Another year, another celebrity allegation...Wood/Manson this time.

[Eacaraxe]

Evan Rachel Wood Accuses Marilyn Manson of Abuse (Published 2021)

“He started grooming me when I was a teenager and horrifically abused me for years,” Ms. Wood, said on Instagram. Hours later Mr. Manson’s label dropped him.

www.nytimes.com

This has pretty much been an open secret for years. Hell, I first heard about it back when Westworld season 1 was airing. This one in particular raises all sorts of questions for me.

The media and general populace struggles with the very basic concept of "no means no". How on Earth are they going to navigate consent and abuse in the context of BDSM, let alone when 50 Shades was a pop culture phenomenon for the better part of a decade while being near-universally hated by the BDSM community as a case example of an abusive BDSM relationship that crossed the boundaries into non-consent and trauma?

Wood's been quite vocal about her past with BDSM, domestic abuse, and violence for years, having come out with it in 2016 in Rolling Stone and going as far to have testified before Congress about it. But, never before -- even during the #MeToo heyday -- has she received the media attention for it she has in the past 24 hours. It wasn't exactly hard to figure out from that RS article Manson was the perpetrator, she pretty much spelled it out in the interview. Are we to believe allegations are only attention-worthy if a perpetrator is named, and what does that say of even the line of "believe women" when the people saying it pay it no mind unless a target is identified?

And, the $64,000 question here: Wood and Manson were both CAA talent. I've been quite vocal of my distaste for CAA, its representatives, and its associated organizations in the past, all the way from Alyssa Milano to Anita Dunn. It's coming out this has been an open secret for years, and I have no reason to believe otherwise -- if I was able to add two and two from a single RS article, many people far more in the know than I would and should have known for years. So...why would the organization supposedly leading the push to protect and defend women against sexual predation in the entertainment industry continue representing Manson for years?

 

[Agema]

This has pretty much been an open secret for years. Hell, I first heard about it back when Westworld season 1 was airing. This one in particular raises all sorts of questions for me.

Indeed it has. Frankly, I think there have been some uncomfortable rumours about his conduct since Dita von Teese, although she was not publicly explicit about it to be clear it was abuse. And I'm willing to bet there will be stuff from exes before then, just that back then people cared much less, especially if the victims weren't famous.

 

[happyninja42]

Are we to believe allegations are only attention-worthy if a perpetrator is named, and what does that say of even the line of "believe women" when the people saying it pay it no mind unless a target is identified?

Because if you just assume a person is talking about X person, without any actual declaration of wrongdoing, you are taking action based on pure speculation on your part. We can't just run around declaring WE know who someone else is talking about, when you are talking about criminal behavior, and take actions based on that speculation. I mean if someone just showed up at your workplace, and said "Yeah well I've been talking to X, and they said some things about a person they know, who did this bad thing, and I've decided that was YOU, so I'm going to declare you the perpetrator, and expect everyone to treat you as such" I think you'd be a bit upset about that.

I'm not a fan of the social jury mindset we currently have, about just saying something happened and without any actual evidence, treating someone like they are convicted criminals. But I'm even LESS a fan of the mob just deciding to play detective themselves, and assume a person that is unnamed, and acting as such.


So yes, it' shouldn't be considered until someone is actually named.

 

[Terminal Blue]

This one has been an open secret for a really long time.

Honestly, Manson has always been very open about his attitudes towards and general treatment of women, so I don't really think anyone is surprised. Except maybe goths, but goths are pretty used to ignoring abuse at this point.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Indeed it has...just that back then people cared much less, especially if the victims weren't famous.

I'd go so far as to say they still don't, and at the end of the day the almighty dollar still reigns supreme over women's safety and agency. Like I said, CAA of all agencies apparently sat on this story for years, through the entire duration of the #MeToo movement and despite the agency's involvement with Time's Up, and only ditched Manson once Wood unambiguously named him. That's...highly suspect behavior of an agency so thoroughly centered in the Weinstein scandal.

Because if you just assume a person is talking about X person...So yes, it' shouldn't be considered until someone is actually named.

That's not my point at all. I'm not arguing the media should have ran speculative and potentially defamatory stories about Manson, as was the case with Amber Heard and Johnny Depp. I'm arguing it's problematic in and of itself the media largely ignored Wood's allegations until she named Manson. There's a fundamental disconnect between "believe women" and what we've seen now, and "believe women" should not come with a disclaimer of "...only after they've provided names".

