penis breath" was in the script or not.

Um, anyway. The main reason why I always thought Spielberg was a pedophile was based on reading a crazy essay by Crispin Glover online back in, like, the stone ages of the internet (02-03 or some poo poo). The essay was totally off the loving wall and whether it represented Glover's genius beliefs or was an over-the-top proto-troll by someone who has always been kind of an over over-the-top proto-troll (see: his appearance on Letterman wearing platform shoes and nearly kicking Letterman in the face),

Anyway, here's an excerpt of the essay:

CRISPIN HELLION GLOVER posted:

...

Does Steven Spielberg hold the same values I wish upon myself? Does the mind of this grinning, bespectacled, baseball-capped man entirely reflect this culture?

Is it true that in his waning years, Orson Welles asked Steven Spielberg for a small amount of money with which he could make a final film? Is it true Steven Spielberg refused? Is it true that Steven Spielberg bought a sled used in Citizen Kane for an extremely large sum of money?

Do Steven Spielberg’s passions burn? Do passions burn in the man now imprisoned who wished to anally rape Steven Spielberg? Do our cultural mouthpieces confidently inform us that the wish to anally rape Steven Spielberg is a bad thought? Could anal rape of Steven Spielberg be simply the manifestation of a cultural mandate?

Do you believe Steven Spielberg is an ideal guide and influence for our culture? Do Steven Spielberg’s films question our culture? What do Steven Spielberg’s films question? Does Steven Spielberg focus much of his fantasy life on young people? Did he portray children wallowing in sewers filled with fecal matter in Schindler’s List? Did he use children to finger paint an adult in Hook? Does he collect the illustrations of Norman Rockwell, such as the one showing a young boy in his underwear examined by a doctor? Are the inclinations of Steven Spielberg above suspicion by the media-fed culture? Was Steven Spielberg very friendly with Michael Jackson? Wasn’t Michael Jackson supposed to play Peter Pan in Steven Spielberg’s version of the story? Now that Michael Jackson is no longer held in favor by the mass media, does Spielberg associate with him? Do Michael Jackson and Steven Spielberg share similar opinions about the sexuality of young boys?

Did Joseph Goebbels popularize certain ideals to the mass culture? Does Steven Spielberg attempt to do the same thing? Is celebrity more special than actual truth in art?

When you join in a conversation with strangers, do you openly discuss any idea whatsoever without fear of conflict? Or do you restrain yourself from discussing certain things for fear of offending people and then becoming an outcast? Are there laws that deem certain forms of thought as bad and wrong? Is what is now termed “hate” a form of thought?
Does our culture consider it acceptable to have a minstrel represent a black person on film? Does our culture consider it acceptable to have a person of average intelligence represent a retarded person on film? Why is one thing questionable, and one thing acceptable? Did Adolf Hitler entertain any good thoughts? Was Shirley Temple sexy as a young girl?

What if you wish to express these ideas? Can people sue you for expressing ideas, particularly if they’re blamed for inspiring behavior considered antithetical to cultural norms?

Would the cultural mainstream ever silence or suppress Steven Spielberg? Has the United States government given the immensely wealthy Steven Spielberg millions of dollars to fund a media project that reflects his religious heritage, and his cultural beliefs? Does The Talmud speak of the superiority of the Jews and the inferiority of other cultures and beliefs? Does Steven Spielberg reflect this religious imperative? Is Steve Spielberg neurotic? Is this belief hidden and suppressed?

If one discovers that everything one has been taught to be good is actually false, what then? At what point is one neurotic?

Did Vincent Van Gogh, Diane Arbus and Rainer Werner Fassbinder die for the sins of their culture? Did Joseph Goebbels?

Are we fed massive cultural propaganda? Are we infused with the belief that we act as we wish and do what we want? Are we not simply believing what cultural propaganda suggests us to think?

Do you like MTV? Do you like Steven Spielberg? Do you like post-punk rock? Do you like trip hop? Do you like rap? Do you define yourself according to the music you listen to? Do you consider yourself a true lover of music because you are in a rock band, or because your boyfriend is in a rock band? Do you like tattoos? Do you like body piercing? Do you believe that love, kindness, compassion, recycling and equality will save this culture from all its woes? Do you? Do you?

Is it considered “career suicide” to question Steven Spielberg if one is involved in the entertainment business? If one is not involved in the entertainment business is it considered a social suicide to question Steven Spielberg? If these things are so, what does that point to? Does this mean freedom of expression is actually curtailed in our culture by certain social pressures? Is calling someone a “fascist” in American culture today the counterpart to saying someone was a “communist” during the Joseph McCarthy era of the 1950s?

...

I actually thought this was kind of a cool thing to re-post because 15 years ago when he wrote this a lot of this stuff hadn't quite come true but especially with the election of Trump and just the Weinstein scandal this seems both utterly insane and extremely prescient

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Super Fan posted:

In many of Spielbergs films there is no children at all. In even more children are nothing but peripheral characters. You lazily accused the man of pedophilia based on you piss poor reading of his filmography and some worthless post that may or may not have been written by an embittered ex -coworker.

gently caress off kaworu

I'm not the only one to view some of his films through that context and find them disturbing. There have been whispers about Spielberg within the industry for a while now. The 'accusation' was not lazy, and I haven't given anything close to a 'reading of his filmography, beyond stating that kids are often conspicuously featured in either the background or foreground of nearly all of his films - which is true regardless of whether it matters or means anything. If you'd like, I will literally go through everything feature he directed, film-by-film, pointing things out. I would *really* rather not considering how exhaustively creepy flicks Hook or Jurassic Park or even A,I, are when read from that point of view.

