Gawker looks at The Sad Truths Behind the L.A. Party Scene That Took Down Bryan Singer.
I don’t know if the rape accusations directed at director Bryan Singer and others at what’s described as a fairly routine Hollywood pool party orgy have any merit. And it should go without saying that straight Hollywood bigwigs have been accused of rape (often involving underage victims) from Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle through Roman Polanksi and beyond. Still, the description of cute young things being rounded up by professional procurers to be sex party bait for big name Hollywood directors and producers, and agreeing to do so in hopes of getting a bit part that could (but almost never seems to) lead to a big break, is, in fact, very sad.
Why would we think that gay power players, in Hollywood or elsewhere, should be less amoral than their straight counterparts (although it would be nice if, somehow, they were)?
33 Comments for “Rules of the Game”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Why would we think that gay power players, in Hollywood or elsewhere, should be less amoral than their straight counterparts (although it would be nice if, somehow, they were).
Unless we are hopelessly naive fools, we wouldn’t.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Still waiting for the “why I signed” statements in support of Sterling and Bundy… So until I see that, how about a STFU moment from the homocons who’ve never seen a situation that they haven’t exploited (erroneously) to try and make a partisan point?
Oh, right.
posted by Houndentenor on
Agreed. Maybe one day decades in the future we’ll be at a point where gay people and their friends, family and allies will all agree not to tolerate blatant anti-gay bigotry the way sports fans and pretty much everyone else is denouncing Sterling. I should live that long!
posted by craig123 on
Still waiting for the “why I signed” statements in support of Sterling and Bundy…
Because half the country doesn’t think black people don’t deserve equal rights. Because that debate about white racism is now settled, in a way that gay marriage is not (but is becoming settled, if the debate is allowed to proceed rather than following your advice and trying to fire from their jobs the half of the country that doesn’t think marriage inequality is discrimination).
posted by Houndentenor on
I have never had anyone fired. (Oh, wait, that’s not true. I did once “accidentally” make it obvious that a co-worker wasn’t doing his job in a way that was obvious to his supervisor. He wasn’t fired but he did start doing his job at least for the rest of the time I was there. But I digress.) I don’t have that power. No gay group or gay “leader” does. It’s nonsense to pretend we do. All I did was raise an objection and switch my browser from Firefox to Chrome. I believe both of those are well within my rights. I don’t give money or support to anti-gay people or companies, at least not knowingly. That’s hardly “homofascism” or whatever nonsense the right is spewing. Eich’s problems were from inside the company, not outside. I’m so sick of this nonsense. The real difference between Eich and Sterling is that black people have reached a point where they and their allies will stand up against bigotry. Gay people still have quislings who make excuses for and even offer support to anti-gay politicians. Allies? So long as the bigot doesn’t offer then a tax cut. You’re right we aren’t there yet. And we don’t get there until we stand up for ourselves and stop being apologists and doormats for bigots.
posted by Houndentenor on
There’s no reason to believe that gay people are any better or worse than straight people. I hate trial by media and won’t change my stance on this issue. Serious accusations have been made. I hope they are thoroughly investigated and appropriate charges are filed if warranted. Given that the modern news media would rather speculate that go out and find information, I guess waiting until we know what happened and charges much less a verdict before assuming people are guilty is unreasonable in the age of conspiracy theory nuts and overpaid but ill-informed media hacks on cable 24 hours a day.
posted by Jorge on
“Though nearly everyone we talked to affirmed that Singer is careful about the ages of boys he sleeps with…”
Heavens protect us from adulterous seduction! Gay marriage can’t pass fast enough, and it still won’t work with famous people. That’s why mankind in his infinite wisdom said let’s promote condoms.
“According to our sources, Singer routinely supplied alcohol and drugs to boys under the age of 21, though obviously that in itself is not exactly a grave moral crime.”