 

[happyninja42]

That's not my point at all. I'm not arguing the media should have ran speculative and potentially defamatory stories about Manson, as was the case with Amber Heard and Johnny Depp. I'm arguing it's problematic in and of itself the media largely ignored Wood's allegations until she named Manson. There's a fundamental disconnect between "believe women" and what we've seen now, and "believe women" should not come with a disclaimer of "...only after they've provided names".

Is it an "allegation" if someone isn't named? From a legal, actionable stance? That's my point. I mean sure, believe women, but if she doesn't SAY who the person is....what the fuck are we supposed to do about it? What should the media do with a random, anonymous allegation? I mean they ran the story when she said she's an abuse survivor, but...and? What should they have done? I mean you say "believe only after they've provided names", but I don't recall anyone NOT believing her, they just didn't DO anything, because there were no grounds to do anything about it. Sure you can infer it was Manson, if you are establishing some timeline, but that's some invasive shit right there, and it doesn't account for any other variables. Maybe it wasn't Manson, and was a family member instead, we know that happens all the time. Maybe it was a secret lover she had, so she didn't want that info getting out. There are too many unknowns, in an incredibly vague statement of "i was abused previously." And if she's not going to, at that time, provide further information, there really isn't anything anyone can, or SHOULD do. We're not the fucking Special Victims Unit via Twitter for fuck's sake.

I mean, I was sexually harrassed, possibly abused by the current standards back when I was 13 by an older girl. By saying that, should I expect you all on this forum to go out and start trying to figure out who that girl was? That's just crazy.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Is it an "allegation" if someone isn't named? From a legal, actionable stance?

Allegations are barely actionable from a legal stance even when someone is named. Look at what it took to take Weinstein down after two decades' worth of allegations. Hell, two years ago allegations surfaced against Manson when a police report was filed on him by an (as far as I know) unknown party, which weren't investigated or pressed on account of statute of limitations expiration.

Imagine what it takes when accusers aren't backed up by the "best and brightest" legal representation available to the wealthy and influential, who just happen to have vested financial and political interest in performing damage control.

I mean sure, believe women, but if she doesn't SAY who the person is....what the fuck are we supposed to do about it?

What was the intent behind #MeToo before it was coopted by the likes of CAA?

It was to draw attention to the true depth and scope of sexual predation in the workplace and in the private sphere, was it not? Was it perhaps to draw attention to the number of women who had been subject to sexual predation, but remained silent about it due to a lack of legal or social recourse? Perhaps to center victims of sexual predation in the public eye rather than the perpetrators, and to build a narrative that places victims' welfare first and foremost?

Should women be required to name their perpetrators to achieve those goals? Or should it be simply enough for women to say "I'm a victim too, the problem goes way deeper and further than anyone admits"? Or, is that requirement yet another in a laundry list of social and legal barriers building yet another bulwark in open and transparent communication about sexual predation in contemporary society?

 

[SilentPony]

Its always the one you always sorta suspected was a fucked up dude.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

With rockstars and all other examples of males elevated to positions of wealth and adoration, it's safer to just assume they're abusers and work up from there.

 

[SilentPony]

With rockstars and all other examples of males elevated to positions of wealth and adoration, it's safer to just assume they're abusers and work up from there.

There are women how claim they "lost their virginities" to people like David Bowie when they were 13 or 14. Rockers are notorious for their groupies, drugs and well...rape.

 

[Baffle]

It was apparent from Manson's own autobiography more than twenty years ago that he's a massive arsehole.

 

[Agema]

There are women how claim they "lost their virginities" to people like David Bowie when they were 13 or 14. Rockers are notorious for their groupies, drugs and well...rape.

There was more of an attitude back then that if an underage girl was up for it, nothing much wrong - at least amongst certain social circles. These guys were aware enough of how it would be received by the general public that they were going to keep it quiet. Frankly, I suspect a great deal of men (especially pop stars) famous in the 1950s-70s screwed underage girls, and quite likely plenty of admired and beloved household names such as David Bowie.

 

[Gordon_4]

There was more of an attitude back then that if an underage girl was up for it, nothing much wrong - at least amongst certain social circles. These guys were aware enough of how it would be received by the general public that they were going to keep it quiet. Frankly, I suspect a great deal of men (especially pop stars) famous in the 1950s-70s screwed underage girls, and quite likely plenty of admired and beloved household names such as David Bowie.