I posted an excerpt from the Crispin Glover article because I thought it was batshit-insane and hilarious and this is ACTUALLY a comedy site and I thought the whole essay was a goddamn ruit. It is also a notable accusation from one famous person to another very famous people, and again it is *not* the only accusation or whisper about Spielberg having these inclinations.

it's disturbing and it's something we don't want to be true at all because pretty much EVERYONE across all class levels and ages and genders tend to like many of his films - he is a *truly* great American filmmaker - a juggernaut. I suppose that's why even in a thread like this, I am literally told to "gently caress off" directly simply because I brought up the possibility that this particular man might have committed some impropriety.

This is why I think Corey Feldman *never* admits the "big powerful untouchable guy" whom he knows is a pedophile. It's probably why he is asking for $10,000,000 to try and make a major motion picture to even MAKE the accusation at all, which (if it is Spielberg) makes sense on a certain level.


The other big name who could be a pedophile IMO is Francis Ford Coppola. It would break my loving heart and be absolutely awful, but I would not be one bit surprised.

Coppola was the guy who always supported Victor Salva and was an Exec Producer on the first Jeepers Creeper. Coppola loving *produced* Clownhouse, which IMO shouldn't even be available given that the director was molesting/raping the lead star (a 12 year old Nathan Winters) throughout the film - and for gently caress's sake there is even a shot of this boy *naked* and then in white briefs within the first 10 minutes of the film which is when I turned it the gently caress off. I can only imagine how horrifying and exploitative the film is an how many shorts there were of an absolutely loving terrified-looking Nathan Winters who frankly looks pretty drat scared even before the bad guys show up

The whole infernal film was on Youtube, last time I checked. I just don't fuckin' trust Coppola as a guy who *produced* a film where something that like that was ongoing and continuous, and to then continue lauding Salva as a "fine young director" and working with him later in his career! My loving god.

This article sums it all up pretty well: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-pedophile-director-embraced-by-hollywood

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I really don't trust Michael Haneke on this subject in the slightest. I know this is subjective, but I feel like his films are deeply suffused with a particular sort of misogynistic subtext that's a bit more subtle and intellectually-based than most of the misogyny one sees in American films, say. Mostly I'm speaking in reference to The Hunt, which is actually a movie that I do like on some level, but is kind of like... Well...

Actually, the film is really quite apropos to this discussion, and in my opinion expatiates how Haneke views accusations of sexual improprieties against a respectable everyman in the community. The most terrifying point he makes (I thought) was that he does not really seem to feel that it *matters* whether the accuser is actually telling the truth, because (Haneke posits) the man in question suffers a great deal of injustice regardless, and people accused of sexual crimes (especially against children) will be ostracized and be ruined forever even if the accusation is false and proven false. It's a troubling hypothesis he makes, because there is of course a degree of truth there, but he is so consumed with the plight of the poor innocent white man that the film doesn't even really allow for characters other than the white men to have a legitimate emotional reality - instead, the women are more like conspiring antagonists in the film.

Anyway, I'll shut up. My only point is that after seeing that film I cannot help but scoff at anything Haneke could possibly say on this subject.

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Leaving Neverland was all kinds of unbelievably heartbreaking. I've only watched part of the second half - it got way way way too upsetting and hitting too close to home for me when it started to do deal with adult repercussions. I dunno why, but as someone who was also sexually abused as a boy - and incidentally I also was a tremendously big Michael Jackson fan back then, and would dress up like him and dance like him and was REALLY into it and won local dance competitions of my own in the very early '90s. So saying that this documentary "hit close to home" doesn't really even begin to cut it. It was frankly almost *too* upsetting to watch for those reasons, and my feelings about everything were deeply conflicted.

i have to say, though I didn't want to approach the film from a point of questioning the veracity of their stories... I really don't know how truthful Wade Robson and co. were, particularly him and his mother. I want to approach it gently because I think it's very likely that there was abuse, but something about Robson's attitude, his demeanor, the way he shared the stories, just my general intuitive feeling about him... I felt like he was sort of boldly trying to embellish, or something. He seemed to be putting on some sort of affectation, for some sort of reason. I just... it felt like he was trying to convince me, in a weird way.


James Safechuck, on the other hand? I found him to be extremely credible, and it was really his story that I believe, and his face and eyes and shaking hands that I found haunting, and deeply affecting. I didn't feel like he was trying to convince anyone of anything, or trying to prove anything. There was... a certain vulnerability and rawness both about his story, as told by him and his mother, and in his demeanor in general. It's all right there in his eyes, and when he looks away. It's clear that he was so deeply damaged by what happened to him, it was just... beyond loving heartbreaking, to see.

In the context of this film, I don't even want to get into judging Michael Jackson and looking at why he is what he is and did he what he did. That should, frankly, be a separate conversation for a separate documentary. This is a film about two men, and the stories they have to tell. It has good points and bad points, but it's ultimately about how trauma and sexual abuse ravages and destroys lives. I mean, I know Michael Jackson and his story will ultimately overshadow everything.

And it's also about the unique veil of silence that surrounds men who suffer from these crimes as children. Not only are you fundamentally violated and traumatized, but it so fundamentally fucks with your sense of personal identity because of masculinity standards and the stigma of homosexuality... it doesn't matter if you're gay or straight or whatever either, it fucks everything up, inevitably. I just hope people keep this film about what it should be about.


fake edit: And you know, something that I love about this film, is that it's essentially utilizing Michael Jackson's fame to increase awareness and further the conversation of the sexual abuse of boys and how it causes PTSD and how it loving breaks so many people, how utterly destructive it is to a human being. I haven't seen most of the second half yet, but I am assuming it goes into this, it seemed to be headed in that direction.