Okay, I was making a joke at the expense of my conservative social views before, but is a truly outrageous statement. If you’re degenerate enough to deal or trade drugs, I don’t want you outside a prison cell. I can live with simply refusing to associate with someone so morally bankrupt and disrespectful to decent society (yes, I know that’s an argument that’s vulnerable to counterattack) that they would supply alcohol to an underage person, minor or not. And I can live with the fact that the law and social norms apply differently to rich and famous people than they do to everyone else. That’s why you shouldn’t become rich and famous.
When you combine that with the suggestion of trading sexual favors for greater access, you have grooming behavior that is typical of sexual predators and other highly exploitative people. Which is the main reason we have taboos about underage sex in the first place.
Oh, dear. Am I going to have to defend my clan against the gays as sexual predators accusation now–again? I think God sent me a warning on that today. Great.
I love falling for totally unrealistic causes. I dream about being manipulated or manipulating someone in such a way–with someone my own age, with whom I can escape danger at just the last moment, with another man who you don’t know if you’re going to win or lose. I’ll admit it. I wonder how it is for straight people?
“Instead, there seems to be a profound loneliness. Most of the young guys are chewed up and spit out.”
I can easily believe it’s embellished and I can easily believe it’s true. I’m sure lots of people get chewed up and spit out without thinking it’s rape. That’s why we have age of consent laws–let people survive being burned better.
Okay, my No Wonder People Think We’re Nuts, Gay News! fix is over, and now I’m prepared for combat against the homophobic forces of Satan. Yay.
posted by Jorge on
My own age and rank, I should hasten to add. Charm against charm.
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t know how many of us are actually smart enough to understand what you just said.
I know I’m not. But I will simply try to soldier on.
posted by Houndentenor on
Supplying alcohol to people under 21 or drugs to anyone is a crime. Since the accuser was over the age of consent in Hawaii (16, believe it or not) at the time, that may be the only charge they can make stick. We’ll see.
posted by JW on
So…most people just post here to attack whoever writes the article, to point out conservative gay “hypocrisy,” and that’s considered intelligent discourse? Okay…I guess if that’s the role chosen, but I don’t learn anything from snark, myself.
posted by craig123 on
JW, the comments at IGF were long ago hijacked by Demo partisan lefties who do nothing but snark at the bloggers. Non-lefties got tired of it and don’t comment here anymore. So don’t expect any kind of intelligent conversation about why big-time Hollywood gays are engaging in this kind of behavior that, even if the rape accusation is false, still leaves a sick feeling in your gut to read about. The fact that straight power players are just as scuzzy doesn’t make it right; I agree with Stephen, you might expect more from the gay players in that the fight for gay legal equality is still far from won.
posted by Houndentenor on
Hijacked? No. It’s just we seem to be the only ones who show up. Unlike gay patriot where all the readers seem to be partisan Republican social conservatives.
Singer’s actions are either criminal or they aren’t. We’ll see what the prosecution has to offer. The casting couch is the oldest joke in show business. I don’t know why gay people should be held to a higher (or lower) standard than their straight counterparts. Equal means equal.
I am not defending Singer. I have no idea if the charges are true or how distorted they might be from what really happened. Considering that this is an industry where almost everyone seems to have sided with Roman Polanski, I don’t think anyone should be surprised that such parties go on. And that people desperate to get into the business are willing to offer up sexual services. (That doesn’t just happen in the entertainment world. Plenty of men and women have slept their way at least a rungs up the ladder in the business world as well…sexual harassment laws or not.) And more than one reporter has screwed his or her way to “access” to political insiders.
posted by Lori Heine on
Again the question arises — one that will not be answered by the bloggers, or by the hive-swarm from Gay Patriot — of how sensational stories like this one will be dealt with.
It will be misused by the liars on the social right to tar all gays — including the vast majority who do not drug and seduce kids. And the lie will be given long and durable legs by the “good” gays who circulate frantic petitions to “prove” that they are “different.”