Oh God yeah, The Rolling Stones are probably lucky as fuck that the statute of limitations is a thing. I like to think my favourite bands - Queen and Iron Maiden for the record - probably didn’t do it with underage girls but I’d unsurprised if I’m wrong. Deeply disappointed, but unsurprised.

 

[SilentPony]

Oh God yeah, The Rolling Stones are probably lucky as fuck that the statute of limitations is a thing. I like to think my favourite bands - Queen and Iron Maiden for the record - probably didn’t do it with underage girls but I’d unsurprised if I’m wrong. Deeply disappointed, but unsurprised.

I don't know Iron Maiden very well, but as far as Queen Freddie Mercury was well known for his drugs and sex parties, and I doubt they checked IDs at the door. Wouldn't surprise me if a couple of underage gay boys found their way into his parties.

 

[Gordon_4]

I don't know Iron Maiden very well, but as far as Queen Freddie Mercury was well known for his drugs and sex parties, and I doubt they checked IDs at the door. Wouldn't surprise me if a couple of underage gay boys found their way into his parties.

Fair call. I mean even if they’re not overt predators, when you throw around that much cash, cocaine and rum then the law of averages suggests people who shouldn’t be there are gonna end up there. Doesn’t make it any less a crime or anything.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Wood's been quite vocal about her past with BDSM, domestic abuse, and violence for years, having come out with it in 2016 in Rolling Stone and going as far to have testified before Congress about it. But, never before -- even during the #MeToo heyday -- has she received the media attention for it she has in the past 24 hours. It wasn't exactly hard to figure out from that RS article Manson was the perpetrator, she pretty much spelled it out in the interview. Are we to believe allegations are only attention-worthy if a perpetrator is named, and what does that say of even the line of "believe women" when the people saying it pay it no mind unless a target is identified?

I'm not sure I understand. What exactly were people/the media supposed to do, and how much attention was this situation supposed to get?

She got an article in Rolling Stone and testified before Congress, I'd hardly call that "paying it no mind."

 

[Trunkage]

I'm not sure I understand. What exactly were people/the media supposed to do, and how much attention was this situation supposed to get.

She got an article in Rolling Stone and testified before Congress, I'd hardly call that "paying it no mind."

^This

Also, gonna point put that the title of this thread doesn't make sense. It's the same allegations

 

[Agema]

I'm not sure I understand. What exactly were people/the media supposed to do, and how much attention was this situation supposed to get?

She got an article in Rolling Stone and testified before Congress, I'd hardly call that "paying it no mind."

True. But one can hardly help but suspect that a major reason people do not speak out more openly is that they will suspect little sympathy or action even if they do.

Also, I suspect one of the problems here is that if very charismatic and manipulative people sink their hooks into (often much younger and more naive) others, whilst the victim may be able to escape in the immediate term, they may not necessarily be willing or able to really take further action until after a lot of recovery time, because the psychological manipulation and emotional damage doesn't suddenly disappear the minute the victim manages to break contact.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Agema]

There's a reason why a lot of therapists today recommend abuse victims (whether it is a single time like a rape or sustained over time abuse like domestic abuse) to do something to put the abuser "on the record", whether that is telling family and friends or making a police report, no matter how much time has passed. Getting to the point where you feel free of the guilt, of the fear of the abuser and the sense of powerlessness is a long process and opening up and naming your abuser is one of the late process steps. The police will not do anything several years after the abuse happened but the act of reporting itself is a form of catharsis, of feeling that you've resisted and fought back.

And that's also why controlling abusers socially isolate their victims and destroy their sense of self-worth, because when if they can't speak to others or are afraid of what will happen if they do, it's much easier to abuse them.

It's with some sadness a year or two back I found out that one of my oldest friends who had walked out on his family had been emotionally abusive to his wife. And then I thought back to some of his other relationships, who had completely cut contact after the end. I always thought he was poor relationship material, but it made me consider much more clearly that he used his charisma to be unhealthily manpulative. When he turned his full, intense charm on he was very hard to resist: that's why they cut contact completely, so he couldn't worm his way back in. He isn't malicious so much as negligent, and to my knowledge he didn't seriously damage anyone, but even still. I don't know if I will ever speak to him again, and if I ever do, I doubt I will be able to avoid making my feelings clear. I have kept contact with his wife and children, though.