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I honestly find it absolutely loving gross just how many felony counts he got slammed with. Compared with Manafort and the deadly seriousness of what he did and the insane leniency of the sentence, well... Ugh. Jussie isn't just black though, he's black *and* he's gay, and he actually portrayed a character in a positive nuanced way that was not a total cliche. That is part of what makes it all SO loving infuriating and also sad! I mean, poo poo - you can probably count the number of gay black men you've actually seen in mainstream film/TV that were NOT tokens/cliches on one hand - if you get to two hands, then I'll be very impressed. So Jussie Smollett just really, deeply hosed up by like doing the worst possible thing, as practically the first gay black man to ever get to PLAY a gay black man as a main character on a legit good show. Such a hosed up thing.


I have another thing to add. I'll put a note here that it involves Michael Jackson and might be upsetting? But we need to talk about these things.


So um, Michael's first child was (Prince) Michael Jackson Jr born in Feb 1997. Paris was born in April 1998, and 'Blanket' was born in 2002, and is 17 now.

I know it's upsetting to hear but it seems almost certain to me that Jackson would have molested one or both of his sons. These were boys that he had unrestricted access to, and may or may not have been actually related to. The (possibly vast) majority of child sexual abuse takes place within families for this very reason - because of access more than anything else. The people who do it are sick and vile scum and it's difficult not to feel tremendous anger about it... But it's a truth.

I think this is something people are... almost purposely not thinking about or bringing up because it's almost too horrible to contemplate or imagine. But it happens, just... all the time. And in this case, I'd bet for sure that it happened given that Jackson sincerely appeared to believe that he could do this, and pedophiles do not think like we do when it comes to these things. It is unimaginable to most of us, it's so vile. But I expect this will come out.

In fact, I just read in a story that Michael's youngest son, 'Blanket' who goes by Biji, has apparently gone mute and not said a single word since the 'documentary aired'. I don't know if he saw it, I assume he maybe did? He is currently 17. But apparently he is usually talkative and happy so everyone is shocked and worried. But, uh... It seems extremely, extremely obvious to me, and frankly downright chilling.

I mean, what do you think that means? That Jackson's 17-year-old son who would have been 7-8 at the time of Jackson's death, has gone TOTALLY mute and simply won't say a single word. I'm not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, I'm not even a therapist. But the meaning of something like that seems heartbreakingly obvious and I hope to god that the boy is not upset because Jackson abused him. But if it looks like a trauma victim and acts like a trauma victim.... it's probably a trauma victim

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



sexpig by night posted:

yea it's entirely possible that Blanket went through his life genuinely believing 'oh, no those guys talking about that stuff are just making poo poo up about my dad' and that was his first moment of 'ooooh gently caress no dad was probably horrible'. It's really a little ghoulish to start speculating if someone was molested based on just social media.

I was speculating that he (and/or his brother Prince) was molested based on the fact that, by all accounts, their father actively molested other boys that he had significant access to. I didn't hear about the "not talking" thing until I'd written half the post and googled his name out of curiosity, and I was fairly shocked to hear it, because it's an extreme response to anything.

But no, my concern that something happened to one or both of them is based solely on the fact that if an actively abusive pedophile has children under their personal care, there just is a fairly high possibility that they were abused. The biggest determining factor in these situations is always access. I'm sorry if it's a ghoulish thing to speculate about, but it's more out of legitimate concern and the fact that if someone comes clean about this sort of thing and copes with it when they're younger, they have a far better chance of eking out a more normal adulthood.

I'm intrigued by the "not talking" because it's both a very distinct cry for help, coupled with a total inability to cope with or even talk on the most basic level about what is wrong. I find it troubling because it's literally textbook behavior for someone coping with abuse trauma, particular familial abuse of one kind or another. True, that trauma could be anything, but this documentary dealt with something fairly specific. Other than that, my only speculation is the fact that I'm very sure his father was an abusive pedophile.

kaworu fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Mar 10, 2019

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I always wanted to defend Jackson (and did, for a while) because public/famous people who violate race/gender/sexuality norms (just ONE of the three) are often treated like poo poo in the media, and people are quick to accuse them of things like homosexuality or pedophilia - or in the case of race a host of other things. Jackson challenged peoples' thinking with regards to all 3, of course - he seemed to want to transcend not just race, but sexuality and gender, too. In a sense he must have conceived of himself as something other than human or 'godlike' or who the gently caress knows..

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



twerking on the railroad posted:

This is a really weird post.

The reason celebrities get away with stuff like this is because people read about them in a few magazines, hear them talk, see them on TV and think they know them. People think "Oh, that person is so sweet they'd never do that." I sincerely doubt anyone on these forums knew Michael Jackson well enough to say it's "almost certain" that he molested one of both of his sons.

And to speculate about a child molestation that hasn't been accused is super weird. It was weird to have people speculating about Macauley Culkin too.

I'm kinda weird, to be honest. But I don't think it's a weird concern to make after watching Leaving Neverland (and taking another quick look at parts of the Bashir Program from 2003). It's all very unnerving, and very disturbing.

And you know, the sad and disturbing truth is that this poo poo runs in families, and it is so often a generational thing. All those Jackson kids grew up with a downright evil son-of-a-bitch, meaning Joseph Jackson. Something a lot of people are not aware of is the extent to which Joseph Jackson abused and terrorized his family. The scariest thing was that he supposedly stopped being attracted to his wife at some point in her 30s, he felt she was overweight and no longer attractive. At this point he just switched to sleeping with his eldest daughter, Rebbie, was was something like 12 or 13 at the time? Apparently Katherine knew and was simply jealous about it. He did that until she ran away from home at 16 and got married as soon as she turned 18 (Joseph was against the marriage). After she left, he switched to regularly raping La Toya, instead.

I know this all sounds extreme but really, it's all out there - you can find interviews from La Toya from as long ago as 1993 about this, which is frankly pretty shocking. Apparently Rebbie talked about it in a book she wrote, but I suppose it just never garnered enough attention? I don't know. Joseph Jackson was, by all accounts from his family, an absolute loving scumbag so none of it really shocks me.