Straight people don’t need to circulate petitions to prove they’re not all like Roman Polanski or Woody Allen. Genuine conservatives — who can grok the concept of individual moral agency and individual responsibility — don’t, either.
This blog hasn’t been “hijacked” by anybody. The sort of alias-hiding cowards who slander other commenters simply aren’t permitted to do that on this site. Leave your slime at Gay Patriot. If you’ve got intelligent comments, worthy of an adult, then as your hero would say, “Bring ’em on.”
posted by CMTinPHX on
As the saying goes, “Never be caught in your bedroom with a dead girl or a live boy…”
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
It is impossible to say if the allegations are true or not. Frankly, it is pretty lame that we have people rushing to speculate one way or the other.
It seems that some people are just eager to believe in “everyone at Hollywood parties like ancient Rome” or maybe it is just “everyone who is gay in Hollywood…”
To be sure, Hollywood is a business like an other and, frankly, a pretty cutthroat, “survival of the fittest” one at that. (I recently watched film “The Player” on DVD). Or that is how the industry is generally depicted.
Heck, Hollywood is — in some ways — actually a fairly unregulated industry — which should make it a dream of Objectivists and wannabe economic libertarians. I think the director if a Republican to…..
I read that someone made a similar type of accusation against the film director back when he was making a movie about an old Nazi hiding out in 1990s suburbia. The accusations were dismissed as being bogus…..
posted by Houndentenor on
If this had happened 20 years ago, chances are it would just be one person’s word against another. Witnesses would all be of questionable motives (either way) either with something to gain or an axe to grind. But these days when everyone is walking around with not just a still camera but a video camera in their phone, it really is fair to assume “pictures/video or it didn’t happen”. If there are no pics or video of at least some of this, then it’s probably safe to assume that the stories have been greatly exaggerated. (I say this assuming that there’s some such evidence to support at least part of these allegations or the prosecutors wouldn’t be going after such a big fish.)
BTW, Ayn Rand worked in Hollywood. It’s hard to imagine how someone got paid to write screenplays and then wrote books with such wooden dialogue, but I digress. Hollywood, along with the pop music business) are about the only industries left in the US where we have a trade surplus (and a massive one at that). (Hardly any Americans watch foreign movies. Almost every country in the world shows American movies. The same goes with pop music. You can hear American music just about anywhere. Even British pop rarely charts in the US these days.) For that reason it’s hard to understand why the right hates Hollywood so much. Oh yes, so many of them are social liberals. Well if they were that out of touch with the public, wouldn’t they be losing money, not making it hand over fist?
Yes sometimes starlets are taken advantage of (willingly more often than not). So long as everyone was a consenting adult I can’t get as worked up about that as I do about lying about WMDs to throw a country into war (killing thousands) or destroying people’s life savings by selling them investments the investment bank knew full well to be worthless. I just don’t think a little consensual sex is as bad as killing people and robbing them blind. If you do, we obviously have very different morals.
posted by Lori Heine on
The outrage expressed by IGF’s bloggers seems very one-sided.
If religious freedom is so important to them, why have they said nothing about North Carolina’s attempts to criminalize same-sex ceremonies? Liberal Christians are suing there, fighting for their own religious liberty.
Didn’t our forebears come to these shores to get away from the Old World concept of one-sided “religious liberty” that spawned centuries of holy wars? Of course their descendants are following in the footsteps of those who defined religious liberty as something that applied only to special little snowflakes like them.
And during this past winter of record cold temperatures, as churches sheltered homeless people to keep them from freezing to death, the social right definitely stood up against the city governments that threw the homeless people out into the streets, threatening to fine churches that sheltered them. They DID stand up against that particular onslaught against religious freedom, didn’t they?
…Oh, I guess they didn’t.
posted by Houndentenor on
I have argued for at least a decade that gay marriage bans are a violation of the religious freedom of denominations like UCC (the denomination of the clergy bringing the suit in NC). I’m happy to see they are finally taking up the challenge. The law in NC expressly violates the religious freedom of clergy and churches that would love to marry same-sex couples from their congregations. Some of us have often complained that liberal Christians spend far too much time explaining to their gay friends that they “aren’t all like that” and not nearly enough explaining their views to other Christians and to elected officials. I’m pleased to see at least a few standing up for what they believe. It needs to happen more often and in more places.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
–If this had happened 20 years ago, chances are it would just be one person’s word against another.
I have only heard bits and pieces about the accusations (and the context surrounding them). However, it sounded like this was someone making an accusation against the film director about something he claims happened years ago.
Again, my first thought when reading this, is why are the accusations just now coming forward?
Even before I consider whether or not I personal believe or disbelieve the press reports and accusations, it seemed a bit odd that this person suddenly appeared to make accusations.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t know how many of us are actually smart enough to understand what you just said.
I know I’m not. But I will simply try to soldier on.
Don’t worry, the sentiment is mutual. Can I get a triple alliance here, Mr. Hound?
So long as everyone was a consenting adult I can’t get as worked up about that as I do about lying about WMDs to throw a country into war (killing thousands) or destroying people’s life savings by selling them investments the investment bank knew full well to be worthless.
Awesome!
Since the accuser was over the age of consent in Hawaii (16, believe it or not) at the time, that may be the only charge they can make stick. We’ll see.
Something the article glossed over. Okay.
So…most people just post here to attack whoever writes the article, to point out conservative gay “hypocrisy,” and that’s considered intelligent discourse? Okay…I guess if that’s the role chosen, but I don’t learn anything from snark, myself.
Key word is most. For every attack there is a parry and counterattack, and for that, too, a ripose. If it is not truly hypocrisy it will be exposed. If a defense is shallow and false, it will be knocked down. The waste is pruned out, and the truth endures.
posted by Houndentenor on
I had to look it up. I didn’t see it any of the coverage. As it took mere seconds it’s just another case of reporters being too damn lazy to do their jobs. People wrongly assume that the age of consent is universally 18. That’s not a bad idea but it’s not the law. The ages vary by state and are variably 16, 17 or 18. Some states have a “Romeo and Juliet” clause protecting young people who are withing a couple of years of each other. Did a girl who turned yesterday really rape her boyfriend who doesn’t turn 18 until next week? In some cases technically that would be true which is absurd.
Another line of investigation may be that if this 17 year old was taken to another state (in this case Hawaii) for the purposes of having sex with him (not sure how they prove intent but they might have emails or something) that might be illegal under federal law. Also soliciting a minor (who was the Congressman who helped write this law and got busted over it?) under 18 via the internet is also a crime even if they are over the age of consent in that state (it’s a federal law). I’m sure there’s even more.
All the more reason I maintain my policy of not being romantically interested in anyone under 30. (and that’s an exception. More like 40 usually.) The laws are many and neither universal nor universally applied. I’m sure plenty of people get away with all of the above but it seems very risky especially if someone with a grudge against you decides to turn you in. (Note: just because someone has an ax to grind for reporting you doesn’t negate the criminality. I hate the blame the messenger game politicians play when they get busted. Who cares why someone ratted you out. You’re still guilty!)
posted by Jorge on
People wrongly assume that the age of consent is universally 18.
I assume it’s universally 16 unless someone tells me otherwise 😐
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Yes, the initial articles that I read did not really seem to address the age of consent issue.
Although, for some reason I thought that the ‘party'(and the allegations that go with it) took place in California, not Hawaii.
Even if nothing illegal happened, and (oddly enough) I have read some reports that suggest that the film director was not actually at the party and basically just helping to finance a media project.
Frankly, I dislike when I hear that success in Hollywood — or indeed any industry — is largely driven by ‘who you know’ and who you are willing ‘to know’ — in the Biblical sense.
It is not gay issue or a straight issue. It is not a male or a female issue.