Abuse like this runs in families, and that's just a sad truth of how we process trauma. If someone is relentlessly bullied and mistreated as a child by the person who is supposed to love and care for them, it's not uncommon for that person to later take on the role of abuser. I'm not going to sit here and be an armchair psychologist for Michael Jackson specifically here, I mean, this applies to everyone who grows up in an abusive home, more or less. And everyone reacts differently, but there ARE certain well accepted ideas and concepts about how and why abuse cycles down through the generations.

I really just feel concern for his kids because that's just... the way abuse works. If Michael Jackson did abuse these children, knowingly and with grooming/coercion, then it seems to me that he would have no compunctions about treating his own children any differently. This is almost always true when it comes to abusive men - if they have their own families, then you can more or less count on the fact that some pattern of abuse was meted out to them. I'm not saying he would have been intentionally cruel to them, but... well, he was a heavy drug addict with a pattern of abuse, and three children he "was utterly devoted to" later in life. I could be totally wrong - he could have been a truly fantastic, gentle, kind parent in spite of all of this. The odds just don't favor it.

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



As I recall, Spacey's presence in Baby Driver was largely ignored, to be honest. The biggest thing with his future acting (other than being cut from House of Cards' final season) was how Ridley Scott actually re-cast him in that movie where he played an old guy with makeup, and like re-shot scenes with Christopher Plummer and edited those in about 2-3 weeks before the film was going to premiere. Which I thought was very proactive and was a very cool thing for Ridley Scott to do, because it represented the proper response - which is that you cannot tolerate or condone this poo poo in any way. It's why I'm glad that the production company shelved the film Bryan Singer was about to begin work on last month. I forget the name of the film but supposedly it wasn't really all that good anyway! But still.

kaworu fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Mar 13, 2019

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



That's so loving horrible. If anything, it shows that he had a guilty conscience and knew precisely how awful and wrong what he was doing was - wearing a disguise and appearing incredibly nervous on that particular shopping trip. Jesus.

It also corroborates precisely what Safechuck said happened - not that I feel Safechuck has any of the credibility problems that Wade Robson has. Watching his body language in the film - especially in the sequence with the rings - I don't know how anyone with a shred of genuine empathy could have just shrugged off his account of what happened.

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I've always been of the opinion that Art, whether it's juvenile or intellectual, great or mediocre, almost always *tells the truth*. By art, I mean everything from pop songs and TV Shows and films to paintings and novels and sculpture and so on. I think this has been true for a very long time, in truth. After all, the greatest insights that can be gleaned about Renaissance masters like Da Vinci or Michelangelo come from the paintings and poetry and architecture they created, and they speak volumes more than any biography could.

I do actually have a sort of point here... Everyone always wonders and questions whether you can separate the artist from the art, when the artist turns out to be a scumbag or pedophile or whatever. In my opinion, this is a sort of willfully blinding and foolish thing to do. The art is the artist, and you can get a much more solid understanding of the art by looking at it within the context of the life of the artist. We don't have that opportunity with, say, Michelangelo or Mozart, but with MJ his entire life was scrutinized and documented, and now his unbelievably sordid personal life is being laid bare.

I don't know about anyone else, but the defining image I cannot seem to escape from or keep out of my mind is Jackson having the "mock wedding ceremony" with James Safechuck, and exchanging vows and rings. Except of course, it was a VERY REAL ceremony for both of them, and I can only imagine it meant a tremendous amount to Michael and especially Safechuck and probably still does in a number of deeply upsetting ways.

So.. The point I'm trying to make is that it's VERY difficult to listen to love songs (and even other songs) written by Jackson, and not ascribe a ton of different meanings within his lyrics based on what we've learned about his life, and what was going on at the time for him. Hard not to feel deeply creeped out by his previously charming love songs (The Way You Make Me Feel, for instance) and there's several songs he did portraying women as bloodsuckers/gold-diggers/and so on - Billie Jean and Dirty Diana come to mind.

There is also something upsettingly flip about how he portrayed himself during this era. Album titles like Bad and Dangerous - him telling us what a Smooth Criminal he is. Or a song like "In The Closet" which is about keeping love affairs absolutely 100% secret - but not to worry it's totally heterosexual and normal because it's a duet with a woman and there's like, an actual female pronoun in it I think.


Sorry guys. I'm just frustrated that it's impossible to separate the man from the music because his songwriting was so unconscious that he couldn't help but put his real life out there...

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Christ, I could not make it through that video and turned it off when it got to him playing the audio from encounters he had with this woman from his person porn collection :vomit" and there were all the disgusting slimy soft schlick-a, schlick-a... noises and I literally felt like I wanted to throw up. I cannot even imagine how it could have gotten worse from there, but probably it somehow did.

I really can't quite articulate just how disgusted I am by the William Control stuff and everything about it. I just find it it extremely and deeply disturbing. Part of it is that I really am not a fan of polygamy, even though I have lots of gay friends who disagree with me strongly about that. But this video is like premised on me approving of his polygamist lifestyle in the first place, and I find it loving disgusting that he has a harem of "slave girls" or whatever he calls them and that he exchanges filthy texts with them and records their sexual encounters and insists they call him 'daddy' during sex and OH MY GOD

At least when Kevin Spacey "came out of the darkness" with a video, he had the good taste to mask it with a somewhat camp sensibility and the hideously bad taste of the apron he wore. It would be interesting to compare all the 'response' videos from those who have been effectively labeled as a 'predator' by the media.

kaworu fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Mar 18, 2019

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I was speaking in a very ironic tone - it does come across as way too blunt I shouldn't have written it that way. In the earlier paragraph I was exploring how on earth people like Control or Spacey could possibly convince themselves that posting the videos that they did was a "good idea". I was thinking that from Spacey's point of view, he'd have to think it a tasteful thing to do to try and mask his child-raping with a jokey 'ugly-but-campy' cooking apron and to act like he was the politician on the show he played doing a Nixon Checkers moment. It was unbelievably hideous in its own unique way, and with both him and Control I was trying to put myself in their mindset where doing this stuff is justified, and from that very dark point of view it seemed ironically worth noting that at least Kevin Spacey interjected humor in his own demented way instead of a boring and self-incriminating recitation. I was a bit punchy from watching 10+ minutes of that William Control video and felt sick while writing that whole post, so forgive me if I wasn't as clear as I should have been

Please do not accuse me of thinking that Spacey video was in good taste, good god

kaworu fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Mar 18, 2019

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Johnny Depp was quite cool for the first portion of his career. The very first 'Nightmare on Elm St' had him playing the "semi-wholesome boyfriend" character, which was also his acting debut I think.

And yeah, he SERIOUSLY did a ton of very cool movies with some very hip and talented auteurs. He did Dead Man with Jim Jarmusch, he did Cry-Baby with John Waters, and What's Eating Gilbert Grape (a kinda perfect silly '90s indie gem) with a VERY young Leo Dicaprio in his own breakout performance... OH! And of course he played Ed Wood in that movie, which is pretty underrated as a Tim Burton film - it's one of his least self-indulgent efforts.

And of course, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas where he played Hunter S, Thompson's alter ego, the Gonzo Journalist Raoul Duke. I felt like that was and probably should still be the defining performance of his career. In many ways, Jack Sparrow probably has more 'Raoul Duke' in him than any other character Depp had played prior to that. I'd also say it was the first time where Depp really devoted himself to the role and lost himself while playing the character. In so many films you can see him skate by with his charisma and good looks, and his ability to flash dazzling smiles one minute and be dark and brooding the next. But with Duke he figured out a WHOLE FREAKING NEW way of approaching a character, and it shows in later work.

I have to just add that my favorite Johnny Depp performance of all time is definitely Ichabod Crane in Sleepy Hallow. He admitted that he played Crane as if he were *literally* a 12-year-old schoolgirl, and it shows, and the results are truly fantastically weird.

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



good god gently caress YOU barbara streissand! wow what a loving awful awful awful thing to say

You guys didn't quote the best part of the interview that sounds hilarious if you listen to it with Mel Brooks or some sort of nebbish-sounding Jew reading them: "Why would Michael need these little children dressed like him and in the shoes and the dancing and the hats?”

kaworu fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Mar 23, 2019

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Well.. It makes me wonder too, if she bought out like entire sections of menswears for the stores she has in her "mall" both to make them feel complete and maybe on the rare occasion when she might want a big guy's t-shirt or I don't know... Stuff like "Streissand has her own personal upscale mall" creates all kinds of fascinating questions. I also would love to imagine that the stores are fully staffed at all times, or that she finds a way to let Senior Citizens in from 5AM-9AM every morning to go mall-walking.

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Bust Rodd posted:

I am exactly old enough to have seen jokes about Barbara Streisand on TV shows like The Nanny, but have never heard or seen her sing. I can only imagine she’s garbage.

This is where I sit as well. To me, Barbara Streisand was literally the punchline to a joke about gay people that I simple could never figure out the set-up to. Like in the movie "In & Out" they were all these Streissand jokes that simply made NO FREAKING SENSE to me as a 14-year-old in 1999. So uh, that was who Streisand was to me (and probably most of us here I'd wager) - a punchline we didn't really understand because we weren't old enough to understand the nuances of cliched homophobia yet, I suppose.

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Phi230 posted:

So everyone knew Drake was grooming underage girls when it came out he was "friends" with stranger things girl. But it just kind of clicked after watching the MJ doc. Like an older man saying they're totally just friends with like a 12 year old

Yeah I hate to like... Jump to conclusions and be judgmental, but just generally speaking, if you're an adult with no kids of your own you're pretty goddamn happy when you *don't* have to deal with much younger kids. I mean, it's not like I hate kids or anything but the few times I've had to deal with them as an adult, uh... Well, it made me really glad I didn't become a parent when I was young, as well as that I didn't go into teaching middle school or anything. I'm sure some kids are perfectly sweet, but I'm also pretty sure that, speaking as someone who definitely is *not* a pedophile.. kids are pretty obnoxious and require a great deal of attention as well as patience to be around, and I'm just seriously happy that I don't have any living in my home because it could potentially drive me crazy. But of course on the other hand, I can understand having infinite patience for your own children and *wanting* to devote attention to raising them - that's just basic human biological instinct. It's pretty different when they're not your kids, though.

But seriously, that's why I really have always been leery of any male adult who proactively wants to spend time with kids, especially single guys who seek out those jobs. I just ran into way too many perverts like that when I was a kid, it really made me insanely distrustful of anyone who actively chooses as their profession being an authority figure to children. I'm fine with teachers who had their own interests and ambitions and wound up teaching - that's different. I instinctively don't trust men who actively choose to be around children as a vocation, though. I might wind up trusting them if I talk to them, but it's kind of a red mark in my eyes.

The worst was summer camp counselors, though. There was like, no vetting for those jobs (at least back in the 80s/90s) and they'd just hire any ol' fella who looked in their 20s and acted genial. Ugh.

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Dr. S.O. Feelgood posted:

Maybe consider just speaking for yourself next time then. Like I get that your opinions are probably based on whatever negative experiences you may have had in the past so I'll refrain from being too judgemental, but the view that men who choose to work or interact with children are inherently untrustworthy is a very bad one. Not least because it places teaching/childcare firmly in the "women's work" category and further absolves men of any responsibility in regards to that.

I don't know who else I'd be speaking for, I thought I made it pretty plain that my distaste for adults who choose to order children around or make them "obedient" for a living is fairly personal, and I'm just fine with standing on my own as disliking the gently caress out of anyone who enjoys ordering children around or thinks that the Public School System in America is an upstanding institution not in need of reform. I'm sure lots of them are lovely people and I always keep an open mind, but that's just me.