Legally; In America, the minimum age of consent does very from state to state — except in a few situations. I am not a lawyer, so maybe I am mistaken.
It is 18 for online/media where the sex or sexually explicit images are likely involve the crossing of states lines.
So (as I understand it), if you bring someone over states lines for ‘dating’, he or she should be, at least, 18, sound mind and sober. To view sexually explicit material (or stay in it) you need to be at least 18 (national). If you are in the military then the age of consent is also 18.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A few notes on the North Carolina case:
The lawsuit was brought by the UCC, which deserves credit for finally standing up for its own religious freedom in the face of the social conservative anti-marriage amendments. But the UCC does not stand alone. The UCC is joined in the case by a Congregational minister, a rabbi, two Unitarian Universalist ministers, and a Baptist pastor. A number of gay/lesbian couples who seek to be married are also plaintiffs in the case.
The lawsuit is interesting, legally, because it combines “denial of right to marriage to gays and lesbians” claims with “religious freedom” claims:
(1) A “free exercise” claim under the First Amendment, applicable to all plaintiffs;
(2) An “expressive association” claim under the First Amendment, applicable to all plaintiffs;
(3) A “due process” claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, applicable to the couple-plaintiffs seeking to be married; and
(4) An “equal protection” claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, applicable to the couple-plaintiffs seeking to be married.
To my knowledge, this is the only case among the now 60+ marriage challenges to combine First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
The law that is being challenged is reasonably standard throughout the United States, criminalizing solemnization of marriage without a liscense from the state. This is the North Carolina version:
The complaint alleges that the justifications offered by public officials in support of North Carolina’s recent anti-marriage amendment demonstrate “have been based on a particular religious view regarding marriage and a desire to denigrate same-sex relationships and demean same-sex couples”, and offers numerous quotations from the legislative record to support the allegation. To my mind, the legislative history supports a claim not made, a claim that the North Carolina anti-marriage amendment is a form of “establishment”. It think that an “establishment” claim would be a harder case to make, but given the fact that the supposedly religiously-neutral, objective rationale for the anti-marriage amendments have been tested and failed in other lawsuits around the country, it is a claim that I think could be pursued.
The reaction from the social conservative right — a religious attack — is entirely predictable.
Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of the North Carolina Values Coalition, fired a shot over the bow of the Christians in the case: “It’s both ironic and sad that an entire religious denomination and its clergy who purport holding to Christian teachings on marriage would look to the courts to justify their errant beliefs. These individuals are simply revisionists that distort the teaching of Scripture to justify sexual revolution, not marital sanctity.”
I expect to see more of this from Tony Perkins, Brian Brown, Bryan Fischer and the other “real Christians” who have directly attacked the UCC and other Christian denominations in the past as “non-Christian” over this issue.
I will be curious to see what reaction emerges from the non-social conservative right. Will these conservatives, so concerned about the “religious freedom” of bakers, florists and photographers, rise to defend “religious freedom” in this case, or ignore the allegations in deference to social conservatives?
It presents an interesting question: Having staked out “religious freedom” as a bright line, and argued that “religious freedom” (rather than animus) is the reason why marriage equality is fundamentally different than interracial marriage, will non-social conservatives come to the realization that “religious freedom” cuts both ways?
I don’t know, but I’ll be curious to see how it plays out.
posted by Jorge on
Ah. Is that the lawsuit?
And my search engine calls it “trolly.” Humph.
Win or lose, I have no complaint, so long as the result is the law leaves the churches alone. The right to marry is terribly important, and that’s something the government should never interfere with. I can think of enough ways around the law and enough loopholes that don’t exist but should for this to go either way.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The complaint doesn’t strike me as “trolly”. Arnold & Porter, one of the nation’s premier law firms, is the firm of record, along with two North Carolina local counsel, both of good reputation.