Obviously I feel very differently about people who just like to work with kids, or teach things like art/music/literature/liberal arts from the point of view of furthering education. Tough to do that in public schools these days since they seem to be focused on teaching children to follow the rules and then teaching them how much trouble they get in depending on which rules they break, and so on. The majority of teachers I knew couldn't have cared less about actually teaching unless their class was being observed by a superior or it was for a standardized test which would reflect on the teacher in question. It's not even that all are pedos, most are just sadists or the type that likes any job where they get to tell people beneath them what to do and get called "sir" all day long. Teaching, sadly, is no longer the sacred trust it once was.

Of course, pay no attention to this if you're rich enough to privately school/socialize your child one way or another, or just live in an area heavily gentrified enough that the state is obligated to actually fund the schools properly for fear of bad publicity.

Again, exceptions to every rule, and to be fair the good teachers I've met aren't just good, they're practically SAINTS. But they're few and far between.


edit: And yes, I constantly quote that stat to other people, that abuse usually occurs in the home because access is by far the most critical and important thing.

It's actually a lot worse than just saying "it happens in the home" - most of the time that's a very euphemistic way of saying that a father has groomed and raped his child, usually multiple times. But nobody really likes to think about that, I guess. They always say that the molester was "an unnamed family member" in news stories, like it's the most horrific shameful secret ever. Does more harm than good in my opinion.

The person who molested me was a semi-friend of the family who owned a small after-care place for small kids, so yeah, I probably have a personal thing against people who act like caretakers of children, but aren't. That's incidentally the second most common type of offender after family members - babysitters or people who work in child care.

kaworu fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Mar 25, 2019

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Sodomy Hussein posted:

Almost everything we know about the case comes from leaks. The PD was leaking that they were investigating Smollett for the attack by mid-February and essentially all major supposed pieces of evidence were publicized before the arrest was made.

So basically, to sort of construct a very timeline of what happened in the Smollet case....

Around the end of January/early February we learn initially of the case - liberals are SHOCKED and SADDENED and it becomes a media item about how lovely it is to be black and gay and famous in Chicago (or something like that)

Mid-February: In response to the generally unfavorably way the Smollet case is being cast in the media and the apparent incongruity to the direction of the investigation, some folk in Chicago PD decide to leak notes of the actual investigation as if it were facts that had been already substantiated, largely concerning the account of the two black "Street Toughs" with the fabulous abs in opposition to Jussie's statements about what had happened.

Media shitstorm ensues...

Mid-late March: It comes out that both accounts are highly biased and incorrect and the truth is probably something much more grey than clean-cut black and white, so people lose interest. When we were either dealing with malicious MAGA-hat wearing white guys attacking black men in the streets of Chicago's upscale neighborhoods? That was a story because it fit the idea of what media people call "the liberal wet dream", the loving insensitive pricka. And when it was about a vain and greedy fag actor who paid a couple human being friends of his (WHO WERE EVEN BLACK) to pretend to assault him so he could parlay it into media gold and a raise? That was what media people call a "conservative wet dream".

Now, I gather we are lost with a story that is entirely about what gently caress-ups both the media and people who believe they can "handle" or "manage" the media are, and the media has no interest in covering such a story as you can understand

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I wonder if Kate Capshaw, who now seems involved with feminism on at least some level, feels any degree of regret or remorse that she may have perpetuated certain stereotypes about attractive blonde women in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I was always disappointed by that, particularly since Karen Black was so fantastic and wonderful in Raiders, drinking guys under the table and being pretty drat badass.

I actually cannot remember if it was Raiders or Temple of Doom that led to the creation of the PG-13 rating - I wanna say it was Temple, because I think the guy ripping still-beating hurts from mens chests and burning them alive in a sadistic blood sacrifice while naked men in loincloths shout otherworldly chants... I know it's nowhere near as gruesome or offensive as, say, showing a breast or, god forbid, pubic hair, But kids ought to be able to enjoy ritualistic human sacrifice and blood drinking, along with children being beaten and forced into slavery and labor. Again, not as likely to traumatize your kid as someone without pants on or a man saying the world "gently caress", but you never know...

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I know this is not exactly "news", but I have gotten into the most frightening, and yet eye-opening argument on youtube. Normally I never, ever engage in such shenanigans (and if I do I'm too embarrassed to admit it) but this was... shocking.

I bet at least some of you have seen (or heard about) the new Amazon series The Boys, which is based on an "edgy" comic book with copious violence, sexual or otherwise, but the series is actually fairly decent. However, there is an extremely creepy scene in the Episode 1 where the "good and innocent" female superhero Starlight, who has just become an elite member of the super-group of superheroes known as "The Seven", encounters Aquaman rip-off "The Deep" alone in the meeting room of of the tower. He coerces her into giving him oral sex after she shyly reveals that she had a crush on him when she was younger - superheroes are celebrities in this universe. She is grossed out, and he says "It's just a question of how badly you want to be a part of The Seven, I guess..." which seriously pisses her off, causing her to inadvertently use her powers to make some monitors and light bulbs explode. The Deep then implies he will say she tried to assault him and effectively ruin her life if she doesn't go through with it. We then cut to her vomiting in the bathroom, mercifully.

So, that is the scene, right? Now, to me, that is rape, right? You would ALL agree that making such threats amounts to abusing power and coercion and is, unequivocally, rape, yes? That is how I read the scene, anyway. But apparently this is not how a lot of male viewers read the scene, judging by the shitstorm I caused simply by making the previous statement on a freaking youtube comment section.

You see, apparently I am confused, and really stupid, and in that scene Starlight is actually being a total whore - she just wants to be on The Seven so bad, she doesn't care whose cock she has to suck, you see. All the fans I was discussing the scene with, they seemed to agree that they would OBVIOUSLY have just walked away in Starlight's position, it wasn't like he was physically forcing her. And apparently, what The Deep was doing was only "sexual harassment" and "blackmail" - it definitely wasn't rape!

I have to say, that I was beyond flabbergasted that so many people seemed to believe this. Sure, it was youtube comments, but loving still! I couldn't... not say something, it was such a deeply hosed up perspective, and I thought it was just a few crazy misogynists but.... drat. There were a couple people who agreed with me but it seemed too hosed up for them to bother making more than a sadly ironic comment. The thing of it was that I could not understand why all these guys cared about this... loving semantic distinction! It was like they all agreed that it was a creepy thing to do and "probably sexual harassment and maybe blackmail" but they were getting REALLY offended and worked up over me insisting again and again that NO, it was actually the very definition of RAPE since he forced a woman to unwillingly suck his dick, but this... was apparently not obvious or clear to them, or they would not admit it?

Then I came to a really... horrible, really chilling realization. All these guys were refusing to call it rape because they had done similar things to women (or men) in terms of using power or threats to receive sexual favors from people who were almost certainly unwilling - or maybe they just WANT to do those things. And they DO NOT think of themselves as rapists, not by any means - I cannot think of ANY other reason why someone would care so much about the definition of rape and how it applies in that context. It's the only reason why I'm at all motivated to angrily argue the OTHER SIDE, which is a point they made several times by referring to events they assume happened in my past that were "not-rape" in their opinions...


I'm sorry to bring this all up here as it was a silly internet argument, but... well, to be honest that really freaks me out. Like I said, why else would that point of view exist? It's deeply unsettling to me.

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



starkebn posted:

Pretty much the definition of 'rape culture' in action, right? I think you're spot on thinking they argue so strongly because they think they would do exactly the same thing if they were in that situation.

Yeah - even though it was freaking youtube comments, I feel like I learned something frighteningly true about how men actually think - not that all men are like the guys I was arguing with, but I think it's a hell of a lot more common than the rest of us imagine it to be

'Rape culture' in action is right - I could not believe my EYES that people were arguing that the rape victim was "really just a slut" with straight faces, and that I was the outnumbered one in the comments arguing AGAINST that. It was honestly shocking to me.

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Bust Rodd posted:

We no joke have probably had 15-20 pages of discussion in the Bojack thread here with like 1 dude who insisted multiple times it wasn’t that bad and “whom among us” and just seemed incapable of recognizing things like age gap, class gap, power dynamics, etc. and just maintained a steady “if she’s down, then she’s down”

Something Awful is as much of a cess pit as the rest of the internet, the sickos are just better at hiding in their own discords then they used to be. If you play games with goons at all you’ll regularly encounter people who still talk like it’s Halo team speak in 2002.

This is really what disturbs me... The thing about youtube comments is that it's as anonymous as 4chan if you want it to be, and people say the things that they really, truly think. I find it frankly quite revealing - moreso than facebook or twitter (where people have personas they build and followers have to actually be accountable for what they say and defend it or deal with it - usually both. On youtube, people can say exactly what they feel without fear of consequences - I think it more accurately reveals the 'id' of America than any other wildly popular site.

And I think you're spot-on about SA, but the same could be said of many places both online and IRL. What disturbed me, personally, is that like... I related this whole thing to two of my roommates who are actually a couple, right? The younger guy in the relationship had been sexually abused/*raped* more than once as a child, which is also the case with me. He *immediateely* understood, but my other roommate, his boyfriend, was legitimately confused. And we changed his mind, because once he understood how power can be abused that way and just how effective coercion could be, he got it and was completely agreeing with us. His problem was that he grew up in a very toxic male environment (which has been evidenced by more than this one anecdote) and he legitimately just thought that doing that *was not* actually rape before we explained this to him. Now, might be that if his boyfriend didn't agree with me he wouldn't have gone along with it, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But it really proves my point about how insidious the spread of misogyny is, and how this attitude I'm encountering is NOT a fluke, It's more like a collective knee-jerk backlash against "feminism" and everything to do with #metoo.

kaworu fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Aug 5, 2019

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



It is really awful when you find out what an utter sexual creep your father is. That's been a... very longtime problem for me. My dad cheats on his wives, compulsively. And lies about it, all the time, in ways that are absolutely shameless.

Also, for what it's worth, my parents were born in the same year and had a DEEPLY creepy, hosed up relationship with lots of power imbalance and psychological abuse and all sorts of bad poo poo. I really think a lot of the "age gaps are bad and creepy" stuff is somewhat anecdotal. After a certain age, a difference of up to 10 years (for instance) really just does not matter.

Generational differences usually wind up being more important. Like, the biggest reason I can't date people more than a few years younger than me is because I often find their cellphone habits appallingly rude. I mean, there are other things but that's the huge one! But I don't have the same problems with people more than a few years older than me, and I don't think a guy in his 40s would be creepy at all for dating me (34).

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Hey guys, I just wanted to post the following article (even though it's a couple weeks old) about the MIT professor who was defending Epstein

Students Are Demanding MIT Fire a Professor Who Visited Epstein in Prison
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8yvk/students-are-demanding-mit-fire-a-professor-who-visited-epstein-in-prison

A personal note about this particular article: my younger sister was among the few students at MIT who dropped his class because of the way he chose to handle this issue with his students, and she ended up writing an op-ed in MIT's student newspaper. This article quotes her extensively, both from the op-ed and in other comments.

I gotta say, I was pretty drat surprised and shocked when I read it - my sister and I haven't talked much lately (not out of dislike, we just both have fairly busy lives and live in different places and have a 13-year age gap) so I was very shocked and surprised to see this article! I actually checked to make sure it hadn't been posted by someone else.