As to your search engine, I gather that you are using Yahoo. A Yahoo news opinion piece, titled “Religious Group Files a Beautifully Trolly Lawsuit Against North Carolina’s Gay Marriage Ban”, contains this observation: “In other words, the UCC’s lawsuit represents both an expansion of the legal arguments against same-sex marriage bans, and a challenge to the conservative supporters of religious freedom. Although the UCC’s complaint here is genuine, the suit itself is also something of a troll on religious liberty champions who consistently cite the protection to limit LGBT rights. ”
I suspect that is where the “trolly” comes from.
Take my word for it. Whatever the courts eventually decide, Arnold & Porter is a serious law firm, and this is a serious lawsuit.
posted by Houndentenor on
And a long overdue one. The government doesn’t (and shouldn’t be able to) force any church to marry anyone. I’ve known couples who were told no after counseling with the clergy (and in at least one case the couple really should have listened). So then why, conversely, is the state of NC allowed to tell a UCC church it is prohibited from performing such a ceremony? In fact why isn’t that UCC church just as entitled to decide who it will marry or not just like their neighboring congregations with their own rules? If the state was interfering in what Evangelicals could do there’d be no end of squawking on talk radio and Fox News. But because this is a liberal denomination it’s okay for the religious right to set rules for THEM? And once again we have the right doing to others what they wrongly accuse others of doing unto them.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a throwback to the topic of the “religious freedom” of bakers, florists and photographers, a number of us suggested that a free market solution — allowing non-discriminatory businesses to put stickers in the window — might be preferable to anti-discrimination laws as a solution.
It turns out that the free market solution “trample[s] the freedom of Christians“, according to the Christian right. I guess we might was well go with religiously-neutral laws in that case.
posted by Houndentenor on
Those poor Evangelical Christians. When others treat them the way they treat others it’s PERSECUTION. They call for boycotts almost weekly but if anyone dares complain about what they do it’s a holy war against them!!! What hypocrites they are. Even the ones who are nice to your face post the most insane things on facebook. (It is, it seems to me, for such people that the unfriend and block options were created.)
posted by Mike in Houston on
Speaking of games… the first public hearing about the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance will be held this afternoon @ 2:00 CDT. You can watch the live-stream from http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/
The coalition that has endorsed this ERO includes the every stripe from the political spectrum from LULAC and the NCAAP to the Log Cabin Republicans… not to mention (so as not to inflame certain sensibilities) HRC.
The Greater Houston Partnerhip (aka The Chamber) has also signaled it’s support… which means that it’s almost assured of passage.
Not surprising, however, the Harris County GOP Chair and other so-called conservatives are screaming about “men in dresses raping women in the bathrooms” and calling the proposed ERO, “Parkers – Sexual Predator Protection Act”…
For a more reasoned stance on the ordinance, here is the statement from Out & Equal Houston: https://www.facebook.com/OEHOUSTON/posts/765733103459382
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Thanks for the updates. Getting support from both Democrats and Republicans as well as ‘pro-business’ groups (chamber of commerce0 does seem to help make a difference in building local support for equal opportunity bills.
I have heard similar good news in another -very – ‘red state’ North Dakota.
Two of the largest cities in the state — Fargo and Grand Forks — now have some employment protections in place for sexual orientation.
A state wide bill failed to get passed in ND, but I hear it got a better reception this time around.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“Win or lose, I have no complaint, so long as the result is the law leaves the churches alone.” – Jorge
Why would you want the law to leave the churches alone? Secular law and/or royal decree has defined and regulated the institution of marriage for millenia. The church played no active role in performing or regulating marriages until the 12th century, nor did it declare marriage sacramental until the Council of Trent. Members of the clergy even today are authorized to perform marriages only as licensed agents of the state. I personally wish the state would withdraw all those licenses along with the right of religious personnel to perform marriages. They could still perform their sacred marital blessing ceremonies, freely and openly discriminating or not as they choose so to do. But reserve the establishment of marriages with the state, where it always has been.