I really can't quite say just quite how much pride I felt (and still feel) at what she did in terms of speaking out. The fact that she was the only single student or teacher in the entire goddamn university who stood up in the first place and actually said publicly, "Hey, this really is not cool, and here's why it's not cool." It's just seriously brave to do that, and she's smart enough to understand why most people (victims of sexual assault especially) would be unable or unwilling to stand up like that. Not to mention having the confidence to do it in the first place, and articulate her point at all. But really - I don't think I could possibly feel any more proud of her at all, even if I'm just her older brother.

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Alan Smithee posted:

also why do billionaires want more billions, it's like, you couldn't spend it all in 10 lifetimes!

Children, wife(s), family in general, legacy, also that intangible ineffable thing Donald Trump has spent his life trying to buy yet will never acheive... that sort of thing... though I kinda think maybe your query was rhetorical

kaworu fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Apr 14, 2020

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I'm gonna be frank (not Underwood) and just say that in part I understand some of Kevin Spacey's frustration. He gets castigated and a piece of poo poo like Bryan Singer who has been like a loving pimp for teenage boys in Hollywood for something like 15 loving years and it's just like an "open secret" and I guess they're OK with it because the boys are jailbait and not like, a year or two younger? And regardless all the parties he threw were EXPRESSLY for industry men who liked to gently caress teenage boys and get high on meth/coke/etc, and also teenage boys with lofty ambitions (as long as they're hot). Horrendous. He did this for *years* and probably facilitated the abuse of literally THOUSANDS of underage boys, based on everything I know and the length of time he's been getting away with his poo poo.

I guess it kinda just bothers me that Spacey has become the biggest poster boy for the sexual abuse *of* men, when really someone like Bryan Singer is FAR more deserving of the mantle, in my eyes.

Also, do people just forget about Victor Salva? I'm sure he has been mentioned here before. It.... boggles my loving MIND the extent to which he has always had connections and been able to sweep his horrific abuse of children under the rug for the most part. This is a guy who did UNSPEAKABLE things to the lead actor of his debut film Clownhouse, a 12-year-old boy. Being a filmmaker, he filmed those acts of rape, of course. It's worth noting that there are several nude shots of this boy in the film, and the "gaze" of the camera is downright loving stomach-churning. It's odd seeing a very young Sam Rockwell in the film, though. I could only watch the first 20 minutes, it was excruciating to the point of literally making me feel both physically ill and nauseous. Despite this poo poo in his past, Salva is STILL getting work directing mainstream films. I mean HOW in the actual gently caress..?

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Gotta go with Alhazred here and note how loving disgusting it is to live in a world where pro athletes make obscene amounts of money while nurses and teachers live paycheck to paycheck

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Oh boy, I feel like I have to chime in here a bit, because I have my own stories about being a part of the MTG community when I was like 11 to 15 years old. Unlike most of you, my parents really did not give much of a poo poo where I was or what I was doing, even though they really should have... I would play M:TG at the card store until like 9 or 10 at night when they closed - sometimes later - playing with men in their 20s and 30s, mostly - I still remember some of 'em. There were plenty of teenagers too, but they were all older than me and generally meaner than the adults. I was actually pretty good, and so the other good players there kinda protected me and let me into their group, even though I was at least 10 years younger than all of them it didn't matter, because I was just as good. I honestly enjoyed being a part of the MTG community - part of it was that I won a lot, but in retrospect they really accepted me, and that's rare.

I have some pretty horrid embarrassing memories from that time period. I remember once, at a PTQ in Boston (I'd go there for entire weekends with adult men my parents barely knew and they were like "great have fun" lol) this rear end in a top hat kid from Boston - I think I beat him a few times in some money drafts that weekend and he was unreasonable angry - actually spied on me in the bathroom while I was peeing, then proceeded to talk loudly to his friends about how I didn't have any pubes. Now, I was a 13-year-old boy going on 14 when that happened, and I recall feeling horrible and embarrassed at the time in part because I did not quite "get it" completely - of course. But in retrospect, y'know, it was really the older 17-18 year old person who did that to me with the real loving issues. Probably other people realized that. Hopefully. I'm a bit more angry than embarrassed, in retrospect, of course.

kaworu fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jun 26, 2020

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



Ronan's like a perfect composite of Frank and Mia, and besides he's got those freaking eyes. I somehow doubt that there's much doubt within the family

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I recently was reading about how (according to Corey Feldman) supposedly Charlie Sheen raped Core Haim on the set of Lucas? Yikes. I never saw the documentary he was promoting last year, there's this sort of... slimy self-promoting aspect to everything Feldman does that makes me feel like I'm the sucker in some pathetic scam whenever I hear him talk about things, I don't find that too appealing.

The article also talked about how Charlie Sheen has recently been living in a Malibu trailer park - sounds more or less like he's where he belongs,

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

kaworu
Jul 23, 2004



I get sort of especially get pissed off at people pointing to the whole '80s McMartin/Satanic Panic/repressed memories/etc thing constantly being thrown out as like the prime example of supposed rape victims who are full of poo poo, because I actually was raped/molested at a daycare when I was 5-6 years and didn't talk about it for about 20 years - though Satanists weren't involved as far as I can recall. And even still I kind of implicitly would agree that the concept of it was somehow totally absurd when discussing the topic.

The one documentary I can recall that actually dealt with this topic in an interesting manner was Capturing the Friedmans which is... well, I'd almost be kind of interested in what this thread thought about that documentary. Because I feel like that documentary does a pretty decent job of illustrating the horrific uncertainty when you're trying to figure out what the truth could possibly be, in a situation like that. It's kind of an interesting example because I feel like it succeeds as a mostly objective documentary in spite of the fact that the filmmaker himself was not objective and I am pretty sure held a firm belief in the innocence of Jesse Friedman - though of course Arnold Friedman is the far more darker, complex, and more interesting case presented in the film.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply